Fool on the Hill

it's an obvious pick, 'Range' is gonna be happy I think.

More obvious than Fool on the Hill? All You Need Is Love was a worldwide #1. It's got a lot of fans.

Easy vote for me this round Fool on the Hill

Magical Mystery Tour

Villains.

I think both the benefits and harms of drugs on creativity tend to be exaggerated. Creative people are creative, boring people are boring. Chemicals might spur or dull this or that idea, but a drug-free Brian wasn't going to be Mike Love, or vice versa.

Work ethic and dependability might have suffered with some of the drugs. Performance certainly did at times, as we see with Carl in the Australia tour in the later 70s. But writing? I don't think it's all that big a part of the picture.

^my thoughts exactly.

Would the music have been different with or without the drugs? Sure, but to what extent we'll never know. Ultimately, drug abuse negatively affects a person's ability to live a productive and well-adjusted life. The ability to complete tasks is greatly hindered. The more I think about it, it's likely that drugs did more harm to the Beach Boys and the Beatles than any other factor. Where there's drugs, dysfunction is not far behind!

Wow, Ebb and Flow, I hadn't heard that snippet before! Thanks!

[But the background section of Mike's 2005 "Mail on Sunday" lawsuit states: BRI then granted an exclusive license to Mike Love to perform at live concerts using The Beach Boys registered trademark.I also recall one of the Jardine/BRI court rulings/documents stating something alone the lines of "it's unclear whether Jardine had a valid license or not" in response to Jardine's contention that he both had a valid license and didn't need one, with the court noting that it was a moot point by that point in time because Love had the exclusive license.]

 ....The court seemed to be unclear themselves as to whether Al had a valid license, and he successfully toured throughout most of 1999 (though still constantly being harangued and hassled). So it was never actually proven as to whether Al had violated anything during most of that year.

Now, by the end of 1999, Mike had gained an *exclusive* license to use the name. So yes, by that point, Al was out of luck. Indeed, it was only after this at the very end of 1999 and into 2000 that court injunctions keeping him from using the "BBFF" name were finally successful....

Are there other legal documents besides this http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html that you are pulling from? Because other than Mike proclaiming in his 2005 Smile complaint that he had "the" exclusive license, I can't find it.

It wasn’t really proven that Al did anything wrong in 1999? Al was put on notice 10/28/98 that BRI objected to his use of the trademark. They didn't file a complaint for 5 months so that proves he wasn't doing anything wrong? Your version of events makes it sound like Mike subsequently acquiring an exclusive license was the tipping point in the lawsuit, yet it’s not even mentioned in BRI v Jardine. The ‘background’ section skips from BRI’s 4/9/99 complaint to the preliminary injunction on 3/28/00 without mentioning it. Let’s assume for a moment that Al did in fact have a non-exclusive license which expired on 12/31/99 and Mike (at this time) acquired an exclusive license which led to the injunction and ultimately BRI’s summary judgment…Was Al paying for his license in 1999? Either at Mike’s rate (which is what was agreed upon at the 7/14/98 meeting) or at Al’s 5% suggestion which was rejected? There is no evidence of that. Was he choosing from a list of approved booking agencies and managers? No. Who knows how many other potential conditions Al was violating in 1999 (assuming he even had a license). The point is, the courts don’t seem so confused over Al’s license as they were sure that he infringed on the trademark. They don’t mention Mike’s exclusive license. They do discuss, though, how in the absence of a license Al did not have protection under classic fair use or nominative fair use doctrines, nor numerous other defenses. Al threw the book at BRI and nothing stuck.

Just to be clear, I'm interested in figuring out what exactly transpired, best I can. I'm not commenting on who was in the right (or wrong) or how I wish it had gone down.

I pored over numerous lawsuit filings over the course of 15+ years debating with Cam, so it's tough to go back to it in-depth again.

But the background section of Mike's 2005 "Mail on Sunday" lawsuit states:

BRI then granted an exclusive license to Mike Love to perform at live concerts using The Beach Boys registered trademark.

I also recall one of the Jardine/BRI court rulings/documents stating something alone the lines of "it's unclear whether Jardine had a valid license or not" in response to Jardine's contention that he both had a valid license and didn't need one, with the court noting that it was a moot point by that point in time because Love had the exclusive license.

Al lost the lawsuit. All I was saying is that, to my recollection, regardless of infringement issues, in at least one court document the court acknowledged it was unclear whether Al had a valid non-exclusive license and, at least that point in time, stated they didn't need to address that issue because of subsequent events that *were* clear.

Beyond that, I put my 15 years of debate into that lawsuit and have little interest in raking Al over the coals again. He lost the lawsuit. He was victimized by that whole ordeal in my opinion and had no help from other shareholders. But I don't think anybody contends he should have won the main crux of that lawsuit.

Right, I acknowledged the 'Mail On Sunday' lawsuit, but it's hard for me to lend too much weight to those complaints considering the language and inaccuracies therein. As an aside, I honestly thought it was a joke the first time I read it. I thought someone edited it before posting it on the board! Also, there were no other pertinent details, such as, a date. I do recall in the BRI/Jardine documents that 'Al's license was unclear but that it was deemed a moot point', my only contention is that i don't recall it being because Love had acquired an exclusive license.  With that said, I could totally be miss-remembering or simply wrong on that point. It's really not important, I know, but it's frustrating trying to piece it all together. I appreciate that you've researched and debated this extensively on the board in the past, and now that I've taken my swing at it, I'll be moving on too. The problem is, there is plenty of room for speculation. For instance, Mike said in his book that Al had a license. Wtf!  That's just one of many.

 ....The court seemed to be unclear themselves as to whether Al had a valid license, and he successfully toured throughout most of 1999 (though still constantly being harangued and hassled). So it was never actually proven as to whether Al had violated anything during most of that year.

Now, by the end of 1999, Mike had gained an *exclusive* license to use the name. So yes, by that point, Al was out of luck. Indeed, it was only after this at the very end of 1999 and into 2000 that court injunctions keeping him from using the "BBFF" name were finally successful....

Are there other legal documents besides this http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html that you are pulling from? Because other than Mike proclaiming in his 2005 Smile complaint that he had "the" exclusive license, I can't find it.

It wasn’t really proven that Al did anything wrong in 1999? Al was put on notice 10/28/98 that BRI objected to his use of the trademark. They didn't file a complaint for 5 months so that proves he wasn't doing anything wrong? Your version of events makes it sound like Mike subsequently acquiring an exclusive license was the tipping point in the lawsuit, yet it’s not even mentioned in BRI v Jardine. The ‘background’ section skips from BRI’s 4/9/99 complaint to the preliminary injunction on 3/28/00 without mentioning it. Let’s assume for a moment that Al did in fact have a non-exclusive license which expired on 12/31/99 and Mike (at this time) acquired an exclusive license which led to the injunction and ultimately BRI’s summary judgment…Was Al paying for his license in 1999? Either at Mike’s rate (which is what was agreed upon at the 7/14/98 meeting) or at Al’s 5% suggestion which was rejected? There is no evidence of that. Was he choosing from a list of approved booking agencies and managers? No. Who knows how many other potential conditions Al was violating in 1999 (assuming he even had a license). The point is, the courts don’t seem so confused over Al’s license as they were sure that he infringed on the trademark. They don’t mention Mike’s exclusive license. They do discuss, though, how in the absence of a license Al did not have protection under classic fair use or nominative fair use doctrines, nor numerous other defenses. Al threw the book at BRI and nothing stuck.

Just to be clear, I'm interested in figuring out what exactly transpired, best I can. I'm not commenting on who was in the right (or wrong) or how I wish it had gone down.

Someone gave 'Beach Boys Today!' a 1 Explain yourself!

I give All Dressed Up a 4. I always enjoy listening to this song. It's a shame it wasn't released until 1990. I guess it was too important the world receive 'Bull Session with Big Daddy' instead.

Don't know if this is true, but about 15 years ago an insider on the Pet Sounds Mailing List claimed that Brian felt pressured to give the license to Mike, because he still owed him some of the money that Mike won in the lawsuit.

Would not surprise me one bit.

Interesting, Tord. Thanks for sharing! I don't doubt that Brian felt pressured by Mike.

That would be much appreciated!

What is the alternative that is being suggested otherwise?

Well, for one...sweetdudejim was suggesting that in the wake of C50 if Brian, Al, and Carl's estate decided to (or possibly even just threatened to) move towards exerting more control over Mike's touring, not renewing the license, or revoking it, then Mike may have decided to compromise and continue the reunion in some fashion. I think that, professionally, touring as "The Beach Boys" is the most important thing to Mike and as a result BRI has a great deal of leverage. I don't buy into the idea that BRI's hands are tied, and I do think that gets lost in the discussion a bit. I wish we knew the details. I'd love to see Mike's licensing agreement. I'm not even convinced that his license is exclusive, but that detail is not important. We don't know the term of the license, but to assume that there isn't a finite term is highly presumptuous IMO. As far as I can tell, it's common practice for a trademark license to automatically renew at the end of each term. No need to vote on it, and it's not much harder to send a non-renewal notice either. Again, I don't know the details, but the idea that Mike has an exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable for any reason (including breach) license, is highly unlikely! At that point BRI would have effectively (if not legally) relinquished all rights to their most valuable asset. I understand the advantages to Mike's touring since 1998, especially in regard to Carl's estate, but why dismiss the potential for BRI to monitor Mike's tours more closely? It is literally the obligation of a licensor to do so. It's an ongoing process. They could at least eliminate this confusion between Mike solo material and "The Beach Boys".

As far as CenturyDeprived's points, I agree that Brian is too forgiving (and uninterested) to rock the boat most of the time, but his personality didn't stop him from threatening to revoke Mike's license numerous times in the early 2000s according to Mike's Smile lawsuit. I also think the argument that Mike suing BRI is a significant (if not insurmountable) deterrent is exaggerated. Yes, it's a factor, we are talking about Mike Love, but assuming that BRI has the superior legal position (which is not an unfair assumption considering the details that we know), Mike's lawsuit would fail and it would probably fail with the same relative speed that his Smile lawsuit did.

By the way, in regard to the constant touring...didn't Mike claim that as a condition of his licensing agreement that he must tour continuously? Just an observation.

Also KDS, what do you think the chances of Mike ending C50 would have been if he didn't have THE NAME OF THE FUCKING BAND to fall back on if he quit? I have this weird feeling that if the only way to tour as The Beach Boys meant touring with Brian and Al, he might have  thought quite a bit more about it.

Which is BRI's fault, unfortunately. I really think it's time for BRI to start monitoring Mike more closely. They are the licensors, they have the power.

But, I think there were more factors than just Mike Love to the ending of the reunion.   But, that's a whole other topic. 

Of course, there were other factors, but ultimately Mike Love decided not to continue the reunion. Mike Love's the politician who lets a tax break expire and claims he didn't raise taxes.

["they take the big one"]

Not the cringiest, but South Bay Surfer is worthy of a mention. It's a mess and sure as hell is embarrassing alongside Surfer Girl, In My Room, Little Deuce Coupe, and Catch A Wave (and the rest of the album for that matter!). Typically, it bothers me how frequently posters throw around the term "filler", but in this case it is totally appropriate. It sounds sloppy, incomplete, and tossed together. The most cringe-worthy bits being Mike's prominent bass vocal interjections -"We'll find the big one" - "they take the big one". Then, when it's time for the next one we faintly hear a mumbled "you're gonna eat it". The unison singing, the lyrics, the production, the mix...it all sounds amateurish. The drum fill sounds worse in the mono mix, unfortunately. Anyway, with all that said, I still listen to it from time to time and kinda enjoy it. I don't HATE it, but in the context of the Surfer Girl album I think it's cringe-worthy.

[GOODBYE]

Hello GOODBYE

[I made this playlist for a very casual fan]

I recently had great success creating a playlist using very similar criteria to the original poster, jcm. I made this playlist for a very casual fan, so I decided to focus on the high points of the '60s and early '70s. It is largely chronological, with a strong emphasis on flow. It's quite long (47 songs, 2hr 7min), but I was able to achieve a fairly even distribution between early and 'later' period songs (17 pre-PS; 13 PS/Smile; 17 post-Smile). Even still, there's noticeable omissions (and I'm sure for many here a few odd inclusions), but I really wanted it to flow as smoothly as possible and I was always planning on making a 2nd playlist (Sunshine Tomorrow hadn't been released yet when I created this). I also created this playlist for myself, so there's that

Anyway, the person I made this for has enthusiastically informed me that she has since listened to it about a dozen times, including at gatherings, and also checked out the film Love & Mercy as a result. Loving all of it, as far as I can tell.

Surfin' Safari
Lonely Sea
Little Deuce Coupe
Surfer Girl
I Get Around
Don't Worry Baby
When I Grow Up (To Be A Man)
Hushabye
All Summer Long
Please Let Me Wonder
Kiss Me Baby
Dance Dance Dance
Help Me Rhonda
Fun Fun Fun
California Girls
Let Him Run Wild
And Your Dream Come True
Wouldn't It Be Nice
You Still Believe In Me
I'm Waiting For The Day
I Just Wasn't Made For These Times
God Only Knows
Our Prayer
Gee
Heroes and Villains
Surf's Up
Good Vibrations
Wonderful
My Only Sunshine (Part 2: Master Take Vocal Overdub)
Vega-Tables
Break Away
This Whole World
I Can Hear Music
California Saga (On My Way...)
He Come Down
Forever
Old Man River
Cabinessence
Deirdre
All I Wanna Do
Add Some Music To Your Day
California Saga (Big Sur)
All This Is That
Sail On Sailor
Marcella
Til I Die
Baby Blue

Yep, I had to close it with Baby Blue from '79.

Another 5! Incredible, stunning work. It doesn't get much better than this. I LOVE the vocal arrangement. One of my all-time favorite, in fact. Must be a top 10 BBs song, no? I think it's one of their finest moments. The entire group shines on this song.

"On the guitar, Nicky Wonder... On the drums... The drums are GREAT!"

  gotta love it! Thanks for taking the time to review the show.

[Goodbye]

Hello Goodbye

...ultimately this whole thing with solo Mike Love tunes being performed by a band labeled as "The Beach Boys" stems from the bad decision that was made around 1998 with the license and everything..."

The lines have always been blurry. This really goes back to the '70s and '80s when solo Dennis/Brian/Mike/Carl songs were performed at BBs concerts. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I don't think the two situations are quite analogous. Back in the 70s and 80s all of the living and willing members of the band were *in* the band using the name. The "touring band" and the "studio band" were one and the same. Had the 1982 touring "Beach Boys" wanted to release a re-recording of "Do It Again", it would have (or could have) been released under the BB name.

In 2017, the "band" essentially doesn't exist and instead Mike is a solo artist who, for concerts *only*, pays to use the BB name. So you can have the same guys performing the same song on stage and then on record, but under two different names. So the situation is more confusing because Mike as "The Beach Boys" is performing a Beach Boys song on stage, and then on record release the *same recording* (remember, they just mimed to the studio track for PBS) under Mike's name.

In 1983, the "touring Beach Boys" were essentially "covering" live Carl's "What You Do To Me" record. With Carl present.  

In 2017, Mike Love solo is covering on record a song originally recorded by the Beach Boys, and recorded in 2017 by a licensed "Beach Boys" touring operation.

A closer analogy would be if Carl had released his solo album in 1981, but then went out with his *solo band* without most of the other BBs as "The Beach Boys" on tour, playing stuff from his solo record and old Beach Boys songs.

Well, yeah, all situations are different. The point being that the "touring BBs" performing solo songs live has precedent going back decades. That's fact. I was thinking more along the lines of Pisces Brothers, as sweetdudejim had mentioned that song, so I admit that Do It Again 2017 presents an additional twist, but still...the point stands. I'd hope/prefer that a solo Mike (or Bruce) song was announced as such before being performed, to avoid any confusion. And I suppose I wouldn't have been opposed to the license barring the performance of solo songs, but it appears that is not the case. I assume that wasn't even considered ?

But the entire setup and legal standing for the current "touring Beach Boys" is completely different now as compared to the 70s or 80s. And I'm not talking about the members or lineup. I mean that presently, the "touring Beach Boys" is essentially one member's solo tour which pays a licensing fee to use the name.

Back in the 70s and 80s, the "touring band" and the "studio band" were one and the same legally. Today, the "studio band" literally doesn't exist, and the "touring band" is legally barred from using its own licensed name for studio recordings.

So no, the "touring band" performing a "solo" song in 2017 is not the same as the touring band performing a solo song in the 70s or 80s. It's a different presentation, a different connotation, and a different implication.

Dennis wasn't trying to blur the line between the BBs and his solo stuff when he did a few "Pacific Ocean Blue" songs for like five minutes back in 1977.  Arguably, in the case of both Dennis in 1977 and Carl in 1983 performing solo songs at BB shows, it was a case of adding the songs to the setlist for a short time to avoid those members leaving the touring band to tour solo (and yes, I know the Dennis solo tour issue in 1977 was more complicated than that of course).

I'm not sure what you are arguing with me about. I only responded to one line of sweetdudejim's post. Not entirely disagreeing, but adding another layer. I was simply considering that the way the BBs ran their tours in the past (performing solo songs), may have informed licensing decisions. As I implied, I'm not a big fan of Mike performing solo songs, but I can't pretend to retroactively have a problem with Dennis/Carl/Brian solo material performances at BBs concerts. I acknowledge the differences between the situations that you have stated, but proving that two situations are not exactly the same, does not prove that there are not any similarities. Differences in presentation, connotation, and implication are irrelevant. All I was saying is...the band touring legally as "The Beach Boys" has performed solo songs, then and now. Not entirely unnatural, is it?

The other question to ponder: does Mike actually *care* about brand confusion when he uses the "our" in talking about the release?

Does anyone actually think he cares?

Not me.

As for Do It Again '17, I can't get past the autotune and "do its". It's embarrassing. More so for Mike than anyone or anything else. Not to mention, totally unnecessary.

...ultimately this whole thing with solo Mike Love tunes being performed by a band labeled as "The Beach Boys" stems from the bad decision that was made around 1998 with the license and everything..."

The lines have always been blurry. This really goes back to the '70s and '80s when solo Dennis/Brian/Mike/Carl songs were performed at BBs concerts. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I don't think the two situations are quite analogous. Back in the 70s and 80s all of the living and willing members of the band were *in* the band using the name. The "touring band" and the "studio band" were one and the same. Had the 1982 touring "Beach Boys" wanted to release a re-recording of "Do It Again", it would have (or could have) been released under the BB name.

In 2017, the "band" essentially doesn't exist and instead Mike is a solo artist who, for concerts *only*, pays to use the BB name. So you can have the same guys performing the same song on stage and then on record, but under two different names. So the situation is more confusing because Mike as "The Beach Boys" is performing a Beach Boys song on stage, and then on record release the *same recording* (remember, they just mimed to the studio track for PBS) under Mike's name.

In 1983, the "touring Beach Boys" were essentially "covering" live Carl's "What You Do To Me" record. With Carl present. 

In 2017, Mike Love solo is covering on record a song originally recorded by the Beach Boys, and recorded in 2017 by a licensed "Beach Boys" touring operation.

A closer analogy would be if Carl had released his solo album in 1981, but then went out with his *solo band* without most of the other BBs as "The Beach Boys" on tour, playing stuff from his solo record and old Beach Boys songs.

Well, yeah, all situations are different. The point being that the "touring BBs" performing solo songs live has precedent going back decades. That's fact. I was thinking more along the lines of Pisces Brothers, as sweetdudejim had mentioned that song, so I admit that Do It Again 2017 presents an additional twist, but still...the point stands. I'd hope/prefer that a solo Mike (or Bruce) song was announced as such before being performed, to avoid any confusion. And I suppose I wouldn't have been opposed to the license barring the performance of solo songs, but it appears that is not the case. I assume that wasn't even considered ?

...ultimately this whole thing with solo Mike Love tunes being performed by a band labeled as "The Beach Boys" stems from the bad decision that was made around 1998 with the license and everything..."

The lines have always been blurry. This really goes back to the '70s and '80s when solo Dennis/Brian/Mike/Carl songs were performed at BBs concerts. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

5. No question. PLMW is an all-time favorite of mine. I never tire of it.

Not that my mind wants to... but it's impossible for me not to notice how much "little girl" sounds like the N-word in A Thing Or Two. Ever since I read that in the 'misheard vocals' thread, I've been suffering through it (because I like the song). I was really hoping that the stereo remix might help, but it didn't

[Goodbye]

Hello Goodbye