Mike and Bruce Tour 2014

[drbeachboy]

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.

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.

[drbeachboy]

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.

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. 

I am sure Mike has to stay within the limits of the license, but I'd bet he has leeway to pick what he wants song-wise that was recorded by the band. He has included others like the Duke of Earl that was never covered by the band, yet stayed in the setlist for quite a few years. He has never abused it, so really has never been an issue.

[HeyJude]

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.

[HeyJude]

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.  

[guitarfool2002]

He or anyone else with the license to use the name has to stay within limits because they do not own the name, and do not have full control over how it is presented. BRI as the owner still has "ownership", which I believe gives them veto power if the show being presented as the Beach Boys is determined not to be up to standard. And keep in mind, I believe this was also set up for the future situations where there may not be any original members available to tour under that name, and the name could potentially be licensed to any number of family members or even band members as has been done with other "name" bands. It gets into potentials beyond the present situation to prevent the official Beach Boys touring name from being a local tribute band using the name to sell substandard shows.

With C50, as we all know, when you had all surviving original members on stage and on board, there had to be a give and take where Mike or anyone else would not have the absolute "power" as it was suggested to dictate what songs, what musicians, what kind of show in general would be presented. Otherwise, I doubt the other members and even additional band members would have signed on in the first place if it were a case of Brian, Al, and David essentially joining Mike's existing band for these shows and being told what would happen. There had to be compromises.

[guitarfool2002]

I'm just mentioning all this because there seemed to be some confusion between buying rights to use the name through licensing and billing live shows and actually owning or even controlling the use of that name. In a corporate and legal sense, BRI still owns and therefore ultimately controls the name "Beach Boys" and how it is used, and in this case it is specifically for live shows.

Maybe it can be simplified by comparing it to any franchise. There are people who buy into the franchise and become owners, but they are still legally and financially bound to follow whatever the franchisers and owners of the name have in place as standards for that business. If you buy into a McDonalds franchise, you're buying into the selling power and distribution/procedure elements of that name, but you're not able to decide whether to change how the Big Mac is made or even how the interior looks without approval. And if you fall below the standards of that company, they can strip you of the franchise.

[Andrew G. Doe]

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.

[HeyJude]

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.

[drbeachboy]

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.  

Of course he has power, as long as he stays within the limits of the license. Just like gf2000 said, like a McDonald's franchise. You must stay in the limits of the agreement, but you have some leeway as to who is hired to cook the food and wait at the counter. Just have to wear the same uniform.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Of course there are terms to the license, and probably very specific terms. That goes without saying; that's not even an issue. But whether Mike stringently adheres to those terms, or more relevantly, whether some of the BRI members even care or monitors the situation is another question.

I assume that Al is pretty aware of what Mike is doing with The Beach Boys. But, before the C50 tour, I wonder if Brian Wilson could name ALL of the members of the then Beach Boys band. As far as the setlists, I doubt that Brian or Carl's estate are checking them on even a casual basis. The same goes for the venues they (Mike & Bruce) are playing. I think one reason they don't monitor it is because they trust Mike. Does anybody think that Mike EVER has to defend or explain what he is doing? Who cares other than Al? I think the main reason they don't care is because money continues to be directly deposited into their checking accounts. It was mentioned above in this thread I believe, but, once the ticket sales are affected - in other words $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ - then BRI will start to look at the Christian Loves of the world and the performances of "Duke Of Earl".

[drbeachboy]

Of course there are terms to the license, and probably very specific terms. That goes without saying; that's not even an issue. But whether Mike stringently adheres to those terms, or more relevantly, whether some of the BRI members even care or monitors the situation is another question.

I assume that Al is pretty aware of what Mike is doing with The Beach Boys. But, before the C50 tour, I wonder if Brian Wilson could name ALL of the members of the then Beach Boys band. As far as the setlists, I doubt that Brian or Carl's estate are checking them on even a casual basis. The same goes for the venues they (Mike & Bruce) are playing. I think one reason they don't monitor it is because they trust Mike. Does anybody think that Mike EVER has to defend or explain what he is doing? Who cares other than Al? I think the main reason they don't care is because money continues to be directly deposited into their checking accounts. It was mentioned above in this thread I believe, but, once the ticket sales are affected - in other words $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ - then BRI will start to look at the Christian Loves of the world and the performances of "Duke Of Earl".

Let me ask, who do you think is not up to par in the touring band that anyone in BRI would question? Isn't all of this moot if Mike is performing pretty much what the Beach Boys were doing in 1996 when both Carl & Al were still there? As for the Duke of Earl or Sherry, what is wrong with playing two songs that Mike or Bruce might happen to like? In the 60's they were doing the Wanderer and Runaway when by that time they had more than enough of their own material to do a show.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Of course there are terms to the license, and probably very specific terms. That goes without saying; that's not even an issue. But whether Mike stringently adheres to those terms, or more relevantly, whether some of the BRI members even care or monitors the situation is another question.

I assume that Al is pretty aware of what Mike is doing with The Beach Boys. But, before the C50 tour, I wonder if Brian Wilson could name ALL of the members of the then Beach Boys band. As far as the setlists, I doubt that Brian or Carl's estate are checking them on even a casual basis. The same goes for the venues they (Mike & Bruce) are playing. I think one reason they don't monitor it is because they trust Mike. Does anybody think that Mike EVER has to defend or explain what he is doing? Who cares other than Al? I think the main reason they don't care is because money continues to be directly deposited into their checking accounts. It was mentioned above in this thread I believe, but, once the ticket sales are affected - in other words $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ - then BRI will start to look at the Christian Loves of the world and the performances of "Duke Of Earl".

Let me ask, who do you think is not up to par in the touring band that anyone in BRI would question? Isn't all of this moot if Mike is performing pretty much what the Beach Boys were doing in 1996 when both Carl & Al were still there? As for the Duke of Earl or Sherry, what is wrong with playing two songs that Mike or Bruce might happen to like? In the 60's they were doing the Wanderer and Runaway when by that time they had more than enough of their own material to do a show.

To answer your question, and to be perfectly clear, it's not who I think would "be in question", but who anyone in BRI would question. I really don't care what they do anymore. However, the only one in BRI who I think would ever challenge the license would be Al, and I DON'T THINK HE WILL EVER formally or officially make a challenge. He knows he can't win. The money will always defeat him. He'll take cheap shots in the media instead.

Just to play devil's advocate, one could've questioned the merits of Mike Kowalski, Christian Love ('s onstage presence, or lack of), and Ahmba Love's singing talent (or lack of). But again, it wasn't going to affect the license, nothing significant was ever gonna come out of that, and it never will. Eventually ALL of The Beach Boys will be replaced by Loves, Wilsons, and Jardines anyway.

Hey, drbeachboy, I basically agree with you. Giving the license to Mike was hardly a gamble. It was more like business as usual.

[drbeachboy]

As far as shows go, Mike is the most recognizable member of the band. Most front-men are. Christian was a backup band member, he doesn't have to have a lot of stage presence. I don't see Scott or Randall having a lot either. Ahmba's a guest, usually for one song and has no bearing on the band itself. Man, we do nit-pick. And it is "Business as usual", mainly due to it being a business. You put the people in place that will make you the most money. From everything I have ever read, the Boys have always been in it for the money. It is/was a big lifestyle that is supported by the music, that is for sure.

[Nicko1234]

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.

[HeyJude]

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.

[guitarfool2002]

The only time there may be a BRI business interest in the setlists would be if fans in significant numbers started to complain that they weren't getting the Beach Boys music they had bought tickets and even expected to see the Beach Boys band play live. Then, it becomes a case of whoever holds the name rights possibly trying to promote or sell something other than the Beach Boys musical image to a group of fans who expect to hear certain things from that name band. It's very similar again to how I mentioned the "name bands" like the Glenn Miller Orchestra - still playing shows 70 years after Miller himself passed away. The music and the original band book of arrangements sells the tickets. If the Miller band started playing something other than In The Mood and Moonlight Serenade and started doing doo-wop, they'd probably get a cease and desist order because it's not what they agreed to play when they "bought" the name rights.

Would that *ever* happen with the Beach Boys in the near future? I doubt it, it's just for discussion purposes.

At the same time, the C50 tour may have touched on some of these issues regarding what to play and what not to play, where perhaps Mike's idea of a setlist from *his* shows combined with Brian's ideas of a setlist from *his* shows could have been up for discussion and compromise. Who knows, but the possibility is there.

And at that point, even though Mike had the rights to the name, the fact that Brian-Al-David were there along with various backing musicians from their camps may have removed some of Mike's ability to be make the final calls on setlists and other show decisions. Again, such a deal to even allow all the members to join forces had to touch on some of these things ahead of time so there wasn't a major butting of heads before every show regarding final word - it probably had to be a group decision (and compromise).

I'm thinking too it had to be set up so it was almost a separate entity apart from the band Mike was fronting before and continues to front after C50, and of course short of seeing the full agreements and everything else that can only be assumed what went into all of that.

[Nicko1234]

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.

[Robbie Mac]

Honestly, anybody who thought that a band billing itself as "the Beach Boys" and a band billing itself as "Beach Boys Family and Friends" must be incredibly stupid.

That lawsuit against Al was completely unjustified.

[HeyJude]

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”).

[Nicko1234]

Honestly, anybody who thought that a band billing itself as "the Beach Boys" and a band billing itself as "Beach Boys Family and Friends" must be incredibly stupid.

That lawsuit against Al was completely unjustified.

I don`t really think so...

Now Al can bill himself as `founder member of The Beach Boys` but he can`t seem to get bookings in the same way that he could when he could use the former name. That indicates there was obviously confusion out there about what people were getting.

[Nicko1234]

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.

[Pretty Funky]

Honestly, anybody who thought that a band billing itself as "the Beach Boys" and a band billing itself as "Beach Boys Family and Friends" must be incredibly stupid.

That lawsuit against Al was completely unjustified.

I don`t really think so...

Now Al can bill himself as `founder member of The Beach Boys` but he can`t seem to get bookings in the same way that he could when he could use the former name. That indicates there was obviously confusion out there about what people were getting.

Al must have been confused and feeling a bit stupid also. As a member of BRI he was suing himself.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[HeyJude]

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.

[HeyJude]

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.