gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680599 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 12:04:10 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Beach Boys Pile Up In California  (Read 63966 times)
BB Universe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 156


View Profile
« Reply #150 on: October 02, 2014, 06:36:41 AM »

Following up on the comments regarding the audiences at the various shows: when our group (usually 10 - 15 in number) attend their shows in our neck of the woods (Western New York to Toronto area), for us and our observation it has been that the M&B shows have been more of a "sing a long" while the attraction at the BW shows is more the artist. That holds true especially when BW has a "theme" show (ie. Pet Sounds; Smile; etc.) whereas at his "Greatest Hits" shows, it also tends to be a "sing a long" event.
Nothing wrong with either because the bottom line is we get to see the music performed!
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #151 on: October 02, 2014, 06:50:09 AM »

I'm sorry, but IMO whether he has the license legally or not, no matter how long he had done things his own way, used the name (no matter what dues were paid to use it) how used to it he was, etc., when the other original members, esp. THE original member most responsible for the creation of the music and the brand (any arguments to the contrary are simply benighted, no matter what his lyrical, vocal and performance contributions), asks, along with one or two other original members to remain in the current incarnation of the group, said cousin is OBLIGATED by any number of criteria to oblige him, END OF STORY, NO EXCUSES.

So you're stating that, in both the BB world and the real world, no contract is worth the paper it's written on if one or more of the founders of said institution decides otherwise ? To call such a mindset demented is being exceedingly polite. It's actually fucking insane, even for the BB cosmos. Reminds me of the French attitude to the EU - they sign the treaties, then do what they damn well want to. Suppose you and I formed an alliance to write a book, agreed to split everything 50/50... and then when it was a best seller, I told you "sorry, I'm keeping everything" ? In your world, you'd have to roll over and comply.

And, uh, why do Paul & Ringo get a free pass ? Just because they're the surviving Beatles ?

As has been pointed out for over two years now since the demise of C50, NOBODY (as far as I know) is claiming that any contracts were broken in not continuing the reunion, nor is anybody claiming that Mike is legally obligated to continue a reunion tour (or allow anyone into his group which licenses the name). *Clearly*, a *highly* subjective moral/ethical question is being raised as it pertains to all of the BB members, as well as the fans, in addition to any other potential criteria.

However, this idea that these theoretical scenarios involving Mike continuing the reunion or otherwise touring with Brian is *breaking* any contract is just ass backwards.  That’s not how contracts work. Mike isn’t holding up his end of any contracts by NOT continuing the reunion. There are no contracts spelling out that he can’t change what he’s doing. I highly doubt the BRI license FORCES Mike to continue touring, and touring without Brian or Al. I suppose it’s possible there’s some kind of “pay or play” provision in the license agreement that if he wants to keep it, he has to book X number of shows per year or forfeit it. But that’s a highly dubious theory, and the fact that C50 took place proves it’s not difficult to put Mike’s touring setup on hold.

So no, Mike continuing the reunion or otherwise touring with the reunited lineup is not at all like France breaking a treaty or one guy in a 50/50 book partnership trying to take the other guy’s half. If Brian tried to revoke Mike’s stake in BRI, or if one of the members bailed out of the reunion tour in the middle of the tour, *that* would be something more along those lines.

Again, Mike is not legally obligated to work with Brian or any of the other members, nor obligated to do a reunion tour. However, NOT doing more reunion dates is not “sticking” to any contract (once the terms of the contract are met, there is nothing left to “stick” to), and doing more reunion dates is not “breaking” any contract. That’s not how contract law works. The only scenario where these things would be true is if Mike’s licensing agreement specifically calls for him to exclude Brian, Al, etc, and/or if the contracts for the reunion tour specifically called for the reunion lineup to NEVER play together again.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
ToneBender631
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 172


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: October 02, 2014, 07:01:24 AM »

I'm sorry, but IMO whether he has the license legally or not, no matter how long he had done things his own way, used the name (no matter what dues were paid to use it) how used to it he was, etc., when the other original members, esp. THE original member most responsible for the creation of the music and the brand (any arguments to the contrary are simply benighted, no matter what his lyrical, vocal and performance contributions), asks, along with one or two other original members to remain in the current incarnation of the group, said cousin is OBLIGATED by any number of criteria to oblige him, END OF STORY, NO EXCUSES.

So you're stating that, in both the BB world and the real world, no contract is worth the paper it's written on if one or more of the founders of said institution decides otherwise ? To call such a mindset demented is being exceedingly polite. It's actually fucking insane, even for the BB cosmos. Reminds me of the French attitude to the EU - they sign the treaties, then do what they damn well want to. Suppose you and I formed an alliance to write a book, agreed to split everything 50/50... and then when it was a best seller, I told you "sorry, I'm keeping everything" ? In your world, you'd have to roll over and comply.

And, uh, why do Paul & Ringo get a free pass ? Just because they're the surviving Beatles ?

Signing the contracts only gives them the right to do whatever they want, not the right to determine how posterity or objective (as much as possible) observers view their decisions. They may regret their decisions later as well, obviously. In Brian Wilson's case, if he as The Beach Boys (as Dennis said) and not just another "messenger", hypothetically were to regret a decision to license the name and wants to be part of any band that would bill itself as the BBs, ML should respect that since, despite his immense, unique and invaluable contributions to the group, as many have said without Brian he would be pumping gas or its rough equivalent.

McCartney doesn't bill himself as The Beatles anyway, so a free pass wasn't necessary anyway in retrospect.

To be clear, I don't think Mike would object to Brian "sitting in" with his version of "The Beach Boys" for some shows, I think he'd object to Brian saying "Well, if I'm going to sit in with you for these shows, I need the following members of my band on-stage and X, Y and Z to happen."

Separately, one point I'd like to address is that people keep coming back to the argument that "Mike's tour is more profitable than C50", a statement that is made based on suggestions from Mike that his leaner touring outfit doesn't cost as much to tour with. Even with the larger tour buses, bigger bands, etc. that C50 commanded, I truly find that hard to believe. But let's just move forward with that assumption since Mike would presumably have no reason to lie about this. Does anyone really believe that Mike's tour makes BRI more money than C50 did?

Let's consider the entire financial impact for BRI, not just the per night rate and ticket sales. Consider everything. The C50 tour resulted in two DVDs and a double live album, which is far more in one year than Mike has done since 1998 on the whole. Then you throw in the merch (which is being sold each night to much larger audiences), the sales for TWGMTR, "50 Big Ones" and the uptick in sales that the individual songs, albums and other compilations probably saw. We've also got radio and streaming royalties, song licensing (commercials, movies, etc.), book interest, etc. Plus, the increased press on a local, national and international level.

So considering all of that, how could M&B touring make more money for BRI than a C50 configuration? Heck, even outside of BRI I'd guess that Bruce and David made more money from a royalty standpoint than they had in recent years. So, unless I'm wildly off base, than the money argument in support of the status quo really needs to be taken out of this discussion. Even if the individual shows are not as profitable for Mike in a full band arrangement, this could be dealt with very easily.

If they presented specific albums or arrangements ("BBs present 'Pet Sounds'", "The Beach Boys: Unplugged", "BBs present Smile", etc.) in the form of 5-7 show residencies in the larger markets that can support that, they could increase ticket prices, play higher end venues, vastly reduce their transportation and back line expenses, and put less wear and tear on their bodies. These unique shows would also result in the ability to release something like "Pet Sounds Live" (DVD, Blu-Ray, CD, Download), peddle more one-off merch, etc. In other words, MAKE MORE MONEY FOR BRI! Hell, they could also use these shows to bring the kids into the fold (a la "California Saga") should they have any desire to allow the family business to continue...Here's an idea - they could dub that series of shows "Beach Boys Family and Friends"! Smiley

And yes, they could play far fewer shows in this configuration than C50 or M&B and still come out on top. C50 was lumped into a 6-month period (rehearsals, prep, etc.). They'd be better served doing the residencies in the winter months, take a few months off in between (in which they can all book their corporate gigs or smaller shows) and then get together for a June - August summer tour.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #153 on: October 02, 2014, 07:02:36 AM »

Little known piece of trivia: Mike and Brian actually clashed quite a bit over the album artwork for both the "That's Why God Made the Radio" album and the live album. Below is Mike's proposed album cover art for both. I for one think it's pretty unique and experimental, if a bit "on the nose":



Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #154 on: October 02, 2014, 07:08:02 AM »

I'm sorry, but IMO whether he has the license legally or not, no matter how long he had done things his own way, used the name (no matter what dues were paid to use it) how used to it he was, etc., when the other original members, esp. THE original member most responsible for the creation of the music and the brand (any arguments to the contrary are simply benighted, no matter what his lyrical, vocal and performance contributions), asks, along with one or two other original members to remain in the current incarnation of the group, said cousin is OBLIGATED by any number of criteria to oblige him, END OF STORY, NO EXCUSES.

So you're stating that, in both the BB world and the real world, no contract is worth the paper it's written on if one or more of the founders of said institution decides otherwise ? To call such a mindset demented is being exceedingly polite. It's actually fucking insane, even for the BB cosmos. Reminds me of the French attitude to the EU - they sign the treaties, then do what they damn well want to. Suppose you and I formed an alliance to write a book, agreed to split everything 50/50... and then when it was a best seller, I told you "sorry, I'm keeping everything" ? In your world, you'd have to roll over and comply.

And, uh, why do Paul & Ringo get a free pass ? Just because they're the surviving Beatles ?

Signing the contracts only gives them the right to do whatever they want, not the right to determine how posterity or objective (as much as possible) observers view their decisions. They may regret their decisions later as well, obviously. In Brian Wilson's case, if he as The Beach Boys (as Dennis said) and not just another "messenger", hypothetically were to regret a decision to license the name and wants to be part of any band that would bill itself as the BBs, ML should respect that since, despite his immense, unique and invaluable contributions to the group, as many have said without Brian he would be pumping gas or its rough equivalent.

McCartney doesn't bill himself as The Beatles anyway, so a free pass wasn't necessary anyway in retrospect.

To be clear, I don't think Mike would object to Brian "sitting in" with his version of "The Beach Boys" for some shows, I think he'd object to Brian saying "Well, if I'm going to sit in with you for these shows, I need the following members of my band on-stage and X, Y and Z to happen."

Separately, one point I'd like to address is that people keep coming back to the argument that "Mike's tour is more profitable than C50", a statement that is made based on suggestions from Mike that his leaner touring outfit doesn't cost as much to tour with. Even with the larger tour buses, bigger bands, etc. that C50 commanded, I truly find that hard to believe. But let's just move forward with that assumption since Mike would presumably have no reason to lie about this. Does anyone really believe that Mike's tour makes BRI more money than C50 did?

I think you’re right. It’s quite possible if not likely that BRI members collectively netted more money on C50 than from a typical year of Mike’s band touring. The only idea behind the theory that Mike personally could have made less on C50 is that even if it netted more money overall after the increased overheard costs and whatnot, far more funds would probably be split up at least for Brian and Al. Those two guys were surely paid out far more money from the tour (whether or not an “equal” cut; I would imagine Brian got as big of a cut as Mike, perhaps not Al; just guessing) than their 25% of the likely 15 or 20%, which would be overall roughly 4 to 5%, of Mike’s tour proceeds.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #155 on: October 02, 2014, 07:13:36 AM »


I don't agree with the figures that have been proposed/discussed on this board regarding Brian and Al's cut. I think they are too low, which is what I would expect from this board. But, even if they are accurate, it still amounts to millions of dollars since the license was negotiated. However, the actual dollar amount isn't relevant. Obviously they were happy with the figure/amount - whatever it was - during negotiations or else they wouldn't have agreed to it. And, obviously they are still happy with the figure/amount - whatever it is - because I don't hear of any movement to change it. And, don't you think if there was a movement to change it, we'd have heard about it? People always talk, especially in The Beach Boys' circle.

Let’s also be clear that BRI has voted and the *majority* decided back in 1998 to grant Mike a license, just like the *majority* previously had voted to issue non-exclusive licenses. While various court documents only spell out the vote counts on these votes and do not name who voted which way, it does mention “3 to 1” votes as I recall. It’s not a stretch to suggest that it’s possible if not probably that Mike was the one vote “against” the non-exclusive licenses, while Al was a single vote “against” Mike’s exclusive license.

So even when a board votes for something to happen, it doesn’t mean ALL of the board members agreed. Just a majority. If any board members abstain, it can complicate this idea even more.

So if you’re s shareholder in a corporation, and you are the minority vote in a particular vote, that doesn’t mean you then have to forfeit the profits you’re still entitled to as a shareholder. Collecting your shareholder check doesn’t mean you approve of how the corporation is being run.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Howie Edelson
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 672


View Profile
« Reply #156 on: October 02, 2014, 07:15:45 AM »

Dove Nested Towers nailed it.
Absolutely nailed it.
It's like that old political ad (". . . in your heart you KNOW he's right.")

If Brian wants in, you do whatever it takes to keep Brian. Period.
You don't dig his wife -- tough, this is bigger than that -- you make it work.
This is NOT a Landy situation that Mike is dealing with and/or rejecting by exercising the terms of the license.
This is Mike Love not wanting a partner, which to him means nothing less than having an employer.
And honestly it's been far easier for him over the years to talk lovingly and reverentially about "Cousin Brian" than it has to actually BE with him. (The same goes for Yoko Ono, too.) I went to a Mike show once with a non-fan and they said, "Brian's dead, right?" Not because Mike mentioned cancer or drowning -- but because that's how it's put across. The vibe reads "Miss him. Wish he was still among us."

To be fair to Mike, Brian comes with a lot of baggage. On every level. But, when it's Brian Wilson and he's SANE -- and you're already SO F***CKING RICH off this thing after 130 years -- you acquiesce. You be The Beach Boys with him. You end this thing with him.

But aside from US, without the actual band, the Mike shows are people seeing an ad in the back of the newspaper -- or on a big board on a highway -- and saying: "Beach Boys -- we LOVE Motown!!! Let's go!!!"

And that's the TRUTH.

No matter how friendly one thinks they may be with Mike after the show (or whatever Bruce they get on any given day) -- that's the TRUTH.
It's the fanciest Dean Torrence show on the planet.

In terms of the Rock press/media -- who was salivating to embrace Mike during the 50th (Beatles buddy/TM/Wilson's Hal David -- the angles were endless. . . .) -- he is back to January '88 status. IF THAT. A shame -- because he deserves better. He deserves everything. His EGO went before the brand.

You wanna be Otis Williams -- okay, you're Otis Williams.

I only wish BriMel could've snagged Totten and Cowsill for THEIR band when Mike and Jeff were pursuing one another (organically and entirely by coincidence at the same time, of course.)
Logged
ToneBender631
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 172


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: October 02, 2014, 07:51:27 AM »

I'm sorry, but IMO whether he has the license legally or not, no matter how long he had done things his own way, used the name (no matter what dues were paid to use it) how used to it he was, etc., when the other original members, esp. THE original member most responsible for the creation of the music and the brand (any arguments to the contrary are simply benighted, no matter what his lyrical, vocal and performance contributions), asks, along with one or two other original members to remain in the current incarnation of the group, said cousin is OBLIGATED by any number of criteria to oblige him, END OF STORY, NO EXCUSES.

So you're stating that, in both the BB world and the real world, no contract is worth the paper it's written on if one or more of the founders of said institution decides otherwise ? To call such a mindset demented is being exceedingly polite. It's actually fucking insane, even for the BB cosmos. Reminds me of the French attitude to the EU - they sign the treaties, then do what they damn well want to. Suppose you and I formed an alliance to write a book, agreed to split everything 50/50... and then when it was a best seller, I told you "sorry, I'm keeping everything" ? In your world, you'd have to roll over and comply.

And, uh, why do Paul & Ringo get a free pass ? Just because they're the surviving Beatles ?

Signing the contracts only gives them the right to do whatever they want, not the right to determine how posterity or objective (as much as possible) observers view their decisions. They may regret their decisions later as well, obviously. In Brian Wilson's case, if he as The Beach Boys (as Dennis said) and not just another "messenger", hypothetically were to regret a decision to license the name and wants to be part of any band that would bill itself as the BBs, ML should respect that since, despite his immense, unique and invaluable contributions to the group, as many have said without Brian he would be pumping gas or its rough equivalent.

McCartney doesn't bill himself as The Beatles anyway, so a free pass wasn't necessary anyway in retrospect.

To be clear, I don't think Mike would object to Brian "sitting in" with his version of "The Beach Boys" for some shows, I think he'd object to Brian saying "Well, if I'm going to sit in with you for these shows, I need the following members of my band on-stage and X, Y and Z to happen."

Separately, one point I'd like to address is that people keep coming back to the argument that "Mike's tour is more profitable than C50", a statement that is made based on suggestions from Mike that his leaner touring outfit doesn't cost as much to tour with. Even with the larger tour buses, bigger bands, etc. that C50 commanded, I truly find that hard to believe. But let's just move forward with that assumption since Mike would presumably have no reason to lie about this. Does anyone really believe that Mike's tour makes BRI more money than C50 did?

I think you’re right. It’s quite possible if not likely that BRI members collectively netted more money on C50 than from a typical year of Mike’s band touring. The only idea behind the theory that Mike personally could have made less on C50 is that even if it netted more money overall after the increased overheard costs and whatnot, far more funds would probably be split up at least for Brian and Al. Those two guys were surely paid out far more money from the tour (whether or not an “equal” cut; I would imagine Brian got as big of a cut as Mike, perhaps not Al; just guessing) than their 25% of the likely 15 or 20%, which would be overall roughly 4 to 5%, of Mike’s tour proceeds.

But again, talking outside of the money they make per show, C50 undoubtedly did far more to boost album sales, download sales, licensing and radio/streaming royalties, than the status quo does on a yearly basis. And again, that's without the added revenue of TWGMTR, the two DVDs, the live album and the merch being sold to larger houses.

But just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, let's look at the per show argument. Even with the leaner touring outfit (local back line, fewer buses, flying coach, smaller guest lists, smaller catering, etc.), do we really think that M&B make more off of a $100K fee than C50, which likely commands at least $375K-$500K, probably going closer to double or triple that in the larger markets? I would bet that the merch sales alone probably pay for the difference in back line, catering and guest lists. I dunno, I just find it hard to imagine that C50 was spending that recklessly that they were negating higher fees, higher merch sales and all of the other revenue streams mentioned previously.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #158 on: October 02, 2014, 08:09:42 AM »

I'm sorry, but IMO whether he has the license legally or not, no matter how long he had done things his own way, used the name (no matter what dues were paid to use it) how used to it he was, etc., when the other original members, esp. THE original member most responsible for the creation of the music and the brand (any arguments to the contrary are simply benighted, no matter what his lyrical, vocal and performance contributions), asks, along with one or two other original members to remain in the current incarnation of the group, said cousin is OBLIGATED by any number of criteria to oblige him, END OF STORY, NO EXCUSES.

So you're stating that, in both the BB world and the real world, no contract is worth the paper it's written on if one or more of the founders of said institution decides otherwise ? To call such a mindset demented is being exceedingly polite. It's actually fucking insane, even for the BB cosmos. Reminds me of the French attitude to the EU - they sign the treaties, then do what they damn well want to. Suppose you and I formed an alliance to write a book, agreed to split everything 50/50... and then when it was a best seller, I told you "sorry, I'm keeping everything" ? In your world, you'd have to roll over and comply.

And, uh, why do Paul & Ringo get a free pass ? Just because they're the surviving Beatles ?

Signing the contracts only gives them the right to do whatever they want, not the right to determine how posterity or objective (as much as possible) observers view their decisions. They may regret their decisions later as well, obviously. In Brian Wilson's case, if he as The Beach Boys (as Dennis said) and not just another "messenger", hypothetically were to regret a decision to license the name and wants to be part of any band that would bill itself as the BBs, ML should respect that since, despite his immense, unique and invaluable contributions to the group, as many have said without Brian he would be pumping gas or its rough equivalent.

McCartney doesn't bill himself as The Beatles anyway, so a free pass wasn't necessary anyway in retrospect.

To be clear, I don't think Mike would object to Brian "sitting in" with his version of "The Beach Boys" for some shows, I think he'd object to Brian saying "Well, if I'm going to sit in with you for these shows, I need the following members of my band on-stage and X, Y and Z to happen."

Separately, one point I'd like to address is that people keep coming back to the argument that "Mike's tour is more profitable than C50", a statement that is made based on suggestions from Mike that his leaner touring outfit doesn't cost as much to tour with. Even with the larger tour buses, bigger bands, etc. that C50 commanded, I truly find that hard to believe. But let's just move forward with that assumption since Mike would presumably have no reason to lie about this. Does anyone really believe that Mike's tour makes BRI more money than C50 did?

I think you’re right. It’s quite possible if not likely that BRI members collectively netted more money on C50 than from a typical year of Mike’s band touring. The only idea behind the theory that Mike personally could have made less on C50 is that even if it netted more money overall after the increased overheard costs and whatnot, far more funds would probably be split up at least for Brian and Al. Those two guys were surely paid out far more money from the tour (whether or not an “equal” cut; I would imagine Brian got as big of a cut as Mike, perhaps not Al; just guessing) than their 25% of the likely 15 or 20%, which would be overall roughly 4 to 5%, of Mike’s tour proceeds.

But again, talking outside of the money they make per show, C50 undoubtedly did far more to boost album sales, download sales, licensing and radio/streaming royalties, than the status quo does on a yearly basis. And again, that's without the added revenue of TWGMTR, the two DVDs, the live album and the merch being sold to larger houses.

But just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, let's look at the per show argument. Even with the leaner touring outfit (local back line, fewer buses, flying coach, smaller guest lists, smaller catering, etc.), do we really think that M&B make more off of a $100K fee than C50, which likely commands at least $375K-$500K, probably going closer to double or triple that in the larger markets? I would bet that the merch sales alone probably pay for the difference in back line, catering and guest lists. I dunno, I just find it hard to imagine that C50 was spending that recklessly that they were negating higher fees, higher merch sales and all of the other revenue streams mentioned previously.

I agree. I was only painting the most conservative picture possible and pointing out that even then C50 would be a financial boon for most everybody involved.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Robbie Mac
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 877


Carl Wilson is not amused.


View Profile
« Reply #159 on: October 02, 2014, 08:25:36 AM »

Dove Nested Towers nailed it.
Absolutely nailed it.
It's like that old political ad (". . . in your heart you KNOW he's right.")

If Brian wants in, you do whatever it takes to keep Brian. Period.
You don't dig his wife -- tough, this is bigger than that -- you make it work.

Absolutely! Especially when they essentially gift you with a Top 5 album, something you haven't had since 1976

This is NOT a Landy situation that Mike is dealing with and/or rejecting by exercising the terms of the license.
This is Mike Love not wanting a partner, which to him means nothing less than having an employer.
And honestly it's been far easier for him over the years to talk lovingly and reverentially about "Cousin Brian" than it has to actually BE with him. (The same goes for Yoko Ono, too.) I went to a Mike show once with a non-fan and they said, "Brian's dead, right?" Not because Mike mentioned cancer or drowning -- but because that's how it's put across. The vibe reads "Miss him. Wish he was still among us."

Quite telling. I have always thought that MIke loves and misses the Brian that he knew while not recognizing the person that Brian would become. "No, the guy I see now? That's not Brian. That's not the guy I knew".




 
Logged

The world could come together as one
If everybody under the sun
Adds some 🎼 to your day
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #160 on: October 02, 2014, 08:30:13 AM »

He is not the BW I once Knew, new M&B song. Wink
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #161 on: October 02, 2014, 09:55:10 AM »

Little known piece of trivia: Mike and Brian actually clashed quite a bit over the album artwork for both the "That's Why God Made the Radio" album and the live album. Below is Mike's proposed album cover art for both. I for one think it's pretty unique and experimental, if a bit "on the nose":





Lol  LOL

I'm surprised M&B haven't reworked the BB classic "Wendy" into "Wend-date". Seems like a missed opportunity.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #162 on: October 02, 2014, 10:25:53 AM »

Please excuse the stream-of-consciousness below:

I don't know. On the one hand one can say that the majority of casual fans only know about the early hits and don't know if who they are seeing on stage are the original Beach Boys or not. On the other hand, though, The Beach Boys have always been a much bigger draw when Brian Wilson is part of the band.

I was just thinking that, say, at a Stones show, most people would probably notice if Keith wasn't there. And at a Who show, most people would probably notice if Pete wasn't there. When the Beatles did that one brief part of the 1964 tour without Ringo, people definitely took notice. These are bands that cultivated interest in not only the songs but the people. So I'm wondering - maybe the Beach Boys haven't done that? But then I think, of course they have. At least to an extent. If they hadn't, the Brian is Back campaign would have never been the kind of success that it was.

Of course, the fact is, there are plenty of people you can find who say that they like music, that they even like "old music" but they still wouldn't be able to give you the full names of all four Beatles. I don't know what the point is there, but something tells me it's relevant.

It's very relevant in that the actual musical content and catalogues of the top tier, most revered and iconic groups in rock and roll history, like the Beatles, Stones, Who, Led Zeppelin and yes, Beach Boys arguably transcend the significance of the band lineups, which is the heart of the "carrying the torch", "keeping the spirit of the music alive" etc. argument. This argument has validity in any case where the music is so uniquely evocative and has the power to positively affect people so strongly.

But it is trumped IMO by the other argument. In the cases of the Stones & Who, they know what's right & proper and all surviving members will d--n well be onstage at any concert that bears their bands' legendary name (McCartney & Ringo are a unique case and should be given a pass).

Brian Wilson began giving live solo shows in the late '90s, slowly recovered and re-habituated himself courageously to being onstage, and understandably didn't want to have anything to do with his cousin until the C50 opportunity arose, whereupon he rejoined the reunited BBs and enjoyed it so much that he was eager to extend the tour open-endedly, which as Howie said would have been thoroughly doable regardless of ML's protestations to the contrary, even if it would have been contrary to his standard operating procedure re: changing terms with promoters etc., but his cousin refused, prioritizing his own convenience and autonomy.

I'm sorry, but IMO whether he has the license legally or not, no matter how long he had done things his own way, used the name (no matter what dues were paid to use it) how used to it he was, etc., when the other original members, esp. THE original member most responsible for the creation of the music and the brand (any arguments to the contrary are simply benighted, no matter what his lyrical, vocal and performance contributions), asks, along with one or two other original members to remain in the current incarnation of the group, said cousin is OBLIGATED by any number of criteria to oblige him, END OF STORY, NO EXCUSES.

ML's refusal to allow it and his insistence on returning to the diluted status quo on his own terms constitutes a sad cheapening of the legendary group's name, image and brand, no ifs, ands or buts, but admittedly by a somewhat narrow margin over the "keeping the music alive" rationale, as I said before. One could argue that by working so hard and touring constantly for so many years he has earned the right to define the brand, but that is invalidated by the fact that, despite his undoubtedly sincere love for the music, he has also been amply remunerated in innumerable ways and therefore
had/has a vested interest in making the "sacrifice" of his hard work.

Pink Floyd is the closest parallel to the BB scenario but at least both Gilmour and Waters were legitimate co-visionaries who both carried on Syd Barrett's legacy and expanded it in two grand, totally legitimate directions.

I know this sounds dogmatic and very black & white, but assuming that there is/was a will on Brian's side to continue doing concerts with Mike & Bruce (Al as well, which is definite, and David would probably like to participate to some degree as is evdenced by M&B inviting him to join them for some shows now), anything less than allowing him/them to play whatever shows they want to with the "Beach Boys" continues the ongoing undermining of their legacy and cannot be adequately justified.


I couldn’t agree more. The point of this discussion is not about legal contracts. Some legal contracts are meant to be broken, or least re-examined. If we’re gonna take the hard line about legal contracts, then Mike must stick to all the contracts that stated he wasn’t the co-writer on tons of hits. No changes to contracts, ever ever ever, remember?  Rules are rules </sarcasm>

This is most simply about what’s the right thing to do. Yeah yeah, I know people will say: how does anyone on a message board (not personally involved in the actual situation) have a right to chime in about the ethics/morality of the choices these strangers make… but quite simply, it seems a matter of common sense about how human beings should treat each other. Let’s take the Beach Boys out of this for a moment. If a similar situation between a group of people (not necessarily bandmates) was being impartially examined by outsiders (with as much knowledge as we have about this situation/history) and it did NOT involve this specific band that we are all emotionally invested in/attached to on some level, I feel doubtful that Mike’s case would garner the same amount of sympathy as is the case now (which ain't much, overall, anyhow).  

I’m sure some people on this board will refute this statement, but I feel that some of the people who defending Mike’s point of view on this matter are possibly only doing so because they have a reason/incentive to not want to have a humungous beef with the guy’s actions. Maybe that incentive is that some people love this band so much, that they don’t want to taint the listening/emotional experience of the music by thinking that one of the core members (whose voice they hear on most of the band’s songs) has acted in an unconscionable/indefensible way.  (side note: I, for one, can separate art and the artist, and I can have a huge issue with the dude, have no problem discussing his actions and finding some of them indefensible, and still love the music he's been involved in. I love Kokomo too. While apples and oranges, I also still love and listen to Phil Spector, but I'm sure some people can't anymore though. The music is a separate entity in my mind, for music as insanely good as The Beach Boys or Phil Spector.)

The only leg that Mike has ever tried to publicly stand on (regarding this issue) is the “end date” thing, but that doesn’t really hold much water if the nitty gritty of Dove Nested Towers’ great post is really discussed. When Mike used this excuse for awhile and realized that the public didn’t really buy this as an excuse (we know that Mike and/or his people read “comments”), the interviews shifted to trying to get sympathy over his inability to get alone with Brian in a room. I have to think that excuse started making the rounds in a planned PR-damage-control manner, otherwise we'd probably heard him say it right after the ugly split. And I would say that I can have a degree of empathy for his point of view on that, even though I think that demanding such an expectation is a mighty unfortunate way of thinking.

No such expectation was demanded in 1966 and the music still turned out pretty damn well. Why isn't this point ever asked to Mike? A more Brian-centric or Brian/Tony Asher-centric album was released, but it was still The Beach Boys, and it was brilliant.  

I’d love to know how Mike would respond to the points of Dove Nested Towers’ post. I’m sure he would simply just dismiss it and not address these individual points, because there’s no way he can say this isn’t about ego (and past resentments, feeling he is due something), but frankly I think people would just like to finally hear him say so. The frustration comes when all sorts of excuses are made, tiptoeing around the real issue, all the while the (unaddressed by Mike) ego/resentment remains the big elephant in the room. Why is only the Brian/Mike alone in a room dynamic the only acceptable one, when dynamics other than that one have proven successful (artistically and financially) for the band?  
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 11:37:51 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #163 on: October 02, 2014, 10:52:57 AM »

Some legal contracts are meant to be broken, or least re-examined.

So, it is agreed and understood that Mike Love is the one person/one vote who is preventing the group from realizing all of the potential/wishes/dreams that the band and the fans have for the future. But your real frustration is that Brian Wilson, Al Jardine, and Carl Wilson's Estate are not doing enough (anything?) through their attorneys to - as you wrote above - break or at least re-examine the contracts? Please, and seriously, if any insiders or honored guests have any knowledge or information that meetings are being held and negotiating is being done to change the licensing, I would like to read about it. 
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 10:56:25 AM by Sheriff John Stone » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #164 on: October 02, 2014, 11:04:10 AM »

Some legal contracts are meant to be broken, or least re-examined.

So, it is agreed and understood that Mike Love is the one person/one vote who is preventing the group from realizing all of the potential/wishes/dreams that the band and the fans have for the future. But your real frustration is that Brian Wilson, Al Jardine, and Carl Wilson's Estate are not doing enough (anything?) through their attorneys to - as you wrote above - break or at least re-examine the contracts? Please, and seriously, if any insiders or honored guests have any knowledge or information that meetings are being held and negotiating is being done to change the licensing, I would like to read about it. 

While there might be other factors that we're not privy to, I'm specifically discussing my frustration with Mike's part in this fiasco. I'm talking about how some people do (or don't) pass judgment on the whole "set end date" stuff, and why that is. I'm willing to acknowledge there may be other people/situations that have allowed the situation to transpire the way it did, but Mike's role is what I'm referring to.
Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #165 on: October 02, 2014, 11:09:22 AM »

To achieve what so many here and elsewhere seemingly desire above all else - strip Mike of his license to tour as The Beach Boys - requires nothing more complex than the other three voting members of BRI agreeing on that course of action, calling an extraordinary meeting of BRI, tabling said motion and voting 3-1 in favor. Rocket science it ain't.

That nothing even remotely resembling this scenario has (as far as anyone here is aware) even been proposed, much less actioned, these last fifteen or so is something the other side of significant. I'm guessing that the reason is $$$. Alan & Brian are probably doing OK - the latter more so, of course - but I don't see Carl's estate giving up a six figure annual income (for which they have to do precisely and exactly nothing) on such a point of artistic principle. The status remains resolutely quo.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 11:10:21 AM by The Legendary AGD » Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
ontor pertawst
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2575


L♡VE ALWAYS WINS


View Profile WWW
« Reply #166 on: October 02, 2014, 11:18:36 AM »

Right. And some folks think it's a shitty state of affairs and Mike Love and his "brilliant lawyers" are to blame slightly more than Carl Wilson's family. I don't recall their greed and lust for money/credit/power dragging Brian Wilson and Al Jardine into court numerous times over the decades in endless, excruciatingly expensive legal gambits that maybe men in their 70s don't have the stomach to endure again. So the status quo is maintained and Alan complains in interviews. Brian does his Brian thing.

But yeah, this is totally about Carl Wilson's family being greedy and horrible to their own family and Mike Love is fresh, pure, and able to levitate if he concentrates really really hard.

No amount of "set end date" or citing of contracts will ever stop the guy from being mocked mercilessly in comments sections, tho. Even if we clone 500 AGDs and set them loose to painstakingly correct the record and you know it!  He won and got his way with the license but he doesn't have to just give a percentage... he also loses a big chunk of respect in the eyes of more than a few people. No amount of money will ever buy that back for him! You can say who cares, he's rich and enjoys the good life... but cmon, listen to him in interviews. He comes off as so desperate for recognition and approval. I can't believe it doesn't occur to him that he sh*t the bed big-time with his graceless C50 exit just when his press started being actually POSITIVE for the first time in decades.

It's seems a bit of a shame, really. Would've been nice for him to join his cousin for the last act instead of whining about being in a room together and snidely bringing up his prescription drug treatment. A typically classy move from Mr Positivity!
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 11:37:49 AM by ontor pertawst » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #167 on: October 02, 2014, 11:31:37 AM »


No amount of "set end date" or citing of contracts will ever stop the guy from being mocked mercilessly in comments sections, tho. He won and got his way with the license but he doesn't have to just give a percentage... he also loses a big chunk of respect in the eyes of more than a few people. No amount of money will ever buy that back for him! You can say who cares, he's rich and enjoys the good life... but cmon, listen to him in interviews. He comes off as so desperate for recognition and approval. I can't believe it doesn't occur to him that he sh*t the bed big-time with his graceless C50 exit just when his press started being actually POSITIVE for the first time in decades.

Despite the seeming lack of self-awareness, I *have* to think Mike must know this on some internal level. I want a really good, trusted interviewer to ask him this. In a gentle, non-confrontational way. But I think it came down to weighing options, and the most risk-averse option to him was impossible to pass up. As has been his mindset for decades.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 11:33:12 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Howie Edelson
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 672


View Profile
« Reply #168 on: October 02, 2014, 11:38:26 AM »

Honestly -- if a move hasn't been made to change the licensing agreement by NOW -- it won't.
THAT is kicking a hornet's nest. NOBODY wants that mess in their lives. As vengeful as these people can get -- nobody wants that.
Although BADB was a bold move and and absolute f*** you to Mike -- it fell apart as soon as it came together.
Whatever chemistry that thing had was spoiled by having Jeff Beck bust into that show like Kool Aid and eat up all of David's guitar solos.
(Absurdly and for no reason).

I'm digressing. The main fact is that even if moves were taken to change the license -- this thing would be in litigation for so long that it would be a bunch of 60-plus year-old heirs awaiting a final judgement (and not even it would be settled immediately)

A more interesting question is -- who gets the license when Mike is done?

I would love it to be Matt & Billy.
Logged
ontor pertawst
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2575


L♡VE ALWAYS WINS


View Profile WWW
« Reply #169 on: October 02, 2014, 11:40:55 AM »

That is definitely an interesting question! I wonder what Mike Love would prefer happen. The Foskett Boys? An incredibly morose looking Christian Love called back to the service?
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #170 on: October 02, 2014, 11:41:15 AM »

To achieve what so many here and elsewhere seemingly desire above all else - strip Mike of his license to tour as The Beach Boys - requires nothing more complex than the other three voting members of BRI agreeing on that course of action, calling an extraordinary meeting of BRI, tabling said motion and voting 3-1 in favor. Rocket science it ain't.

That nothing even remotely resembling this scenario has (as far as anyone here is aware) even been proposed, much less actioned, these last fifteen or so is something the other side of significant. I'm guessing that the reason is $$$. Alan & Brian are probably doing OK - the latter more so, of course - but I don't see Carl's estate giving up a six figure annual income (for which they have to do precisely and exactly nothing) on such a point of artistic principle. The status remains resolutely quo.

There are apparently several different but not wholly unrelated things being debated/suggested here:

One is the full band reunited (or, in the theoretical, having stayed reunited), which would have entailed MORE money for pretty much everybody involved other than Randell Kirsche, Tim Bonhomme (and even *he* got the road manager gig on C50), and possibly Mike Love. That one suggests Love stick to this lineup is not to suggest he give up the license or have it taken away. Had the band stayed together, the "license" wouldn't have mattered.

A second idea is for Mike to simply have the license taken away. I don't really see a ton of people arguing this anymore. The late 90's was the last time I remember a ton of fans complaining about Mike using the BB name, to the point of calling for him to be stripped of it. But as the 2000's wore on, most fans seem to be rather resigned to it. I don't care too much anymore, at least when there is no alternative to Mike's tour available (not the case with a reunited lineup of course). Sure, it would perhaps be nice to see him tour under his own name, or some sort of "Mike Love Presents The Beach Boys" or something, but these are all points that are so fine as to be meaningless in this scenario.

I think Carl's estate would prefer the reunion lineup, if for no other reason than it probably made *them* more money, and also better the group's image, which in turn makes even MORE money.

To the degree fans need or want to place blame on the members of this band, the board members that allow this thing to go on the way it is are indeed at fault. But it's also silly to flip the whole thing and put it on Brian, Al, and Carl's estate. Firstly, it seems apparently Al probably voted against the way things are now, and I would imagine might well vote right now to take the license away, especially if some alternative were in place to continue touring in its place (reunion lineup, Brian and Al, non-exclusive licenses for all without using the full BB name, etc.).

For Brian and Carl's estate, it seems to be about passivity. There's plenty of blame to heap on that, if one is inclined to need to place blame for the way things are right now.

But even that pales in comparison to the person actively engaging in the way the setup is now, and who two years ago chose to leverage his power, Al's impotence, and Brian's and Carl's estates indifference against the alternative of keeping the full band together.

And I think there is a possibility that at least once or twice in the last 15 years, the idea of changing the license arrangement may well indeed have been floated, at least briefly and perhaps without full intention to follow through. But such a thing may have been floated once or twice, and I have little doubt that the various "camps" have discussed various scenarios and pros and cons of trying to change the current set up. I think they're simply too old and don't want to help put even more lawyers' kids through college by trying to make a bunch of business and legal maneuvers at this stage.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #171 on: October 02, 2014, 11:45:59 AM »

Honestly -- if a move hasn't been made to change the licensing agreement by NOW -- it won't.
THAT is kicking a hornet's nest. NOBODY wants that mess in their lives. As vengeful as these people can get -- nobody wants that.
Although BADB was a bold move and and absolute f*** you to Mike -- it fell apart as soon as it came together.
Whatever chemistry that thing had was spoiled by having Jeff Beck bust into that show like Kool Aid and eat up all of David's guitar solos.
(Absurdly and for no reason).

I'm digressing. The main fact is that even if moves were taken to change the license -- this thing would be in litigation for so long that it would be a bunch of 60-plus year-old heirs awaiting a final judgement (and not even it would be settled immediately)

A more interesting question is -- who gets the license when Mike is done?

I would love it to be Matt & Billy.



Thanks! Me and Mr Bielewicz will take good care of the license.

Oh wait...

LOL
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #172 on: October 02, 2014, 11:46:33 AM »

Mike is getting his pathetic end in the BBs saga he so deserves. Touring bumfuck nowhere with a hack band and a washed up replacement member. He had his chance for one last escape, but blew it. You can tell from interviews the man is miserable on the inside and is really a bitter old man reliving his teenage years of BBs stardom.  
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #173 on: October 02, 2014, 11:47:05 AM »

Honestly -- if a move hasn't been made to change the licensing agreement by NOW -- it won't.
THAT is kicking a hornet's nest. NOBODY wants that mess in their lives. As vengeful as these people can get -- nobody wants that.
Although BADB was a bold move and and absolute f*** you to Mike -- it fell apart as soon as it came together.
Whatever chemistry that thing had was spoiled by having Jeff Beck bust into that show like Kool Aid and eat up all of David's guitar solos.
(Absurdly and for no reason).

I'm digressing. The main fact is that even if moves were taken to change the license -- this thing would be in litigation for so long that it would be a bunch of 60-plus year-old heirs awaiting a final judgement (and not even it would be settled immediately)

A more interesting question is -- who gets the license when Mike is done?

I would love it to be Matt & Billy.



Thanks! Me and Mr Bielewicz will take good care of the license.

Oh wait...

LOL
Billy, will you bring back duke of earl? Wink
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #174 on: October 02, 2014, 11:49:14 AM »

I'd rather get fisted by Freddy Krueger than hear the song again. I'd rather bathe in sulfuric acid than hear it . I'd rather tie jumper cables to my balls than hear that song again. I'd rather...okay you get the point. LOL
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.421 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!