Brian to play with Al and David, July in Ohio

[Andrew G. Doe]

I don't understand why Brian Wilson has toured  so much the past decade plus. Has he always lost money on it? Considering the huge band he has, and his demand for a luxury bus from city to city, and the fact a fair number of gigs have had either mediocre or terrible attendance, what has that cost him? I don't get the motivation. Maybe pride, maybe Melinda Wilson's pride? I have to think the reunion tour made more money for Brian than his own tours have. Heck, his BRI share from Mike's tours have to had made more money for him than some of his solo tours. 

I don't claim to have any inside knowledge, but my guess is it's good for Brian to get out there and tour, instead of sitting at home with the chance to sit around and think and get depressed.

Brian said in an interview that he likes touring, except for the performances. Of course that was some years ago, I'd say his view has changed.

[Andrew G. Doe]

My guess is Brian makes enough in royalties to make our eyes water. Didn't Bruce say about 10 years ago he still made $200k a year for 'I Write The Songs'? Multiply that by the number of BW hits and we are talking some nice coin.

As I said earlier, I think it is a hobby to Brian nowdays so the money (or loss) could be covered.


Oh and another thing. The money Mike has to pay each year for the touring rights probably more than covers Brians tours. Now how is that for irony?

Everyone's royalty income, that's everyone in the music business, has been hit very hard by piracy, downloading and the decline of CD sales (the real bucks were always in the publishing, and lately merchandising). Brian's income from that is very comfortable but I'd be very surprised if it was even close to what it was a decade ago. Example: TWGMTR sold 61,000 copies to hit #3. 10 years ago, that might have got it in the bottom 50.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

And since the price of CDs are roughly the same now as they were back then, but the price of just about everything else has risen (especially gas), those 61,000 copies sold mean less in adjusted dollars then they would've 10 years ago.

[Cam Mott]

Mike has to make/maximize a profit because he is under a license with shareholders.

[jimmy1949]

Si, Senor.  Paramount Theatre. September of '08. Total capacity around 3,000 seats.  About 1/2 full in my estimation.  Were you there too, Jimmy?

Yes I was..I remember that big ol' Nelson Whatshisname standing outside pushing his cd's. I saw him and Al too,in Oakland.

[HeyJude]

Exactly - Alan & Brian & David all said they wanted to carry on touring, but what did the two voting members of BRI actually do about it ? Nothing, beyond making statements to the media.

It has been 4 months or so since the big media ruckus. I highly doubt we'd know so soon if something had changed or will change in the future in terms of BRI and licenses.

Brian may just be doing some fun shows (or a show; although my guess is we'll see at least a handfull more) with Al and David, but regardless of whether they are doing shows in order to "make a point" or make some sort of passive agressive move, I would say if they actually do a full-blown "tour" with all three present, it will be seen as a bit of a shot towards the Mike/Bruce camp whether it was meant that way or not.

We should indeed probably start a message board pool to guess how long it will take, if a Brian/Al/David "tour" happens, before some media outlet points out that two Beach Boys are in the band touring as "The Beach Boys" while another band has three Beach Boys.

Whatever the reason or result, I hope the Brian/Al/David lineup books a show in my neighborhood.

[Micha]

I know that this board is not made for my entertainment, but the AGD/JR fight was much more fun to read than the posts about the actual thread subject!

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Def. wasn't fun for me. I already have a shitty life and high blood pressure, and was having a shitfuck of a day to begin with; last thing I needed to see was that mess.

[absinthe_boy]

Brian said in an interview that he likes touring, except for the performances. Of course that was some years ago, I'd say his view has changed.

Anyone who saw Brian with the Boys last year, or the year before on the Gershwin tour would likely concur. Brian still needs to warm up a little but he seems to relish live performance once he feels comfortable. Who'd have thunk it?

[absinthe_boy]

I don't understand why Brian Wilson has toured  so much the past decade plus. Has he always lost money on it? Considering the huge band he has, and his demand for a luxury bus from city to city, and the fact a fair number of gigs have had either mediocre or terrible attendance, what has that cost him? I don't get the motivation. Maybe pride, maybe Melinda Wilson's pride? I have to think the reunion tour made more money for Brian than his own tours have. Heck, his BRI share from Mike's tours have to had made more money for him than some of his solo tours. 

I don't claim to have any inside knowledge, but my guess is it's good for Brian to get out there and tour, instead of sitting at home with the chance to sit around and think and get depressed.

That's what people who know Brian well say. Brian himself says music is a therapy for him.

As the husband of a depressed wife, I know that gentle prodding to get her out there doing her thing does her a world of good. One of Brian's key illnesses is said to be depression, especially when he doesn't do much. But when things are going well, he still has the fire in his belly from time to time. Touring helps keeps the embers burning

[The Shift]

Brian said in an interview that he likes touring, except for the performances. Of course that was some years ago, I'd say his view has changed.

Anyone who saw Brian with the Boys last year, or the year before on the Gershwin tour would likely concur. Brian still needs to warm up a little but he seems to relish live performance once he feels comfortable. Who'd have thunk it?

Yup, I've seen him on and off about 20 times since the start of the last decade (PS tour, Hollywood Bowl) and last year he was a different guy, in many many respects.  I'd say the therapy works!

[I. Spaceman]

Brian said in an interview that he likes touring, except for the performances. Of course that was some years ago, I'd say his view has changed.

Anyone who saw Brian with the Boys last year, or the year before on the Gershwin tour would likely concur. Brian still needs to warm up a little but he seems to relish live performance once he feels comfortable. Who'd have thunk it?

Yup, I've seen him on and off about 20 times since the start of the last decade (PS tour, Hollywood Bowl) and last year he was a different guy, in many many respects.  I'd say the therapy works!

I'd say working in The Beach Boys helps.

[HeyJude]

Not at all, because it's a documented fact: Mike & Bruce, post Carl's passing, tried touring as "America's Band" and drew very poorly (four shows were cancelled). That's why BRI were asked to issue a license for touring as "The Beach Boys". You really didn't know that ?

Not that anybody is trying to specifically say anything to the contrary, but my understanding is that nobody had the rights to use the "Beach Boys" name in the immediate aftermath of Carl's death in 1998. It's not as if Mike thought the name should be retired, changed the band's name, then found that nobody wants to see his band if it isn't called the Beach Boys, and only then persued a license.

I'm guessing he always wanted to use the name and always planned to pursue using it, and persued the license because he wanted the income, prestige, power, etc. that goes along with using the name, and I'm guessing he would have pursued the name even if the "America's Band" bookings had not been as dismal. In other words, I'm guessing BRI was asked to issue a license because Mike wanted to be "The Beach Boys" (a plan that had apparently been in the works for some time, hence the whole Marks/Jardine fiasco in 1997), and perhaps the dismal returns on sales for "America's Band" shows only gave that pursuit of the license a larger sense of immediacy.

[Cam Mott]

After Carl's death the license continued to resided with BRI and whoever had BRI's permission could presumably tour under the license just as they had before Carl's passing. Did Carl individually hold the license? I've not heard that. There were concerts with Mike and Al while Carl was out, were there concerts with Mike and Al after Carl's passing?

I think the incentive to have the license reside with one BRI member [and that member being Mike] was probably driven by Al's unilateral power grab trying to push through a series of concerts which neither Brian or Mike agreed to and Al allegedly trying to replace Mike with Peter Cetera.

[Nicko1234]

Not that anybody is trying to specifically say anything to the contrary, but my understanding is that nobody had the rights to use the "Beach Boys" name in the immediate aftermath of Carl's death in 1998. It's not as if Mike thought the name should be retired, changed the band's name, then found that nobody wants to see his band if it isn't called the Beach Boys, and only then persued a license.

I'm guessing he always wanted to use the name and always planned to pursue using it, and persued the license because he wanted the income, prestige, power, etc. that goes along with using the name, and I'm guessing he would have pursued the name even if the "America's Band" bookings had not been as dismal. In other words, I'm guessing BRI was asked to issue a license because Mike wanted to be "The Beach Boys" (a plan that had apparently been in the works for some time, hence the whole Marks/Jardine fiasco in 1997), and perhaps the dismal returns on sales for "America's Band" shows only gave that pursuit of the license a larger sense of immediacy.

Not sure about your logic there...

If the America's Band shows had sold well then would Mike really have chosen to take another option knowing that he would have to pay Brian, Al and Carl's estate a vast amount of money for the use of it?

I don't think the Marks/Jardine situation has much to do with it. Even if Carl had lived, Mike would still have wanted Al out of the band.

[Eric Aniversario]

There were concerts with Mike and Al while Carl was out, were there concerts with Mike and Al after Carl's passing?

Yes, there were two shows billed as the Beach Boys with Mike and Al in early 1998.

I think the incentive to have the license reside with one BRI member [and that member being Mike] was probably driven by Al's unilateral power grab trying to push through a series of concerts which neither Brian or Mike agreed to and Al allegedly trying to replace Mike with Peter Cetera.

Your attempts to assassinate Al's character over the years have grown quite tiresome over the past decade or so.  We get it.  In your eyes, Mike's a hero, and Al's a villain.  Give it a rest...PLEASE.

[Cam Mott]

So touring and the license just went on as usual I guess.

Al's character speaks for itself. Anything in particular you object to that justifies your accusation?

[Aegir]

Not that anybody is trying to specifically say anything to the contrary, but my understanding is that nobody had the rights to use the "Beach Boys" name in the immediate aftermath of Carl's death in 1998. It's not as if Mike thought the name should be retired, changed the band's name, then found that nobody wants to see his band if it isn't called the Beach Boys, and only then persued a license.

I'm guessing he always wanted to use the name and always planned to pursue using it, and persued the license because he wanted the income, prestige, power, etc. that goes along with using the name, and I'm guessing he would have pursued the name even if the "America's Band" bookings had not been as dismal. In other words, I'm guessing BRI was asked to issue a license because Mike wanted to be "The Beach Boys" (a plan that had apparently been in the works for some time, hence the whole Marks/Jardine fiasco in 1997), and perhaps the dismal returns on sales for "America's Band" shows only gave that pursuit of the license a larger sense of immediacy.

Not sure about your logic there...

If the America's Band shows had sold well then would Mike really have chosen to take another option knowing that he would have to pay Brian, Al and Carl's estate a vast amount of money for the use of it?

I don't think the Marks/Jardine situation has much to do with it. Even if Carl had lived, Mike would still have wanted Al out of the band.

David was being groomed to replace Al... then the wrong guy left the band.

[HeyJude]

After Carl's death the license continued to resided with BRI and whoever had BRI's permission could presumably tour under the license just as they had before Carl's passing. Did Carl individually hold the license? I've not heard that. There were concerts with Mike and Al while Carl was out, were there concerts with Mike and Al after Carl's passing?

I think the incentive to have the license reside with one BRI member [and that member being Mike] was probably driven by Al's unilateral power grab trying to push through a series of concerts which neither Brian or Mike agreed to and Al allegedly trying to replace Mike with Peter Cetera.

Nobody had BRI's permission to use the license after Carl died, or at least after Al left/was forced out. That's the point. No touring lineup, certainly after a handfull of shows Al did in 1998, apparently had a license to use the name specifically because Al and Carl were no longer part of the band. Mike didn't have a license because after Al was gone, he was left with a band that, at that time, did not quality for the license. I'm sure he would have seamlessly continued to use the BB name if he had been able to.

As for your comments regarding Al, I will second the wise words of Mr. Aniversario instead of doing more of the Mike/Al debate with you. A flashback to our discussions of literally now over a decade ago might be fun for nostalgia, but Eric's words are much more apt. We get it. You're not a fan of Al's, and have your own perception of what Al did 15 years ago and what his motives were. I disagree, and even those who disagree with Al's legal points/arguments from back then don't tend to paint him as the villain you have over the years.

[HeyJude]

Not sure about your logic there...

If the America's Band shows had sold well then would Mike really have chosen to take another option knowing that he would have to pay Brian, Al and Carl's estate a vast amount of money for the use of it?

I don't think the Marks/Jardine situation has much to do with it. Even if Carl had lived, Mike would still have wanted Al out of the band.

As far as the "America's Band" naming, I absolutely believe Mike would have pursued using the BB name even if his "America's Band" shows had done well. Using the BB name will always result in more bookings, larger bookings, larger advances, etc. I don't see any evidence that Mike used the "America's Band" name for any other reason than because he had no other choice at one particular point in time. Even a moderately successful "America's Band" tour would generate less income for Mike than a "Beach Boys" tour where BRI gets a licensing fee (for which Mike himself gets 25%). Mike wouldn't be touring right now and would not have been touring for 15 years under the license unless it made him an adequate amount of money even after the licensing fee paid to BRI. I think the licensing fee paid to BRI has been overstated in some recent discussions. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice big chunk of money by most folks' standards, especially to simply sit at home and generate income because you're co-owner of a trademark. But 100+ shows per year on a pretty lean touring operation with an in-house production company means plenty of money is being generated after all the licensing fees and other costs are factored in.

I absolutely understand that Mike wanted Al out of the band. That indeed had nothing to do with Carl or David specifically (although David was apparently used as a pawn in the whole deal according to David himself). I was citing the awkward late 1997 Jardine/Marks situation as evidence that even while Carl was still around, Mike wanted to head a touring "Beach Boys" to the exclusion of anybody or everybody whose absence would not permanently lead to Mike not being able to use the name. The implication that may or may not have been intended by anyone that Mike stopped touring as "The Beach Boys" out of respect for Carl or anything of that nature is something that I see no evidence of. He has at various points had no problem using the name sans some or all of Brian, Dennis, Carl, Al, and David.

I've never head any indication that Mike had any plan permanently to stop using the BB name. So yes, to reiterate, I believe he would have pursued using the BB name regardless of how well his handfull of 1998 shows as "America's Band" had fared.

[Emdeeh]

I don't think the license existed before Carl's passing. When Carl was alive, the deal was they had to have a minimum number of Beach Boys principals onstage, according to their contracts. The number used to be 4, but was reduced to 3 at some point in the '90s.

Brian, Al, and David playing shows together is welcome news.

[HeyJude]

Brian, Al, and David playing shows together is welcome news.

Exactly! That's the big takeaway from this thread/news. In all of the "hey, they'll all go back to their own groups" talk a few months ago after the reunion tour, I worried and wondered aloud about whether we would see much of Al or David if Brian went back to solo shows and Mike back to his band. Neither Al nor David have done a ton of shows in recent years, whether by choice or not. If Brian does an actual tour of a dozen or two or three shows, then it would be great to have an extended chance to see Al and David perform live.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I don't think the license existed before Carl's passing. When Carl was alive, the deal was they had to have a minimum number of Beach Boys principals onstage, according to their contracts. The number used to be 4, but was reduced to 3 at some point in the '90s.

I gather there used to be an "at least one Wilson" sub-clause too, but that was similarly amended.

[urbanite]

What's up with Mike wanted Al out of the band all about?

[ontor pertawst]

Exactly! That's the big takeaway from this thread/news. In all of the "hey, they'll all go back to their own groups" talk a few months ago after the reunion tour, I worried and wondered aloud about whether we would see much of Al or David if Brian went back to solo shows and Mike back to his band. Neither Al nor David have done a ton of shows in recent years, whether by choice or not. If Brian does an actual tour of a dozen or two or three shows, then it would be great to have an extended chance to see Al and David perform live.

Damn straight! I finally got my fill of arguing about contracts and hypothetical decisions none of us are privy to, hearing how Alan Jardine & Friends is the obstinate source of all evil, hearing that Brian is out of it and nobody goes to his shows anyway, hearing that Mike is selfless and doesn't consider it work, does it simply to spread the musical love to small markets and employ his band in sort of an Endless Summer Eternal Jobs Program that makes everybody richer than Midas while keeping yer breath minty fresh plus-they-voted-for-it-so-nyah-nyah-nyah.

Wilson/Jardine/Marks with the BW band in 2013? f*** yeah. Sign me up and let's get some California shows booked, people! I want "Pet Sounds" opening second sets, Brian makin' goofy hand gestures and having fun, Al forgetting the words now and again, and buckets of of twangy guitar from a beanpole in a baseball cap! Sounds like a fun night out.