Brian & Al KLOS Show 12/13/12

[Andrew G. Doe]

Yeah, it's been so long, hasn't it. What... 75 days ? 

[The Shift]

Yeah, it's been so long, hasn't it. What... 75 days ? 

As long as it lasts, this time around… fingers crossed. This pairing has more genetic right to bear the Beach Boys name… can't be long before the others find the correct alignment again.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Um... remember what happened last time John. The omens are not good.

[Cam Mott]

Isn't Bruce a longer touring Beach Boy then Al now?

[HeyJude]

Isn't Bruce a longer touring Beach Boy then Al now?

I think that was pointed out several years ago, and it's a factoid of no consequence whatsoever now, just as it was back then. Ed Carter is a longer touring member of the band than Brian Wilson. For that matter, Bruce is a longer touring member than Dennis and Carl too.

I'm particularly at a loss as to what Bruce's years under the licensed BB name has to do with Al and Brian doing a show together.

[HeyJude]

Yeah, it's been so long, hasn't it. What... 75 days ? 

I dunno, apart from the reunion, Al and Brian had peformed about 11 shows together in the last 16 years, so the appearance of those two together is as noteworthy as anything apart from a full reunion.

But I suppose the glee over the breakup of the reunion isn't enough, so now it has broken down into mocking any two Beach Boys other than Mike and Bruce performing together going forward. 

[HeyJude]

I actually have a far-fetched thought about the possible importance of this show with Brian and Al. To avoid the warranted skeptical responses, let me preface this by saying that this is a far-fetched idea, and I'm only pointing it out to spur discussion. This isn't grasping at straws for more reunions, etc..

Going back several years to the timeframe revolving around the Mike-Brian lawsuit concerning the "Smile" album and the "free" CD giveaway, etc., one of the little tidbits buried in the various background details of the case was a reference to Brian (meaning his "people" one would presume) at one point telling Mike that he (Brian) would/could vote to take the license back and tour with Al as "The Beach Boys." Even back then, it sounded more like a bargaining ploy than any serious desire for Brian to do this. I wish I had all the pdfs from the case at my disposal at the moment to grab the precise detail.

In any event, I remember when that detail was revealed that only a year or two previously, Al had done those small handfull of shows with Brian in late 2006/early 2007. I remember wondering back then if those shows had been some sort of "message" or sort of bargaing tactic or bluff, as if to indicate that this lineup was plausible. Sort of a "Hey, I can get Al in the band easily enough. The next step is to start calling it 'The Beach Boys'". Again, all extremely far fetched. But I remember wondering back then if Al joining those shows was about something other than just having Al join in for old time's sake, etc.

The obvious point I'm coming around to is to wonder if Al and Brian playing together now is anything of a similar nature, to send a message, or to assert themselves. Again, let me remind, this is extremely speculative and far-fetched. I don't even believe this, but it's an interesting extremely remote possibility.

The extremely likely scenario is that Brian got this gig and they decided to have Al join in, end of story.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Yeah, it's been so long, hasn't it. What... 75 days ? 

I dunno, apart from the reunion, Al and Brian had peformed about 11 shows together in the last 16 years, so the appearance of those two together is as noteworthy as anything apart from a full reunion.

But I suppose the glee over the breakup of the reunion isn't enough, so now it has broken down into mocking any two Beach Boys other than Mike and Bruce performing together going forward. 

No glee here, and the reunion didn't breakup: rather, it was extended past it's originally contracted lifespan and ended when everyone concerned said it would. Now, had (insert your principal of choice here) said after, say, 17 shows "f*** this, I've had enough", then the reunion would have broken up. Still baffles me that supposedly sentient posters (I'm assuming they're doing their own posting, which of course may not be the case) can't - or more likely won't - comprehend this very simple and documented fact.

[HeyJude]

Well, there could certainly be worse outcomes from this year then getting Brian and Al touring again (and why not bring along Dave?).

The guys should be working together in some configuration.

I certainly hope they can stick together if more reunion stuff is not in the cards. Hopefully they could make it a bit more of a joint effort than the shows Al did with Brian back in 06/07, where Al was pretty under-utlized, just getting a few leads.

[HeyJude]

Yeah, it's been so long, hasn't it. What... 75 days ? 

I dunno, apart from the reunion, Al and Brian had peformed about 11 shows together in the last 16 years, so the appearance of those two together is as noteworthy as anything apart from a full reunion.

But I suppose the glee over the breakup of the reunion isn't enough, so now it has broken down into mocking any two Beach Boys other than Mike and Bruce performing together going forward. 

No glee here, and the reunion didn't breakup: rather, it was extended past it's originally contracted lifespan and ended when everyone concerned said it would. Now, had (insert your principal of choice here) said after, say, 17 shows "f*** this, I've had enough", then the reunion would have broken up. Still baffles me that supposedly sentient posters (I'm assuming they're doing their own posting, which of course may not be the case) can't - or more likely won't - comprehend this very simple and documented fact.

I think this is really a sematics thing, unfortunately. When 3/5 of the "reunion" wants to keep going, then it's a bit more than "ending it when everybody agreed it would." Of course that's technically true. Dennis Wilson's solo tour in 1977 also ended when everybody agreed it would, because it never happened in the first place. That doesn't mean some folks didn't want it to happen, and other folks kept it from happening.

I will do my best to avoid using the terminology of the "the reunion was broken up" and use the more accurate "Mike kept the reunion from continuing past it's previously agreed upon contractual end date according to the joint notarized agreement signed by each corporate BRI member."

I'm sorry, but this is not some sort of vague, sketchy "Mike killed the "Smile" album" debate where there are no single obvious answers. The non-continuation of the reunion may be a complicated matter, or maybe not, but a big part of it clearly seems to be Mike Love's lack of a willingness to continue it. That we would have potentially had more reunion shows were it not for Mike's actions is not something that should be completely avoided in a hail of proclamations that "it was contractually agreed upon!"

I think we also may be getting hung up in whether we define the "reunion" as a single project agreed upon beforehand, or if it's a continual state of the band, or a potential continual state of the band. Considering some of the band wanted to continue, I don't think the latter interpretation is completely off the wall.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I actually have a far-fetched thought about the possible importance of this show with Brian and Al. To avoid the warranted skeptical responses, let me preface this by saying that this is a far-fetched idea, and I'm only pointing it out to spur discussion. This isn't grasping at straws for more reunions, etc..

Going back several years to the timeframe revolving around the Mike-Brian lawsuit concerning the "Smile" album and the "free" CD giveaway, etc., one of the little tidbits buried in the various background details of the case was a reference to Brian (meaning his "people" one would presume) at one point telling Mike that he (Brian) would/could vote to take the license back and tour with Al as "The Beach Boys." Even back then, it sounded more like a bargaining ploy than any serious desire for Brian to do this. I wish I had all the pdfs from the case at my disposal at the moment to grab the precise detail.

In any event, I remember when that detail was revealed that only a year or two previously, Al had done those small handfull of shows with Brian in late 2006/early 2007. I remember wondering back then if those shows had been some sort of "message" or sort of bargaing tactic or bluff, as if to indicate that this lineup was plausible. Sort of a "Hey, I can get Al in the band easily enough. The next step is to start calling it 'The Beach Boys'". Again, all extremely far fetched. But I remember wondering back then if Al joining those shows was about something other than just having Al join in for old time's sake, etc.

The obvious point I'm coming around to is to wonder if Al and Brian playing together now is anything of a similar nature, to send a message, or to assert themselves. Again, let me remind, this is extremely speculative and far-fetched. I don't even believe this, but it's an interesting extremely remote possibility.

The extremely likely scenario is that Brian got this gig and they decided to have Al join in, end of story.

Regarding the highlighted section, I don't recall reading anything like that, at the time or since. I would dearly love to see any documentation for this claim (which btw is not feasable, as it would require both Brian & Carl's estate to side with Alan to deprive Mike of his right to tour as The BB: Brian could not do it on his own).

As for Alan touring with Brian for the Pet Sounds 40th anniversary shows, the reason behind his teaming up with Brian (and his subsequent 'departure') is well-known in certain circles - I know several folk here are aware -  and it had nothing whatsoever to do with any political maneuvers.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I'm sorry, but this is not some sort of vague, sketchy "Mike killed the "Smile" album" debate where there are no single obvious answers. The non-continuation of the reunion may be a complicated matter, or maybe not, but a big part of it clearly seems to be Mike Love's lack of a willingness to continue it. That we would have potentially had more reunion shows were it not for Mike's actions is not something that should be completely avoided in a hail of proclamations that "it was contractually agreed upon!"

Brian knew Mike was booking M&B shows back for October in June: it was reported in Rolling Stone and he commented on it, saying "that's news to me". To claim to be suddenly surprised (and upset) several weeks later is, to be polite disingenuous. All the BRI members had to know.

But we've been here before, and at excruciating length: one day the full backstory will emerge.

I think we also may be getting hung up in whether we define the "reunion" as a single project agreed upon beforehand, or if it's a continual state of the band, or a potential continual state of the band. Considering some of the band wanted to continue, I don't think the latter interpretation is completely off the wall.

The whole 'Celebration' project was conceived and agreed on by all parties over two years ago, and consisted of the release of The Smile Sessions, a new studio album and a 50th anniversary tour, accompanied with some archival releases. And that's exactly what happened.

[guitarfool2002]

I'm stepping into this for a brief addition: Sunday I heard an advertisement on the radio (Oldies Station) advertising ticket sales for a Beach Boys show coming up this Spring. They made it a point to mention how this would be a great gift for the music lover, or whatever...the only mention of the band was as "The Beach Boys"

What struck me is that *if* I had no knowledge of the situation as we do on this board and elsewhere, and heard that advert with the enticement to call for tickets, I might be confused as to which band would be appearing.

I'm saying that because as much as it is the absolute burden of the person calling that number to ask or find out the details before purchasing tickets, won't there be people who bought Beach Boys tickets a few months ago who may assume (incorrectly, of course) that they will be buying tickets to see the same act they saw in the summer? Will or should there be an effort to clarify when advertising these shows coming up in 2013?

[guitarfool2002]

Important Addition: If you go to the actual website for the venue and tickets for this specific show at the TD Bank Center, they *specifically* list the following in italics:

"This concert will not feature Brian Wilson, Al Jardine or David Marks"

Someone in marketing and sales (or legal) is on the ball...

OK then, nothing to see here.   

[SMiLE Brian]

Thats what happened when M&B toured my area, they had radio ads with classic song clips, therefore making them out to be the full group to the average guy.

[guitarfool2002]

Thats what happened when M&B toured my area, they had radio ads with classic song clips, therefore making them out to be the full group to the average guy.

Exactly! I put myself in the position of someone not knowing this board or the band like the more loyal fans do, and you wouldn't know the difference in bands from the ad. The version I heard played the original Good Vibrations as the copy was read over it.

After checking the web link, though, it seems someone higher up decided a clarification was needed and the disclaimer was added in italics under the band roster. But nothing of that sort on the radio.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Important Addition: If you go to the actual website for the venue and tickets for this specific show at the TD Bank Center, they *specifically* list the following in italics:

"This concert will not feature Brian Wilson, Al Jardine or David Marks"

Someone in marketing and sales (or legal) is on the ball...

Or someone who keeps an eye on the 'net. 

[Pretty Funky]

Without knowing the ins and outs of the licensing deal, I would see no reason why Mike would still not have had the rights to the name during the 4 months or so of the tour. He had shows in early April then after the C50 at San Diego and Soth America (Canceled) so why would the period of the C50 be excluded?

For that reason, the concept of Brian, Al and Dave plus musicians being 'guests' of Mike's group, while sounding bizarre, may have some merit.

[Andrew G. Doe]

The so-called 'Love license' applies expressly to Mike & Bruce touring under the name "The Beach Boys". The C50 tour was an entirely different, seperate affair.

[HeyJude]

Regarding the highlighted section, I don't recall reading anything like that, at the time or since. I would dearly love to see any documentation for this claim (which btw is not feasable, as it would require both Brian & Carl's estate to side with Alan to deprive Mike of his right to tour as The BB: Brian could not do it on his own).

As for Alan touring with Brian for the Pet Sounds 40th anniversary shows, the reason behind his teaming up with Brian (and his subsequent 'departure') is well-known in certain circles - I know several folk here are aware -  and it had nothing whatsoever to do with any political maneuvers.

I definitely want to find that bit from one of the lawsuits, both for you and for myself. It's in one of the pleadings or somewhere in there. Not all of the back and forth in court is available online, sometimes it seems only the rulings rather the the initial point-by-point lawsuits are easily availble. I'll look around to see what I can find. I of course agree that it would require both Brian and Carl's estate to do such a thing. As I said, I don't think anyone actually believed Brian wanted to take the name or anything along those lines. I'd definitely like to track that bit down to get the exact wording.

As for Al joining Brian in 2006, I'd love for somebody to share the reasons behind that. I'm curious, out of all the info "out there" that we know about, why in the world that particular bit needs to be kept to those "in the know."

[KittyKat]

Regarding the highlighted section, I don't recall reading anything like that, at the time or since. I would dearly love to see any documentation for this claim (which btw is not feasable, as it would require both Brian & Carl's estate to side with Alan to deprive Mike of his right to tour as The BB: Brian could not do it on his own).

As for Alan touring with Brian for the Pet Sounds 40th anniversary shows, the reason behind his teaming up with Brian (and his subsequent 'departure') is well-known in certain circles - I know several folk here are aware -  and it had nothing whatsoever to do with any political maneuvers.

I definitely want to find that bit from one of the lawsuits, both for you and for myself. It's in one of the pleadings or somewhere in there. Not all of the back and forth in court is available online, sometimes it seems only the rulings rather the the initial point-by-point lawsuits are easily availble. I'll look around to see what I can find. I of course agree that it would require both Brian and Carl's estate to do such a thing. As I said, I don't think anyone actually believed Brian wanted to take the name or anything along those lines. I'd definitely like to track that bit down to get the exact wording.

As for Al joining Brian in 2006, I'd love for somebody to share the reasons behind that. I'm curious, out of all the info "out there" that we know about, why in the world that particular bit needs to be kept to those "in the know."

HeyJude, gotta dig your persistence. 

[HeyJude]

Regarding the highlighted section, I don't recall reading anything like that, at the time or since. I would dearly love to see any documentation for this claim (which btw is not feasable, as it would require both Brian & Carl's estate to side with Alan to deprive Mike of his right to tour as The BB: Brian could not do it on his own).

As for Alan touring with Brian for the Pet Sounds 40th anniversary shows, the reason behind his teaming up with Brian (and his subsequent 'departure') is well-known in certain circles - I know several folk here are aware -  and it had nothing whatsoever to do with any political maneuvers.

I definitely want to find that bit from one of the lawsuits, both for you and for myself. It's in one of the pleadings or somewhere in there. Not all of the back and forth in court is available online, sometimes it seems only the rulings rather the the initial point-by-point lawsuits are easily availble. I'll look around to see what I can find. I of course agree that it would require both Brian and Carl's estate to do such a thing. As I said, I don't think anyone actually believed Brian wanted to take the name or anything along those lines. I'd definitely like to track that bit down to get the exact wording.

As for Al joining Brian in 2006, I'd love for somebody to share the reasons behind that. I'm curious, out of all the info "out there" that we know about, why in the world that particular bit needs to be kept to those "in the know."

HeyJude, gotta dig your persistence.  

Thank you?!?     I love yakking about stuff here, I enjoy it. But seriously, does anybody actually have this "inside info" about Al joining Brian back in 2006?  

I wish I could find the original lawsuit from 2006 where I believe that reference to Brian taking the BB name is found. It's the same lawsuit, I believe, that makes strange references to things like Al Jardine's  "well-publicized emotional problems". There is a thread here http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,2643.0.html from 2006 that discusses one of the dismissals of parts of the lawsuit, but I can't find anything showing the original lawsuit itself, which I believe has the "meat" of the telling information/accusations.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Earlier in the thread David Marks (absence) was brought up. Anybody have any info on that? When Al and Brian went public about how they wanted to continue touring together as the Beach Boys, I'm assuming David was included in that. Do Al and Brian only wish to include him in a Beach Boys' lineup?

[The Shift]

Crazy I know, but I can't help but think that Brian and Al might actually enjoy each other's company.

[HeyJude]

Interview with Al:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgzoox4asI0

Terrible, silly questions that served no cultural, intellectual, nor spiritual purpose. We learned nothing about the state of the BB.

I think it was pretty evident that the interviewer probably knew that this was some dude from the Beach Boys, and other than that seemed to be going off of notes full of mostly inane questions. Sad, but not surprising. I don't expect some super fan to start grilling Al about what the band's plans are or anything, but that was pretty bad.

Al referenced a recording of RAH, but I think he simply acknowledged that a recording was made, and seemed almost whimsical about some day getting to simply hear it. Far from anything indicating a release of the show. We can hope, though.