New Al interview: "Don't call us The Beach Boys!"

[Nicko1234]

I also thought that Brian, Al and David have all billed themselves as original members of The Beach Boys in promotional materials recently anyway...

hence some new issues by the sound of it.

Possibly but the booking sites are still using the words `ex-Beach Boys` it seems...

[Sheriff John Stone]

Brian Wilson AND Paul McCartney are collaborating...in the studio...on SMiLE...on "Vegetables"...in 1967...and Al Jardine was interrupting them and rushing them...because he wanted to go to bed! And now he appears to be bragging about it? Poor Al.

While both The Beatles and The Beach Boys were undoubtedly successful at the time the "Vegetables" session took place, I don't think anyone in either band was spending too much time thinking about "how will this session be looked upon by people forty plus years from now".

Undoubtedly successful at the time? I think that's a bit of an understatement, John. You had two of the (arguably) greatest songwriters in the history of popular music in the studio together - in 1967 no less - recording. It's not like this was a common practice.

Also, as it turned out 40, well 50 years later, I think the Beach Boys were very aware of the "special-ness"  of their dealings with The Beatles. What's that story Mike has repeated about his infamous breakfast in India? And now he's added a George connection to his repertoire. Bruce was especially proud to have played a record for John and Paul in a hotel room. And, good old Brian has his share of nods to The Beatles, from calling a special meeting to discuss being "eclipsed" by The Beatles, to Rubber Soul blowing his mind and motivating him to do Pet Sounds, to Paul McCartney's favorite song. What's Paul's favorite song again? For some reason, Al not only didn't seem to value the experience, but actually wanted to leave. I'm sorry but I can't make sense out of that. Unless he's trying to impress us...

[Mr. Cohen]

The last thing Al needed was some stoned out British puffball wasting his time. The guy had to get up in the morning. He kept it clean, and now he can sing like a flawless robot facsimile. Have you heard Paul lately? He sounds like a grandpa.

[HeyJude]

It's sounding like, post-C50, Brian and/or Al have gotten some warnings/words from legal teams regarding the use of the "Beach Boys" name.

If you study the myriad of other cases, "use of a trademark" is a very grey, subjective area. It isn't as simple (depending on who is willing to be litigious) as either calling it "The Beach Boys" (which Brian and Al obviously never have), or simply mentioning that the guys are members of the Beach Boys. There is a huge "in between" there, and it is often parsed in legal cases down to where the "billing" and "promotion information" are, how big the font is, and so on.

Whereas Al using the "Beach Boys" name in his band's title in the late 90's (BBFF) was a clear case of using the actual trademark in the band's name, simply mentioning in promotional materials (Brian Wilson and Al Jardine, original Beach Boys members, etc.) is usually fine; it's usually hard to keep people from stating their affiliations in that fashion. Al was apparently temporarily prohibited from doing so, but that was only during the various lawsuits in the early 2000's, where courts will often take temporarily more extreme measures while a case is being argued. By 2005 I believe, Al was once again allowed to bill himsefl as a "Beach Boy."

I think what you see in this interview as far as the issue of "using the Beach Boys name" is a mixture of lack of detail, lack of detailed familiarity with the law, and some good old fashioned hyperbole.

One more time quickly concerning the "no more shows for Wilson", it's blatantly clear that's a total red herring, both from Love and anyone still holding that specious reasoning up. The fact that that is still being bandied about despite the fact that nobody is even disputing such an e-mail exists (which is more than fair considering we have no proof of the e-mail beyond the weak argument that there is a "lack of contradiction" from anyone about it) speaks to the Love-esque "Legal Technicality" argument that leaves everybody with a bad taste in their mouth.

Ironically, while I’m very much using HYPERBOLE here, an argument could be made that while Brian was not fired by Mike, perhaps Al was. That is, if the “50 Big Ones” production company run by Mike, Brian, and Joe Thomas was employing everybody else in the band (including Al) and somehow facilitating the temporary use of Love’s license to use the BB name, then whomever ended the operation being run by that production company was in one sense (though likely not in a legal sense) firing everybody in the operation by folding the whole operation.

If I’m employed by a production company, and one of the members of that company doesn’t want to continue and folds the whole thing, I would certainly feel fired, or laid off, or whatever you want to call it.

Again, this is all a stretch. But it is a bit ironic, and may speak to any bitterness Al might have.

[The Shift]

I think the interviewer was a tad indiscreet including the last few q&as… that kinda stuff was the interview breaking down naturally as it came to a close and don't do anyone any favours.

[HeyJude]

I think the interviewer was a tad indiscreet including the last few q&as… that kinda stuff was the interview breaking down naturally as it came to a close and don't do anyone any favours.

Yeah, that was rather odd. Please let me be clear: Al should know that anything he says can be printed. I’m not sure what, if any, journalistic missteps the guy may have made. But that did seem a very odd way to end a printed interview. The benefit to nosey fans is that we get some additional info to chew on (although it clearly still leaves it open to all sorts of opposing analyses).

It’s arguably implicit in the text we can read of the interview that Al knows it will be printed (and/or wants it to), but one hopes that after the interview ended, the interviewer clarified that he would be printing the entire exchange.

Usually, when we get this sort of stuff in print (or TV/film) interviews, the interviewer offers some preface or afterword that explains why they left the extraneous wrap-up stuff in, and perhaps analyzes this a bit. So it just comes across viscerally as a bit more odd when the whole thing is otherwise presented as the typical local news fluff piece publicizing a gig. This is the sort of thing you’d normally get in an issue of Rolling Stone or something with a page of build up and analysis, setting the scene and giving the whole thing more context.

[the professor]

"JM: I feel that the natural place is for all of you to be together."

That's all the professor ever thinks ans says as well....

[HeyJude]

"JM: I feel that the natural place is for all of you to be together."

That's all the professor ever thinks ans says as well....

'Tis true, and that was reaffirmed for me when I saw the C50 show in 2012. Before the LA Times letters and all the commotion, I already felt that the full band was the only real way for these guys to be.

There are plenty of semantics arguments and logic and deduction that can be used to argue why the guys should be together, and why the dissolution of the reunited lineup is so sad. But ultimately, it's just a sense. "Set end date" and all of that was bulls**t, but not just because of the litany of evidence that one could use to argue that it was BS. It was BS because I saw that show. I've been as pessimistic and jaded as a fan could be. I think the dissolution of the reunion was so frustrating because in 2012 the Beach Boys, all of them, including Mike Love, proved all the skeptical, nit-picky fans wrong. They kicked ass. They should have ended their careers that way. Not giving interviews like this one Al just gave, or the ones Mike gives. To his credit, at least Al would have rather been touring with the reunited band than having to give such an interview. But it's sad either way.

[guitarfool2002]

These interviews come and go similar to the chances of a "Nor'Easter" storm being in the forecast during those winters when I lived in Boston. Some of them caused major issues, some of them dropped some snow and blew over.

But you still can't help but to follow them and pore over the details like in this one. A few comments/questions, even though I probably know better by now...

First, is there really some legal action taken around the recent Brian and Al shows being promoted? I'll say this, and ask: When I first saw the billing with the words "founding members..." in the billing, my first thought was "wait for the lawsuit, wait for it...". So if there are legal actions surrounding that kind of billing in the name, I'm not surprised. If there are, though, it's pretty foolish if you ask me.

Second, this stuff again with the 50th tour.

Having done just a bit of business in my decades of life, I can pretty much say with confidence that the really big business or legal affairs whether from the biggest corporations, to small businesses, to Ebay transactions, to me booking a music gig for next month do not begin and end with a single email, or text, or call, or whatever. There is context, there is history, to borrow a term from even those shows like "Judge Judy" and "People's Court", there is an "email chain" that usually tells the more complete version of events that led up to and immediately followed whatever event or action may be in question. And as far as I know, verified emails to-and-from the parties involved are and can be considered legal evidence of how things played out.

So if we are going to base something that involved literally hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps a few dozen musicians and crew, equipment/travel/operations staff and arrangements, and the like, it's not about saying whether or not an email exists...

...but to get the story I think we may want to hear, isn't it more about getting the bigger picture that surrounded this one email, and see what led up to it and what may have followed it?

It's hard to believe that a business venture and a legal situation like a major concert tour would or did come down to or even hinge its future on a single email, and not just in this case of C50 but in nearly every business venture we could think of. Maybe there really is more to the story.

[Shady]

I'm pretty sure Al doesn't even know why he's not in the beach boys 

[HeyJude]

These interviews come and go similar to the chances of a "Nor'Easter" storm being in the forecast during those winters when I lived in Boston. Some of them caused major issues, some of them dropped some snow and blew over.

But you still can't help but to follow them and pore over the details like in this one. A few comments/questions, even though I probably know better by now...

First, is there really some legal action taken around the recent Brian and Al shows being promoted? I'll say this, and ask: When I first saw the billing with the words "founding members..." in the billing, my first thought was "wait for the lawsuit, wait for it...". So if there are legal actions surrounding that kind of billing in the name, I'm not surprised. If there are, though, it's pretty foolish if you ask me.

Second, this stuff again with the 50th tour.

Having done just a bit of business in my decades of life, I can pretty much say with confidence that the really big business or legal affairs whether from the biggest corporations, to small businesses, to Ebay transactions, to me booking a music gig for next month do not begin and end with a single email, or text, or call, or whatever. There is context, there is history, to borrow a term from even those shows like "Judge Judy" and "People's Court", there is an "email chain" that usually tells the more complete version of events that led up to and immediately followed whatever event or action may be in question. And as far as I know, verified emails to-and-from the parties involved are and can be considered legal evidence of how things played out.

So if we are going to base something that involved literally hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps a few dozen musicians and crew, equipment/travel/operations staff and arrangements, and the like, it's not about saying whether or not an email exists...

...but to get the story I think we may want to hear, isn't it more about getting the bigger picture that surrounded this one email, and see what led up to it and what may have followed it?

It's hard to believe that a business venture and a legal situation like a major concert tour would or did come down to or even hinge its future on a single email, and not just in this case of C50 but in nearly every business venture we could think of. Maybe there really is more to the story.

Concerning Brian and Al and how their shows have been billed, I don’t think any legal action has taken place. I would imagine it’s more a case of agents or managers or perhaps legal counsel sending a letter simply warning against certain things.

I also think, and this is just my guess, that unlike the legal action regarding Al back circa 1999 where he was definitely using the trademark within his band’s name, it would be a much harder case to make to go after Brian and Al’s “tour” (if we are even calling it that) for simply indicating they are original and/or founding members. The ticket always says “Brian Wilson” (in many cases Al’s name isn’t even on the ticket). Any person, unless there is a legal injunction or something, can list things like “original/founding member” as long as it’s descriptive and is true.

An example of a more grey area would be if the ticket and concert poster and Ticketmaster listing all said something like “THE BEACH BOYS’ Brian Wilson & Al Jardine.” It would still be meant to be descriptive, but would have the trademark in the “artist name” itself, and would also be construed as potentially more confusing or misleading.

But there are a million dudes out there listing “former guitarist for RATT” and whatnot. Nothing wrong with that.

As far as the C50 stuff, it is all about context. It’s also about whether one is making a “legal” argument, versus a “moral” argument, versus a “logical” argument, and so on. Some have lamented that wishing for more reunion shows and whatnot is pointless, because it wasn’t going to happen, and therefore it’s useless to criticize those who may have brought about its demise. (Some are making what I feel is a much more specious and bizarre argument that Brian is responsible solely for the tour’s demise). But to the former point, I can only say that BB fans have lamented pointlessly many things. The BB’s career, especially from 1966 and on, is filled with countless lamentations of what could have been or should have been. I think there is a place for these largely and ultimately fruitless lamentations, especially when it concerns something that was relatively more possible and achievable (more “reunion” shows) versus something that had a million strikes against it (“Smile” coming out in 1967, etc.)

[urbanite]

I  think, based on Al's comment, that an injunction was obtained to prevent Brian and Al, when booking and advertising concerts. from referring to the event as a Beach Boys concert, or saying anything to make people think the concert is a Beach Boys concert.  No one can stop Brian and Al from saying that they were founders of the Beach Boys and recorded records as members of the Beach Boys, because that's history.  But they cannout conduct business in a way that infringes on the business of the people that currently hold the exclusive license.  That's a $.02 legal opinion.   

[HeyJude]

I  think, based on Al's comment, that an injunction was obtained to prevent Brian and Al, when booking and advertising concerts. from referring to the event as a Beach Boys concert, or saying anything to make people think the concert is a Beach Boys concert.  No one can stop Brian and Al from saying that they were founders of the Beach Boys and recorded records as members of the Beach Boys, because that's history.  But they cannout conduct business in a way that infringes on the business of the people that currently hold the exclusive license.  That's a $.02 legal opinion.   

I’m not sure if the court would view a petition for an injunction as frivolous in light of the fact that Brian and Al have never attempted, or expressed any desire, to book shows as “The Beach Boys.” I think you have to show some kind of cause to seek an injunction against a person or entity. You can’t simply cover all your bases by filing injunctions against people for things they might do. Then every trademark holder would file injunctions against everybody but themselves just to make sure nobody ever infringes.

I’m also thinking it would be quite possible if not extremely likely that, had an actual court granted an injunction post-2012, it would have hit the news/media, if for no other reason than it would have allowed them to stoke the flames even more regarding lawsuits and acrimony.

I’m still thinking that phone calls and perhaps letters went back and forth on these issues rather than actual court injunctions requested or granted.

[Micha]

I brought “Sloop John B” to the band, the iconic, legendary song “Sloop John B” – my idea. I helped Brian arrange that.

If that were Mike, he'd had added "And I never ever got a co-arranging credit!" But Alas, Al's lawyers just ain't that good!

[JohnMill]

Brian Wilson AND Paul McCartney are collaborating...in the studio...on SMiLE...on "Vegetables"...in 1967...and Al Jardine was interrupting them and rushing them...because he wanted to go to bed! And now he appears to be bragging about it? Poor Al.

While both The Beatles and The Beach Boys were undoubtedly successful at the time the "Vegetables" session took place, I don't think anyone in either band was spending too much time thinking about "how will this session be looked upon by people forty plus years from now".

Undoubtedly successful at the time? I think that's a bit of an understatement, John. You had two of the (arguably) greatest songwriters in the history of popular music in the studio together - in 1967 no less - recording. It's not like this was a common practice.

Also, as it turned out 40, well 50 years later, I think the Beach Boys were very aware of the "special-ness"  of their dealings with The Beatles. What's that story Mike has repeated about his infamous breakfast in India? And now he's added a George connection to his repertoire. Bruce was especially proud to have played a record for John and Paul in a hotel room. And, good old Brian has his share of nods to The Beatles, from calling a special meeting to discuss being "eclipsed" by The Beatles, to Rubber Soul blowing his mind and motivating him to do Pet Sounds, to Paul McCartney's favorite song. What's Paul's favorite song again? For some reason, Al not only didn't seem to value the experience, but actually wanted to leave. I'm sorry but I can't make sense out of that. Unless he's trying to impress us...

Well to your first point I think again it was just around 1967 or so that pop music was just starting to get some recognition as a viable art form.  Even so neither Paul McCartney nor Brian Wilson was being publicly acknowledged by the masses (i.e. non-music fans) as two of the greatest songwriters in the history of popular music in 1967.  All of those accolades would come later on down the road.

As to your second point, I actually think it's a bit sad as to why The Beach Boys feel the need to namedrop The Beatles.  To me by this point in history The Beach Boys are legends in enough of themselves that they don't have to name drop so that they are associated with another group of legends.  What's unfortunate is that a lot of interviewers (the one who conducted this interview included) feel inclined that whenever they are interviewing one of the boys, to have to name drop The Beatles into the conversation.  To me I've always seen that as being disrespectful to the person that you are interviewing but The Beach Boys continue to engage such questions so I guess they don't mind which is all that really matters in the end.

[guitarfool2002]

I don't know if it's name-dropping in a negative "look at me!" kind of egotistical way (although we can ID that when it happens...), but in this case I'd say there is interest among fans to hear about a meeting at this particular time when both Paul and Brian were letting each other hear what were works-in-progress forms of songs from projects that would go on to become among the biggest legends in each musician's career that has shadowed everything they've done since, both famous and infamous depending on who you ask. Paul previewing Sgt. Pepper music, Brian working on Smile music, and the two worlds come together while Al is busy recording a vocal. I think the interest also lies in asking whether something that did not make it to the official released version(s) was heard or recorded that day, or others like it.

I think some of the Beatles backlash needs to be tempered just a bit because for fans and musicians, the interest goes pretty deep to get those glimpses into what was or what may have been going on for history's sake and for the interest of fans, and I think it goes beyond lionizing or over-hyping any given story because of who is involved. Al happened to be there that day, it's not name-dropping to me to describe what happened when there has been interest in this meeting for decades among fans of both bands and artists. Who better than someone who was actually there to ask about it?

[Mr. Cohen]

I'd love to hear someone ask Al about "Loop De Loop":

"That song is another one right there. Geeze. So Brian was doing all these songs on his piano that would really knock you out. Incredible stuff, as good as Pet Sounds, I think. But then he'd record in his little home studio and it wouldn't sound right. They didn't sound like hit records to me, anyway.

One of those songs Brian played for us on his piano was 'Loop De Loop', or maybe he called it 'Sailing', or 'Loop Song' - I don't remember, actually. It was a fun little tune. I knew no one else was going to do a better recording, so I booked the big studios myself. Western, Sunset, and maybe some others I can't remember. We did a great big production, all kinds of sound effects that I spent a lot of time getting right. Wouldn't you know it, though, they wouldn't release the darn thing. They just wouldn't.

I thought that was a big missed opportunity."

[kermit27]

I'd love to hear someone ask Al about "Loop De Loop":

"That song is another one right there. Geeze. So Brian was doing all these songs on his piano that would really knock you out. Incredible stuff, as good as Pet Sounds, I think. But then he'd record in his little home studio and it wouldn't sound right. They didn't sound like hit records to me, anyway.

One of those songs Brian played for us on his piano was 'Loop De Loop', or maybe he called it 'Sailing', or 'Loop Song' - I don't remember, actually. It was a fun little tune. I knew no one else was going to do a better recording, so I booked the big studios myself. Western, Sunset, and maybe some others I can't remember. We did a great big production, all kinds of sound effects that I spent a lot of time getting right. Wouldn't you know it, though, they wouldn't release the darn thing. They just wouldn't.

I thought that was a big missed opportunity."

That was perfect.

[bgas]

I'd love to hear someone ask Al about "Loop De Loop":

"That song is another one right there. Geeze. So Brian was doing all these songs on his piano that would really knock you out. Incredible stuff, as good as Pet Sounds, I think. But then he'd record in his little home studio and it wouldn't sound right. They didn't sound like hit records to me, anyway.

One of those songs Brian played for us on his piano was 'Loop De Loop', or maybe he called it 'Sailing', or 'Loop Song' - I don't remember, actually. It was a fun little tune. I knew no one else was going to do a better recording, so I booked the big studios myself. Western, Sunset, and maybe some others I can't remember. We did a great big production, all kinds of sound effects that I spent a lot of time getting right. Wouldn't you know it, though, they wouldn't release the darn thing. They just wouldn't.

I thought that was a big missed opportunity."

After AL reads this, he'll remember, and recite it in a future interview( otherwise he won't remember squat)

[donald]

What is the old show biz saying?  No such thing as bad publicity or something like that?    I start with the assumption that all of the Beachboys are aware of and in agreement with their trademark and financial arrangements.  sounds like someone or some people want to have their cake and eat it too.

[HeyJude]

What is the old show biz saying?  No such thing as bad publicity or something like that?    I start with the assumption that all of the Beachboys are aware of and in agreement with their trademark and financial arrangements.  sounds like someone or some people want to have their cake and eat it too.

Aware? One would hope and assume. In agreement? Doubtful. I don't think all their votes have come down unanimously. The very few votes we're privy to via various publicly-available court rulings were not all unanimous.

But yes, I'm sure in many setups like the one they have, there are times when a board member votes one way, then continues to complain about things that may have come about because of the way they voted.

[Nicko1234]

One of the odd comments to me is Al saying, "Well, Mr. Love has imposed an injunction that prohibits either of us, but mostly me. We’re kind of a threat because we do look like The Beach Boys".

The fact that he says "mostly me" maybe indicates that Al is referring to things from 15 years ago as much as he is referring to thiings now.

[Pretty Funky]

Not odd at all. Al has history of using the name, not Brian or Dave.

[adamghost]

I hope the Carl and Dennis tour happens.

Paging Adam Marsland... paging Adam Marsland...

Um, yeah, don't quite know what to say!  It's, um, a genius idea?

[baseball95]

Jeff's finally giving an interview on the split between he and Brian

http://www.desertsun.com/story/life/entertainment/music/2014/09/22/beach-boys-brian-wilson-jeffrey-foskett/16070181/