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

[HeyJude]

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.

This is wrong (in my opinion, obviously). This is one of the reasons the band’s dynamic (both interpersonally and certainly business-wise) is so difficult to examine or understand.

Brian, either passively or actively, has allowed Mike to continue to use the BB name. There is also an antagonistic relationship between them (and between many of the members/camps). All of these guys co-exist, and sometimes even work together, despite lingering personal and business issues. The difference between them and some other bands/operations is that they let those things usually eventually turn everything to s**t. This is where those Neil Aspinall-types come into play. Remember when Yoko was all upset that Paul put “McCartney/Lennon” on his live album? It was not but a year later that they all agreed to the “Let It Be Naked” CD, and they soon were planning that epic Cirque du Soleil show where they all appeared together at the premiere and on Larry King (ironically). That’s management, and management specifically of a BRAND. Paul and Yoko have as much if not more reason to be estranged from each other as Mike and Al, yet it’s Mike and Al for whom, with some possible exceptions I’m not remembering, there exists exactly one picture together between 1998 and 2006.

But yeah, it doesn’t make a lot of sense, but I think Brian’s side agrees to let Mike use the name, and is happy to take their cut of the licensing fee (again, this cut would be 25% of the licensing fee; not of all tour proceeds), but there is still some perceived and real antagonism between the camps when it comes to everything including the touring bands. Yes, sometimes business partners work against each other, usually in subtle ways that don’t severely injure their business.

To say this is all in Howie’s head ignores nearly all of the evidence we have at our disposal. Interviews, lawsuits, injunctions, to say nothing of the demise of the C50 tour. It doesn’t mean there is nothing but antagonism going on.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Mike and his “camp” were probably not overjoyed to see Brian scrape together FOUR Beach Boys for some 2013 tour dates. Similarly, Brian’s camp is surely not overjoyed that not only Jeff left, but that he joined Mike’s band. Just as Mike would probably have been peeved if Totten had left his band and joined Brian’s, stating that Mike’s band was stressing him out too much.

[urbanite]

I suspect the cut of the non-touring members of BRI is not very large, and it would depend on what they get a cut of and what is considered a business expense. 

[filledeplage]

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.

Howie - there is little doubt that Jeff had a huge role in helping to make things happen for Brian. I, as a fan, am in his debt for that, having seen "Solo Brian" any and every time I could, making up for those years when he was not on the road.  Everyone else should be as well.  Lots happened for Brian, that I was able to witness, such as Pet Sounds Live, SMiLE live, TLOS, and even the GH tours.  He had a lot of music inside him to share, as well as his own "unfinished business" choosing to go on "representing Dennis and Carl." The public roles seem to have reversed.

As far as Foskett is concerned, I take my usual "wait and see" period, as I did with Mike and Bruce, post Carl's death. And I wanted to see anyone credible as long as they were sing my favorite music.  That means Billy, Al, Dean Torrence, etc.  The question is whether they do they do it justice.

And I think of these surf music genre groups as sort of a Venn diagram where some members are "core" and some are "ancillary." Funny, because I'm terrible at Math.  There seems to be a whole sphere of musicians who drift in and out of different bands' membership or who belong and perform with more than one. And who were in Carl's Band at one time or another.

But I'm unconvinced that job or career changes are anything to read into.  It would be grossly unfair in my opinion, to confine a person to a certain job, in the absence of a covenant not to compete.  That might be difficult seeing that the Touring Band benefits BRI.  

No one on this planet should ever be wishing Brian ill.  Mike says plenty of complimentary things about Brian while on tour.  

It is beyond me that Foskett's changing jobs does that. Things are not always as they appear.  And, Brian may miss him a lot, but ultimately Foskett has to do what he feels is best for him.  We all do.  

[HeyJude]

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.

Exactly. As I’ve often mentioned (along with a few others), there was a thread from a while back where we had some actual numbers to chew on, and each shareholder’s 25% of percentage that is paid out in licensing fee is not a HUGE sum of money, for these guys. A nice chunk of change to be sure. But far less than they would be making as equal partners touring. Considering Mike also gets back his 25% just like the other shareholders do, that means he gets that on top of whatever profit the touring band pulls in after all their overhead is paid.

The “Mike is doing them a favor” sentiment I sometimes see works both ways. BRI is doing Mike a favor by letting him use a HUGELY valuable trademark and only having to pay out a minority of his profits as a licensing fee. Who would make more money if Mike split off and toured under his own name while BRI assigned the trademark to someone else?

[guitarfool2002]

I'm wondering if there may be a misunderstanding of how the franchising and licensing process works in general. In some cases I won't touch on since they're already being discussed, I think there may be deliberate misunderstandings, if you will, on exactly how much holding a franchise or a license actually entitles the current holder to do or control.

I always come back to McDonald's, but use any major franchise you want. If you are a McDonald's franchisee, if you bought into the franchise and got the license from them (with strict conditions and all that), you do not "own" McDonald's, you are not the caretaker of that corporation beyond how your individual franchise is run and conforms to the brand's standards, and there are some things you cannot and do not do, that "corporate" handles instead.

So if there is a McDonald's owner in, say, Philadelphia who is miffed that some restaurant on his bock starts selling a knock-off of the Big Mac, it's not his ability to claim ownership or take legal action. That goes to the corporate legal department, corporate lawyers, and those who are in direct control and ownership of the brand, its trademarks, and its brand identity. So that franchisee in Philadelphia would not be able to claim ownership of the Big Mac, he would not be able to claim through the courts any kind of control or ownership even to the point of filing damages against the phony Big Mac seller...all of that would go through McDonald's as the owners of the brand and trademarks. The franchisee basically bought use of the name, its standards, and is part of the chain who may own his own business but not the brand in any way.

So let's clear that up: No one, not Mike, not Al, not Brian, not anyone else can control or even stake an individual claim of ownership over the name "Beach Boys" unless its in their role being voting members of the BRI board. Then, any actions that would be filed would go through the board for a vote.

If someone seems to be suggesting that they own more of the name or the brand, or suggesting one member or another is acting as the "steward" of that brand, protecting it, whatever...it seems like that's simply not the case in legal terms beyond public comments and perceptions. BRI owns-controls-protects the name, period. And decisions are made by a vote, not one member's prerogative.

Which is why I might think some previous lawsuits that would seem vindictive might have been started on the basis that the person who bought the license somehow then controls more of the "brand" identity than another, and can seek to protect it on their prerogative.

Just to sum up all of that crap...Mike does not "own" the Beach Boys, he pays to use the name. Simple franchising. Filing lawsuits as if you're controlling or protecting the brand against whatever threatens its legacy is up to the BRI board voting process, not Mike.

[HeyJude]

I'm wondering if there may be a misunderstanding of how the franchising and licensing process works in general. In some cases I won't touch on since they're already being discussed, I think there may be deliberate misunderstandings, if you will, on exactly how much holding a franchise or a license actually entitles the current holder to do or control.

I always come back to McDonald's, but use any major franchise you want. If you are a McDonald's franchisee, if you bought into the franchise and got the license from them (with strict conditions and all that), you do not "own" McDonald's, you are not the caretaker of that corporation beyond how your individual franchise is run and conforms to the brand's standards, and there are some things you cannot and do not do, that "corporate" handles instead.

So if there is a McDonald's owner in, say, Philadelphia who is miffed that some restaurant on his bock starts selling a knock-off of the Big Mac, it's not his ability to claim ownership or take legal action. That goes to the corporate legal department, corporate lawyers, and those who are in direct control and ownership of the brand, its trademarks, and its brand identity. So that franchisee in Philadelphia would not be able to claim ownership of the Big Mac, he would not be able to claim through the courts any kind of control or ownership even to the point of filing damages against the phony Big Mac seller...all of that would go through McDonald's as the owners of the brand and trademarks. The franchisee basically bought use of the name, its standards, and is part of the chain who may own his own business but not the brand in any way.

So let's clear that up: No one, not Mike, not Al, not Brian, not anyone else can control or even stake an individual claim of ownership over the name "Beach Boys" unless its in their role being voting members of the BRI board. Then, any actions that would be filed would go through the board for a vote.

If someone seems to be suggesting that they own more of the name or the brand, or suggesting one member or another is acting as the "steward" of that brand, protecting it, whatever...it seems like that's simply not the case in legal terms beyond public comments and perceptions. BRI owns-controls-protects the name, period. And decisions are made by a vote, not one member's prerogative.

Which is why I might think some previous lawsuits that would seem vindictive might have been started on the basis that the person who bought the license somehow then controls more of the "brand" identity than another, and can seek to protect it on their prerogative.

Just to sum up all of that crap...Mike does not "own" the Beach Boys, he pays to use the name. Simple franchising. Filing lawsuits as if you're controlling or protecting the brand against whatever threatens its legacy is up to the BRI board voting process, not Mike.

I believe the main cases against Al were from BRI. There may have been other lawsuits from individuals as well.

But I'm not sure your scenario is correct. One does not have to assert ownership of the trademark to sue and claim damages. If I'm paying a licensing fee to be the exclusive McDonald's franchise in an area' and someone else uses the name without a license, I can sue for damages/loss of profit. McDonald's might also sue for trademark infringement and loss of profit as well.

[Andrew G. Doe]

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".

To my (currently questionable) knowledge, no-one credible has ever declared themselves an insider: that's like saying "I'm an expert" - if you have to tell people, chances are you're not, not to mention being very poor form, what ? As for them with an inside track "teasing"... well, that's a personal call, walking the line between imparting what posters have been asking to know and retaining that inside track by not spilling too many or too large beans. Probably easier to say nothing, but they'd likely get ripped for that too. Dilemma. I'm sure there's much, much more Howie, Jon and their ilk could tell us, as sure as I am that once they did so, their sources, connections and probably their livelihoods would evaporate like the morning dew.

[Cam Mott]

Are some of us forgetting Al's actions and behaviors regarding the brand and license(s)?

Considering the history of the license, I think I would be be watchful and protective of it too. And it seems to me like the guys who set the conditions of license should be too.

[HeyJude]

Are some of us forgetting Al's actions and behaviors regarding the brand and license(s)?

No, I don’t believe anybody is.

[Cam Mott]

I suspect the cut of the non-touring members of BRI is not very large, and it would depend on what they get a cut of and what is considered a business expense. 

Didn't that court paper say BRI get 20% for the license and then the members of BRI get some sort of share which is more if you tour and less if you don't tour. Something like that. If true they may not be getting rich off of just that but surely it is nothing to sneeze at.

[Cam Mott]

Are some of us forgetting Al's actions and behaviors regarding the brand and license(s)?

No, I don’t believe anybody is.

Well I did, please remind me.

[guitarfool2002]

I'm wondering if there may be a misunderstanding of how the franchising and licensing process works in general. In some cases I won't touch on since they're already being discussed, I think there may be deliberate misunderstandings, if you will, on exactly how much holding a franchise or a license actually entitles the current holder to do or control.

I always come back to McDonald's, but use any major franchise you want. If you are a McDonald's franchisee, if you bought into the franchise and got the license from them (with strict conditions and all that), you do not "own" McDonald's, you are not the caretaker of that corporation beyond how your individual franchise is run and conforms to the brand's standards, and there are some things you cannot and do not do, that "corporate" handles instead.

So if there is a McDonald's owner in, say, Philadelphia who is miffed that some restaurant on his bock starts selling a knock-off of the Big Mac, it's not his ability to claim ownership or take legal action. That goes to the corporate legal department, corporate lawyers, and those who are in direct control and ownership of the brand, its trademarks, and its brand identity. So that franchisee in Philadelphia would not be able to claim ownership of the Big Mac, he would not be able to claim through the courts any kind of control or ownership even to the point of filing damages against the phony Big Mac seller...all of that would go through McDonald's as the owners of the brand and trademarks. The franchisee basically bought use of the name, its standards, and is part of the chain who may own his own business but not the brand in any way.

So let's clear that up: No one, not Mike, not Al, not Brian, not anyone else can control or even stake an individual claim of ownership over the name "Beach Boys" unless its in their role being voting members of the BRI board. Then, any actions that would be filed would go through the board for a vote.

If someone seems to be suggesting that they own more of the name or the brand, or suggesting one member or another is acting as the "steward" of that brand, protecting it, whatever...it seems like that's simply not the case in legal terms beyond public comments and perceptions. BRI owns-controls-protects the name, period. And decisions are made by a vote, not one member's prerogative.

Which is why I might think some previous lawsuits that would seem vindictive might have been started on the basis that the person who bought the license somehow then controls more of the "brand" identity than another, and can seek to protect it on their prerogative.

Just to sum up all of that crap...Mike does not "own" the Beach Boys, he pays to use the name. Simple franchising. Filing lawsuits as if you're controlling or protecting the brand against whatever threatens its legacy is up to the BRI board voting process, not Mike.

I believe the main cases against Al were from BRI. There may have been other lawsuits from individuals as well.

But I'm not sure your scenario is correct. One does not have to assert ownership of the trademark to sue and claim damages. If I'm paying a licensing fee to be the exclusive McDonald's franchise in an area' and someone else uses the name without a license, I can sue for damages/loss of profit. McDonald's might also sue for trademark infringement and loss of profit as well.

You do not own the "Big Mac", its trademark, or its design/construction/image, McDonald's does. Therefore you as the franchise owner who pays McDonald's corporation to sell the Big Mac would not be able to file a claim as "owner".

Can an individual franchise on their own accord start selling a "Turkey Patty Big Mac" at McDonalds? Hell no! Corporate would be on them as soon as they found out. You can sell the trademarked, owned items but you don't "own" them in any way to be able to change, alter, or promote them beyond what you agreed through corporate standards.

So I'd say my scenario is absolutely valid - you as the franchise owner could have corporate file the claims through their legal division, but you could not hire an independent lawyer to represent you in the case because you are no McDonalds you do not own the Big Mac, and you cannot "speak for" or represent legally the company which you pay license and franchise fees.

If it concerns your property, or suits against you personally but not the company, then you can. But anything related to the brand name, the image, the trademarks...you don't own any of it, you can't file a suit standing as the de facto "owner" of that brand as an individual franchisee...because you don't own the brand.

I hope that's right.  

[Andrew G. Doe]

Are some of us forgetting Al's actions and behaviors regarding the brand and license(s)?

No, I don’t believe anybody is.

Well I did, please remind me.

It was... regrettable.

[HeyJude]

I'm wondering if there may be a misunderstanding of how the franchising and licensing process works in general. In some cases I won't touch on since they're already being discussed, I think there may be deliberate misunderstandings, if you will, on exactly how much holding a franchise or a license actually entitles the current holder to do or control.

I always come back to McDonald's, but use any major franchise you want. If you are a McDonald's franchisee, if you bought into the franchise and got the license from them (with strict conditions and all that), you do not "own" McDonald's, you are not the caretaker of that corporation beyond how your individual franchise is run and conforms to the brand's standards, and there are some things you cannot and do not do, that "corporate" handles instead.

So if there is a McDonald's owner in, say, Philadelphia who is miffed that some restaurant on his bock starts selling a knock-off of the Big Mac, it's not his ability to claim ownership or take legal action. That goes to the corporate legal department, corporate lawyers, and those who are in direct control and ownership of the brand, its trademarks, and its brand identity. So that franchisee in Philadelphia would not be able to claim ownership of the Big Mac, he would not be able to claim through the courts any kind of control or ownership even to the point of filing damages against the phony Big Mac seller...all of that would go through McDonald's as the owners of the brand and trademarks. The franchisee basically bought use of the name, its standards, and is part of the chain who may own his own business but not the brand in any way.

So let's clear that up: No one, not Mike, not Al, not Brian, not anyone else can control or even stake an individual claim of ownership over the name "Beach Boys" unless its in their role being voting members of the BRI board. Then, any actions that would be filed would go through the board for a vote.

If someone seems to be suggesting that they own more of the name or the brand, or suggesting one member or another is acting as the "steward" of that brand, protecting it, whatever...it seems like that's simply not the case in legal terms beyond public comments and perceptions. BRI owns-controls-protects the name, period. And decisions are made by a vote, not one member's prerogative.

Which is why I might think some previous lawsuits that would seem vindictive might have been started on the basis that the person who bought the license somehow then controls more of the "brand" identity than another, and can seek to protect it on their prerogative.

Just to sum up all of that crap...Mike does not "own" the Beach Boys, he pays to use the name. Simple franchising. Filing lawsuits as if you're controlling or protecting the brand against whatever threatens its legacy is up to the BRI board voting process, not Mike.

I believe the main cases against Al were from BRI. There may have been other lawsuits from individuals as well.

But I'm not sure your scenario is correct. One does not have to assert ownership of the trademark to sue and claim damages. If I'm paying a licensing fee to be the exclusive McDonald's franchise in an area' and someone else uses the name without a license, I can sue for damages/loss of profit. McDonald's might also sue for trademark infringement and loss of profit as well.

You do not own the "Big Mac", its trademark, or its design/construction/image, McDonald's does. Therefore you as the franchise owner who pays McDonald's corporation to sell the Big Mac would not be able to file a claim as "owner".

Can an individual franchise on their own accord start selling a "Turkey Patty Big Mac" at McDonalds? Hell no! Corporate would be on them as soon as they found out. You can sell the trademarked, owned items but you don't "own" them in any way to be able to change, alter, or promote them beyond what you agreed through corporate standards.

So I'd say my scenario is absolutely valid - you as the franchise owner could have corporate file the claims through their legal division, but you could not hire an independent lawyer to represent you in the case because you are no McDonalds you do not own the Big Mac, and you cannot "speak for" or represent legally the company which you pay license and franchise fees.

If it concerns your property, or suits against you personally but not the company, then you can. But anything related to the brand name, the image, the trademarks...you don't own any of it, you can't file a suit standing as the de facto "owner" of that brand as an individual franchisee...because you don't own the brand.

I hope that's right.  

In this scenario, a license-holder wouldn’t file claim “as owner.” But that doesn’t mean they can’t file *a* claim. Not being the owner of the trademark, they could not file any suits for trademark infringement. But if someone is infringing on the trademark that leads to a loss or profits for a licensee, that licensee can certainly bring a suit against whomever is infringing. The infringement would be injuring both the trademark holder and the licensee.

The only scenario where this couldn’t happen is if there is specific verbiage in the licensing agreement with McDonald’s that requires or forces only the corporation to file any lawsuits that might also impact the licensee.

[Mikie]

Frankly, I truly miss Christian Love. 

I sure don't! Guy sang bland and had next to no stage presence. He sounded like Carl at times, put I'll take Foskett's stronger, projected vocals and guitar playing over Christian's any day! Plus, you never saw Christian do the entire Pet Sounds and Smile albums and so many different Beach Boys rarities/album tracks like Jeff did. In addition to some of Brian's solo material.....

[HeyJude]

Are some of us forgetting Al's actions and behaviors regarding the brand and license(s)?

No, I don’t believe anybody is.

Well I did, please remind me.

Your posts from the last 15-plus years suggest you are aware of the intricacies of those cases and have formed (and have not changed) your opinions derived from your knowledge in those same 15-plus years.

There are a few folks who have developed the opinion that Al really is the ultimate bad guy in the Beach Boys saga, at least of the last 15 years or so. I think such an opinion is completely unfounded, especially to the degree it has been argued by a few folks (and I mean VERY few). While I don’t understand such an opinion, I do understand very well that if 15 years of discussing it hasn’t changed their mind, it’s not a discussion worth resurrecting.

[Cam Mott]

Are some of us forgetting Al's actions and behaviors regarding the brand and license(s)?

No, I don’t believe anybody is.

Well I did, please remind me.

It was... regrettable.

 

[filledeplage]

Frankly, I truly miss Christian Love.  

I sure don't! Guy sang bland and had next to no stage presence. He sounded like Carl at times, put I'll take Foskett's stronger, projected vocals and guitar playing over Christian's any day! Plus, you never saw Christian do the entire Pet Sounds and Smile albums and so many different Beach Boys rarities/album tracks like Jeff did. In addition to some of Brian's solo material.....

Here's why I miss him.  I first heard his voice on that old Hallmark CD.  Cool Head, Warm Heart and I got a chill, with what I heard which sounded like Carl. You can't fake a voice, even if you can learn to "project" as teachers learn to do.  He isn't an extrovert, and may show deference to the veterans, even though by his 40ish age, had been Beach Boys for at least 20 years.  

Ya, Foskett did perform on PS Live and others. Christian brought a presence, and youthful feel that hasn't been seen since the 60's.  I loved his lead version of Then I Kissed Her a lot, and GV lead.  His voice has a yearning quality that reminds me of Carl's. I'm not comparing him to Jeff.  

And I think he did work on "voice projection" during his hiatus in the C50 months.  That is just my opinion.  It was nice to see someone young and involved in competitive athletics.  Isn't surfing the sport that inspired some of the music?

[onkster]

Has anybody considered that Jeff has undergone major heart surgery--a while back, but still--and that continuing such a stressful dual role in Brian's band might simply not be worth it, health wise?

[Andrew G. Doe]

He has ? When ?

[Paul J B]

To swipe up BW's righthand man and get him to be negative about BW is something only Mike would do.

Right on cue there pal. One more preposterous statement to add to your long list.

[guitarfool2002]

In this scenario, a license-holder wouldn’t file claim “as owner.” But that doesn’t mean they can’t file *a* claim. Not being the owner of the trademark, they could not file any suits for trademark infringement. But if someone is infringing on the trademark that leads to a loss or profits for a licensee, that licensee can certainly bring a suit against whomever is infringing. The infringement would be injuring both the trademark holder and the licensee.

The only scenario where this couldn’t happen is if there is specific verbiage in the licensing agreement with McDonald’s that requires or forces only the corporation to file any lawsuits that might also impact the licensee.

I'll say that maybe my experiences in certain industries could be affecting my opinions here, and I'd definitely need to brush up on or research the ins-and-outs before saying much more on this! But I do think your last sentence hits on it, where it is or can be a case-by-case thing depending on what was signed, contracted, and agreed to and how legal affairs affecting the franchisee and the corporate owner of the brand are handled. That makes it hard to summarize into one standard, which is probably what i tried to do and perhaps was mistaken.

In a previous life I had a job at a financial firm who was going through a big merger with a former competitor, which affected branding, naming, marketing, heck the entire identity of both the two previous "brands" and the new brand after the merger. It came down to something like the Lennon/McCartney versus McCartney/Lennon credit debacle that was mentioned here. There were apparently some serious debates as to whose name would be first on the new official name and brand. And in the meantime there were memos, directives, all kinds of things flying around the branch offices covering everything from letterhead, to marketing materials, to advertising seminars, and memos to the switchboard operator on how to answer the phone, and it all came from the corporate legal areas. The individual branches, offices, and employees who in some cases were almost acting as much as contractors selling the brand as they were employees had no say in this, and had to wait for the corporate memos before acting on their own, and in some cases it was confusing for them not knowing how to even answer a call or brand an upcoming seminar.

My whole point originally was suggesting that no one of the Beach Boys is autonomous in any of these naming issues, despite actions that suggest otherwise, and I brought it up because it still felt like some either thought or were suggesting that Mike had more control over the name than any other member, and under the BRI license agreements, I don't believe that is or ever was the case. Mike does not own or control the name, he pays for the license just as any franchisee would, along with the conditions.

I guess what also inspired it was someone had mentioned the mid-2000's lawsuit around the CD/magazine giveaway of a Smile track that the suit claimed had some effects on the Beach Boys brand name or image, and I was trying to rationalize how something like that could even be drawn up as a valid case based on the BRI ownership details.

Again, I'll gladly and humbly stand corrected!

[Niko]

To swipe up BW's righthand man and get him to be negative about BW is something only Mike would do.

Right on cue there pal. One more preposterous statement to add to your long list.

[Paul J B]

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".

To my (currently questionable) knowledge, no-one credible has ever declared themselves an insider: that's like saying "I'm an expert" - if you have to tell people, chances are you're not, not to mention being very poor form, what ? As for them with an inside track "teasing"... well, that's a personal call, walking the line between imparting what posters have been asking to know and retaining that inside track by not spilling too many or too large beans. Probably easier to say nothing, but they'd likely get ripped for that too. Dilemma. I'm sure there's much, much more Howie, Jon and their ilk could tell us, as sure as I am that once they did so, their sources, connections and probably their livelihoods would evaporate like the morning dew.

Gotta respectfully disagree with you there. I find the posts that "tease" to be one of the key reasons that there is so much inane bickering on this board. If people don't want their sources to dry up then they should not jump into these conversations in the first place.

[Howie Edelson]

Paul J B -- you make an excellent point.

Moving forward . . .

1. What's everybody's dream tracklisting for Reverberation?

2. More fictional sketches about Brian and Jeff driving to eat food, please.