Al joining Mike and Bruce for Jones Beach show

[Custom Machine]

It's now been 10 days since Al's post stating, "Despite some reports to the contrary, I am not touring with Mike Love and the Beach Boys this summer," but the Jones Beach site still bills the concert as "The Beach Boys, featuring Mike Love, Al Jardine, Bruce Johnston," along with, "The only original member of the group that will be touring with the band is Mike Love, though longtime keyboardist/singer Bruce Johnston will be joining them on the road. Additionally, the band will team up with original members Al Jardine and David Mark for a special gig at Jones Beach, Long Island, NY on July 5th with special guests Felix Cavaliere's Rascals & The Lovin' Spoonful."

http://jonesbeach.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=430:the-beach-boys-july-5-2014&catid=56:concerts-2014&Itemid=100054

[HeyJude]

It's now been 10 days since Al's post stating, "Despite some reports to the contrary, I am not touring with Mike Love and the Beach Boys this summer," but the Jones Beach site still bills the concert as "The Beach Boys, featuring Mike Love, Al Jardine, Bruce Johnston," along with, "The only original member of the group that will be touring with the band is Mike Love, though longtime keyboardist/singer Bruce Johnston will be joining them on the road. Additionally, the band will team up with original members Al Jardine and David Mark for a special gig at Jones Beach, Long Island, NY on July 5th with special guests Felix Cavaliere's Rascals & The Lovin' Spoonful."

http://jonesbeach.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=430:the-beach-boys-july-5-2014&catid=56:concerts-2014&Itemid=100054

The evidence seems to suggest that all interested principal parties involved have been made aware of Al’s non-appearance, so this would appear to be an issue with the venue/promoter/website.

I would imagine if the promoter felt Al was breaching any agreement by not appearing, thus impacting ticket sales and injuring the financial performance of this booking, they would have promptly removed his name to build up a strong case. But leaving his name up after he has issued a statement stating he’s not going to be there would make the promoters’ potential case more difficult, as the waters are now further muddied as far as how the show has been promoted, and who is doing that promotion. They have now tainted their potential pool of “confused” concertgoers.

But as I’ve said before, all else aside, I still would guess that Al did not sign anything, thus essentially what we have is some annoyed artists/promoters/venues.

That slightly cryptic post on the BB Britain board a week or two *before* Al’s announcement must have come from some source, and it specifically mentioned that nothing had been “signed.”

[guitarfool2002]

I can't believe Al's name hasn't been removed from that listing if it's still being used to sell tickets to the show, which is now less than a week away. This turned into a comedy of errors that keeps delivering the punchlines. 

Basic business practice, you can't advertise something or someone if it's been confirmed they're not going to be there.

[Cam Mott]

So when did the original dates for C50 end and when did the additional dates begin and when were the additional dates published?

[ppk700]

Hey there everyone - new guy here, but long-time lurker. I found out through this very thread that Al Jardine would be at Jones Beach July 5, and I bought my ticket a few days before the announcement that David Marks would also be there (along with Jeff joining the band). I literally only bought my ticket because Al was going to be there. Not only that, but I spent about $300 on the VIP package (one of the cheaper packages, giving me access to the soundcheck and that lovely autographed flashdrive).

I just got off the phone with Live Nation. No refund available for me, because I purchased the VIP package.

So I suppose I have no choice other than to go now. It'll still be a great time, I hope. I have high expectations that some rare tunes will be played during soundcheck. But so far, I'm pretty disappointed all-around. I'm obviously pretty disappointed in Al - he didn't even offer any kind of apology to his fans. I'm disappointed in Live Nation and Jones Beach for turning this show into a total cluster. I didn't even receive an email from Live Nation saying Al wouldn't be there - I only found out thanks to this board, once again.

It'll be cool to see Dave. It'll be cool to see The Beach Boys for the first time. But I feel like I've been crapped on. I sincerely hope the VIP soundcheck is worth the hundreds that I had to pay for it. If they bust out something like "Stoked" or "Drive-In" I think all could be forgiven!

Primarily though, Al really let me down, and probably numerous other fans. The fact that he couldn't even offer an apology is pretty sad - makes me wonder just how much he cares about fans like myself...

[kiwi surfer]

I can't believe Al's name hasn't been removed from that listing if it's still being used to sell tickets to the show, which is now less than a week away. This turned into a comedy of errors that keeps delivering the punchlines. 

Basic business practice, you can't advertise something or someone if it's been confirmed they're not going to be there.

Or, and I have no evidence of this, the promoter is confidant Al and or BRI/Brother Tours (or whichever booking vehicle is used nowadays) is contractually bound to 'supply' Al and haven't been officially notified that he won't be appearing. Although the promoter is supposed to mitigate their losses it is possible they could sue for breach of contract.

However viewed it's one hell of a mess with no winners except perhaps the lawyers. Not the brand, the individuals, the public or the promoter.

As an aside, under New Zealand consumer law, the promoter would not get away with refusing refunds as per above.

[HeyJude]

I can't believe Al's name hasn't been removed from that listing if it's still being used to sell tickets to the show, which is now less than a week away. This turned into a comedy of errors that keeps delivering the punchlines. 

Basic business practice, you can't advertise something or someone if it's been confirmed they're not going to be there.

Or, and I have no evidence of this, the promoter is confidant Al and or BRI/Brother Tours (or whichever booking vehicle is used nowadays) is contractually bound to 'supply' Al and haven't been officially notified that he won't be appearing. Although the promoter is supposed to mitigate their losses it is possible they could sue for breach of contract.

However viewed it's one hell of a mess with no winners except perhaps the lawyers. Not the brand, the individuals, the public or the promoter.

As an aside, under New Zealand consumer law, the promoter would not get away with refusing refunds as per above.

I don't know the details, but sometimes those VIP packages are sold as technically separate items from the actual concert ticket. I'd be curious to know if they are taking refunds for the concert tickets alone.

They should offer refunds on both, I'm just guessing as to why the VIP package refund might be turned down.

[Pretty Funky]

Re the Nutty Jerrys shows of 2012. Weren't a couple of South America gigs cancelled for the same misunderstanding?

edit.

Chile

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?topic=14538.0

[Nicko1234]

Assuming the date went on Al’s website with Al’s knowledge (and to some degree, even if it was without his knowledge, the site does bear his name after all), he owes the fans an apology for the confusion and for those who bought tickets because of his reported appearance.

Anything else, especially in terms of the legal side of things, we really can’t say. Again, Al would have to be either really misguided and have really bad representation if he’s on the hook legally for pulling out of the show. And you know what? If he is, then he’ll pay the price just like anybody in that situation would. While I would (and do) feel the entire situation is pretty sad, I wouldn’t feel extra bad for Al if he is on the hook legally.

As for being “difficult” to work with, I’m a bit confused then why Mike didn’t tell Live Nation “no” to even the idea of playing with Al. If pulling out of this gig “burned bridges”, then I sense those bridges were already pretty well toast to begin with, and I suspect slow ticket sales may have motivated both Live Nation and Mike to “allow” Al to be in his own band for an evening. If someone ever gets Al to talk about his debacle, perhaps Al would suggest the “bridge” was “burned” by Mike in the negotiation process.

Well, I think it`s clear that there had been a thawing of relations in recent months (until the cancellation). Al appeared at Mike`s award show which Mike seemingly appreciated and Mike`s comments about Al in the press have been much more positive than in the past. From Mike`s perspective it probably wouldn`t have seemed such a big deal to play one gig with Al at a nice venue.

As for bridges being burned, in terms of Al playing with Mike and Bruce that wouldn`t be a surprise at all. Wherever the blame lies, and it may well be shared, this was the chance for these 4 Beach Boys to play their first gig together in this configuration for 16 years. The fact that it fell apart probably indicates that without Brian there (and the big business that might involve) that they are better off apart.

[guitarfool2002]

I can't believe Al's name hasn't been removed from that listing if it's still being used to sell tickets to the show, which is now less than a week away. This turned into a comedy of errors that keeps delivering the punchlines. 

Basic business practice, you can't advertise something or someone if it's been confirmed they're not going to be there.

Or, and I have no evidence of this, the promoter is confidant Al and or BRI/Brother Tours (or whichever booking vehicle is used nowadays) is contractually bound to 'supply' Al and haven't been officially notified that he won't be appearing. Although the promoter is supposed to mitigate their losses it is possible they could sue for breach of contract.

However viewed it's one hell of a mess with no winners except perhaps the lawyers. Not the brand, the individuals, the public or the promoter.

As an aside, under New Zealand consumer law, the promoter would not get away with refusing refunds as per above.

That point about being bound by contract to deliver Al Jardine on stage could end up costing someone money. Naturally we don't have the exact details of who agreed to what, or who signed what, but if that point is in play, it's a devastating point legally to consider if the venue as of this afternoon may have a contract that says Al will be on stage, so they're keeping the advertising intact based on that agreement. If Al isn't there, that could be a problem for someone. And if Al never officially signed an agreement, he's off the hook, and vice versa if he did sign, he's back on the hook. Damn.

I was thinking the venue's advertising may be at fault, but based on the above viewpoint I can see where they would be going on what they were told would happen based on the contract(s). If no one bought out, changed, or adjusted the agreement so Al wasn't included, they're not at fault legally for advertising it, I'd think. 

I'm finding all of this fascinating as a bit of a details nerd, I really like reading all of the different opinions and parts of the inner workings. 

[kiwi surfer]

I can't believe Al's name hasn't been removed from that listing if it's still being used to sell tickets to the show, which is now less than a week away. This turned into a comedy of errors that keeps delivering the punchlines. 

Basic business practice, you can't advertise something or someone if it's been confirmed they're not going to be there.

Or, and I have no evidence of this, the promoter is confidant Al and or BRI/Brother Tours (or whichever booking vehicle is used nowadays) is contractually bound to 'supply' Al and haven't been officially notified that he won't be appearing. Although the promoter is supposed to mitigate their losses it is possible they could sue for breach of contract.

However viewed it's one hell of a mess with no winners except perhaps the lawyers. Not the brand, the individuals, the public or the promoter.

As an aside, under New Zealand consumer law, the promoter would not get away with refusing refunds as per above.

That point about being bound by contract to deliver Al Jardine on stage could end up costing someone money. Naturally we don't have the exact details of who agreed to what, or who signed what, but if that point is in play, it's a devastating point legally to consider if the venue as of this afternoon may have a contract that says Al will be on stage, so they're keeping the advertising intact based on that agreement. If Al isn't there, that could be a problem for someone. And if Al never officially signed an agreement, he's off the hook, and vice versa if he did sign, he's back on the hook. Damn.

I was thinking the venue's advertising may be at fault, but based on the above viewpoint I can see where they would be going on what they were told would happen based on the contract(s). If no one bought out, changed, or adjusted the agreement so Al wasn't included, they're not at fault legally for advertising it, I'd think. 

I'm finding all of this fascinating as a bit of a details nerd, I really like reading all of the different opinions and parts of the inner workings. 

Developing the "Al will be there" strand we don't know of course how that came about except that Al was aware of the plan that he would appear. Putting the most Al friendly spin on it as possible he was at the very least contemplating appearing.  The worst case scenario is he agreed verbally and either because of a change of heart or an inability to work out the finer details reneged.

It is not too difficult to imagine given the thawed relations a gentleman's agreement along the lines of "hey Mike, if the opportunity ever presents itself for me to appear with you guys give me a holler". The promoter aware of the possibility from BRI readily agrees and then for whatever reason the parties cannot make it work.  Pure speculation of course.

[KittyKat]

The problem is Al didn't do this in private. He put the Jones Beach date up on AlJardine.com, which he runs himself, and where it remained for several weeks. He also allowed Mike to publicize it in Rolling Stone magazine and didn't utter a peep that he had not formally agreed to it. Surely Al or his people must read Rolling Stone.

I had thought that Al didn't have good, professional management, and maybe that's why something like this happened. But looking at his site today, I noticed he does have both a manager and a booking agent, and they're both people who handle other name artists. I'm not sure how they allowed this to happen to Al, or maybe Al is difficult to manage.

[Pretty Funky]

A very good point that Al may have trouble if he doesn't front at Jones Beach. As has been noted, he still is listed on the bill for that show. Unless I've missed it I can't however see him listed on the site selling Brian's concerts next week, just stories associated with the shows.

[tpesky]

This isn't a slam against Mike, although it might seem that way written, but Mike and his management have incredible legal savvy and are very sharp business people.   If they are put in legal jeopardy in anyway financially, they will absolutely look to make amends against whoever that is , including Al.  Nothing has been said yet, so either there isn't much legally they need to do or they are still lining things up.  

 I find it amusing that if you read this thread, you would think we have several contract lawyers who are regular posters on the board.

[The Shift]

It could be that Al's wife had arranged for him to have his hair cut that day without first informing Al. Meanwhile Al had agreed to play the gig with Mike and Bruce, and publicised it on his website, then found out about the hair appointment but was initially too embarrassed to tell the world. Eventually Brian called and offered not only to pay for the missed appointment but also to fly Al to the UK for a posh cut in a London style emporium. Mike had already offered to book Al in to a Jones Beach salon (and pay for the missed appointment in Big Sur Shopping Mall) but then Brian trumped that by offering to throw in some hair extensions and a blow dry. At that stage Al decided to tell the world he was off to the UK. And simultaneously Brian let him know he was gonna have to work for his blow wave.

Mary-Ann's happy cos her man gets a lovely hairdo… Brian's happy cos he gets someone to help on lead vocal duties and Bruce is happy cos he gets to fulfill the Big Sur hair appointment that Al can't attend but Brian's paid for anyway. The only guy who loses out is Mike, who's bandmate will be having his haircut in Big Sur on the night of the gig and who is also left with a hair salon appointment in Jones Beach that he has absolutely no use for.

[Nicko1234]

It could be that Al's wife had arranged for him to have his hair cut that day without first informing Al. Meanwhile Al had agreed to play the gig with Mike and Bruce, and publicised it on his website, then found out about the hair appointment but was initially too embarrassed to tell the world. Eventually Brian called and offered not only to pay for the missed appointment but also to fly Al to the UK for a posh cut in a London style emporium. Mike had already offered to book Al in to a Jones Beach salon (and pay for the missed appointment in Big Sur Shopping Mall) but then Brian trumped that by offering to throw in some hair extensions and a blow dry. At that stage Al decided to tell the world he was off to the UK. And simultaneously Brian let him know he was gonna have to work for his blow wave.

Mary-Ann's happy cos her man gets a lovely hairdo… Brian's happy cos he gets someone to help on lead vocal duties and Bruce is happy cos he gets to fulfill the Big Sur hair appointment that Al can't attend but Brian's paid for anyway. The only guy who loses out is Mike, who's bandmate will be having his haircut in Big Sur on the night of the gig and who is also left with a hair salon appointment in Jones Beach that he has absolutely no use for.

And to make matters worse the London hair emporium have previously refused to give Mike his monthly polish as they believe associating with him will be bad for business. It suddenly all falls into place.

[Foster's Freeze]

One fun sidebar to this thread is that you can *really* tell which of the members has it out for Al, LOL.

[Autotune]

Assuming the date went on Al’s website with Al’s knowledge (and to some degree, even if it was without his knowledge, the site does bear his name after all), he owes the fans an apology for the confusion and for those who bought tickets because of his reported appearance.

Anything else, especially in terms of the legal side of things, we really can’t say. Again, Al would have to be either really misguided and have really bad representation if he’s on the hook legally for pulling out of the show. And you know what? If he is, then he’ll pay the price just like anybody in that situation would. While I would (and do) feel the entire situation is pretty sad, I wouldn’t feel extra bad for Al if he is on the hook legally.

As for being “difficult” to work with, I’m a bit confused then why Mike didn’t tell Live Nation “no” to even the idea of playing with Al. If pulling out of this gig “burned bridges”, then I sense those bridges were already pretty well toast to begin with, and I suspect slow ticket sales may have motivated both Live Nation and Mike to “allow” Al to be in his own band for an evening. If someone ever gets Al to talk about his debacle, perhaps Al would suggest the “bridge” was “burned” by Mike in the negotiation process.

Well, I think it`s clear that there had been a thawing of relations in recent months (until the cancellation). Al appeared at Mike`s award show which Mike seemingly appreciated and Mike`s comments about Al in the press have been much more positive than in the past. From Mike`s perspective it probably wouldn`t have seemed such a big deal to play one gig with Al at a nice venue.

Don't forget Al's birthday salute to Mike on his FB. "Good Vibrations from Big Sur to Tahoe" or something like that. Mike shared this on his FB I think. Those two are probably on good terms-- this seems like an episode of sloppy business/comunication, not bad feelings between those two.

[RubberSoul13]

Assuming the date went on Al’s website with Al’s knowledge (and to some degree, even if it was without his knowledge, the site does bear his name after all), he owes the fans an apology for the confusion and for those who bought tickets because of his reported appearance.

Anything else, especially in terms of the legal side of things, we really can’t say. Again, Al would have to be either really misguided and have really bad representation if he’s on the hook legally for pulling out of the show. And you know what? If he is, then he’ll pay the price just like anybody in that situation would. While I would (and do) feel the entire situation is pretty sad, I wouldn’t feel extra bad for Al if he is on the hook legally.

As for being “difficult” to work with, I’m a bit confused then why Mike didn’t tell Live Nation “no” to even the idea of playing with Al. If pulling out of this gig “burned bridges”, then I sense those bridges were already pretty well toast to begin with, and I suspect slow ticket sales may have motivated both Live Nation and Mike to “allow” Al to be in his own band for an evening. If someone ever gets Al to talk about his debacle, perhaps Al would suggest the “bridge” was “burned” by Mike in the negotiation process.

Well, I think it`s clear that there had been a thawing of relations in recent months (until the cancellation). Al appeared at Mike`s award show which Mike seemingly appreciated and Mike`s comments about Al in the press have been much more positive than in the past. From Mike`s perspective it probably wouldn`t have seemed such a big deal to play one gig with Al at a nice venue.

Don't forget Al's birthday salute to Mike on his FB. "Good Vibrations from Big Sur to Tahoe" or something like that. Mike shared this on his FB I think. Those two are probably on good terms-- this seems like an episode of sloppy business/comunication, not bad feelings between those two.

I hope I'm not misquoting, but I believe it was AGD who said Mike and Bruce said, bridges have been burnt with Al.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Assuming the date went on Al’s website with Al’s knowledge (and to some degree, even if it was without his knowledge, the site does bear his name after all), he owes the fans an apology for the confusion and for those who bought tickets because of his reported appearance.

Anything else, especially in terms of the legal side of things, we really can’t say. Again, Al would have to be either really misguided and have really bad representation if he’s on the hook legally for pulling out of the show. And you know what? If he is, then he’ll pay the price just like anybody in that situation would. While I would (and do) feel the entire situation is pretty sad, I wouldn’t feel extra bad for Al if he is on the hook legally.

As for being “difficult” to work with, I’m a bit confused then why Mike didn’t tell Live Nation “no” to even the idea of playing with Al. If pulling out of this gig “burned bridges”, then I sense those bridges were already pretty well toast to begin with, and I suspect slow ticket sales may have motivated both Live Nation and Mike to “allow” Al to be in his own band for an evening. If someone ever gets Al to talk about his debacle, perhaps Al would suggest the “bridge” was “burned” by Mike in the negotiation process.

Well, I think it`s clear that there had been a thawing of relations in recent months (until the cancellation). Al appeared at Mike`s award show which Mike seemingly appreciated and Mike`s comments about Al in the press have been much more positive than in the past. From Mike`s perspective it probably wouldn`t have seemed such a big deal to play one gig with Al at a nice venue.

Don't forget Al's birthday salute to Mike on his FB. "Good Vibrations from Big Sur to Tahoe" or something like that. Mike shared this on his FB I think. Those two are probably on good terms-- this seems like an episode of sloppy business/comunication, not bad feelings between those two.

I hope I'm not misquoting, but I believe it was AGD who said Mike and Bruce said, bridges have been burnt with Al.

Similarly, I'd argue a Facebook message means nothing. We all have Facebook friends we don't actually like but have because either you see them often and don't want to make things unnecessarily awkward, or because youre misguided and place value in how large your friends list is. It's possible Al was just being polite and doing what's expected, and Mike is doing likewise. These are adults, not children. They're smart enough to be civil and keep up appearances. On my birthday I always get random well-wishes on Facebook from people I don't particularly care for and/or haven't talked to in years. That's just the way these silly social networking sites go.

[The Shift]

Assuming the date went on Al’s website with Al’s knowledge (and to some degree, even if it was without his knowledge, the site does bear his name after all), he owes the fans an apology for the confusion and for those who bought tickets because of his reported appearance.

Anything else, especially in terms of the legal side of things, we really can’t say. Again, Al would have to be either really misguided and have really bad representation if he’s on the hook legally for pulling out of the show. And you know what? If he is, then he’ll pay the price just like anybody in that situation would. While I would (and do) feel the entire situation is pretty sad, I wouldn’t feel extra bad for Al if he is on the hook legally.

As for being “difficult” to work with, I’m a bit confused then why Mike didn’t tell Live Nation “no” to even the idea of playing with Al. If pulling out of this gig “burned bridges”, then I sense those bridges were already pretty well toast to begin with, and I suspect slow ticket sales may have motivated both Live Nation and Mike to “allow” Al to be in his own band for an evening. If someone ever gets Al to talk about his debacle, perhaps Al would suggest the “bridge” was “burned” by Mike in the negotiation process.

Well, I think it`s clear that there had been a thawing of relations in recent months (until the cancellation). Al appeared at Mike`s award show which Mike seemingly appreciated and Mike`s comments about Al in the press have been much more positive than in the past. From Mike`s perspective it probably wouldn`t have seemed such a big deal to play one gig with Al at a nice venue.

Don't forget Al's birthday salute to Mike on his FB. "Good Vibrations from Big Sur to Tahoe" or something like that. Mike shared this on his FB I think. Those two are probably on good terms-- this seems like an episode of sloppy business/comunication, not bad feelings between those two.

I hope I'm not misquoting, but I believe it was AGD who said Mike and Bruce said, bridges have been burnt with Al.

Similarly, I'd argue a Facebook message means nothing. We all have Facebook friends we don't actually like but have because either you see them often and don't want to make things unnecessarily awkward, or because youre misguided and place value in how large your friends list is. It's possible Al was just being polite and doing what's expected, and Mike is doing likewise. These are adults, not children. They're smart enough to be civil and keep up appearances. On my birthday I always get random well-wishes on Facebook from people I don't particularly care for and/or haven't talked to in years. That's just the way these silly social networking sites go.

I think we and our sensible message board can give these "silly social networking sites" a run for their money when we get a close-on 800-post thread speculating about why Al decided he'd show up for work at one venue instead of another!!!!!

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Assuming the date went on Al’s website with Al’s knowledge (and to some degree, even if it was without his knowledge, the site does bear his name after all), he owes the fans an apology for the confusion and for those who bought tickets because of his reported appearance.

Anything else, especially in terms of the legal side of things, we really can’t say. Again, Al would have to be either really misguided and have really bad representation if he’s on the hook legally for pulling out of the show. And you know what? If he is, then he’ll pay the price just like anybody in that situation would. While I would (and do) feel the entire situation is pretty sad, I wouldn’t feel extra bad for Al if he is on the hook legally.

As for being “difficult” to work with, I’m a bit confused then why Mike didn’t tell Live Nation “no” to even the idea of playing with Al. If pulling out of this gig “burned bridges”, then I sense those bridges were already pretty well toast to begin with, and I suspect slow ticket sales may have motivated both Live Nation and Mike to “allow” Al to be in his own band for an evening. If someone ever gets Al to talk about his debacle, perhaps Al would suggest the “bridge” was “burned” by Mike in the negotiation process.

Well, I think it`s clear that there had been a thawing of relations in recent months (until the cancellation). Al appeared at Mike`s award show which Mike seemingly appreciated and Mike`s comments about Al in the press have been much more positive than in the past. From Mike`s perspective it probably wouldn`t have seemed such a big deal to play one gig with Al at a nice venue.

Don't forget Al's birthday salute to Mike on his FB. "Good Vibrations from Big Sur to Tahoe" or something like that. Mike shared this on his FB I think. Those two are probably on good terms-- this seems like an episode of sloppy business/comunication, not bad feelings between those two.

I hope I'm not misquoting, but I believe it was AGD who said Mike and Bruce said, bridges have been burnt with Al.

Similarly, I'd argue a Facebook message means nothing. We all have Facebook friends we don't actually like but have because either you see them often and don't want to make things unnecessarily awkward, or because youre misguided and place value in how large your friends list is. It's possible Al was just being polite and doing what's expected, and Mike is doing likewise. These are adults, not children. They're smart enough to be civil and keep up appearances. On my birthday I always get random well-wishes on Facebook from people I don't particularly care for and/or haven't talked to in years. That's just the way these silly social networking sites go.

I think we and our sensible message board can give these "silly social networking sites" a run for their money when we get a close-on 800-post thread speculating about why Al decided he'd show up for work at one venue instead of another!!!!!

Touche, my good man.

[KittyKat]

One fun sidebar to this thread is that you can *really* tell which of the members has it out for Al, LOL.

I don't think anybody here has it out for Al.  Al does some stupid things to himself, like putting the Jones Beach date on his own website, but I think people here recognize his talents and enjoy his singing and some of his songs.

I do remember that it was posted somewhere that not only was Al supposedly going to appear at Jones Beach with the Beach Boys, but he was also going to do some work in the studio with Mike. I'm not sure where I read that but I know it was out there somewhere. I assume that will not happen now, but it was interesting that it was apparently discussed between the two of them, or at least their agents. So, it was more than birthday greetings perfunctorily exchanged on Facebook.

[Doo Dah]

I can't believe Al's name hasn't been removed from that listing if it's still being used to sell tickets to the show, which is now less than a week away. This turned into a comedy of errors that keeps delivering the punchlines. 

Basic business practice, you can't advertise something or someone if it's been confirmed they're not going to be there.

Or, and I have no evidence of this, the promoter is confidant Al and or BRI/Brother Tours (or whichever booking vehicle is used nowadays) is contractually bound to 'supply' Al and haven't been officially notified that he won't be appearing. Although the promoter is supposed to mitigate their losses it is possible they could sue for breach of contract.

However viewed it's one hell of a mess with no winners except perhaps the lawyers. Not the brand, the individuals, the public or the promoter.

As an aside, under New Zealand consumer law, the promoter would not get away with refusing refunds as per above.

In December 1970 Dirk sued Stig and Nasty, Barry sued Dirk, Nasty sued Stig and Barry, and Stig sued himself accidentally. It was the end of a golden era, and the beginning of another one for lawyers everywhere.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Alan has already technically sued himself, back in 1998-9 when BRI - of whom he is a shareholder - legally stopped him using the phrase "Beach Boys" in relation to his then-band. 

And, uh, no, I didn't quote Mike & Bruce as saying bridges had been burned, because they never said that to me: I said that this was my impression, given the frosty response to my asking about Alan & Jones Beach. Quick cheat sheet:

They said - they told me...

It's my understanding - they told me but I can't quote them...

I gather - I'm deducing from what was not said...

It's possible - well, I think...

Consider this scenario - either, I have no idea but hey... or this is actually whats happening but I can't say that outright.

Caveat: one or more of these definitions may well be just me messing with your heads.