I always tend to go for the simplest explanation:

Last year Jeff was burned out so he withdrew.  Being in a band and being a caregiver would more than a handful for a period months, let alone, more than a decade.

This year a spot opened up in Mike's band.

For Jeff this is attractive because it is regular and  an easier gig than his prior one.

For Mike it is attractive because Jeff is a known quantity and adds a little authenticity to the act.

When Jeff joined Mike he was a free agent so the impact of an FU would be quite limited.

Or maybe Jeff doesn't like Al or maybe he does not wish to be part of upcoming "Love You at 38" tour.

It's rarely the simplest explanation, especially when it comes to the BB's. Again, I think the point of the "F-U" is getting too convoluted, because even if one subscribes to the theory that it was intended as an F-U, I think one would also say that Jeff would have taken the gig from Mike even if everything was 100% amicable and he didn't intend even a whisper of an "F-U."

I've been trying to think of another example of something like Jeff leaving Brian's band and joining Mike's, in terms of how it *appears* regardless of the intentions. I dunno. How about if Yoko had divorced John in 1974 and then joined Wings? Meh, I dunno. 

I think Brian (or even Al, reportedly) can squeak out some form of falsetto in the studio under the right circumstances.

But I don't think Brian could do those solo falsetto leads in the bits on "Isn't It Time" or "Shelter." They would have autotuned his attempt to death even more than the rest of the album had he tried.

My vague recollection is that Joe Thomas contended in an interview that the bits of "Shelter" that Mike sings in unison with the falsetto are Brian and Mike, not Jeff and Mike. I'm not 100% convinced of that, but I think Brian could eek out a falsetto like that. But not the solo lead bits that he wrote that Jeff sang.

Or it could just be Jeff wanted a change for the reasons he gave and so he was available and Mike hired him because he was available. Something like that, just face value.

YA THINK?  Or is it more fun to add more variables to the equation and create more drama just for the sake of conversation? That happens here quite a bit.

Jeff Foskett, the consummate Christian type, wouldn't lie. If, and I say IF he left little small details out in that interview, they were on purpose so as not to slander or burn bridges behind him. I'm sure he has many stories (one I heard was that Jeff was tired of fielding Melinda's incessant phone calls to follow up with him on Brian's health and status) while on the road when she wasn't there. Jeff's part time job was Caregiver. He got tired of it. Who wouldn't?

I don't think everybody is adding variables to this equation for pure amusement. Rather, I suppose some are scoffing at the idea that there's no way that politics and backbiting entered into a heated BB equation such as this. I for one can't put the blinders to the degree that I would buy that there's absolutely NO "message" involved in the Foskett move.

There's a difference between noting that something is clearly at least partially a personal/political move versus actually caring that much about it. Same thing with the Blondie/Dave/Al thing last year. Were there politics involved in collecting together as many BB's as possible for that Brian tour? I have little doubt that there was. But that's okay. It was still great to see all those guys on stage together.

Similar with the Foskett thing. Inter-band politics are probably at play to some degree. I can live with that. But I'm not going to pretend it's not happening.

I think, among the many variations being suggested here, there are several that may or may not be getting confused.

One is that Jeff leaving Brian’s band and joining Mike’s has the appearance of a big F-U. This is where I think the majority can agree. Regardless of the intentions or motives, given the current climate in the BB universe, this *specific* case has the appearance of a big F-U. Not even just a person switching bands. But this particular guy doing it, at this particular time. Brian’s “right hand man.”

Another is that it may not have been exactly calculated as if he left one guy for the other, but at least an additional motivation was to “send a message.” Jeff’s recent interview actually makes this theory more plausible. He admits he had burn out on Brian’s tour, that too much was being asked of him. So one plausible theory (and duh, it’s mostly theories folks; that’s what these discussions are about) is that not simply leaving Brian’s band, but then jumping to Mike’s band, at least has the fringe benefit (if not motivated by) sending a message to Brian’s camp. The message? We can only guess. But if he’s jumping to a band that plays largely the SAME music, with a MORE rigorous tour schedule, the message could be that “I’m not burned out on playing Beach Boys music. I’m not burned out on being the falsetto guy. I’m not burned out on being on the road all year. I’m burned out on YOU, burned out on YOUR TOUR.”

I don’t think anyone is suggesting Jeff shouldn’t take the gig. But when we’re simply guessing at motives and messages and politics, as Jon Stebbins put it, the info is all there. It’s all there to at least infer the possibility if not likelihood that this isn’t just a guy making a change and moving to a different job.

Also worth positing is that in these situations, people can give each other plausible deniability. An employer can have certain motivations in offering a job to someone without mentioning all those motivations to the potential employee. Sometimes they still both understand their motivations without stating them. Sometimes not. According to Jon Stebbins’ and David Marks’ book, just ask David Marks. He clearly didn’t fully grasp back in 1997 all of the reasons he was being asked to re-join the touring band.

Some of the posts here are talking about C50, burying hatchets, coming together, etc. Maybe a picture can be worth a thousand words, so with that...if the significance of this photo isn't immediately noticeable for anyone, look closer:

Pretty crappy of Brian to throw a big party, then not invite Mike to it after Mike let him back in the band and everything...

Come on, folks. Mike obviously volunteered to TAKE the picture, with Bruce adjusting the tripod.

Nope. When Mike says "set end date", he MEANS "set end date."    He was outta there. There wasn't even time to give him a to-go bag.

Clearly, that dinner above is Brian's little-known "NO MORE LIVE DATES" dinner.   He had clearly had enough. He flipped the whole table up a few seconds after the photo was taken....

[Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson.]

Nicko - 2600 posts on a Beach Boys message board and you can't put two and two together to see that Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson?
Really? REALLY?

How obvious does this need to be?
Is that what it takes, someone needs to say THAT SENTENCE?

Here:
Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson.

This ain't Calculus.
You want expanding? YOU expand it.

 

I think I broke his brain...

So you are willing to say that but you aren`t willing to say why? A genuine question.

I think the idea is that it is self-evident, and it’s difficult to have a discussion with someone who won’t acknowledge that Foskett leaving Brian’s band and joining Mike’s has the outward appearance, objectively speaking, of being a political move/message, etc.

Again, just as it was pretty impossible to suggest that Brian adding Al, *and* Dave, *and* Blondie to live dates in 2013 had nothing to do with the aftermath and politics of the C50 demise, and how it’s pretty hard to not see Al ditching Mike’s Jones Beach gig and joining in for a UK Brian gig as sending a message too.

Just as with Foskett leaving Brian’s band and then joining Mike’s, it’s likely Al decided against joining Mike’s Jones Beach gig, and then decided to play a gig with Brian instead. Even if these are cases where they’re not ditching one person specifically FOR the other, the act of ditching one person and then seeking out their perceived “opposition” (or whatever you want to call it; there is no perfect term here) DEFINITELY has the *appearance* of sending a message, and it’s hard not to assume that these people know they are sending a message and likely WANT to send a message.

[I would say he’s saying what many wouldn’t have the b**ls or gravitas or credibility to say.]

I would say he’s saying what many wouldn’t have the b**ls or gravitas or credibility to say. But Howie does. He’s talked to all these guys, at length. How many other people have talked to Mike Love about Joe Thomas and “50 Big Ones Productions” and floated Jerry Schilling as a name to bring back? He knows this stuff.

He has all of the “observer” knowledge that the most learned fans do, and he’s also talked to these guys and knows the inner machinations. Different sources within different “camps” may provide different pieces of information or spins, but what Howie says is both credible in terms of the source it’s coming from, and observationally it makes total sense.

I wish it was easier to actually paint a picture where the whole Brian/Jeff thing truly is 100 percent amicable with no ill will or bad feelings. If Jeff had simply left and went to pretty much any other gig, it may have been possible to view it this way. But Howie is right. Jeff joining Mike’s band is a huge political move, on the part of both Jeff and Mike, and most likely easily the most “political” move by a non-member.

It almost doesn’t matter what the original intention was. Even if Jeff was just burned out and left Brian’s band with no plans, and even if Mike simply needed a replacement member and didn’t see adding Jeff as a bit of a political coup; even in that scenario the entire progression of events is loaded with BB-style politics. But as Howie points out, some of what went down may well have been meant to send a message.

I think that’s what we’ve gotten a bit of since the demise of C50. Rather than intense lawsuits and whatnot, we’re getting weird little potshots that may or may not even amount to anything. Just as Brian adding not one, but THREE additional Beach Boys to some 2013 tour dates surely at least had the fringe benefit of sending a message (e.g. “The Beach Boys” have two Beach Boys while Brian’s “solo” tour has THREE or FOUR Beach Boys), and just as Al declining the invitation to play with Mike at Jones Beach and then announcing a gig with Brian for the same day had the fringe benefit of sending a message, Mike offering a gig to what even mainstream media articles have noted is Brian’s “right hand man” both on stage and sometimes off is also something that sends a message (or lobs a political shot, or whatever you want to call it).

Regarding Jeff’s “motives” for leaving Brian’s band, I do think just from a practical point of view that the number of potential 2014 bookings could easily have played a role. What is weird is that even though that’s a perfectly reasonable (and the least “political”) reason for leaving, Jeff doesn’t offer that as even a factor.

There is also the possibility of a plethora of grey areas. Did Mike know six months in advance that Christian was leaving his band, then called Jeff up and told him to exit Brian’s band, wait a while, and then join Mike? I doubt it. But I certainly think it’s possible that Mike knew the possibility or likelihood in advance of Christian leaving at some point in 2014, thought of Jeff, and called him up and just floated some ideas or something. Again, total conjecture. But in business, and in the music business, such things do occur. Also, while there are few BB-related bands that wouldn’t name Jeff as an obvious great addition to their band, it is interesting that there are some things that indicate Jeff wouldn’t so easily be Mike’s top pick. Mike already had a falsetto guy. Also, by Jeff’s own words from an interview in the 90’s, Jeff had issues with Mike during Jeff’s 1990 departure. Given what Jeff mentions in that 90’s interview about the circumstances of his 1990 departure, I would normally say that Mike would not rehire someone who had left under those circumstances. I find it hard to believe Mike didn’t see offering a gig to Jeff as a political move. We’ll obviously likely never know.

It really doesn`t take any balls to post something on a message board. If it did then congenital cowards like me wouldn`t be here. 

Howie`s first post in this thread came across as nothing more than a rant to me and much of it had little or nothing to do with the topic at hand.

His comments about Jeff...

There seems to be some wish fulfillment there and some really need expanding upon.

Considering he’s one of the few who post on this board who interviews these guys and talks to them, and one of the very few that is on good enough terms with all of the members and organizations that he has talked to all of them (Howie can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think at some point he’s interviewed all of them, not to mention all sorts of band associates), it ironically takes more balls to say what Howie has said. He has more potential bridges that could be burned than most of us on the board who aren’t going to lose our backstage passes if we say something negative about a member. Howie has also mentioned that some if not most of the band members will answer even potentially pointed questions in interviews. He knows what they’re willing to discuss, and gets them to talk about it. 

I have seen cases where folks who have an “in” with one or a few members are clearly less likely to criticize those particular members, for whatever reason.

So I’m impressed that he has interviewed all these guys, but isn’t afraid to say what would be characterized as potentially unflattering things about all of these guys. Check his posts out right after C50. I thought one in particular was both apt and hilarious, pointing out how the full reunited band was so much more than its constituent parts, how Mike’s band has an hour of other guys singing, Al’s scattered live dates have never gotten much past soundcheck/rehearsal status, and Brian’s shows in past years have sometimes veered into “Weekend at Bernie’s” territory. He has been candid about how Bruce can be weird in interviews (will Bruce try to impress you with being a part of BB history, or will he make fun of you for wanting to know?)

I’ve been around message boards long enough to be able to tell when someone knows their s**t or not. Howie knows his s**t, whether I agree with what he writes or not. He also has the good kind of cred and gravitas in terms of being a member of the media/rock press.

I can definitely hear Bruce on “Think About the Days”, and what sounds like Mike in there too. Al is also perhaps the most identifiable there, doing the “doo-doo-doo” bits.

It certainly sounds like Al doing some of the “doo-doo-doo” bits in the backing on “Strange World” as well. Seriously, I wonder if Brian just *really* likes Al’s voice vocalizing “doo-doo” (fill in your own joke here folks). 

I think there is also video evidence of all the guys (or at least Brian, Mike, Al, and Bruce) doing the backing vocals to “Shelter.” I think that’s in the “Doin’ It Again” documentary. 

I just think on some of this stuff Jeff is doing a falsetto part and at least one if not more of the mid-range parts, so some stuff does have a “stack of Fosketts” sound even though the other guys are there to varying degrees.

There are definitely points where it’s a case of “oh yeah, *that’s* the Beach Boys singing”, such as the vocal intro to “Pacific Coast Highway.” The blend there is the closest to the 80’s/90’s Beach Boys blend. I can almost hear Carl in the stack on that one. Mike’s bass is strong, and that’s one where I can pick out all of the guys (again, barring Dave, who probably isn’t vocally prevalent on the album).

Howie, you may be manufacturing drama that simply isn't there in this situation.

I would say he’s saying what many wouldn’t have the b**ls or gravitas or credibility to say. But Howie does. He’s talked to all these guys, at length. How many other people have talked to Mike Love about Joe Thomas and “50 Big Ones Productions” and floated Jerry Schilling as a name to bring back? He knows this stuff.

He has all of the “observer” knowledge that the most learned fans do, and he’s also talked to these guys and knows the inner machinations. Different sources within different “camps” may provide different pieces of information or spins, but what Howie says is both credible in terms of the source it’s coming from, and observationally it makes total sense.

I wish it was easier to actually paint a picture where the whole Brian/Jeff thing truly is 100 percent amicable with no ill will or bad feelings. If Jeff had simply left and went to pretty much any other gig, it may have been possible to view it this way. But Howie is right. Jeff joining Mike’s band is a huge political move, on the part of both Jeff and Mike, and most likely easily the most “political” move by a non-member.

It almost doesn’t matter what the original intention was. Even if Jeff was just burned out and left Brian’s band with no plans, and even if Mike simply needed a replacement member and didn’t see adding Jeff as a bit of a political coup; even in that scenario the entire progression of events is loaded with BB-style politics. But as Howie points out, some of what went down may well have been meant to send a message.

I think that’s what we’ve gotten a bit of since the demise of C50. Rather than intense lawsuits and whatnot, we’re getting weird little potshots that may or may not even amount to anything. Just as Brian adding not one, but THREE additional Beach Boys to some 2013 tour dates surely at least had the fringe benefit of sending a message (e.g. “The Beach Boys” have two Beach Boys while Brian’s “solo” tour has THREE or FOUR Beach Boys), and just as Al declining the invitation to play with Mike at Jones Beach and then announcing a gig with Brian for the same day had the fringe benefit of sending a message, Mike offering a gig to what even mainstream media articles have noted is Brian’s “right hand man” both on stage and sometimes off is also something that sends a message (or lobs a political shot, or whatever you want to call it).

Regarding Jeff’s “motives” for leaving Brian’s band, I do think just from a practical point of view that the number of potential 2014 bookings could easily have played a role. What is weird is that even though that’s a perfectly reasonable (and the least “political”) reason for leaving, Jeff doesn’t offer that as even a factor.

There is also the possibility of a plethora of grey areas. Did Mike know six months in advance that Christian was leaving his band, then called Jeff up and told him to exit Brian’s band, wait a while, and then join Mike? I doubt it. But I certainly think it’s possible that Mike knew the possibility or likelihood in advance of Christian leaving at some point in 2014, thought of Jeff, and called him up and just floated some ideas or something. Again, total conjecture. But in business, and in the music business, such things do occur. Also, while there are few BB-related bands that wouldn’t name Jeff as an obvious great addition to their band, it is interesting that there are some things that indicate Jeff wouldn’t so easily be Mike’s top pick. Mike already had a falsetto guy. Also, by Jeff’s own words from an interview in the 90’s, Jeff had issues with Mike during Jeff’s 1990 departure. Given what Jeff mentions in that 90’s interview about the circumstances of his 1990 departure, I would normally say that Mike would not rehire someone who had left under those circumstances. I find it hard to believe Mike didn’t see offering a gig to Jeff as a political move. We’ll obviously likely never know.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I remember (and I could be wrong), Al never billed himself or his band as "The Beach Boys", it was clearly "The Beach Boys Family And Friends". Short on memory and time at this moment, there may have been more sub-titles to that billing as well depending on the venue.

Now, was it worth going to court over this name? Obviously the court sided against Al, we know that and don't have to re-try the case. But seriously, I'll ask again, point blank: What was the likelihood of a fan buying a ticket to that and having the "confusion" element over which band was performing become an issue?

Ironically, again, the confusion that led to cancelled dates, mistaken bookings and promotional photos, and other related issues happened when Mike, the license holder who had the major issue with Al's use of the name due to potential "confusion" over booking these bands, was the one who may have caused more confusion for fans, venues, and local promoters when his organization was booking shows as the Beach Boys while the 50th tour was still traveling and playing. So fans, and agents, and venues - including people whose daily business it is to book bands - were not sure which Beach Boys they were going to get.

I don't know if ironic is the term, but it was an odd twist to say the least considering what happened with the "Family And Friends" debacle.

And at some point I think people would prefer to see things handled out of the court system, for a number of reasons.

My 2 cents.

Al never called his band "The Beach Boys" and never expressed a desire to do so. His band title was, for most of 1999, "Beach Boys Family & Friends." It was ultimately found that it infringed on the "Beach Boys" trademark by virtue of having the trademark within the band's title.

How much confusion was there in 1999? I think the stronger case was made that it simply infringed on the trademark. There were some citations of specific gigs where people were "confused", but I would guess that didn't weigh as heavily in the cases as the simple fact that it the name used the trademark.

There were other issues where, strangely, even the court was not willing to say with certainty whether Al had a valid license in 1999. But it ultimately didn't matter, because once Mike had an exclusive license, it was a done deal.

And yes, there was a bit of noticeable irony when a couple of post-C50 shows were advertised with pictures of the full reunion band. This was indeed one of the "confusion" issues that BRI mentioned concerning Al's shows. It's funny, there were a few fans who immediately pointed out (certainly correctly I would think) that it was not Mike's doing that led to the C50 photos being used, but rather confused and disorganized promoters. But when this happened to Al in 1999, no such leniency was shown from a few fans.

More than one court found Al guilty of something.

Confusion over the brand happened when Al did not hold a license, the post C50 confusion happened while Mike did hold the license. Maybe not comparable.

Let's just be clear in case there is anyone out there not particular familiar with that situation. All of the court actions took place in civil court, not criminal court. I don't believe "guilty" is ever used as a ruling in civil lawsuits.

My sources don't require me to toe the party line to stay connected/

Amen! That's the one big change here. I wasn't visiting the board much for a few years, and I came back recently to see this strange, almost anti-Brian sentiment take hold. Weird...

Other posters noticed this as well, for the record. There seemed to be an uptick in what you noticed in 2014, or perhaps more than what had happened in previous years even going back to the BW Christmas album.

Back when Brian was cutting tracks with Jeff Beck and we were getting pics of Al in the studio and then..shock of all shocks...Blondie Chaplin in the studio I don't think you could've found a more "Rah-Rah-Go-Brian!" spot on the internet than this place...

...that was followed by months of nothing

..and then we heard about Lana Del Rey, Zooey, Frank Ocean..and THAT'S when I noticed this "perceived" anti-Brian stuff, but I don't think it's anyone being anti-Brian at all. A lot of posters here either don't know those new artists or don't respect them or both, and are ticked off that the album went in that direction. No one will know much of anything until the darn thing comes out, but message boards are playgrounds for speculation.

If by liking Mike and Bruce as well as Brian, one is now considered "anti-Brian", I don't know what to say there. I've watched this stuff go on for years. Back in the 70's, the fan sentiment was that Mike and Al were the bad guys who were keeping Brian down, and now Al is a good guy or whatever. It's all nonsense.

And again, Brian is the only Beach Boy who's actually putting out new product. Of course, he'd get the lions share of comments, criticism, etc.  Nobody else is doing anything.

I think the anti-Brian/Mike thing has swung back and forth a few times since the early days of the interwebs in the mid-late 90's.

There was definitely a "Brian can do no wrong" attitude from some fans in the late 90's, and a lot of harshness about Mike. The harshness was not always unfounded; this was in the early days of touring without Carl and Al. There was also plenty of reason to be really into the new goings-on with Brian, finally cutting albums and doing tours.

I don't think there's necessarily less "anti-Mike" stuff on the internet these days than in past years. But there is a lot more "pro-Mike" stuff. I don't mean just being a BB fan and thinking Mike is an okay guy. There are some folks who clearly have a bias that leads them to go to extremes to defend Mike and minimize or criticize Brian in the process. This has, I feel, happened at the same time that "pro Brian" rhetoric has died down a bit. So I do see a shift in the last few years.

I've said this before, but the turning point in my mind was the aftermath of C50. Regardless of how I feel about it, as objective as I can be, there has been an odd upswing in going to extremes to defend Mike in the aftermath, along with a strong sentiment that I wouldn't call "pro Mike", but I would say VERY oddly ambivalent about the demise of the reunion of the group we love so much. That's what has astonished me. There was a lot of "so what?" from some surprising folks when C50 fell apart. That astonishes me.

Back to Foskett: I find it interesting that he's aware of the sentiments of fans about him and other BB's, especially if he's truly staying away from the internet commentary.

I suppose it depends on what we're talking about when we're talking about a "legacy." The music is there, nothing will change that.

But as far as the band's story, it is littered with acrimony, lawsuits, estrangements, f-ups, missed opportunities and so on. If they had ended their career together (which obviously they still can do), that would make for a very different ending when the full story is retold. It would color every commentary about how acrimonious their history has been and how many times they missed opportunities, because it would always be tempered with them having their s**t together at the end. 

The story will end with Brian restored to some kind of health and touring and recording again. That is the happy ending. The acrimony is pretty tame compared with some bands and certainly won`t overshadow the music for future generations.

And them all retiring The Beach Boys name at the same time doesn`t seem vaguely possible really. Mike plays 100 shows a year. Brian has maybe 10 booked for this year...

Not even 10 shows. I think more like four or five this year for Brian so far, with a few more scheduled.

I think a scenario for the end game would be that Mike would decide to retire, and when he reaches that point, call everyone back to finish it out together.

I'm not quite convinced the "story" will end with Brian restored, "The End." His restoration in large part also includes the story of his estrangement from the rest of the band. That isn't the ending for the *group* that much of anybody would want.

The C50 tour was their highest profile in years, probably decades, and it ended with "Mike Love fires Brian Wilson" (again, a false statement technically) as a top "trending" item on the internet. Plus, I know we're only two years out, but nearly every interview, other than the super quicky local press for Mike's band, has usually mentioned the group's acrimonious history, and specifically the clusterfudge that was the end of C50.

*During* C50, those same acrimonious aspects were mentioned, but they were always tempered with "but the group has reunited...blah, blah blah." That *could* have been the end of the group's story, whenever that would have/could have been.

They could have even written a better ending while having Mike go back to his own band. Paraphrasing how Howie Edelson put it, they could have consulted one freaking PR person who could have told them to book a few gigs at the end of 2012 to cap off the reunion, where everyone is on the same page, film the damn thing for an awesome Blu-ray and live album, and then they at least wouldn't have looked like they didn't know what the hell they were doing PR-wise after a half century in the business.

The Mike and Bruce tour will only cease I would imagine when Mike Love either chooses to retire, or he is deceased. Or, if the entire organization gets their s**t together and cares enough about their legacy to end it elegantly and with some class and as one united performing unit.

Given how these guys always talk and act, I can never tell whether they care deeply about their legacy or whether they don't give a fudge about it.

The legacy is perfectly intact. Playing a few shows together now wouldn`t change anything.

And I don`t think there are many acts who get back together due to `legacy` anyway. Plenty of massive acts like Monty Python, The Police, The Shadows, The Spice Girls etc. have reunited over the past few years before inevitably parting again. It is down to money rather than legacy though.

I suppose it depends on what we're talking about when we're talking about a "legacy." The music is there, nothing will change that.

But as far as the band's story, it is littered with acrimony, lawsuits, estrangements, f-ups, missed opportunities and so on. If they had ended their career together (which obviously they still can do), that would make for a very different ending when the full story is retold. It would color every commentary about how acrimonious their history has been and how many times they missed opportunities, because it would always be tempered with them having their s**t together at the end. 

[But the real question is how long M&B can keep their sketchy outfit going]

But the real question is how long M&B can keep their sketchy outfit going. Brian and AL are making new music, while Mike is content to tour his solo group under the BBs name. Wouldn't it be nice for Mike to live beyond p*ssy and greed for once since he is far from being a loving cousin to BW.

I guess, as long as folk - real folk, that is, not the likes of us - are happy to pay to see him perform.

The Mike and Bruce tour will only cease I would imagine when Mike Love either chooses to retire, or he is deceased. Or, if the entire organization gets their s**t together and cares enough about their legacy to end it elegantly and with some class and as one united performing unit.

Given how these guys always talk and act, I can never tell whether they care deeply about their legacy or whether they don't give a fudge about it.

Mike (and Bruce) come across as total bad guys for the way they forced Brian, Al, and Dave out of their own band. Say all you want about "set end dates", BRI licensing terms, blah blah blah... the fact is that Brian (and Al & Dave) wanted to continue touring and recording as Beach Boys, a claim which Brian Wilson has every right in the world to, and Mike prevented it from happening. Maybe Brian wasn't technically "fired", but by his own admission he was hurt and confused and "sure felt like being fired."

Jeff's joining up with the M&B Revue in the wake of all that, after being Brian's "right-hand man" for most of the last 2 decades ...just seems to me like a really lame decision. but more power to him. he's exactly where he wants to be, and exactly where he belongs.

nothing personal, but I really do prefer Brian without any of the current "The Beach Boys"

Doesn't have a clue, does he ?  

I could parse bossaroo's post and disagree with a few bits of terminology here and there, but I'd say I can't flat-out disagree with much of that commentary apart from preferring Brian on his own. The C50 show is far superior to a solo Brian show. In numerous ways.

It's hard to figure out what Al means because the corporation voted to give the license to Mike. Al had his shot and mucked it up. They presumably voted to not muddy up their own decision by also protecting the use of brand name.

If they want to change that then do it and quit whining about it. Jeez.

It seems likely Al is the minority vote (both figuratively and literally) in some of these instances, so I don't think he can do much else but whine. It seems he and Brian can vote differently from each other but still work together. Too bad that doesn't work in every permutation and combination of band members.

I don't think it's possible to fully figure out what exactly Al is referring to in this interview. Between his lack of ability or willingness to speak "legalese", and the fact that some of the things he's talking about could refer to either the more distant past (over a decade ago), or the last couple years, or both, I'm not sure we can fully decipher what he's talking about.

In that sense, the interview wasn't particularly fruitful. If you're going to go all out and get into a "hey, go ahead and publish my comments!" mood, you might as well blab everything outside of what will land you into a lawsuit. But it follows the pattern of all of the BB's (and sometimes their associates) of commenting on something and only raising more questions than answers.

Interesting that people are saying Foskett handled the situation with a lot of class. I'm not saying he was classless or anything, but he did throw some unnecessary "shade" at Brian's wife and managers. He certainly didn't need to give the public more dirt on the Beck-Wilson collab. Not that him saying all that is too big of a deal. It was just a tad gossipy, is all.

Also, interesting to learn that Brian is apparently against visiting castles. You'd think he'd like visiting castles.

Well, the problem that always arises in situations like this is that feeding fans/readers only limited information as is the case with this article, it can either be read as simply having some class and self-control, or it can be viewed as casting a bit of "shade" and then backing away, actually leaving more questions than answers.

I don't think we got anywhere near the full story here. We got some additional data to work with.

But, while there are probably no doubt plenty of quirky and weird side bits to this story as there usually is in the BB universe, I do think that in part (perhaps large part) this may well have been the somewhat common occurrence of someone getting burned out on a job and moving to something else.

Not odd at all. Al has history of using the name, not Brian or Dave.

In all fairness, that "history" consists of pretty much one calendar year (1999) if we're talking about actually using the BB trademark in a band title (BBFF).

All of Al, Dave, and Brian have used variations on "original/founding member of the Beach Boys" in promotional materials.

Al's recent comments may be partly informed by all of the stuff that went down over a decade ago, because for a time, unlike Brian or Dave, Al was apparently prohibited from even advertising himself as a "Beach Boy." As I've mentioned before, that apparently was over and done with by 2005 when he seemed to be happy he was once again allowed to say he is a "Beach Boy." But I can imagine, perhaps even more than the "BBFF" name debacle, that period of time where he was not allowed to state what was factually true, that he was a "Beach Boy", might have been even more grating, even if it was a sort of lingering temporary effect of the various lawsuits.

If, recently, there have been some overtures about warnings for how Brian and Al advertise themselves, this may be what has irked him as of late.

Interesting stuff. More info than I thought we’d ever get. It’s still a bit vague as far as what specifically was happening during the Beck tour. I would imagine a lot of off-stage stuff must have been going on (both in terms of Beck and in general), because the actual touring schedule last year wasn’t particular heavy. A few shows in July, and a little over a month of touring in September/October.

Also interesting that he mentions having to work through stuff with Mike. This would make sense in light of that interview Foskett gave in the 90’s (after leaving the touring BB’s but before joining Brian’s band) where he talked about why he departed the touring BB’s in 1990.

It’s very clear that there are pros and cons to being in either the Brian or Mike camp. If you’re willing to be a part of and enjoy the culture and style of Mike’s band, it seems to be a very streamlined, cushy gig. I think streamlined is an important way to look at it. Once you know what it is, what it entails, and who is in charge, I would imagine from a sort of HR standpoint being in Mike’s operation is more consistent and steady. In Brian’s operation, there are certain sort of conceptual, artistic, ethereal aspects that might be more enticing, but because Brian’s operation wasn’t sort of birthed from the ashes of a very streamlined system (the decades-old BB touring juggernaut) the way Mike’s was, and because there are those special circumstances surrounding Brian, and because it’s a less consistent, full touring schedule, I could see a specific sort of burn out that could take place.

What is the old show biz saying?  No such thing as bad publicity or something like that?    I start with the assumption that all of the Beachboys are aware of and in agreement with their trademark and financial arrangements.  sounds like someone or some people want to have their cake and eat it too.

Aware? One would hope and assume. In agreement? Doubtful. I don't think all their votes have come down unanimously. The very few votes we're privy to via various publicly-available court rulings were not all unanimous.

But yes, I'm sure in many setups like the one they have, there are times when a board member votes one way, then continues to complain about things that may have come about because of the way they voted.

It wasn't silly if Mike wanted his vocal placed back in the mix. That is his and the band's perogative to add it back to sound like the original released version. Even Brian replaced his own vocal back in 1966.

My comment was more concerning using the vocal replacement as a justification for reissuing it again. Again, I haven't head or seen any evidence that Mike requested this (he usually seems rather uninterested the few times he's been questioned about album reissues and whatnot; he only seems to care when he is consulted on compilations and whatnot from the inteviews I've seen). I would imagine he would be happy to have his vocal back there. But if one is to weigh in more on the cynical side and suggest the label just wanted to put another version out to get fans to buy it again (and there is no evidence this is the case; I honestly don't know, and don't particularly care I suppose), and offered a noticeable "tweak" to justify it to fans, then that would be "silly" as I rather unimaginatively put it previously.

I also have a vague recollection that Carl allegedly had some issues with the PS Sessions boxed set, having to do with the anomalies that different from the original mix (the WIBN bridge, the different vocals at the end of GOK, etc.).

I  think, based on Al's comment, that an injunction was obtained to prevent Brian and Al, when booking and advertising concerts. from referring to the event as a Beach Boys concert, or saying anything to make people think the concert is a Beach Boys concert.  No one can stop Brian and Al from saying that they were founders of the Beach Boys and recorded records as members of the Beach Boys, because that's history.  But they cannout conduct business in a way that infringes on the business of the people that currently hold the exclusive license.  That's a $.02 legal opinion.   

I’m not sure if the court would view a petition for an injunction as frivolous in light of the fact that Brian and Al have never attempted, or expressed any desire, to book shows as “The Beach Boys.” I think you have to show some kind of cause to seek an injunction against a person or entity. You can’t simply cover all your bases by filing injunctions against people for things they might do. Then every trademark holder would file injunctions against everybody but themselves just to make sure nobody ever infringes.

I’m also thinking it would be quite possible if not extremely likely that, had an actual court granted an injunction post-2012, it would have hit the news/media, if for no other reason than it would have allowed them to stoke the flames even more regarding lawsuits and acrimony.

I’m still thinking that phone calls and perhaps letters went back and forth on these issues rather than actual court injunctions requested or granted.

These interviews come and go similar to the chances of a "Nor'Easter" storm being in the forecast during those winters when I lived in Boston. Some of them caused major issues, some of them dropped some snow and blew over.

But you still can't help but to follow them and pore over the details like in this one. A few comments/questions, even though I probably know better by now...

First, is there really some legal action taken around the recent Brian and Al shows being promoted? I'll say this, and ask: When I first saw the billing with the words "founding members..." in the billing, my first thought was "wait for the lawsuit, wait for it...". So if there are legal actions surrounding that kind of billing in the name, I'm not surprised. If there are, though, it's pretty foolish if you ask me.

Second, this stuff again with the 50th tour.

Having done just a bit of business in my decades of life, I can pretty much say with confidence that the really big business or legal affairs whether from the biggest corporations, to small businesses, to Ebay transactions, to me booking a music gig for next month do not begin and end with a single email, or text, or call, or whatever. There is context, there is history, to borrow a term from even those shows like "Judge Judy" and "People's Court", there is an "email chain" that usually tells the more complete version of events that led up to and immediately followed whatever event or action may be in question. And as far as I know, verified emails to-and-from the parties involved are and can be considered legal evidence of how things played out.

So if we are going to base something that involved literally hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps a few dozen musicians and crew, equipment/travel/operations staff and arrangements, and the like, it's not about saying whether or not an email exists...

...but to get the story I think we may want to hear, isn't it more about getting the bigger picture that surrounded this one email, and see what led up to it and what may have followed it?

It's hard to believe that a business venture and a legal situation like a major concert tour would or did come down to or even hinge its future on a single email, and not just in this case of C50 but in nearly every business venture we could think of. Maybe there really is more to the story.

Concerning Brian and Al and how their shows have been billed, I don’t think any legal action has taken place. I would imagine it’s more a case of agents or managers or perhaps legal counsel sending a letter simply warning against certain things.

I also think, and this is just my guess, that unlike the legal action regarding Al back circa 1999 where he was definitely using the trademark within his band’s name, it would be a much harder case to make to go after Brian and Al’s “tour” (if we are even calling it that) for simply indicating they are original and/or founding members. The ticket always says “Brian Wilson” (in many cases Al’s name isn’t even on the ticket). Any person, unless there is a legal injunction or something, can list things like “original/founding member” as long as it’s descriptive and is true.

An example of a more grey area would be if the ticket and concert poster and Ticketmaster listing all said something like “THE BEACH BOYS’ Brian Wilson & Al Jardine.” It would still be meant to be descriptive, but would have the trademark in the “artist name” itself, and would also be construed as potentially more confusing or misleading.

But there are a million dudes out there listing “former guitarist for RATT” and whatnot. Nothing wrong with that.

As far as the C50 stuff, it is all about context. It’s also about whether one is making a “legal” argument, versus a “moral” argument, versus a “logical” argument, and so on. Some have lamented that wishing for more reunion shows and whatnot is pointless, because it wasn’t going to happen, and therefore it’s useless to criticize those who may have brought about its demise. (Some are making what I feel is a much more specious and bizarre argument that Brian is responsible solely for the tour’s demise). But to the former point, I can only say that BB fans have lamented pointlessly many things. The BB’s career, especially from 1966 and on, is filled with countless lamentations of what could have been or should have been. I think there is a place for these largely and ultimately fruitless lamentations, especially when it concerns something that was relatively more possible and achievable (more “reunion” shows) versus something that had a million strikes against it (“Smile” coming out in 1967, etc.)

"JM: I feel that the natural place is for all of you to be together."

That's all the professor ever thinks ans says as well....

'Tis true, and that was reaffirmed for me when I saw the C50 show in 2012. Before the LA Times letters and all the commotion, I already felt that the full band was the only real way for these guys to be.

There are plenty of semantics arguments and logic and deduction that can be used to argue why the guys should be together, and why the dissolution of the reunited lineup is so sad. But ultimately, it's just a sense. "Set end date" and all of that was bulls**t, but not just because of the litany of evidence that one could use to argue that it was BS. It was BS because I saw that show. I've been as pessimistic and jaded as a fan could be. I think the dissolution of the reunion was so frustrating because in 2012 the Beach Boys, all of them, including Mike Love, proved all the skeptical, nit-picky fans wrong. They kicked ass. They should have ended their careers that way. Not giving interviews like this one Al just gave, or the ones Mike gives. To his credit, at least Al would have rather been touring with the reunited band than having to give such an interview. But it's sad either way.