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

[the professor]

Him. Between him and Brian.



Quote author=baseball95 link=topic=18286.msg476253#msg476253 date=1411441431]
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/
[/quote]

[Andrew G. Doe]

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?

I can't understand why no-one's ever thought of this before.

Oh... wait...

[HeyJude]

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

In all fairness, that "history" consists of pretty much one calendar year (1999) if we're talking about actually using the BB trademark in a band title (BBFF).

All of Al, Dave, and Brian have used variations on "original/founding member of the Beach Boys" in promotional materials.

Al's recent comments may be partly informed by all of the stuff that went down over a decade ago, because for a time, unlike Brian or Dave, Al was apparently prohibited from even advertising himself as a "Beach Boy." As I've mentioned before, that apparently was over and done with by 2005 when he seemed to be happy he was once again allowed to say he is a "Beach Boy." But I can imagine, perhaps even more than the "BBFF" name debacle, that period of time where he was not allowed to state what was factually true, that he was a "Beach Boy", might have been even more grating, even if it was a sort of lingering temporary effect of the various lawsuits.

If, recently, there have been some overtures about warnings for how Brian and Al advertise themselves, this may be what has irked him as of late.

[Cam Mott]

It's hard to figure out what Al means because the corporation voted to give the license to Mike. Al had his shot and mucked it up. They presumably voted to not muddy up their own decision by also protecting the use of brand name.

If they want to change that then do it and quit whining about it. Jeez.

[HeyJude]

It's hard to figure out what Al means because the corporation voted to give the license to Mike. Al had his shot and mucked it up. They presumably voted to not muddy up their own decision by also protecting the use of brand name.

If they want to change that then do it and quit whining about it. Jeez.

It seems likely Al is the minority vote (both figuratively and literally) in some of these instances, so I don't think he can do much else but whine. It seems he and Brian can vote differently from each other but still work together. Too bad that doesn't work in every permutation and combination of band members.

I don't think it's possible to fully figure out what exactly Al is referring to in this interview. Between his lack of ability or willingness to speak "legalese", and the fact that some of the things he's talking about could refer to either the more distant past (over a decade ago), or the last couple years, or both, I'm not sure we can fully decipher what he's talking about.

In that sense, the interview wasn't particularly fruitful. If you're going to go all out and get into a "hey, go ahead and publish my comments!" mood, you might as well blab everything outside of what will land you into a lawsuit. But it follows the pattern of all of the BB's (and sometimes their associates) of commenting on something and only raising more questions than answers.

[Kurosawa]

As a fan, I have to say that I think the guys are incredibly short sighted. They're not going to live forever, they're not going to be able to play forever, and they are wasting time not being united. It's just foolish. Brian finally gets back into wanting to be a Beach Boy, committed to the band, and they let it end? The whole thing was just the ultimate Beach Boys fail, something the excel at. They really do blow it better than anyone.

It's a shame.

[guitarfool2002]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I remember (and I could be wrong), Al never billed himself or his band as "The Beach Boys", it was clearly "The Beach Boys Family And Friends". Short on memory and time at this moment, there may have been more sub-titles to that billing as well depending on the venue.

Now, was it worth going to court over this name? Obviously the court sided against Al, we know that and don't have to re-try the case. But seriously, I'll ask again, point blank: What was the likelihood of a fan buying a ticket to that and having the "confusion" element over which band was performing become an issue?

Ironically, again, the confusion that led to cancelled dates, mistaken bookings and promotional photos, and other related issues happened when Mike, the license holder who had the major issue with Al's use of the name due to potential "confusion" over booking these bands, was the one who may have caused more confusion for fans, venues, and local promoters when his organization was booking shows as the Beach Boys while the 50th tour was still traveling and playing. So fans, and agents, and venues - including people whose daily business it is to book bands - were not sure which Beach Boys they were going to get.

I don't know if ironic is the term, but it was an odd twist to say the least considering what happened with the "Family And Friends" debacle.

And at some point I think people would prefer to see things handled out of the court system, for a number of reasons.

My 2 cents.

[Cam Mott]

More than one court found Al guilty of something.

Confusion over the brand happened when Al did not hold a license, the post C50 confusion happened while Mike did hold the license. Maybe not comparable.

[HeyJude]

More than one court found Al guilty of something.

Confusion over the brand happened when Al did not hold a license, the post C50 confusion happened while Mike did hold the license. Maybe not comparable.

Let's just be clear in case there is anyone out there not particular familiar with that situation. All of the court actions took place in civil court, not criminal court. I don't believe "guilty" is ever used as a ruling in civil lawsuits.

[HeyJude]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I remember (and I could be wrong), Al never billed himself or his band as "The Beach Boys", it was clearly "The Beach Boys Family And Friends". Short on memory and time at this moment, there may have been more sub-titles to that billing as well depending on the venue.

Now, was it worth going to court over this name? Obviously the court sided against Al, we know that and don't have to re-try the case. But seriously, I'll ask again, point blank: What was the likelihood of a fan buying a ticket to that and having the "confusion" element over which band was performing become an issue?

Ironically, again, the confusion that led to cancelled dates, mistaken bookings and promotional photos, and other related issues happened when Mike, the license holder who had the major issue with Al's use of the name due to potential "confusion" over booking these bands, was the one who may have caused more confusion for fans, venues, and local promoters when his organization was booking shows as the Beach Boys while the 50th tour was still traveling and playing. So fans, and agents, and venues - including people whose daily business it is to book bands - were not sure which Beach Boys they were going to get.

I don't know if ironic is the term, but it was an odd twist to say the least considering what happened with the "Family And Friends" debacle.

And at some point I think people would prefer to see things handled out of the court system, for a number of reasons.

My 2 cents.

Al never called his band "The Beach Boys" and never expressed a desire to do so. His band title was, for most of 1999, "Beach Boys Family & Friends." It was ultimately found that it infringed on the "Beach Boys" trademark by virtue of having the trademark within the band's title.

How much confusion was there in 1999? I think the stronger case was made that it simply infringed on the trademark. There were some citations of specific gigs where people were "confused", but I would guess that didn't weigh as heavily in the cases as the simple fact that it the name used the trademark.

There were other issues where, strangely, even the court was not willing to say with certainty whether Al had a valid license in 1999. But it ultimately didn't matter, because once Mike had an exclusive license, it was a done deal.

And yes, there was a bit of noticeable irony when a couple of post-C50 shows were advertised with pictures of the full reunion band. This was indeed one of the "confusion" issues that BRI mentioned concerning Al's shows. It's funny, there were a few fans who immediately pointed out (certainly correctly I would think) that it was not Mike's doing that led to the C50 photos being used, but rather confused and disorganized promoters. But when this happened to Al in 1999, no such leniency was shown from a few fans.

[Cam Mott]

I believe the court made it clear Al wrote his own license, signed it but no one else did, and began using the brand without a license.

The issue was using the brand without a license, Mike had a license post C50.

[guitarfool2002]

These two discussions are overlapping (a lot of it my fault), but let me borrow from the other and ask more simply:

The case could have been argued on the basis of the naming rights and fees to advertise with that name. How and why did it need to go into trying to seek "lost revenue" from Al, and how did that fall on Mike instead of BRI...meaning BRI could claim the unpaid fees, but what was the purpose of trying to seek "damages" and estimated lost revenue from Al, payable to Mike?

If I'm wrong on the basis of that open question, please correct. But I don't think the background is wrong...Mike tried to collect lost revenue and damages.

[Cam Mott]

Was there more than one suit? The one I'm thinking of also went to court of appeals I think and I'm pretty sure was BRI vs Al.

[GhostyTMRS]

A quick search brings up this story about Al's countersuit : http://www.mtv.com/news/1444977/beach-boy-jardine-splashes-former-bandmates-with-4-million-suit/

[guitarfool2002]

Digging a little deeper:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/love-v-jardine-headed-trial-129230

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.

[Cam Mott]

So I guess, so far, BRI sued Al, Al sued BRI, and Mike sued Al? What was the outcome of these suits?

[Andrew G. Doe]

As Alan was, technically, suing himself - twice - he won. And, er, lost.

Welcome to the whacky world of The Beach Boys.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Did he use a different lawyer to represent him as a plaintiff AND a defendant?

Such a bunch of odd, odd people in that band...

[lee]

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?

I can't understand why no-one's ever thought of this before.
Oh... wait...

No, it's not an original idea but I give Al credit for wanting to shine some light on an era that the touring BBs don't acknowledge. If Al could tour with Blondie (or have him show up on some dates) and play heavily towards the early to mid 70's material, that would make for a great show. It would be nice to go to a show and not know exactly what you are going to hear.

[Bill30022]

Say what you will about Al but if I had to choose one living Beach Boy to see it would be Al (preferably backed up by Brian's band).

Another thought: There is talk in the Foskett interview thread about whether Jeff's move is motivated to give an fu to Brian's organization.  Couldn't the set up of the Mike/Bruce show be seen as an even bigger fu to Al since the sole purpose of the structure appears to be to keep him out?

[Andrew G. Doe]

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?

I can't understand why no-one's ever thought of this before.
Oh... wait...

No, it's not an original idea but I give Al credit for wanting to shine some light on an era that the touring BBs don't acknowledge. If Al could tour with Blondie (or have him show up on some dates) and play heavily towards the early to mid 70's material, that would make for a great show. It would be nice to go to a show and not know exactly what you are going to hear.

And there would be maybe, as someone very recently said to me in a vaguely similar BB-related discussion, you, me and the nine other guys who care about this stuff in the audience.

[Niko]

An audience member who might not be familiar with material could still enjoy the show.

[Lonely Summer]

As Alan was, technically, suing himself - twice - he won. And, er, lost.

Welcome to the whacky world of The Beach Boys.

This is why us BB fans don't need a Rutles-style documentary on our favorite group; the real story is hilarious as it is.

[Micha]

An audience member who might not be familiar with material could still enjoy the show.

Or just be plain bored.

[Niko]

I just don't think quality of a Beach Boys related show has to do with whether or not lots of well known hits are being played.