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

[Nicko1234]

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...

[Nicko1234]

Andrew -- I'm saying leaving as in not working for any longer and moving on to another job.
(Not as in "leaving this woman FOR the other," but rather "being with" after having left.)

Any way one cuts it, using any timeline (of which I'm subscribing to a different one than yours) taking the job with Mike has FAR more to do with very publicly showing someone disrespect than simply keepin' the summer alive!

I don't believe that there is a soul involved that will deny that this defection was conceived and executed -- by employer and employee alike -- as anything less than a deep belly wound to the other side.  

Any evidence for that?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Andrew -- I'm saying leaving as in not working for any longer and moving on to another job.
(Not as in "leaving this woman FOR the other," but rather "being with" after having left.)

Any way one cuts it, using any timeline (of which I'm subscribing to a different one than yours) taking the job with Mike has FAR more to do with very publicly showing someone disrespect than simply keepin' the summer alive!

I don't believe that there is a soul involved that will deny that this defection was conceived and executed -- by employer and employee alike -- as anything less than a deep belly wound to the other side.  

Thanks for the clarification. Howie.

[guitarfool2002]

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...

I'm guessing the numbers of "confused" ticket buyers back then for Al's gigs were considerably less than those similarly confused in the latter half of 2012 by Mike's bookings concurrent with C50. But I digress, and already made that point. 

Look at it from Al's vantage point for just a minute: His original suit claimed he was effectively shut out of employment as a touring/performing Beach Boy, which minus legal terms meant he was basically fired from his main gig in life, then when he tried to use his decades-old, Hall-Of-Fame status as an original member of the Beach Boys to book shows, he got cut out of that, too...even though he was *not* booking himself or any band he was touring with as "The Beach Boys".

Sure, some of it is semantics. Sure, some of it came down to paying fees and whatnot...but a lot of it was vindictive and spiteful, the way it would appear.

And we wonder here why Al can sometimes have a chip on his shoulder over the whole affair/affairs? 

[guitarfool2002]

you can hear people all the time complaining that only one of the guys onstage appeared on the records...

Consider this comment could be applied accurately to a majority of songs played in a majority of setlists in any "Beach Boys" related live shows, solo or group, since the late 90's up to the present day.

In other words, a strawman/red herring/moot point to hang that critique solely on Al's shows. 

[Nicko1234]

Consider this comment could be applied accurately to a majority of songs played in a majority of setlists in any "Beach Boys" related live shows, solo or group, since the late 90's up to the present day.

In other words, a strawman/red herring/moot point to hang that critique solely on Al's shows. 

Which is exactly why Mike has to pay 20% to BRI surely.

[Cam Mott]

Andrew -- I'm saying leaving as in not working for any longer and moving on to another job.
(Not as in "leaving this woman FOR the other," but rather "being with" after having left.)

Any way one cuts it, using any timeline (of which I'm subscribing to a different one than yours) taking the job with Mike has FAR more to do with very publicly showing someone disrespect than simply keepin' the summer alive!

I don't believe that there is a soul involved that will deny that this defection was conceived and executed -- by employer and employee alike -- as anything less than a deep belly wound to the other side.  

Are you saying Brian and Jeff are intending to wound each other?

[Wah Wah Wah Ooooo]

Howie, you may be manufacturing drama that simply isn't there in this situation.

[Cam Mott]

you can hear people all the time complaining that only one of the guys onstage appeared on the records...

Consider this comment could be applied accurately to a majority of songs played in a majority of setlists in any "Beach Boys" related live shows, solo or group, since the late 90's up to the present day.

In other words, a strawman/red herring/moot point to hang that critique solely on Al's shows. 

Except perhaps that Al was the sole one representing himself as the brand without a licensee.

[Ray Lawlor]

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...

I'm guessing the numbers of "confused" ticket buyers back then for Al's gigs were considerably less than those similarly confused in the latter half of 2012 by Mike's bookings concurrent with C50. But I digress, and already made that point. 

Look at it from Al's vantage point for just a minute: His original suit claimed he was effectively shut out of employment as a touring/performing Beach Boy, which minus legal terms meant he was basically fired from his main gig in life, then when he tried to use his decades-old, Hall-Of-Fame status as an original member of the Beach Boys to book shows, he got cut out of that, too...even though he was *not* booking himself or any band he was touring with as "The Beach Boys".

Sure, some of it is semantics. Sure, some of it came down to paying fees and whatnot...but a lot of it was vindictive and spiteful, the way it would appear.

And we wonder here why Al can sometimes have a chip on his shoulder over the whole affair/affairs? 

My understanding is that Brian abstained and did not participate in the lawsuit vs. Al. 

[HeyJude]

Howie, you may be manufacturing drama that simply isn't there in this situation.

I would say he’s saying what many wouldn’t have the b**ls or gravitas or credibility to say. But Howie does. He’s talked to all these guys, at length. How many other people have talked to Mike Love about Joe Thomas and “50 Big Ones Productions” and floated Jerry Schilling as a name to bring back? He knows this stuff.

He has all of the “observer” knowledge that the most learned fans do, and he’s also talked to these guys and knows the inner machinations. Different sources within different “camps” may provide different pieces of information or spins, but what Howie says is both credible in terms of the source it’s coming from, and observationally it makes total sense.

I wish it was easier to actually paint a picture where the whole Brian/Jeff thing truly is 100 percent amicable with no ill will or bad feelings. If Jeff had simply left and went to pretty much any other gig, it may have been possible to view it this way. But Howie is right. Jeff joining Mike’s band is a huge political move, on the part of both Jeff and Mike, and most likely easily the most “political” move by a non-member.

It almost doesn’t matter what the original intention was. Even if Jeff was just burned out and left Brian’s band with no plans, and even if Mike simply needed a replacement member and didn’t see adding Jeff as a bit of a political coup; even in that scenario the entire progression of events is loaded with BB-style politics. But as Howie points out, some of what went down may well have been meant to send a message.

I think that’s what we’ve gotten a bit of since the demise of C50. Rather than intense lawsuits and whatnot, we’re getting weird little potshots that may or may not even amount to anything. Just as Brian adding not one, but THREE additional Beach Boys to some 2013 tour dates surely at least had the fringe benefit of sending a message (e.g. “The Beach Boys” have two Beach Boys while Brian’s “solo” tour has THREE or FOUR Beach Boys), and just as Al declining the invitation to play with Mike at Jones Beach and then announcing a gig with Brian for the same day had the fringe benefit of sending a message, Mike offering a gig to what even mainstream media articles have noted is Brian’s “right hand man” both on stage and sometimes off is also something that sends a message (or lobs a political shot, or whatever you want to call it).

Regarding Jeff’s “motives” for leaving Brian’s band, I do think just from a practical point of view that the number of potential 2014 bookings could easily have played a role. What is weird is that even though that’s a perfectly reasonable (and the least “political”) reason for leaving, Jeff doesn’t offer that as even a factor.

There is also the possibility of a plethora of grey areas. Did Mike know six months in advance that Christian was leaving his band, then called Jeff up and told him to exit Brian’s band, wait a while, and then join Mike? I doubt it. But I certainly think it’s possible that Mike knew the possibility or likelihood in advance of Christian leaving at some point in 2014, thought of Jeff, and called him up and just floated some ideas or something. Again, total conjecture. But in business, and in the music business, such things do occur. Also, while there are few BB-related bands that wouldn’t name Jeff as an obvious great addition to their band, it is interesting that there are some things that indicate Jeff wouldn’t so easily be Mike’s top pick. Mike already had a falsetto guy. Also, by Jeff’s own words from an interview in the 90’s, Jeff had issues with Mike during Jeff’s 1990 departure. Given what Jeff mentions in that 90’s interview about the circumstances of his 1990 departure, I would normally say that Mike would not rehire someone who had left under those circumstances. I find it hard to believe Mike didn’t see offering a gig to Jeff as a political move. We’ll obviously likely never know.

[Nicko1234]

I would say he’s saying what many wouldn’t have the b**ls or gravitas or credibility to say. But Howie does. He’s talked to all these guys, at length. How many other people have talked to Mike Love about Joe Thomas and “50 Big Ones Productions” and floated Jerry Schilling as a name to bring back? He knows this stuff.

He has all of the “observer” knowledge that the most learned fans do, and he’s also talked to these guys and knows the inner machinations. Different sources within different “camps” may provide different pieces of information or spins, but what Howie says is both credible in terms of the source it’s coming from, and observationally it makes total sense.

I wish it was easier to actually paint a picture where the whole Brian/Jeff thing truly is 100 percent amicable with no ill will or bad feelings. If Jeff had simply left and went to pretty much any other gig, it may have been possible to view it this way. But Howie is right. Jeff joining Mike’s band is a huge political move, on the part of both Jeff and Mike, and most likely easily the most “political” move by a non-member.

It almost doesn’t matter what the original intention was. Even if Jeff was just burned out and left Brian’s band with no plans, and even if Mike simply needed a replacement member and didn’t see adding Jeff as a bit of a political coup; even in that scenario the entire progression of events is loaded with BB-style politics. But as Howie points out, some of what went down may well have been meant to send a message.

I think that’s what we’ve gotten a bit of since the demise of C50. Rather than intense lawsuits and whatnot, we’re getting weird little potshots that may or may not even amount to anything. Just as Brian adding not one, but THREE additional Beach Boys to some 2013 tour dates surely at least had the fringe benefit of sending a message (e.g. “The Beach Boys” have two Beach Boys while Brian’s “solo” tour has THREE or FOUR Beach Boys), and just as Al declining the invitation to play with Mike at Jones Beach and then announcing a gig with Brian for the same day had the fringe benefit of sending a message, Mike offering a gig to what even mainstream media articles have noted is Brian’s “right hand man” both on stage and sometimes off is also something that sends a message (or lobs a political shot, or whatever you want to call it).

Regarding Jeff’s “motives” for leaving Brian’s band, I do think just from a practical point of view that the number of potential 2014 bookings could easily have played a role. What is weird is that even though that’s a perfectly reasonable (and the least “political”) reason for leaving, Jeff doesn’t offer that as even a factor.

There is also the possibility of a plethora of grey areas. Did Mike know six months in advance that Christian was leaving his band, then called Jeff up and told him to exit Brian’s band, wait a while, and then join Mike? I doubt it. But I certainly think it’s possible that Mike knew the possibility or likelihood in advance of Christian leaving at some point in 2014, thought of Jeff, and called him up and just floated some ideas or something. Again, total conjecture. But in business, and in the music business, such things do occur. Also, while there are few BB-related bands that wouldn’t name Jeff as an obvious great addition to their band, it is interesting that there are some things that indicate Jeff wouldn’t so easily be Mike’s top pick. Mike already had a falsetto guy. Also, by Jeff’s own words from an interview in the 90’s, Jeff had issues with Mike during Jeff’s 1990 departure. Given what Jeff mentions in that 90’s interview about the circumstances of his 1990 departure, I would normally say that Mike would not rehire someone who had left under those circumstances. I find it hard to believe Mike didn’t see offering a gig to Jeff as a political move. We’ll obviously likely never know.

It really doesn`t take any balls to post something on a message board. If it did then congenital cowards like me wouldn`t be here. 

Howie`s first post in this thread came across as nothing more than a rant to me and much of it had little or nothing to do with the topic at hand.

His comments about Jeff...

There seems to be some wish fulfillment there and some really need expanding upon.

Any way one cuts it, using any timeline (of which I'm subscribing to a different one than yours) taking the job with Mike has FAR more to do with very publicly showing someone disrespect than simply keepin' the summer alive!

I don't believe that there is a soul involved that will deny that this defection was conceived and executed -- by employer and employee alike -- as anything less than a deep belly wound to the other side. 

If he has evidence of this against Jeff then it would be very interesting to hear it.

[Howie Edelson]

Nicko - 2600 posts on a Beach Boys message board and you can't put two and two together to see that Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson?
Really? REALLY?

How obvious does this need to be?
Is that what it takes, someone needs to say THAT SENTENCE?

Here:
Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson.

This ain't Calculus.
You want expanding? YOU expand it.

[Nicko1234]

Nicko - 2600 posts on a Beach Boys message board and you can't put two and two together to see that Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson?
Really? REALLY?

How obvious does this need to be?
Is that what it takes, someone needs to say THAT SENTENCE?

Here:
Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson.

This ain't Calculus.
You want expanding? YOU expand it.

 

I think I broke his brain...

So you are willing to say that but you aren`t willing to say why? A genuine question.

[Mr. Cohen]

Howie, I think it's more a personal f*** you to people that won't visit castles. Don't get between Foskett and a good castle is the lesson we learned.

[HeyJude]

I would say he’s saying what many wouldn’t have the b**ls or gravitas or credibility to say. But Howie does. He’s talked to all these guys, at length. How many other people have talked to Mike Love about Joe Thomas and “50 Big Ones Productions” and floated Jerry Schilling as a name to bring back? He knows this stuff.

He has all of the “observer” knowledge that the most learned fans do, and he’s also talked to these guys and knows the inner machinations. Different sources within different “camps” may provide different pieces of information or spins, but what Howie says is both credible in terms of the source it’s coming from, and observationally it makes total sense.

I wish it was easier to actually paint a picture where the whole Brian/Jeff thing truly is 100 percent amicable with no ill will or bad feelings. If Jeff had simply left and went to pretty much any other gig, it may have been possible to view it this way. But Howie is right. Jeff joining Mike’s band is a huge political move, on the part of both Jeff and Mike, and most likely easily the most “political” move by a non-member.

It almost doesn’t matter what the original intention was. Even if Jeff was just burned out and left Brian’s band with no plans, and even if Mike simply needed a replacement member and didn’t see adding Jeff as a bit of a political coup; even in that scenario the entire progression of events is loaded with BB-style politics. But as Howie points out, some of what went down may well have been meant to send a message.

I think that’s what we’ve gotten a bit of since the demise of C50. Rather than intense lawsuits and whatnot, we’re getting weird little potshots that may or may not even amount to anything. Just as Brian adding not one, but THREE additional Beach Boys to some 2013 tour dates surely at least had the fringe benefit of sending a message (e.g. “The Beach Boys” have two Beach Boys while Brian’s “solo” tour has THREE or FOUR Beach Boys), and just as Al declining the invitation to play with Mike at Jones Beach and then announcing a gig with Brian for the same day had the fringe benefit of sending a message, Mike offering a gig to what even mainstream media articles have noted is Brian’s “right hand man” both on stage and sometimes off is also something that sends a message (or lobs a political shot, or whatever you want to call it).

Regarding Jeff’s “motives” for leaving Brian’s band, I do think just from a practical point of view that the number of potential 2014 bookings could easily have played a role. What is weird is that even though that’s a perfectly reasonable (and the least “political”) reason for leaving, Jeff doesn’t offer that as even a factor.

There is also the possibility of a plethora of grey areas. Did Mike know six months in advance that Christian was leaving his band, then called Jeff up and told him to exit Brian’s band, wait a while, and then join Mike? I doubt it. But I certainly think it’s possible that Mike knew the possibility or likelihood in advance of Christian leaving at some point in 2014, thought of Jeff, and called him up and just floated some ideas or something. Again, total conjecture. But in business, and in the music business, such things do occur. Also, while there are few BB-related bands that wouldn’t name Jeff as an obvious great addition to their band, it is interesting that there are some things that indicate Jeff wouldn’t so easily be Mike’s top pick. Mike already had a falsetto guy. Also, by Jeff’s own words from an interview in the 90’s, Jeff had issues with Mike during Jeff’s 1990 departure. Given what Jeff mentions in that 90’s interview about the circumstances of his 1990 departure, I would normally say that Mike would not rehire someone who had left under those circumstances. I find it hard to believe Mike didn’t see offering a gig to Jeff as a political move. We’ll obviously likely never know.

It really doesn`t take any balls to post something on a message board. If it did then congenital cowards like me wouldn`t be here. 

Howie`s first post in this thread came across as nothing more than a rant to me and much of it had little or nothing to do with the topic at hand.

His comments about Jeff...

There seems to be some wish fulfillment there and some really need expanding upon.

Considering he’s one of the few who post on this board who interviews these guys and talks to them, and one of the very few that is on good enough terms with all of the members and organizations that he has talked to all of them (Howie can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think at some point he’s interviewed all of them, not to mention all sorts of band associates), it ironically takes more balls to say what Howie has said. He has more potential bridges that could be burned than most of us on the board who aren’t going to lose our backstage passes if we say something negative about a member. Howie has also mentioned that some if not most of the band members will answer even potentially pointed questions in interviews. He knows what they’re willing to discuss, and gets them to talk about it. 

I have seen cases where folks who have an “in” with one or a few members are clearly less likely to criticize those particular members, for whatever reason.

So I’m impressed that he has interviewed all these guys, but isn’t afraid to say what would be characterized as potentially unflattering things about all of these guys. Check his posts out right after C50. I thought one in particular was both apt and hilarious, pointing out how the full reunited band was so much more than its constituent parts, how Mike’s band has an hour of other guys singing, Al’s scattered live dates have never gotten much past soundcheck/rehearsal status, and Brian’s shows in past years have sometimes veered into “Weekend at Bernie’s” territory. He has been candid about how Bruce can be weird in interviews (will Bruce try to impress you with being a part of BB history, or will he make fun of you for wanting to know?)

I’ve been around message boards long enough to be able to tell when someone knows their s**t or not. Howie knows his s**t, whether I agree with what he writes or not. He also has the good kind of cred and gravitas in terms of being a member of the media/rock press.

[SMiLE Brian]

Nicko - 2600 posts on a Beach Boys message board and you can't put two and two together to see that Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson?
Really? REALLY?

How obvious does this need to be?
Is that what it takes, someone needs to say THAT SENTENCE?

Here:
Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson.

This ain't Calculus.
You want expanding? YOU expand it.

Exactly Howie, its an affront to Melinda by joining forces with somebody she isn't fond of for good reasons.

[HeyJude]

Nicko - 2600 posts on a Beach Boys message board and you can't put two and two together to see that Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson?
Really? REALLY?

How obvious does this need to be?
Is that what it takes, someone needs to say THAT SENTENCE?

Here:
Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson.

This ain't Calculus.
You want expanding? YOU expand it.

 

I think I broke his brain...

So you are willing to say that but you aren`t willing to say why? A genuine question.

I think the idea is that it is self-evident, and it’s difficult to have a discussion with someone who won’t acknowledge that Foskett leaving Brian’s band and joining Mike’s has the outward appearance, objectively speaking, of being a political move/message, etc.

Again, just as it was pretty impossible to suggest that Brian adding Al, *and* Dave, *and* Blondie to live dates in 2013 had nothing to do with the aftermath and politics of the C50 demise, and how it’s pretty hard to not see Al ditching Mike’s Jones Beach gig and joining in for a UK Brian gig as sending a message too.

Just as with Foskett leaving Brian’s band and then joining Mike’s, it’s likely Al decided against joining Mike’s Jones Beach gig, and then decided to play a gig with Brian instead. Even if these are cases where they’re not ditching one person specifically FOR the other, the act of ditching one person and then seeking out their perceived “opposition” (or whatever you want to call it; there is no perfect term here) DEFINITELY has the *appearance* of sending a message, and it’s hard not to assume that these people know they are sending a message and likely WANT to send a message.

[Sound of Free]

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.

[Jon Stebbins]

Nicko - 2600 posts on a Beach Boys message board and you can't put two and two together to see that Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson?
Really? REALLY?

How obvious does this need to be?
Is that what it takes, someone needs to say THAT SENTENCE?

Here:
Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson.

This ain't Calculus.
You want expanding? YOU expand it.

 

I think I broke his brain...

So you are willing to say that but you aren`t willing to say why? A genuine question.

I think the idea is that it is self-evident, and it’s difficult to have a discussion with someone who won’t acknowledge that Foskett leaving Brian’s band and joining Mike’s has the outward appearance, objectively speaking, of being a political move/message, etc.

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

[Niko]

Nicko - 2600 posts on a Beach Boys message board and you can't put two and two together to see that Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson?
Really? REALLY?

How obvious does this need to be?
Is that what it takes, someone needs to say THAT SENTENCE?

Here:
Jeff Foskett joining Mike Love is both a personal and professional f***k you to Melinda Wilson.

This ain't Calculus.
You want expanding? YOU expand it.

 

I think I broke his brain...

So you are willing to say that but you aren`t willing to say why? A genuine question.

I think the idea is that it is self-evident, and it’s difficult to have a discussion with someone who won’t acknowledge that Foskett leaving Brian’s band and joining Mike’s has the outward appearance, objectively speaking, of being a political move/message, etc.

Yep.
Sure, there are other factors (money), but to me it stands out as a real insult to the BW camp.

[Nicko1234]

I think the idea is that it is self-evident, and it’s difficult to have a discussion with someone who won’t acknowledge that Foskett leaving Brian’s band and joining Mike’s has the outward appearance, objectively speaking, of being a political move/message, etc.

Again, just as it was pretty impossible to suggest that Brian adding Al, *and* Dave, *and* Blondie to live dates in 2013 had nothing to do with the aftermath and politics of the C50 demise, and how it’s pretty hard to not see Al ditching Mike’s Jones Beach gig and joining in for a UK Brian gig as sending a message too.

Just as with Foskett leaving Brian’s band and then joining Mike’s, it’s likely Al decided against joining Mike’s Jones Beach gig, and then decided to play a gig with Brian instead. Even if these are cases where they’re not ditching one person specifically FOR the other, the act of ditching one person and then seeking out their perceived “opposition” (or whatever you want to call it; there is no perfect term here) DEFINITELY has the *appearance* of sending a message, and it’s hard not to assume that these people know they are sending a message and likely WANT to send a message.

Of course it is fine to acknowledge that possibility...

But Howie`s posts go much further than that. The accusation that Jeff touring with Mike has, `FAR more to do with very publicly showing someone disrespect than simply keepin' the summer alive!` indicates that he believes that Jeff cares `FAR more` about revenge or point scoring that he does about living his own life. That`s a pretty insulting accusation imo.

The situation with Brian touring with former Beach Boys is obviously very different. Brian was going to be playing those venues anyway so, message or not, inviting former Beach Boys along didn`t affect his life hugely.

The idea that Jeff has agreed to tour the world and play 100 shows a year based on point scoring and `inflicting deep belly wounds` is another thing entirely. It may well be true but it surely isn`t asking too much to have somebody actually give some evidence behind the reasoning...

[HeyJude]

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.

Nope. When Mike says "set end date", he MEANS "set end date."    He was outta there. There wasn't even time to give him a to-go bag.

Clearly, that dinner above is Brian's little-known "NO MORE LIVE DATES" dinner.   He had clearly had enough. He flipped the whole table up a few seconds after the photo was taken....

[Jon Stebbins]

I would say he’s saying what many wouldn’t have the b**ls or gravitas or credibility to say. But Howie does. He’s talked to all these guys, at length. How many other people have talked to Mike Love about Joe Thomas and “50 Big Ones Productions” and floated Jerry Schilling as a name to bring back? He knows this stuff.

He has all of the “observer” knowledge that the most learned fans do, and he’s also talked to these guys and knows the inner machinations. Different sources within different “camps” may provide different pieces of information or spins, but what Howie says is both credible in terms of the source it’s coming from, and observationally it makes total sense.

I wish it was easier to actually paint a picture where the whole Brian/Jeff thing truly is 100 percent amicable with no ill will or bad feelings. If Jeff had simply left and went to pretty much any other gig, it may have been possible to view it this way. But Howie is right. Jeff joining Mike’s band is a huge political move, on the part of both Jeff and Mike, and most likely easily the most “political” move by a non-member.

It almost doesn’t matter what the original intention was. Even if Jeff was just burned out and left Brian’s band with no plans, and even if Mike simply needed a replacement member and didn’t see adding Jeff as a bit of a political coup; even in that scenario the entire progression of events is loaded with BB-style politics. But as Howie points out, some of what went down may well have been meant to send a message.

I think that’s what we’ve gotten a bit of since the demise of C50. Rather than intense lawsuits and whatnot, we’re getting weird little potshots that may or may not even amount to anything. Just as Brian adding not one, but THREE additional Beach Boys to some 2013 tour dates surely at least had the fringe benefit of sending a message (e.g. “The Beach Boys” have two Beach Boys while Brian’s “solo” tour has THREE or FOUR Beach Boys), and just as Al declining the invitation to play with Mike at Jones Beach and then announcing a gig with Brian for the same day had the fringe benefit of sending a message, Mike offering a gig to what even mainstream media articles have noted is Brian’s “right hand man” both on stage and sometimes off is also something that sends a message (or lobs a political shot, or whatever you want to call it).

Regarding Jeff’s “motives” for leaving Brian’s band, I do think just from a practical point of view that the number of potential 2014 bookings could easily have played a role. What is weird is that even though that’s a perfectly reasonable (and the least “political”) reason for leaving, Jeff doesn’t offer that as even a factor.

There is also the possibility of a plethora of grey areas. Did Mike know six months in advance that Christian was leaving his band, then called Jeff up and told him to exit Brian’s band, wait a while, and then join Mike? I doubt it. But I certainly think it’s possible that Mike knew the possibility or likelihood in advance of Christian leaving at some point in 2014, thought of Jeff, and called him up and just floated some ideas or something. Again, total conjecture. But in business, and in the music business, such things do occur. Also, while there are few BB-related bands that wouldn’t name Jeff as an obvious great addition to their band, it is interesting that there are some things that indicate Jeff wouldn’t so easily be Mike’s top pick. Mike already had a falsetto guy. Also, by Jeff’s own words from an interview in the 90’s, Jeff had issues with Mike during Jeff’s 1990 departure. Given what Jeff mentions in that 90’s interview about the circumstances of his 1990 departure, I would normally say that Mike would not rehire someone who had left under those circumstances. I find it hard to believe Mike didn’t see offering a gig to Jeff as a political move. We’ll obviously likely never know.

It really doesn`t take any balls to post something on a message board. If it did then congenital cowards like me wouldn`t be here. 

It absolutely takes balls to post anything politically sensitive on a message board if your job, or access to the things you need to do your job, are at risk. Not sure what your job is, but Howie provides for his family by being a rock writer. Everybody's manager, and everybody's publicist knows everybody else's manager and publicist. The easy route is to smile and say everybody is wonderful and happy. Good vibrations all around. However, one of the reasons Howie is successful at doing what he does is that he is passionate and fearless when it comes to the things he thinks are important. I've got plenty of experience seeing my stance on a message board come back to slap me around professionally. Everything is monitored. If you have access to the inside...and the insiders know who you are...then truth telling takes balls for sure. Adding your educated opinion to your reporting takes even more.

[SMiLE Brian]

Jon and Howie are really great guys on this board!