Jeff Foskett speaks about leaving Brian's band and joining Mike's band

[GhostyTMRS]

I think Jeff explained himself pretty well in the interview. What's he supposed to do? Form the Jeff Foskett Blues Band and play local bars? He wants to play, he knows Beach Boys music in and out and has been singing it for years, he spent 2012 with half of Mike & Bruce's band. It's a no-brainer. It's much easier to plug into a similar situation with less responsibility and for (presumably) similar pay so he can maintain whatever lifestyle he enjoys at his age.

[donald]

Jeff is a human being.  He did what he needed to do and expresses gratitude for what he has been fortunate to be a part of.  And further more , Jeff is a Beachboy, regardless of those who think of him as a minder or side man.  why is he any different than any other BB jumping ship or changing camps?   glad he is still with the company.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Sometimes fans don't apply the same standards to artists as they do to themselves and their non-artist friends. What's normal for your neighbor or yourself (leaving a job for money, convenience, etc.) is a sell-out, or offensive, or short-sighted, or blighting a legend for an artist.

This times one trillion. I used to be guilty of the same thing before getting in the fringes of the industry myself. I used to be amazed at how 'so and so is actually pretty down to earth', only to realize that the majority of musicians actually are. Not everybody is an A-Lister (hell, few actually are)...the majority of us need to put food on the table like everybody else, and have the same wants and desires as everyone else. I was hanging out with a buddy of mine recently and he was like ' I gotta cut this short...I gotta go to work in the morning', as he had an early session. Realized right then that nothing really changes...the surroundings may change, but the day-to-day realities do not.  In my 'real' job, I found my hours cut, found myself doing more work with no extra money, and finally got laid off. Jeff was doing less shows, obviously had more work that wasn't in his initial job description, and took a 'better' (for him) job. What was he supposed to do if he wanted to keep playing the same music? Do shows with Papa Do Ron Ron only? Play the bar circuit? I'm no real fan of his (vocally...I don't know him personally) but damn...what the hell's the problem? He had the same gig for 15 years, found the situation much less to his liking, and switched jobs.

For what it's worth...I found him vocally much more fitting in the C50 shows than on Brian's solo shows.

[Cam Mott]

Or it could just be Jeff wanted a change for the reasons he gave and so he was available and Mike hired him because he was available. Something like that, just face value.

YA THINK?  Or is it more fun to add more variables to the equation and create more drama just for the sake of conversation? That happens here quite a bit.

Jeff Foskett, the consummate Christian type, wouldn't lie. If, and I say IF he left little small details out in that interview, they were on purpose so as not to slander or burn bridges behind him. I'm sure he has many stories (one I heard was that Jeff was tired of fielding Melinda's incessant phone calls to follow up with him on Brian's health and status) while on the road when she wasn't there. Jeff's part time job was Caregiver. He got tired of it. Who wouldn't?

I don't think everybody is adding variables to this equation for pure amusement. Rather, I suppose some are scoffing at the idea that there's no way that politics and backbiting entered into a heated BB equation such as this. I for one can't put the blinders to the degree that I would buy that there's absolutely NO "message" involved in the Foskett move.

There's a difference between noting that something is clearly at least partially a personal/political move versus actually caring that much about it. Same thing with the Blondie/Dave/Al thing last year. Were there politics involved in collecting together as many BB's as possible for that Brian tour? I have little doubt that there was. But that's okay. It was still great to see all those guys on stage together.

Similar with the Foskett thing. Inter-band politics are probably at play to some degree. I can live with that. But I'm not going to pretend it's not happening.

Fine. I'm not going to pretend it is happening.

[Micha]

My sources don't require me to toe the party line to stay connected/

Amen! That's the one big change here. I wasn't visiting the board much for a few years, and I came back recently to see this strange, almost anti-Brian sentiment take hold. Weird...

Other posters noticed this as well, for the record. There seemed to be an uptick in what you noticed in 2014, or perhaps more than what had happened in previous years even going back to the BW Christmas album.

Yeah, but whose view is objective?

[Andrew G. Doe]

It really doesn`t take any balls to post something on a message board.

If you're posting under a pseudonym, then no, it doesn't. Pretty much the reverse, in fact. What takes considerable testicular fortitude is to post something contentious, or potentially sensitive, using your real name, like Howie and Jon do.

[Micha]

Some of the posts here are talking about C50, burying hatchets, coming together, etc. Maybe a picture can be worth a thousand words, so with that...if the significance of this photo isn't immediately noticeable for anyone, look closer:

Pretty crappy of Brian to throw a big party, then not invite Mike to it after Mike let him back in the band and everything...

Come on, folks. Mike obviously volunteered to TAKE the picture, with Bruce adjusting the tripod.

That's the best post of this thread...

Absolutely self evident. All of the essential information is here, from the demise of C50 to today.

As someone whose first language isn't English, may I ask if you mean IYO Howie Edelsons's view is correct?

[Paul J B]

It really doesn`t take any balls to post something on a message board.

If you're posting under a pseudonym, then no, it doesn't. Pretty much the reverse, in fact. What takes considerable testicular fortitude is to post something contentious, or potentially sensitive, using your real name, like Howie and Jon do.

Posting something as if it a fact and then ignoring questions by others that challenge said fact as Sherriff John Stone did by asking why a big FU to Melinda would mean what then?

[Niko]

It really doesn`t take any balls to post something on a message board.

If you're posting under a pseudonym, then no, it doesn't. Pretty much the reverse, in fact. What takes considerable testicular fortitude is to post something contentious, or potentially sensitive, using your real name, like Howie and Jon do.

Posting something as if it a fact and then ignoring questions by others that challenge said fact as Sherriff John Stone did by asking why a big FU to Melinda would mean what then?

That's not the point - the fact that posting something using your real name is different than hiding behind a moniker is. There's nothing wrong with using something other than your real name, but when I post something it goes from me, the person, through 'Woodstock' and on to the board. Jon and Howie post their opinions as themselves. I see a clear difference there.

[filledeplage]

The “brand issue” is about power and revenge. Period.

It’s not delusional to think that Mike Love has a different answer for whether certain members are “Beach Boys” depending on when it benefits him (e.g. reunion tour, gala event, “high profile” names needed to fill 15,000-seat major market venues, etc. . .) Arguing it is semantics.

Nobody was confusing Al Jardine, Daryl Dragon, and Owen Elliot as THE BEACH BOYS. No one. Imagine looking at that and saying, “Look, it’s The Beach Boys.” It was a d* ck move on Mike’s part (“. . . . but, but, but, Alan passed on paying the license fee, when it was still only a non-exclusive. . . . . . .” )

D* ick move. Revenge. Ugliness.

Sure,  nobody in the process of watching the gigs was confused...but the people ordering tickets when they saw the posters? Yeah, some of them were. Al had a fine band at that point but listening to bootlegs you can hear people all the time complaining that only one of the guys onstage appeared on the records...

And if there was no confusion then why could `Beach Boys Family and Friends` get bookings and sell tickets whilst `Al Jardine of The Beach Boys` hasn`t been able to?

My understanding is that Brian and Carl`s estate also voted for Al to not be allowed to tour as BB F&F anyway...

While I admire Howie's passion, I cannot agree about a couple of things.

First the "branding" issue. The "branding" is everything.

And "marketplace confusion" is also everything. It might not confuse a very informed fan, but it does factor in with the general public as they do not always know whom they are going to see.

Someone mentioned the Larry King interview.  Everyone should see this.  And reread the conditions of C50.  It was "status quo ante." In legalese, it means "going back to before." And from what I've read C50 operated on its own entity terms and conditions.

In theory, Carl's estate (his kids and whomever) potentially could have stood in the shoes of any plaintiff with regard the use of the "name brand" protection, non-confusion in the marketplace, given that they would have all had theoretical equal shares.  In theory Mike protected them, Brian, Al, and himself.  He was merely the face of the "bad guy." Watering down the "brand" is a no-no.  As is confusion in the marketplace.  And, I love Al's' band as well and have seen them.

They (Carl's estate ) could also have, in theory, "paid the piper" BRI (however unlikely) in order to go out and tour.  They could have, in theory, also, hired the marketing, touring, etc. enumerated entities to go out on the road, and paid out the requisite monies to BRI.  They would have, in theory, have been working for themselves as well as BRI. Just as Mike is doing now.  Mike is only one of four.  This would have been in the instance of a "non-exclusive" license.

The Larry King interview tells the story.  It clearly shows the intent and state of mind at the time.

Jeff is a different story. He is not in BRI, as far as I know.  He was on the road for many, many years, as a "touring member" but with a certain skill set.  He was involved in C50.  He knows all the words.  But, that said, he has every right to "self-determine" the course of his life.  He was certainly a great resource to Brian.  I did notice he was walking with a limp when I saw him in July and August.  Six shows.  I don't know if that is a factor and it is not my business.  Just an observation.  He might have been making a change for his own health reasons. That isn't our business, either.

Frankly, I truly miss Christian Love.  From the get go, Carl was no gregarious front man, but just slowly becoming acclimated to performing before thousands.  And I watched Christian grow in the job, and he brings a "family vocal" chord that is genetic.  You can't hire that.  Even someone who has been "around the block" for about 30 years. 

Foskett has every right as an American citizen to work for whomever he chooses.  He benefits BRI ultimately, including Brian by doing a good job, as a musician. So, in a sense, he is still Brian's employee, since he is working for BRI, under a different umbrella.

[Howie Edelson]

The “brand issue” is about power and revenge. Period.

It’s not delusional to think that Mike Love has a different answer for whether certain members are “Beach Boys” depending on when it benefits him (e.g. reunion tour, gala event, “high profile” names needed to fill 15,000-seat major market venues, etc. . .) Arguing it is semantics.

[filledeplage]

The “brand issue” is about power and revenge. Period.

It’s not delusional to think that Mike Love has a different answer for whether certain members are “Beach Boys” depending on when it benefits him (e.g. reunion tour, gala event, “high profile” names needed to fill 15,000-seat major market venues, etc. . .) Arguing it is semantics.

Howie - with all due respect, Foskett was in the right place at the right time.  It would be difficult to assert and support an theory or argument that Jeff was disloyal to Brian, after all those years with him. 

The "brand" is neutral, but the corporate structure has a duty to protect it.  It is why the entity can exist. Mike isn't recording BB new material with his band.  He, too, has to respect the BB brand.  They have to conform to conditions set forth by BRI.  It is solely objective. 

[Shady]

The real answer to this whole thing is Brian's opinion of Mike.

If Brian has no issue with Mike Love then his best pal and confidante now working for Mike is a non issue. If Brian actually has issues with Mike and Bruce then it probably was a stab in the back.

That's all I hope for, that Brian wasn't hurt.

[SMiLE Brian]

The “brand issue” is about power and revenge. Period.

It’s not delusional to think that Mike Love has a different answer for whether certain members are “Beach Boys” depending on when it benefits him (e.g. reunion tour, gala event, “high profile” names needed to fill 15,000-seat major market venues, etc. . .) Arguing it is semantics.

Mike was one vengeful mofo to Al in 1998 to 2005, kicking him out of the group and striping him of his right to bill himself a BB. Mike tore into Al's sense of identity.

[filledeplage]

The “brand issue” is about power and revenge. Period.

It’s not delusional to think that Mike Love has a different answer for whether certain members are “Beach Boys” depending on when it benefits him (e.g. reunion tour, gala event, “high profile” names needed to fill 15,000-seat major market venues, etc. . .) Arguing it is semantics.

Mike was one vengeful mofo to Al in 1998 to 2005, kicking him out of the group and striping him of his right to bill himself a BB. Mike tore into Al's sense of identity.

Does that relate to Foskett touring, in the "former shoes" of Christian?

Jeff did not replace Al;  he replaced Christian.

[HeyJude]

While I admire Howie's passion, I cannot agree about a couple of things.

First the "branding" issue. The "branding" is everything.

And "marketplace confusion" is also everything. It might not confuse a very informed fan, but it does factor in with the general public as they do not always know whom they are going to see.

The fact that C50 took place proves that all principals involved view the "brand" as it is presented to the public as a malleable item.

Al's departure in 1998 and the "BBFF" debacle were absolutely about power and revenge, among surely many other things. It's important to point out that Al was not quite as marginalized in the late 90's as he is now. The late 90's was about marginalizing him. The Carlin and Stebbins/Marks book get into this to some degree. "BBFF" was a bigger deal in 1999 than it seems like in retrospect perhaps. There were legal/trademark issues (which is why Al ultimately lost), but Al's band was more of a threat back then than he ever could be now, especially when it was even slightly feasible that he could obtain some sort of license. And it didn't have anything to do with people thinking his band was "THE Beach Boys." His band was getting better reviews, and frankly, was better instrumentally and vocally in every way. Again, those who see the current Love band may or may not familiar with its late 90's incarnation. Howie is right; Totten has done great things for the band. It was pretty ragged in 1998-99 (and into the early 2000's). Al's band sounded fresh. It had all the pro backline guys from the 70's, and it had YOUNG voices, and voices with the DNA ingrained into the voices. Keep in mind the Jardine and Wilson kids were a lot younger back then too.

As I recall, Al was so marginalized back in the late 90's and early 2000's that certain parties didn't even want him connected to old archival BB releases. I was told back in 2001 that certain folks were for some odd reason really pissed when Al did an internet radio show to promote the "Hawthorne, CA" release.

As Howie said, who is considered a "Beach Boy" does indeed morph to suit needs, and to suit the atmosphere of the moment. Back in 2001, and for most of the 2000's, Mike *rarely* even mentioned Al's name in interviews. I don't think this was coincidental. I know Al is kind of a low-profile, waiting-for-a-bus kind of guy, and I know that when lawsuits are pending they can't go into detail. But he rarely even uttered Al's name in interviews.

Someone mentioned the Larry King interview.  Everyone should see this.  And reread the conditions of C50.  It was "status quo ante." In legalese, it means "going back to before." And from what I've read C50 operated on its own entity terms and conditions. 

Setting aside that we haven't seen the actual contractual agreements for C50, nobody has ever argued that anybody broke any contracts or other legal agreements concerning C50. In fact, that has been one of the criticisms of Mike; that he continually asserts that there was a "set end date", etc., which evades the question of why they can't just do more shows.

In theory, Carl's estate (his kids and whomever) potentially could have stood in the shoes of any plaintiff with regard the use of the "name brand" protection, non-confusion in the marketplace, given that they would have all had theoretical equal shares.  In theory Mike protected them, Brian, Al, and himself.  He was merely the face of the "bad guy." Watering down the "brand" is a no-no.  As is confusion in the marketplace.  And, I love Al's' band as well and have seen them. 

One of the main pieces of evidence of why all of these guys are clueless and rudderless as far as management is that a STRONG argument can be made that Mike (and the other BB's in the 90's) have "diluted" the trademark in a much more severe way than Al ever could have booking a few dozen shows as "Beach Boys Family & Friends" in 1999.

Foskett has every right as an American citizen to work for whomever he chooses.  He benefits BRI ultimately, including Brian by doing a good job, as a musician. So, in a sense, he is still Brian's employee, since he is working for BRI, under a different umbrella.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but Mike's band and band members are not employed by BRI as far as I know. Mike's production company runs his entire tour and employs the musicians. He and/or his production company license the use of the "Beach Boys" trademark. THIS type of setup is one of the main reasons it all went to S**T back in the late 90's with Al, and this is outlined to some degree in the Stebbins/Marks book. Al didn't want to go with that type of setup, and through a variety of machinations, was figuratively if not literally, as Howie put it, s**tcanned.

[SMiLE Brian]

To swipe up BW's righthand man and get him to be negative about BW is something only Mike would do. Mike has this crazy obsession of proving he is BW's equal and it has killed the real BBs because of it.

[Ron]

Sometimes fans don't apply the same standards to artists as they do to themselves and their non-artist friends. What's normal for your neighbor or yourself (leaving a job for money, convenience, etc.) is a sell-out, or offensive, or short-sighted, or blighting a legend for an artist.

I agree completely.  He worked for Brian for over a decade, maybe he wants to do something else for another decade?  In this life we get precious few decades.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Thought that just occurred to me: that Jeff handed in his notice to Brian in late October/early November seems to be taken as read. In which case, surely there was time for negotiation and an adjustment of Jeff's salary & retainer. Maybe I'm wrong here - god knows my current form indicates such - but I can't imagine Brian just going "You're leaving the band, Jeff ?  Cool, good luck and see ya round".

[Howie Edelson]

F-plage: Re: Jeff — are you KIDDING ME? I don’t begrudge the guy for earning a living, and I’m a longtime fan. But I know you know the deal between the camps. There’s nothing that says “Them’s fightin’ words” more than leaving BriMel (after 15 years) and joining up with Mike (and vice versa). LITERALLY NOTHING. The whole reason why the actual Beach Boys aren’t together anymore is that those two camps are at odds. I think the world of Jeff. But let's not confuse this with Billy doing a string of dates with Al and then filling for Darian for 5 shows in Norway, okay?

I think Jeff helped bring a tremendous amount of joy to a lot of people because of what he took on. But Jeff Foskett CHOSE to take that on. He sought that out. It was Foskett who planted the seed of a Brian touring career, it was Foskett who wanted to be the guy singing those songs every night, it was Foskett who wanted to be the guy you got to before you got to BW. And I gotta say, he did it all with grace and tact. I wish him luck. I know that Mike’s shows will undoubtedly be better with him there.

As far as the “brand” being neutral. No so quick. The “brand” is not just the owners of the names — but the licensee. And in the cases I’ve been made aware of, it’s been the licensee -- not BRI -- that's gone after the promoters and bandmembers who have been billed lazily and/or incorrectly at 200-seat venues or random street fairs.

That's not about correcting or protecting anything.
That’s about power and revenge. Period.

[Autotune]

Why would Jeff have a reason to stab Melinda? Has this been answered yet?

BTW, I am a nobody in the fan community. It makes no difference if I post under my real name or under a ridiculous monicker, like I have done for 15 years. I'm no superfan, I'm no insider. My opinions matter to me only, and I have no information to reveal. I don't care to build a reputation among the fans. I appreciate those superfans or insiders who take the trouble to post under their real names, and do so at the risk of being damned by the BB organization. Whatever the reason that prompts them to do so. What I don't get is the teasing: "I know way more than I'm posting, way more than you, I'm an insider, I'll make bold statements, but I'll keep the stories to myself. I know a lot, you do not, but I'm not telling it".

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike has become a vicious watchdog of his warped version of the BBs brand with kicking Al out and trying to sue BW in 2004 about smile being a "BBs" project and the CD in the paper.




Yeah right Mike.

[Ron]

Howie, you realize that Brian and Mike both get rich off of Mike touring, right?  All this animosity you are imagining is just in your head.  They have disagreements but they're business partners and have been for 50 years.  One guy (who previously worked for Mike; then Brian; then toured with both, now tours with just Mike) going back and forth like that makes both of them money.  

When Jeff sings on stage for Mike, Brian makes money.  Why in the world would Brian & co. get all up in arms about that?  They'd prefer Jeff be in the band (I assume) but if he goes to work for Mike it's not as big of a disconnect as you're presenting it to be.

[Howie Edelson]

I think people are under the delusion that the BRI shareholders make MILLIONS and MILLIONS off Mike Love touring as though it's a partnership.
That's not the case.

[SMiLE Brian]

What the others get is not much considering probably how much Mike's unit makes with constant touring.