The Love You/Adult Child demos making the rounds were recorded on a tape deck, iirc

It had to have been a tape deck (don’t think many digital recordings were being made in 1976), but the question is whether it was cassette or open-reel (and if open-reel, was it direct to mono/stereo or captured on multi-track?). It’s unlikely it’s a cassette tape given the sonic quality. Also, it would have been silly to be inside their own professional recording studio but simply record onto cassette tape. So I’m guessing it was either captured straight onto maybe ¼ inch mono or stereo (can’t recall at the moment if there’s any true stereo ambience on the recording), or they rolled multi-track tape. I’m guessing the former, as this was clearly a “demo” session in the truest sense; demonstrating potential material.

But he’s in their own pro studio, he’s giving directions to the tape op/engineer, so I don’t think this was any sort of “tape deck sitting on the piano with one open mic” sort of situation. 

Honestly, I have zero hope that this biopic is going to be any better than the previous attempts at telling the BB/BW story through film that isn't a documentary.

John Cusack is just so fuckin' John Cusacky that all his attempts at acting are just like "oh, wow, look at John Cusack pretending that he's not John Cusack."

Paul Dano has the potential to play a pretty good Brian Wilson, but John Cusack was the wrong choice. Sorry, friends.

Unfortunately, the majority of actors end up being a case of “Oh, there’s so-and-so trying to act like he’s not so-and-so”, and often they don’t even try to act like they’re not themselves. Oh, there’s Brad Pitt. Nope, he’s not whatever character he’s supposed to be in the movie. He’s Brad Pitt shooting zombies. Oh, Morgan Freeman, he’s amazing, except that he’s just playing the same character in every movie he’s in: himself. I’m not being sarcastic. I end up often preferring unknown actors (as long as they have some acting talent of course) in many roles. There are a few really great well-known actors who can actually take you out of the headspace of just seeing that famous actor. But it’s pretty rare.

The actors with all the weird idiosyncrasies are the worst. Hell, some directors are that way too. Oh great, it’s Tim Burton, so we know the movie will have Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, will be emo and steampunk, and Johnny Depp will play a super quirky character.

I dunno, Cusack might actually be bland enough to make the movie a bit more credible. If they’re truly doing away with the strictly chronological format, that’s proably a good start. “Summer Dreams” and “An American Family” didn’t succeed with that format.

Meanwhile, perhaps someone will piece together a “Beatles Anthology”-sized Beach Boys documentary; get the surviving guys on camera for thorough interviews while they’re still alive. I can’t fathom why this hasn’t been attempted. “Endless Harmony” was just fine for what it was, but something longer and more epic is needed.

I hope everybody criticizing this promotion also criticized “Club Kokomo”, and the C50 “VIP” thing, and so on. They’re all decadent, overpriced items that most of us common folk can’t afford, but it’s clearly just a little extra revenue stream for these guys, who have to put in little effort. The VIP packages have a meet and greet, so there’s a bit more effort there. But they already have to do a soundcheck at the gigs, so they’re not putting extra effort in there (notwithstanding the theoretical “adding rarities” to the soundcheck for the fans).

This new idea isn’t the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard of or anything. How many of us have been able to watch Brian listen to the entire original “Pet Sounds” album? Sure, he might just veg out. Or maybe we could pick up a slightly unique experience. I’ve heard that sometimes Brian really absorbs listening to the old recordings of he and his brothers and band. It also would be cool to hear some tracks from the new album. It goes without saying that it’s something everybody will be able to buy within weeks perhaps. But what’s the alternative? Play track that *won’t* be released? That would be more aggravating for most fans frankly. I for one am often sort of annoyed when I read descriptions of hearing tracks that we will *never* get to hear ourselves.

It certainly would have been preferable to perhaps run a contest and let 90 fans into this event for free as a pure promo event for the new album. But Mike doesn’t let everyone into “Club Kokomo” for free either. They won’t let me into the soundcheck for free at gigs.

Now, what I *would* try to save up money for is a $400 event where you can sit with Mike and listen together with him to “Smile” and “Sweet Insanity.”

I’m still curious now how they came about putting the one track from this demo session, “Still I Dream of It”, on the IJWMFTT soundtrack. Don Was’ idea? Did they like the song but didn’t want to use the “Beach Boys” version (even if it has no other BB’s on it)? Did they really just have a crappy copy, or were they trying to make it sound like a home demo?

Odd indeed - that version is easily the crappiest I've ever heard. It's almost as if they "dirtied it up" for release.

BTW, given the source of the Instagram clip, I'd wager that it's the correct speed. Maybe they have some other demos ?

I agree that it's crappy in regards to the sound quality, but it's always been the preffered version for me, even with it's flaws.  I've always found Brian's vocal in the IJWMFTT version to sound more heartfelt and sincere and I like the piano only approach more than the big band style on the more realized version.  The performance on the raw demo is just so real.  One of those moments that is painfully real and not easy to listen to when you know Brian's story, but is fascinating at the same time.  Maybe it's just me.

I think these piano demos are preferable to their studio counterparts in most cases (“Mona” and “Little Children” are still dreck in any version, but stuff like “Airplane”, “I’ll Bet He’s Nice” and the two Adult Child numbers are brilliant).

But in terms of the choice made for the IJWMFTT soundtrack, we’re talking about their use of a sub-par tape of that demo performance, not so much choosing the demo over the full-blown studio version. The exact same demo recording/performance circulates in markedly better quality. What AGD and I both are curious about is whether they purposely made that recording “low-fi”, perhaps to give it more of a “home demo” feel, like Lennon’s Dakota demos or something (some of which even sound better). On the tape used on the IJWMFTT soundtrack, there is less bass, it sounds more “tinny” and murky, etc. I think there might even be a tape dropout on it that isn’t on the higher quality version of the demos floating around, which may be the best evidence that they actually really just had a crappy cassette tape of the demo or something. Either that, or they really went all-out to downgrade the sound quality on purpose by just dubbing a copy of a copy of a copy. Slightly fascinating either way.

I’m still curious now how they came about putting the one track from this demo session, “Still I Dream of It”, on the IJWMFTT soundtrack. Don Was’ idea? Did they like the song but didn’t want to use the “Beach Boys” version (even if it has no other BB’s on it)? Did they really just have a crappy copy, or were they trying to make it sound like a home demo?

Odd indeed - that version is easily the crappiest I've ever heard. It's almost as if they "dirtied it up" for release.

BTW, given the source of the Instagram clip, I'd wager that it's the correct speed. Maybe they have some other demos ?

That demo session sounds like it's being cut in a studio (asks the tape op/engineer if the tape is rolling, etc.). I would think it's possible if not likely that the tape is in the BB's archive, or Brian's own archive, and I'm sure there are some tantalizing bits they have that we still haven't heard.

I think this tape is great, especially for the Love You/Adult Child stuff. I would hope they could find an avenue to release this stuff. Perhaps a "Brian Rarities" set if the BB's won't do one.

[But I think there is one circulating version that sounds even better than what’s on the “Rarities” Dumb Angel set, for instance.]

listening again, and comparing to the best “source” I’ve heard, I don’t think the fidelity of this new version is that much better. As I’ve been speculating, I think it is simply perhaps a couple tape generations better, as the overall fidelity is very similar, but with the new version sporting less tape hiss. There are indeed some versions of this tape that sound rather sketchy. Some are taken from old vinyl. But I think there is one circulating version that sounds even better than what’s on the “Rarities” Dumb Angel set, for instance.

If it's the one I'm thinking of, it was part of a set of fan-made remasters made by a certain collector with the initials 'BC' *cough* that included a version of 'Sherry She Needs Me' that sounded suspiciously like what appeared on the MIC boxed set, auto-tune and all. 


Allegedly.

Nah. The version I'm thinking of has been "around" for at least ten years, probably more.

BETTER HURRY!!!   
 
For only $400 ( limited to 90 persons)
You will meet Brian at Capitol Studios during a wine and hors d'oeuvres reception and then join him for a Playback Session of the album "Pet Sounds" in Studio A; then hear some tracks from his new Capitol Album!!!!


http://www.insideaccess.com/EventDetails/1535

Oh no, they’re not going to pull a “Carl and the Passions” and pair his new album with “Pet Sounds” in a two-disc set, are they? 

Hopefully this means we’ll get the new album, and sooner rather than later. Mid-late October is looking feasible.

Regarding the likelihood of an October release for Brian’s album, while it seems less likely given it’s now the beginning of September, it’s not impossible. Not a perfect example, but they just officially announced yesterday, September 2nd, the September 22/23 release of the new George Harrison boxed set. That’s also through Capitol/Universal. A single CD album release from Brian would need even less manufacturing turnaround time (as opposed to the big Harrison boxed set with numerous discs, a DVD, a box, etc.), and Brian mentioned a week or two ago that he was done and mixing. So we could see the new album in mid-late October theoretically.

Or, maybe he’ll just dump it on iTunes without even telling anyone like Al did with his album that we had been waiting 12-plus years for.   

For some odd reason, that quick Instagram video does indeed appear to be a camera slightly shakily shooting footage of a photograph. But the audio is in-line, it’s not coming from speakers.

Listening again, and comparing to the best “source” I’ve heard, I don’t think the fidelity of this new version is that much better. As I’ve been speculating, I think it is simply perhaps a couple tape generations better, as the overall fidelity is very similar, but with the new version sporting less tape hiss. There are indeed some versions of this tape that sound rather sketchy. Some are taken from old vinyl. But I think there is one circulating version that sounds even better than what’s on the “Rarities” Dumb Angel set, for instance. The new version is also indeed running slower. It sounds too slow to me, but it could well indeed be simply that the tapes we’ve been hearing over the years are running too fast.

I’m still curious now how they came about putting the one track from this demo session, “Still I Dream of It”, on the IJWMFTT soundtrack. Don Was’ idea? Did they like the song but didn’t want to use the “Beach Boys” version (even if it has no other BB’s on it)? Did they really just have a crappy copy, or were they trying to make it sound like a home demo?

Suits my ears!

Imagine picking up the phone that morning and getting asked to stand in with 2 original Beach Boys on stage that evening?

No pressure.

That is a good point. At least it was somewhat low-key for such an eventuality. It was in Indio, CA, and a one-off show. This wasn't at Radio City Music Hall in the middle of a full-blown tour or something.

I definitely would have been bummed if I had gone and Matt wasn't there. But yeah, there are a million understandable reasons why he wouldn't be able to make it. Hopefully he's still "in the band."

I'm surprised, though, that they didn't work the setlist around Matt's absence. They still did "Don't Worry Baby." They must have felt the guy had enough vocal chops to do it. Otherwise, I would think it would have been easier to just switch that out for some other song for Brian or Al to sing.

Hopefully the band will get to do something resembling a "full tour", so they can evolve the setlist. As I mentioned in my blog, Brian's band is a bit like Al's band has been over the past decade or more in that when you do one-off shows and never regularly tour, you have to rely on your "standard" setlist. Thankfully, Brian's "standard" setlist still has some interesting stuff (e.g. Marcella, Cottonfields, Pet Sounds, Heroes and Villains, etc.), but hopefully they'll get a chance to pull more interesting stuff out on later dates.

It's also more likely for "regular" band members to miss gigs (whether planned or last minute) when they're essentially one-off gigs like this. This was the only gig between the two July gigs and the gig at the end of September (unless they schedule something in the interim).

There are a few different "generations" of that demo session floating around. At least one version I've heard sounds much better than the others (far better than one song from the session from the IJWMFTT soundtrack CD, on which I still can't tell whether they had a really crummy tape of it or if they were purposely trying to make it sounds like something Brian recorded on a Walkman in his closet). I would imagine that version is closest to this new snippet, which may simply be one or two tape generations better.

[the two bands touring at the same time wouldn’t have worked.]

Separate from all of this, none of that “non-exclusive” license stuff would have been feasible long term. Even if Al had paid for a non-exclusive license, and even if BRI hadn’t been a stickler on the details of the license and not bugged Al about having female singers and a “weird” setlist, the two bands touring at the same time wouldn’t have worked. I think BRI within short order would have specifically voted to change the set up to one exclusive licensee (which is kind of what they did end up doing anyway), to avoid confusion and dilution of the trademark. If that hadn’t happened, there was already allegedly pressure being exerted on venues/promoters to not book Al’s band and book Mike’s instead. I have a vague recollection of an alleged case as early as 1999 of Al shows were being booked, then the venues/promoters would cancel Al’s band and book Mike’s instead. (Yes, I realize one could argue this was not at the behest of anybody and the venue was simply changing around to booking the “real” “Beach Boys”).

I guess it all depends on how profitable it would have been. I really don`t imagine that dilution of the trademark would have mattered that much if they were bringing money in. And if any pressure was exerted then I guess it was because Al was using promoters not approved by BRI.

BBFF was never going to bring near the same amount of money. The issue of potential confusion notwithstanding, BBFF is not a name that will get as many bookings or sell as many tickets.

I never took the idea of canceling Al shows and rebooking them as "Beach Boys" shows as an issue regarding booking agencies, but rather simply a way to corner the market and minimize the competition. This has occurred with other bands with name rights issues. One example was the competing iterations of Badfinger in the early 80's.

The BB situation was of course cleared up relatively easily once the exclusive license was issued.

But I still don't think Al would have been allowed to continue to tour as BBFF even if he had agreed to license terms. I think the balance of power has shifted too far. I think they would have issued Mike the exclusive license regardless by 2000 or so. By issuing that exclusive license, they were dropping the idea of Carl's estate of offering nonexclusive licenses to all. Al's shenanigans may have accelerated that process a bit, but it would have happened either way.

[The Love-Jardine legal battle dates to 2001, when Jardine filed a $4 million action against Love and the Beach Boys' Brother Records Inc., alleging Love excluded him from concerts that year. The complaint was eventually dismissed and Love sued Jardine in 2003.Dunn threw out part of Love's suit last September but allowed him to continue to seek $2 million in court costs and $1 million in earnings he says Jardine wrongly was paid for using the Beach Boys' name.]

Love v. Jardine headed to trial
4:00 AM PST 02/01/2007 by Associated Press, AP

The Beach Boys used to sing about endless summers. These days, at least two of them seem to be caught up in endless litigation.

The latest round came Tuesday when a judge rejected Beach Boys' singer Mike Love's motion to rule in his favor in Love's lawsuit against former bandmate Al Jardine. Instead, Superior Court Judge James R. Dunn ruled there was sufficient evidence for the matter to go to trial.

Dunn didn't immediately set a trial date, but Jardine's lawyer, Lawrence Noble, said he told attorneys for both sides to get in touch with him by the end of February to let him know the status of the dispute.

"The judge will then decide on a trial date, or if there should be mediation or additional motions," Noble said Wednesday. "Hopefully, this case will go away and Al Jardine can focus on making his music for his fans and not fending off this litigation."

Love's attorney, Phil Stillman, did not return a call for comment.

The Love-Jardine legal battle dates to 2001, when Jardine filed a $4 million action against Love and the Beach Boys' Brother Records Inc., alleging Love excluded him from concerts that year. The complaint was eventually dismissed and Love sued Jardine in 2003.

Dunn threw out part of Love's suit last September but allowed him to continue to seek $2 million in court costs and $1 million in earnings he says Jardine wrongly was paid for using the Beach Boys' name.

Love maintains only he has the legal right to perform under the name, and federal courts ruled in 2003 that Jardine must stop using Beach Boys in the title of his other bands. He had been performing under such names as Beach Boys Family & Friends and Al Jardine of the Beach Boys, but now calls his group Al Jardine's Endless Summer Band.

The Beach Boys were founded in 1961 by brothers Brian, Carl and Dennis Wilson, their cousin Love and Brian Wilson's friend Jardine.

Dennis Wilson died in 1983 and Carl Wilson died in 1998.

That's part of the story. We got all of the info piecemeal back then a bit. The first legal action from BRI dates to 1999. That was when I believe attempts at injunctions were made. They started sticking near the end of 1999 as I recall.

[I'm not so sure. If Al had no license, then there would be no reason to cite what he was doing]

I'm not so sure. If Al had no license, then there would be no reason to cite what he was doing. I remember those issues with Al's show being raised as items that were not allowed in a licensed Beach Boys band.

I haven't been able to track down that Rolling Stone article from 1999. It had some interesting info. It had a manager, as I recall, acknowledging that a member (not Al) was refusing to appear on stage with Carl "out of love" due to his condition. It also had the manager saying something like "Mike only has a few years left of touring left in him." That was 15 years ago.

Well, yes there would.

The whole point of the lawyer`s arguments at the time was to show that having a band out there called, `Beach Boys Family and Friends` was confusing people as they thought they were going to see the genuine Beach Boys and that Al shouldn`t be able to use that name without paying. If he`d paid then there`s no way that Carl`s estate and or Brian`s people would have been bothered about Carnie or Wendy being onstage imo.

They certainly wouldn`t have been bothered about the setlist as Mike`s band were doing things like Sherry, Duke of Earl, I Saw Her Standing There, Pasadena, Summer in Paradise at the time.

BRI didn’t want another person out there using the BB trademark without a license. So the issue would be whether one has the license or not. If they don’t have a license, it doesn’t matter whether they are perfectly abiding by the terms of the license or completely subverting the terms.

I think the reason all that stuff was brought up regarding Al’s band was two-fold: It was just general negative stuff to build a case against him (e.g. not only does he not have a license, but he’s also shirking the responsibilities that would go along with a license). But also, Al was arguing in 1999 that he had a valid license, and then made the sort of side-argument that essentially amounted to “I’ve got a valid license, but if you decide that I don’t, then I don’t need one and never needed one anyway.” This is not a legally invalid argument in theory, you can argue two sort of opposing points like that. Al obviously ultimately failed in one or both of these arguments.

In some of the court documents, even the court itself seems to leave it ambiguous and/or not be clear as to whether Al may have had a somehow valid license in 1999. I think both sides never got to fully argue that point, because once the exclusive license was executed and the injunctions against Al using the BBFF name were finally starting to be granted, it didn’t matter anymore.

But I think the issues raised (female singers, setlist, etc.) were raised as it pertained to the terms of a license, because in 1999 BRI had to not only argue that he didn’t have a license, but in the event that the court somehow ruled in favor of Al’s contention that he did have a valid license in 1999, BRI would need to show that he was violating the terms of that license.

Separate from all of this, none of that “non-exclusive” license stuff would have been feasible long term. Even if Al had paid for a non-exclusive license, and even if BRI hadn’t been a stickler on the details of the license and not bugged Al about having female singers and a “weird” setlist, the two bands touring at the same time wouldn’t have worked. I think BRI within short order would have specifically voted to change the set up to one exclusive licensee (which is kind of what they did end up doing anyway), to avoid confusion and dilution of the trademark. If that hadn’t happened, there was already allegedly pressure being exerted on venues/promoters to not book Al’s band and book Mike’s instead. I have a vague recollection of an alleged case as early as 1999 of Al shows were being booked, then the venues/promoters would cancel Al’s band and book Mike’s instead. (Yes, I realize one could argue this was not at the behest of anybody and the venue was simply changing around to booking the “real” “Beach Boys”).

[I do recall that back circa 1999, one of the articles on the band name “issues” included BRI citing cases of Jardine having female singers on stage, performing songs that weren’t “representative” of the band’s image (which couldn’t have been anything beyond deep cuts like “Lookin’ at Tomorrow”, etc.), and for shows being advertised in a misleading fashion.]

All good points. There are certainly “terms” to the license. How strictly they are enforced, and how specific those terms were written, we of course don’t know.

I do recall that back circa 1999, one of the articles on the band name “issues” included BRI citing cases of Jardine having female singers on stage, performing songs that weren’t “representative” of the band’s image (which couldn’t have been anything beyond deep cuts like “Lookin’ at Tomorrow”, etc.), and for shows being advertised in a misleading fashion.

At that time, BRI obviously had a specific interest in seeking out these potential violations and citing them. These days, with nobody else vying for the license (as far as we know), we do not see BRI citing Mike having his daughter sing on stage, or Mike performing deep cuts like Al was in 1999, or for the couple of instances of Mike’s shows being promoted with pictures, etc. of the C50 lineup.

There would have to, I’m guessing, be a huge, obvious, heinous violation for BRI to scrape up any interest among the other members in taking any action. So yes, if Mike started performing nothing but AC/DC songs, or had a stripper on stage every night, maybe then something would happen.

If Al had paid the money there would have been no problem though imo.

I'm not so sure. If Al had no license, then there would be no reason to cite what he was doing. I remember those issues with Al's show being raised as items that were not allowed in a licensed Beach Boys band.

I haven't been able to track down that Rolling Stone article from 1999. It had some interesting info. It had a manager, as I recall, acknowledging that a member (not Al) was refusing to appear on stage with Carl "out of love" due to his condition. It also had the manager saying something like "Mike only has a few years left of touring left in him." That was 15 years ago.

There are certainly “terms” to the license. How strictly they are enforced, and how specific those terms were written, we of course don’t know.

The license has very specific terms that cover pretty much every aspect of advertising, performing, revenue, and the division thereof, and they are very strictly enforced. Obviously there's a degree of leeway regarding setlists but otherwise the terms are inflexible. To break them would be to risk forfeiting the license.

Of course. To not spell all the terms out in explicit detail would be irresponsible.

The terms would only be as inflexible as BRI's willingness to take any action, especially when it comes to minor infractions. I'm by no means suggesting there's any way the license is not being abided by.

But I'm also not convinced BRI, which includes Mike himself, and a group otherwise unmotivated to change the status quo, would take serious action against minor potential infractions.

It's all theoretical hypothetical gobbledygook of course. I'm just talking in general about contract breaches versus enforcement of breaches.

Considering the reports of BRI having not undertaken any vote on the license since 1999 or 2000, we really don't know how firmly the license terms are enforced, especially the ones that might be subjective (set list, stage setup, wardrobe, etc.) if present in the license terms.

The license is what allows him to do things his own way, otherwise everyone within BRI would have the power to say who is in the touring band, who's not, who the backup musicians are, etc. The license is the device that allows Mike to have full control of the touring band.

Yeah, I was sensing that this was the road you were heading down. I simply disagree your premise, because it starts with Mike having the exclusive license, and then tries to reason out why he does everything his way. In that scenario, then of course it’s a simple as can be. Mike has the license, and the license allows him to do things his own way.

The problem is, this doesn’t address why he has the license in the first place. The license was not thrust upon him unwillingly. Mike SOUGHT the license, and did so I believe precisely because he wanted to do things his own way. There is evidence of this pattern even when Al and Carl were still in the band. Bits of this are described in the Marks/Stebbins book and I believe Stebbins’ FAQ book. It is also addressed in Peter Ames Carlin’s book. There was a continued pattern of wanting to the run the band his way, and slowly he accomplished this both through action and circumstance.

Mike doesn’t do things his way because the license landed in his lap and thus allows him to, or forces him to be in charge. He wanted to do things his way, then procured the license in order to accomplish that, and now can do things the way he wants to. I’m not sure why it’s objectionable to point out that he wants full control and wants to do everything his own way.  

That may be overstating it a bit. Being able to use the name to tour doesn't give one member the authority to stage the show any way he may choose - meaning if someone got the rights to tour as the Beach Boys, and chose to present a show full of non-Beach Boys cover songs or even radical reworkings or rearrangements of Beach Boys songs to the point where they strayed from the original sound of those songs that fans paid to hear, BRI as the owner of that name I think would have the control over that name enough to suspend the license. It would be on the grounds that the name Beach Boys was being used to sell tickets for a show that wasn't giving fans what they were paying to see, which was a Beach Boys show. I know similar agreements are in place with many touring and "name" bands, where use of the name is not an absolute ownership of that name, and whatever entity has control of the name has to present that band's music in a certain way to comply with their agreement to headline shows under that band's name.

I'm just saying that because allowing Mike or any other band member or family member going forward to use the name Beach Boys does not give that entity absolute control over that name and the power to present whatever they want on stage.

I believe that was a pretty strong condition made in the agreements, so it wouldn't become a situation where the brand name could be used to present just anything on stage as the Beach Boys, including poor-quality shows or even a revue type of show where the setlists and the songs didn't reflect what the brand name represented.

And I could be wrong, but I believe BRI still has the ownership enough to suspend the license if such things were to happen. And this goes beyond Mike or anyone else in 2014, and was probably looking ahead to a situation like the "Glenn Miller Orchestra" or Elvis' "TCB Band" staging live shows decades after the namesake of the show has passed away. The estates and owners still have control over what gets presented under those artists' name, and are very specific about using original arrangements and the like so it doesn't get ugly for fans and the reputation alike.

So it's not entirely a situation where Mike or anyone else could decide to stage a show full of 50's doo-wop and pop covers and call it the Beach Boys. BRI could step in and say "that's not representative of the name" and suspend it. I think.  

All good points. There are certainly “terms” to the license. How strictly they are enforced, and how specific those terms were written, we of course don’t know.

I do recall that back circa 1999, one of the articles on the band name “issues” included BRI citing cases of Jardine having female singers on stage, performing songs that weren’t “representative” of the band’s image (which couldn’t have been anything beyond deep cuts like “Lookin’ at Tomorrow”, etc.), and for shows being advertised in a misleading fashion.

At that time, BRI obviously had a specific interest in seeking out these potential violations and citing them. These days, with nobody else vying for the license (as far as we know), we do not see BRI citing Mike having his daughter sing on stage, or Mike performing deep cuts like Al was in 1999, or for the couple of instances of Mike’s shows being promoted with pictures, etc. of the C50 lineup.

There would have to, I’m guessing, be a huge, obvious, heinous violation for BRI to scrape up any interest among the other members in taking any action. So yes, if Mike started performing nothing but AC/DC songs, or had a stripper on stage every night, maybe then something would happen.

Perhaps from the outside it appears Brian got more of what he wanted. But he and Mike had an equal stake in the production company. Further, what each faction wanted as it relates to what fans like or want isn't to be totally ignored either. The seemingly Brian-invoked conditions like using mostly his band is not something that many fans tended to disagree with.

We can also deduce from Mike's current setup some of the possible things he would change as compared to C50, and none of the things I can see are preferable to C50 from a fan perspective. There are no doubt MANY things behind the scenes that are preferable for him. And that's fine. It also means it will be characterized as such by some fans. It is an operation that is run the way he wants, to his preference, and theoretically at least occurring in contrast to a full reunion setup preferable to many fans and by all accounts still highly beneficial to all band members. Just not beneficial enough for some.

To be honest, I was trying to get back to your original point and you seem to be moving further away from it. 

Your point seemed to be, `Mike enjoys doing his current thing with Bruce and that is one factor as to why some can understand why the C50 stuff didn`t continue`.

Exactly. As I mentioned before, I didn’t mention any other band members in my original post. It was indeed meant to stand on its own. It was a hugely obvious point to make, but I thought worth making in an attempt to find the C50 demise somehow more palatable.

It has since been met with a couple of “what about Brian?” type of comments. I’ve been addressing those, because people seem to not be able to accept the premise of my original thought without having to add an addendum concerning Brian. I commented on Mike. I didn’t single him out. The thread is about his band.

I’m happy to delve into the (often admittedly tired and repetitive) comparisons between the Brian and Mike, or between any band members. We know enough about these guys, so we’re able to make relatively well-informed comparisons. But my original point was one of those times where no comparisons or contrasts had to be drawn, and I didn’t. Those came from others, and if others need to immediately invoke a “Brian does it too!” defense for some reason, I’m happy to have that discussion too and point out where I feel the comparison is apt and where it isn’t.

Geez, really that obvious? Not really. Mike's license allows him to put together, hire who he wants in the touring band. BRI has nothing to do with that. Mike calls the shots. C50 was a different animal, either outside Mike's license or a specialty added to it for a finite time. Mike did give up partial control for the C50 Tour. Brian basically got his whole backing band included, had input on the setlists that Mike would have had 100% control over in his license. When the C50 Tour was over, it reverted back to Mike's license and he calls all the shots again. Because Mike has a license from BRI, that is how it affects on the Beach Boys name.

The obvious point involved Mike preferring to do things his own way, as most people do. I'm not sure why the license situation, which we all understand well, is even being referenced.

The reason Mike pursued and continues to use the license is because he likes to do things his own way. That's the only way the license relates at all to what I originally addressed.

Perhaps from the outside it appears Brian got more of what he wanted. But he and Mike had an equal stake in the production company. Further, what each faction wanted as it relates to what fans like or want isn't to be totally ignored either. The seemingly Brian-invoked conditions like using mostly his band is not something that many fans tended to disagree with.

We can also deduce from Mike's current setup some of the possible things he would change as compared to C50, and none of the things I can see are preferable to C50 from a fan perspective. There are no doubt MANY things behind the scenes that are preferable for him. And that's fine. It also means it will be characterized as such by some fans. It is an operation that is run the way he wants, to his preference, and theoretically at least occurring in contrast to a full reunion setup preferable to many fans and by all accounts still highly beneficial to all band members. Just not beneficial enough for some.

To be honest, I was trying to get back to your original point and you seem to be moving further away from it. 

Your point seemed to be, `Mike enjoys doing his current thing with Bruce and that is one factor as to why some can understand why the C50 stuff didn`t continue`.

Exactly. As I mentioned before, I didn’t mention any other band members in my original post. It was indeed meant to stand on its own. It was a hugely obvious point to make, but I thought worth making in an attempt to find the C50 demise somehow more palatable.

It has since been met with a couple of “what about Brian?” type of comments. I’ve been addressing those, because people seem to not be able to accept the premise of my original thought without having to add an addendum concerning Brian. I commented on Mike. I didn’t single him out. The thread is about his band.

I’m happy to delve into the (often admittedly tired and repetitive) comparisons between the Brian and Mike, or between any band members. We know enough about these guys, so we’re able to make relatively well-informed comparisons. But my original point was one of those times where no comparisons or contrasts had to be drawn, and I didn’t. Those came from others, and if others need to immediately invoke a “Brian does it too!” defense for some reason, I’m happy to have that discussion too and point out where I feel the comparison is apt and where it isn’t.

[They all got some things they wanted, and had to do a few things differently than they would have on their own. At the end of it, who wanted to continue that way and who wanted to end it and go back to their own thing?]

My previous post points out that inherently pretty much everybody likes things their own way. I’m not sure how you could take away from that statement that I feel anyone has a monopoly on feeling that way.

Brian’s band isn’t called “The Beach Boys”, e.g. the same band name as the band that toured in 2012. That’s one difference. One could argue there is inherently more room (and I’m not talking about legalities) for Brian Wilson to be in charge of a tour that goes by the name “Brian Wilson.”

But again, my original point wasn’t to criticize Mike for liking things his own way. I was pointing out that this was a practical reason for feeling the reunion should have or had to end. If Mike supporters (or whatever we want to call various opinions and factions) feel this still is not fair enough to Mike, I’m not sure what else I’m supposed to say. Even Mike has said he likes doing things his own way. I didn’t even mention Brian or any other members in my original post talking about this point regarding Mike.

I was, believe it or not, trying to not let it devolve into the typical Brian vs. Mike debate. It’s easy to go down that road.

For instance, I don’t believe the “calling the shots” factor is the same for Brian and Mike (and certainly not for the other guys). Case in point: The C50 tour was a compromise. They all got some things they wanted, and had to do a few things differently than they would have on their own. At the end of it, who wanted to continue that way and who wanted to end it and go back to their own thing?

I think it`s fair to say that Brian had a fair amount more of what he wanted though...

I do agree with the idea that the reason the end of the C50 tour is more palatable to some people is because they feel that it could only continue if they all wanted it to which is the way it has been for a long time.

Perhaps from the outside it appears Brian got more of what he wanted. But he and Mike had an equal stake in the production company. Further, what each faction wanted as it relates to what fans like or want isn't to be totally ignored either. The seemingly Brian-invoked conditions like using mostly his band is not something that many fans tended to disagree with.

We can also deduce from Mike's current setup some of the possible things he would change as compared to C50, and none of the things I can see are preferable to C50 from a fan perspective. There are no doubt MANY things behind the scenes that are preferable for him. And that's fine. It also means it will be characterized as such by some fans. It is an operation that is run the way he wants, to his preference, and theoretically at least occurring in contrast to a full reunion setup preferable to many fans and by all accounts still highly beneficial to all band members. Just not beneficial enough for some.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but Brian used to say stuff about "doing his own thing" and "calling the shots" with his band in the late 90's and early 2000's. Why is Mike always signaled out for this stuff? I don't believe he has a monopoly on liking to do things his own way.

My previous post points out that inherently pretty much everybody likes things their own way. I’m not sure how you could take away from that statement that I feel anyone has a monopoly on feeling that way.

Brian’s band isn’t called “The Beach Boys”, e.g. the same band name as the band that toured in 2012. That’s one difference. One could argue there is inherently more room (and I’m not talking about legalities) for Brian Wilson to be in charge of a tour that goes by the name “Brian Wilson.”

But again, my original point wasn’t to criticize Mike for liking things his own way. I was pointing out that this was a practical reason for feeling the reunion should have or had to end. If Mike supporters (or whatever we want to call various opinions and factions) feel this still is not fair enough to Mike, I’m not sure what else I’m supposed to say. Even Mike has said he likes doing things his own way. I didn’t even mention Brian or any other members in my original post talking about this point regarding Mike.

I was, believe it or not, trying to not let it devolve into the typical Brian vs. Mike debate. It’s easy to go down that road.

For instance, I don’t believe the “calling the shots” factor is the same for Brian and Mike (and certainly not for the other guys). Case in point: The C50 tour was a compromise. They all got some things they wanted, and had to do a few things differently than they would have on their own. At the end of it, who wanted to continue that way and who wanted to end it and go back to their own thing?

Mike seems to be a fun enough guy when he's in his own element, doing what he wants, on his terms.

You realise you can substitute "Brian" for "Mike" without invalidating the truth of that sentence by one iota ? 

I think that kind of goes without saying. Nearly everyone on the face of the planet is more comfortable doing everything the way they want, on their own terms. The difference, which I was trying to avoid going into in great detail (in order to avoid another A versus B debate about band members), is that some people still are able to be their same selves when having to compromise, and/or let someone else be in charge, etc. Not just “put up” with it, or tolerate it.

In other words, Jardine or Johnston or Marks for instance don’t have to own the license, pick the setlist, pick the band members, be the band leader, pick the type of venues, etc. in order to be happy and not gripe about being in the band. I would also argue that Brian, while needing a laundry list of conditions in order to function, especially on the road, does so in part not out of ego, but out of simply the fragility of what it takes to get him out there. Is that a double standard? Arguably, yes. But when you’re the guy responsible for the group, you get that benefit of the doubt sometimes.

The point is, I see that Mike is less ill-at-ease doing his own thing. He even pretty much admits as much. He has said in numerous interviews that he likes doing things his own way. He doesn’t just prefer the logistical setup of his band. He prefers that that setup is *his*. He set it up, he runs it, he answers to no one. His interviews read a bit more like “Hey, Brian likes vanilla, I like chocolate, Al likes unflavored ice milk, we’re all just doing our own thing.” The difference is that Mike likes his thing because it’s his own thing. Post C-50, the one difference is that Brian and Al didn’t prefer to go back to their own thing (and in the case of Al, he has usually not been doing his own thing by choice; but rather due to lack of anything else to do). In that moment, their preference was not doing something simply because they would be in charge and run everything. They wanted to do another round of staying together, compromising, maybe doing a few things here and there that weren’t their preference, because that was still ultimately what they thought would be best.

More to the point, I don’t see the same tone and personality changes in Al or Brian (or Dave or Bruce) between C50 and post-C50 that I see in Mike. To come back around to my original point in my previous post, which truly wasn’t meant as a weird backhanded compliment, my point was that I accept and acknowledge that Mike is happier when everything goes his way, on his terms, and that’s the most acceptable, legitimate reason from a fan perspective that I can think of to find the end of the reunion palatable.

I'd be way impressed with Mike's challenge if he was actually making a sly reference to his epic, awful, awesome R&R Hall of Fame speech.

Is the bucket challenge a cheat if you wear a hat while you do it?