Brian & Al KLOS Show 12/13/12

[EgoHanger1966]

Wouldn't the reason he would like playing a couple of gigs in Oregon is because he has family up there?  Just a guess. Unless a more nefarious reason is known. Also, as far as not making it clear who's in the band, that may be on individual promoters, not Mike and Bruce. Or they take that attitude until it's brought to their attention by Brian's people or whoever that they need to have the promoters make it clear who's actually in the band for that gig.

No family there.  Bad guess.

It's fairly obvious what he's hinting at....but really though, that doesn't seem like the sole reason to schedule a gig...

[Andrew G. Doe]

Also, as far as not making it clear who's in the band, that may be on individual promoters, not Mike and Bruce.

Exactly. Mike's people provide all promoters with pre-written publicity material stating exactly who is - and who isn't - in the band (and photos). They can't be held responsible when a promoter decides to ignore what is, I would imagine, a legally binding contract to use the promo stuff provided.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Wouldn't the reason he would like playing a couple of gigs in Oregon is because he has family up there?  Just a guess. Unless a more nefarious reason is known. Also, as far as not making it clear who's in the band, that may be on individual promoters, not Mike and Bruce. Or they take that attitude until it's brought to their attention by Brian's people or whoever that they need to have the promoters make it clear who's actually in the band for that gig.

No family there.  Bad guess.

It's fairly obvious what he's hinting at....but really though, that doesn't seem like the sole reason to schedule a gig...

True, it's a regular stop on the Mike/Bruce casino tour.  Two shows is unusual but not surprising based on what I know.

[Wirestone]

Also, as far as not making it clear who's in the band, that may be on individual promoters, not Mike and Bruce.

Exactly. Mike's people provide all promoters with pre-written publicity material stating exactly who is - and who isn't - in the band (and photos). They can't be held responsible when a promoter decides to ignore what is, I would imagine, a legally binding contract to use the promo stuff provided.

I seem to recall that Mike's lawsuit against Al included just such an issue -- promoters misbilled Al's shows, and yet Mike held him personally responsible. Why does Mike get a pass on such a thing when he refused to give it to his bandmate?

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Also, as far as not making it clear who's in the band, that may be on individual promoters, not Mike and Bruce.

Exactly. Mike's people provide all promoters with pre-written publicity material stating exactly who is - and who isn't - in the band (and photos). They can't be held responsible when a promoter decides to ignore what is, I would imagine, a legally binding contract to use the promo stuff provided.

I seem to recall that Mike's lawsuit against Al included just such an issue -- promoters misbilled Al's shows, and yet Mike held him personally responsible. Why does Mike get a pass on such a thing when he refused to give it to his bandmate?

One one hand this show promo seems to infer that Brian, Al, David, Carl and Dennis may still be in the band and on tour; another slant is that it leaves the door open for more reunion shows.

[Wirestone]

For that matter, the fact that these type of threads include such speculation about a license -- as if that has any bearing on the Beach Boys besides the technicality of which group of dudes gets to use a trademark -- shows how easy it is to lose the proverbial forest for the trees.

[HeyJude]

Also, as far as not making it clear who's in the band, that may be on individual promoters, not Mike and Bruce.

Exactly. Mike's people provide all promoters with pre-written publicity material stating exactly who is - and who isn't - in the band (and photos). They can't be held responsible when a promoter decides to ignore what is, I would imagine, a legally binding contract to use the promo stuff provided.

I seem to recall that Mike's lawsuit against Al included just such an issue -- promoters misbilled Al's shows, and yet Mike held him personally responsible. Why does Mike get a pass on such a thing when he refused to give it to his bandmate?

I tried pointing this out in another thread, to no avail particularly. The fact that BRI pointed out promoters falsely advertising Al's show may be nothing more than a bit of irony, but it's amusing irony nonetheless. I don't believe the lawsuit specifically concerned shows being billed falsely, but simply used those instances as supporting evidence.

Back then, I remember thinking that it certainly wasn't Al's fault that promoters billed shows incorrectly, but it may have signaled a fundamental flaw in how Al was attempting to tour. The same goes for Mike. It isn't his fault promoters have at any point falsely advertised his shows, but the fact that he tours the way he does, and that he is now touring the way he does very soon after a high-profile reconstituted lineup, is certainly something that allows for some confusion to happen. If they booked more reunion shows, or if Mike used another name, such things would not happen.

But it is of course of no consequence, Mike will continue on as he always has. I see no evidence things will change. I think the best we can hope for is that Mike maybe actually does what he alluded to, possibly putting the reunion back together again in 2014. Unfortunately, the "changeover" from reunion to non-reunion band this year may not exactly lead Mike to become more enthusiastic about doing it that way again in 2014.

[SMiLE Brian]

For that matter, the fact that these type of threads include such speculation about a license -- as if that has any bearing on the Beach Boys besides the technicality of which group of dudes gets to use a trademark -- shows how easy it is to lose the proverbial forest for the trees.

Great points Wirestone, this debate has the red herring of a licence to distract, the real debate is much deeper than that.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Also, as far as not making it clear who's in the band, that may be on individual promoters, not Mike and Bruce.

Exactly. Mike's people provide all promoters with pre-written publicity material stating exactly who is - and who isn't - in the band (and photos). They can't be held responsible when a promoter decides to ignore what is, I would imagine, a legally binding contract to use the promo stuff provided.

I seem to recall that Mike's lawsuit against Al included just such an issue -- promoters misbilled Al's shows, and yet Mike held him personally responsible. Why does Mike get a pass on such a thing when he refused to give it to his bandmate?

Congratulations - you've just contradicted yourself. You're holding Mike responsible for what the promoters do (despite being provided with accurate publicity material) yet bitching because that's exactly what Mike did to Alan. Mike's not getting a pass, at least from anyone here, and the fact is, the promoters are handed accurate promo material.

[HeyJude]

Also, as far as not making it clear who's in the band, that may be on individual promoters, not Mike and Bruce.

Exactly. Mike's people provide all promoters with pre-written publicity material stating exactly who is - and who isn't - in the band (and photos). They can't be held responsible when a promoter decides to ignore what is, I would imagine, a legally binding contract to use the promo stuff provided.

I seem to recall that Mike's lawsuit against Al included just such an issue -- promoters misbilled Al's shows, and yet Mike held him personally responsible. Why does Mike get a pass on such a thing when he refused to give it to his bandmate?

Congratulations - you've just contradicted yourself. You're holding Mike responsible for what the promoters do (despite being provided with accurate publicity material) yet bitching because that's exactly what Mike did to Alan. Mike's not getting a pass, at least from anyone here, and the fact is, the promoters are handed accurate promo material.

I don't think Wirestone is holding Mike accountable as much pointing out the hypocrisy of pointing out Al's shows being billed incorrectly while years later not holding the situation with Mike to the same standard. BRI was all up in arms about Al's shows being billed incorrectly back in 1999, but now it's "all the promoter's fault." Al was not afforded such slack back in 1999.

[Cam Mott]

Also, as far as not making it clear who's in the band, that may be on individual promoters, not Mike and Bruce.

Exactly. Mike's people provide all promoters with pre-written publicity material stating exactly who is - and who isn't - in the band (and photos). They can't be held responsible when a promoter decides to ignore what is, I would imagine, a legally binding contract to use the promo stuff provided.

I seem to recall that Mike's lawsuit against Al included just such an issue -- promoters misbilled Al's shows, and yet Mike held him personally responsible. Why does Mike get a pass on such a thing when he refused to give it to his bandmate?

B.R.I. [Brian, Mike and Carl's estate] held Al responsible for using the trademark without a license. Mike has a license.

[HeyJude]

B.R.I. [Brian, Mike and Carl's estate] held Al responsible for using the trademark without a license. Mike has a license.

BRI used the false advertising of Al's shows as a supporting piece of evidence for suing Al for using the trademark without a license. BRI clearly objected to the false advertising of those shows, and was linking the false billing of shows to Al's alleged wrongdoing in the overarching case. BRI currently does not appear to be objecting to Mike using the trademark in such a way that might allow for the false advertising of his shows.

Once again, all this means is a slight bit of irony in that BRI previously frowned upon a touring operation that was leading to falsely billed shows, and presently does not seem to be objecting. The two cases are only even vaguely similar; there are vastly different circumstances in each case. It's just a bit of irony worth noting. Nothing more.

[Cam Mott]

Mike is the Beach Boys by license, Al was not the Beach Boys because he had no license. Al was misleading the public by using the trademark for a group that was not under the licensed trademark. Mike is under the trademark and regardless of how wrong others may get it or take it, unlike Al, Mike is not falsely claiming the trademark. There is no irony or hypocrisy.

[HeyJude]

Mike is the Beach Boys by license, Al was not the Beach Boys because he had no license. Al was misleading the public by using the trademark for a group that was not under the licensed trademark. Mike is under the trademark and regardless of how wrong others may get it or take it, unlike Al, Mike is not falsely claiming the trademark. There is no irony or hypocrisy.

The irony concerns false billing of shows. It has nothing directly to do with the trademark, or use of the Beach Boys name. BRI used a bit of information in one of their lawsuits as a supporting piece of evidence to make their case to support their licensee. BRI currently doesn't care one bit (nor should they) that a similar thing is happening now to their licensee. That's the only bit of irony. Hypocrisy only concerns any theoretical person who attacked Al for his shows being falsely billed, meaning attacked him specifically for that one thing as if it was his fault, and now would stay silent when a *similar* thing happened to Mike.

[Cam Mott]

The false billing was about Al not being the Beachs Boys. Mike is the Beach Boys. Al was responsible for operating without a license. Mike is not responsible for operating without a license. Al falsely billed himself as the Beach Boys. Mike is not falsely billing himself as the Beach Boys.

[BB Universe]

You're assuming that the current license has an expiry date. Maybe it do, maybe it don't.

I totally agree with AGD's point - we just don't know, which to me, makes the discussion and speculation of "what ifs" regarding use of the name pretty much fruitless as to if anything different would ever happen.

For that matter, the fact that these type of threads include such speculation about a license -- as if that has any bearing on the Beach Boys besides the technicality of which group of dudes gets to use a trademark -- shows how easy it is to lose the proverbial forest for the trees.

If I understand the point correctly, then I guess I respectfully disagree with this comment. It is just the opposite, the license has everything to do with which group of people can use the name and makes all the rest of the discussion pointless, other than from the perspective of opining who should use it. Of course, if the purpose is to give opinions about the use of the name, then reference to the license is only 1 factor...but positing all the different scenarios still is a dead end (unless the license permits otherwise).

[HeyJude]

The false billing was about Al not being the Beachs Boys. Mike is the Beach Boys. Al was responsible for operating without a license. Mike is not responsible for operating without a license. Al falsely billed himself as the Beach Boys. Mike is not falsely billing himself as the Beach Boys.

Again, all semantics, but Al was never accused of calling his band "The Beach Boys" or billing his band as "The Beach Boys." He was accused of using the "Beach Boys" trademark within his band's name ("BBFF"), and of operating without a license to do so. This is an important point only because not even in the BRI lawsuits was there any accusation that Al intentionally billed his band as simply "The Beach Boys", nor any accusation that Al wanted to bill his band as such. The instances where his shows were advertised as "The Beach Boys" were of promoters' doing, not Al's. In the eyes of law, using the "BB'" trademark is usually ultimately the same regardless of how it is used, which is why Al lost the case. But simply as it pertains to specifically billing shows as "The Beach Boys", it should be clarified that nobody ever accused Al of doing that specifically. This is simply a sematic point having to do with that one issue and nothing else. 

So if Al specifically "falsely billed himself as 'The Beach Boys'" because promoters did so, then Mike could equally be accused of "falsely advertising his show as containing Wilson, Jardine, and Marks" because promoters did so. Of course, neither is actually true.

[HeyJude]

You're assuming that the current license has an expiry date. Maybe it do, maybe it don't.

I totally agree with AGD's point - we just don't know, which to me, makes the discussion and speculation of "what ifs" regarding use of the name pretty much fruitless as to if anything different would ever happen.

For that matter, the fact that these type of threads include such speculation about a license -- as if that has any bearing on the Beach Boys besides the technicality of which group of dudes gets to use a trademark -- shows how easy it is to lose the proverbial forest for the trees.

If I understand the point correctly, then I guess I respectfully disagree with this comment. It is just the opposite, the license has everything to do with which group of people can use the name and makes all the rest of the discussion pointless, other than from the perspective of opining who should use it. Of course, if the purpose is to give opinions about the use of the name, then reference to the license is only 1 factor...but positing all the different scenarios still is a dead end (unless the license permits otherwise).

I think one of the problems we have is that I don't think anybody is arguing the current legal state of matters. Mike has the exclusive license to use the name, and will for the forseeable future unless we hear otherwise.

The points being made about who morally/ethically, etc. has the right to use the name has nothing to do with this legality, and is the same fan debate that has been raging for literally decades at this point.

I read Wirestone's comments as simply lamenting the fact that the whole ball of wax has devolved into simply asserting the legality of the use of the name as a trademark. A rebuttal to the question of future "reunion" shows that simply asserts that Mike has the license is completely correct, and also an utter sad state of affairs in light of the history of the band, and more specifically, of the amazing quality of the reunion this year.

The only thing in this whole long-running discussion/debate that has changed and makes any speculation about the actual license to the name worth discussing anew is the recent hullaballoo at the end of the reunion tour. It's unlikely anything will change, but I think Brian's statement about wanting to do more reunion stuff and a vague reference to discussion among "shareholders" is just enough to spur a bit of total speculation about the slim possibility of something changing regarding the license.

[KittyKat]

Wouldn't the reason he would like playing a couple of gigs in Oregon is because he has family up there?  Just a guess. Unless a more nefarious reason is known. Also, as far as not making it clear who's in the band, that may be on individual promoters, not Mike and Bruce. Or they take that attitude until it's brought to their attention by Brian's people or whoever that they need to have the promoters make it clear who's actually in the band for that gig.

No family there.  Bad guess.

His siblings Maureen and Stan live in Oregon. I'm not sure how close to that venue or what part of the state. I recall he introduced them when the reunion played in Oregon. Unless you mean your ex-girlfriend and Mike hit it off big time after their backstage meeting over the summer, and he booked two gigs in Oregon just to see her?

[Pretty Funky]

Meeeoooowwl!

[Cam Mott]

So if Al specifically "falsely billed himself as 'The Beach Boys'" because promoters did so, then Mike could equally be accused of "falsely advertising his show as containing Wilson, Jardine, and Marks" because promoters did so. Of course, neither is actually true.

I think the point being missed is the point was not who was in Al's group but that the group was representing itself as the Beach Boys with the trademark which they did not have license to do. Mike does have a license to represent himself as the Beach Boys.

Apparently others misrepresented who was in Al's group and apparently others are misrepresenting who is in Mike's group, that they have in common. Anyway, Merry Christmas.

[EgoHanger1966]

Wouldn't the reason he would like playing a couple of gigs in Oregon is because he has family up there?  Just a guess. Unless a more nefarious reason is known. Also, as far as not making it clear who's in the band, that may be on individual promoters, not Mike and Bruce. Or they take that attitude until it's brought to their attention by Brian's people or whoever that they need to have the promoters make it clear who's actually in the band for that gig.

No family there.  Bad guess.

His siblings Maureen and Stan live in Oregon. I'm not sure how close to that venue or what part of the state. I recall he introduced them when the reunion played in Oregon. Unless you mean your ex-girlfriend and Mike hit it off big time after their backstage meeting over the summer, and he booked two gigs in Oregon just to see her?

"Mike Love Stole My Baby Away" - has potential!

[Andrew G. Doe]

Bottom line - as long as Mike adheres to the terms of the license (as he has since 1999) and pays the other BRI corporate members their slice of the pie (ditto), no-one's going to rock the boat. What would the main thrust of any lawsuit be - "hey, you're following the rules exactly, but, er, we don't like that" ?  And, as other have pointed out, both Brian & Alan get money for doing nothing when Mike tours. These are not stupid people.

[guitarfool2002]

And, as other have pointed out, both Brian & Alan get money for doing nothing when Mike tours. These are not stupid people.

I want to call this point out just to say the primary reason why Mike would have anything to tour behind for the past 5 decades is Brian Wilson and the classic songs he produced for The Beach Boys. So the image of Brian getting money for sitting on his duff doing nothing while Mike travels around working his ass off isn't quite the way it is. If Brian had not written/produced those songs and created those arrangements which Mike still sells to audiences across the US, there would be no goose that has laid golden eggs for them since 1962.

Would fans pay to see a Beach Boys show comprised entirely of material where Brian was not involved in the original writing or production?

And ultimately if Mike agreed to the terms of that contract, Brian and Al *could* be jerks about it, and show up at Mike's gig with overstuffed easy chairs, a case of beer, and wave big cigars around while cackling loudly in the style of DeNiro in Cape Fear, while Mike sweats out another mid-summer outdoor gig and makes money for the guys sitting there with the beer and cigars watching from the side as he works. 

[SMiLE Brian]

Guitarfool, Brian and Al could also make more money by charging fans to sit with them during Mike and Bruce shows and hear their critiques of the show....