gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680597 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 03:39:08 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Beach Boys Pile Up In California  (Read 63954 times)
Eric Aniversario
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1847


Keep the Summer Alive!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #225 on: October 03, 2014, 01:16:38 AM »

I used to post on different boards as "friendly" and other similar names, but then someone started posting on the BBB board as "Eric A." saying that new setlists had just been posted on the setlist archive. When I confronted the person on the board, they tried to make it seem like I was the pretender. Since then, I've posted only as myself. But I definitely don't think that people posting under anonymous handles are doing anything wrong. We don't owe anyone here an explanation of who we are, or any of our personal information should we decide not to disperse it.
Logged
♩♬🐸 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 #226 on: October 03, 2014, 01:18:00 AM »

most= not all.

Unless it involves my daughter sneaking some of my frozen yogurt 'I ate most of it, not all, daddy'. *looks in pint, sees half a cherry and about half a teaspoon of base left* LOL
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
♩♬🐸 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 #227 on: October 03, 2014, 01:22:08 AM »

I used to post on different boards as "friendly" and other similar names, but then someone started posting on the BBB board as "Eric A." saying that new setlists had just been posted on the setlist archive. When I confronted the person on the board, they tried to make it seem like I was the pretender. Since then, I've posted only as myself. But I definitely don't think that people posting under anonymous handles are doing anything wrong. We don't owe anyone here an explanation of who we are, or any of our personal information should we decide not to disperse it.

Exactly.
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #228 on: October 03, 2014, 01:53:26 AM »


And is THAT was Nicko was calling me out about?
(Nicko has issues with everything -- the opinions, the facts, knowing something he doesn't. "Prove it!" "Prove it" -- we all knew guys like that growing up, right? It ends with you walking away.)


You can keep on making little digs about the person that I am, the way that I am wired  and that I have a hard on by all means.  Smiley

But I made a post in another thread that you may have missed that hopefully makes my point succinctly.


I can completely understand all of that and my comments now are meant to be constructive and positive and I hope they will all be taken in the spirit they are intended.

Now in this thread you have given many very strongly worded opinions on a couple of issues and have painted things in a very black and white way. Mike and Jeff are both entirely consumed by vengeance, Scott Totten rescued Mike`s reputation (presumably because the touring band was in such a poor shape before that under Chris Farmer), Al has been forced to perform at pitiful venues in front of one man and his dog etc.

Now obviously in your profession I am sure that you come across plenty of info and of course you can`t post it all on a message board. But I personally find that these very black and white statements very difficult to accept as 100% `facts` because life is all about shades of grey. Even if they are all 99.9% true then they are still not facts...

Take the Al/BB F&F situation for example. Now your first post about that seemed to come from nowhere in this thread and was obviously very emotive. Now I should say that Al, if push comes to shove, is probably my favourite of the remaining Beach Boys. I really wanted him to be successful after 1998 and I was even one of he hardy few who joined his fan club and still have the membership card in the drawer somewhere to prove it! Now was Mike motivated partly by power and revenge? I have no doubt that he was. His feelings about Al at that time are well known.

But was it also right that Al was banned from touring using the BB F&F name? Yeah, I think undeniably it was. The judges (and appeal judges) all thought so and Al really didn`t have a leg to stand on. The fact that the other members of BRI didn`t vote to let him use the name indicates that this wasn`t solely a revenge thing. Shades of grey...

As for the Jeff/Melinda thing. I can completely believe that this could be one of Jeff`s motivations. But you have implied that revenge is by far his primary motivating factor and that he is devoting months of his year doing a job in order to stick it to her. Now this is more difficult to simply take as a `fact` and as it paints both Jeff and Melinda in a very poor light it wouldn`t really feel right to do so unquestioningly. Shades of grey again...

I hope that makes sense and, as mentioned previously, is meant with the utmost respect.

I don`t query everything that you write but I do query the points that I disagree with and there have been quite a few since you started posting regularly again recently. I completely respect that you write about the band but I just don`t believe that means that none of your comments should ever be questioned.
Logged
Dove Nested Towers
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 877

Goodnight, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are!


View Profile
« Reply #229 on: October 03, 2014, 01:55:59 AM »

This thread has been excellent and cathartic and has remained civil for the most part, great job everyone. @Mikie: it's not old hat, it's an ongoing state of affairs and deserves whatever fresh insight and creative thought we care to devote to it. I thought of another point. If, and I mean IF, the original band members have truly irreconcilable personal differences that cause them inordinate stress when they are in close proximity to each other, such as Pink Floyd seem to, that should also excuse any ethical or propriety-based obligation to perform under the original group name as a unit. I don't think that's the case with the "Boys".

In such situations, the perpetuation of the music itself takes precedence IMO, although some modification of the basic name might be in order. Fleetwood Mac is another example that I didn't mention before, fortunately after much turmoil through the years they have apparently come to a very good place with each other, and I'm sure no one faction within their group would dream of touring under the name unless the others just didn't want to be a part of it any more, as was the case with Christine McVie for the last 15 years, and when she decided to return for a full tour and album after a few 2012 outings went well she was naturally welcomed back with open arms. They are an example of a band that has handled these issues with class, the opposite of the post-C50 BBs.

The fact that we are discussing these issues with such passion is, to me, indicative and a wonderful affirmation of the fervid idealism that this group, its identity and its music inspire in those to whom it resonates with. Either that or we all need to get lives. IMO we have them already (most of us, anyway), and are extremely fortunate that this music is a part of them.
Logged

"The police aren't there to create disorder,
they're there to preserve disorder!" -Mayor
Daly, Chicago 1968
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #230 on: October 03, 2014, 02:05:40 AM »


It has been, in my view, those defending the status quo concerning the touring band who have implied greediness on the part of Carl's estate (and Brian for that matter). Or, if not "greed", than caring more about money than the brand/band/music, etc.

Quickly back to the Al thing, your statement implies Al didn't get the "majority vote" *because* he didn't want to pay the BRI license fee. I don't buy that at all. Al's case for a license or for being in the "Beach Boys" was dead before he had even departed the touring group. It's all in the Stebbins/Marks book; he already knew what was going on, and once he knew Dave was back "in" full time, Al knew he was screwed.

That temporary "non-exclusive" license malarkey wouldn't have panned out either way; it's a non-issue and didn't impact anything other than prolonging the inevitable. The idea of Carl's estate in 1998 to grant non-exclusive licenses may have been well-intentioned, but even if Al had secured such a license, an *exclusive* license would have been issued to Mike soon enough any way, both because that's clearly what Mike wanted all along, and they ALL would have eventually come to realize that having two bands touring as the Beach Boys would have been beyond confusing. The only thing it *may* have prevented was the 1999 injunction attempts against Al's band.

I was simply referring to the statement in the court document that BRI wanted Al to pay 17.5% to tour as The Beach Boys Family and Friends.

I completely agree that Al wasn`t going to tour in a group calling itself The Beach Boys but that was never part of the equation.

It is interesting that you talk about confusion over the name because there are obviously quite varied opinions about that on this board. Some believe that Al touring using that name caused so little confusion that he should have been able to use it for free for example...

Now the ideal financially for BRI would seem to have been for Mike to go out doing 100 dates while paying them 20% with Al going out playing how ever many shows they could as BB F&F and paying 17.5%. Obviously Al didn`t feel he could pay that so it became a moot point.
Logged
Fire Wind
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 299



View Profile
« Reply #231 on: October 03, 2014, 02:33:12 AM »

An obvious reason to use a handle is simply the fact of posting during work-time.  Not just that current employers/colleagues would see it, but any future employers too when googling your name.
Logged

I still can taste the ocean breeze...
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #232 on: October 03, 2014, 04:35:48 AM »

Y'know what dr. beach boy? Maybe you're right.
All I know is that I continue to write, produce, and consult for all the factions of the band we're discussing.
Working on multiple BB-related projects as I write this.
My ideas are welcomed (and they know they're mine because I actually use my name, dr.)

My name is Dirk. I'm not hiding anything. You sir, have a chip on your shoulder. Don't be so pompous, many folks here use handles on this board.
Howie's got a dumb angel on his shoulder. No chip whatsoever. He's the opposite of pompous. He's matter of fact, direct, even harsh, but never uninformed. I can'i believe he has much energy to expend with two boys under 5 to look after. But man, he's letting his opinions fly lately and stuff is being revealed. The board wins.
Information-wise, sure the board wins. I appreciate that Howie comes here to share it. You share your information as well, but you don't get cocky and call people out if somebody asks you a question or wants clarification or if opinion, questions it. I believe you treat people how you would like to be treated.
Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
El Molé
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 77


View Profile
« Reply #233 on: October 03, 2014, 05:09:00 AM »


It has been, in my view, those defending the status quo concerning the touring band who have implied greediness on the part of Carl's estate (and Brian for that matter). Or, if not "greed", than caring more about money than the brand/band/music, etc.

Quickly back to the Al thing, your statement implies Al didn't get the "majority vote" *because* he didn't want to pay the BRI license fee. I don't buy that at all. Al's case for a license or for being in the "Beach Boys" was dead before he had even departed the touring group. It's all in the Stebbins/Marks book; he already knew what was going on, and once he knew Dave was back "in" full time, Al knew he was screwed.

That temporary "non-exclusive" license malarkey wouldn't have panned out either way; it's a non-issue and didn't impact anything other than prolonging the inevitable. The idea of Carl's estate in 1998 to grant non-exclusive licenses may have been well-intentioned, but even if Al had secured such a license, an *exclusive* license would have been issued to Mike soon enough any way, both because that's clearly what Mike wanted all along, and they ALL would have eventually come to realize that having two bands touring as the Beach Boys would have been beyond confusing. The only thing it *may* have prevented was the 1999 injunction attempts against Al's band.

I was simply referring to the statement in the court document that BRI wanted Al to pay 17.5% to tour as The Beach Boys Family and Friends.

I completely agree that Al wasn`t going to tour in a group calling itself The Beach Boys but that was never part of the equation.

It is interesting that you talk about confusion over the name because there are obviously quite varied opinions about that on this board. Some believe that Al touring using that name caused so little confusion that he should have been able to use it for free for example...

Now the ideal financially for BRI would seem to have been for Mike to go out doing 100 dates while paying them 20% with Al going out playing how ever many shows they could as BB F&F and paying 17.5%. Obviously Al didn`t feel he could pay that so it became a moot point.

Wouldn't the ideal position for BRI be to have one touring Beach Boys unit and receive 100%? In my opinion the issuing of a license to one member of BRI was an enormous mistake that has damaged the Beach Boys reputation and weakened the brand.

I can't help but think that there have been periods over the last twenty years or so when there has been some serious  momentum behind the Beach Boys name. There was something of a renaissance of support centred around Brian's reputation as the 'genius' architect of the Beach Boys work, particularly around Pet Sounds and onwards. Brian and the Beach Boys have been name-checked and praised as influences by an enormous number of well-respected names in music, giving the potential to open them up to new generations of fans. That's continued on and off over the years but there's been next to no ability to capitalise on those opportunities because the visible and tangible representation of the Beach Boys has been Mike and Bruce. I don't say any of this as a dig at either of them, but the touring hits show featuring one original member (who's might almost be as famous for litigation as he is for his lyrics) isn't going to be something that can feed into or feed off any increase in critical reception and the potential for a growing fan base as a result.

Having a touring group that people would see and/or accept as THE Beach Boys would have allowed all sorts of opportunities for generating new fans and interest and therefore sales for BRI. In 2012 we had exactly that and it was an incredible success, with the Beach Boys appearing all over the place and having a top-3 album and rave reviews for the live shows. We didn't have that in 2004 when Brian finished Smile, we didn't have it in 2011 when the Smile Sessions box set came out and we didn't have a 2013 'Made in California' tour. I'm not saying they would have all been worthwhile or successful but it's clear that the Beach Boys lack the ability to drive any sort of campaign without a recognisable group touring or doing promotional work. I know some people will say that no-one knows or cares who anyone in the Beach Boys is except maybe for Brian, but I think that problem is self-perpetuating. If the touring entity is made up of one original member, people won't care who's on stage or take more that a passing interest in what the Beach Boys are doing. If seeing the Beach Boys means seeing every living member of one of the greatest bands of all time, maybe people will start to notice who's there and identify more with the people they see on stage. Then a Beach Boys shows is more of an event and something more significant.

All just my opinion, but it's hard to see how the license arrangements and everything that's happened since 1998 has really served anyone but Mike that well. The Beach Boys name has been spread thinly and is now weak as a result, through a billion different budget-priced compilations of hits and constant touring by Mike and a band. It should be allowed to return to a name that means something.
Logged
bgas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6372


Oh for the good old days


View Profile
« Reply #234 on: October 03, 2014, 05:37:34 AM »

Y'know what dr. beach boy? Maybe you're right.
All I know is that I continue to write, produce, and consult for all the factions of the band we're discussing.
Working on multiple BB-related projects as I write this.
My ideas are welcomed (and they know they're mine because I actually use my name, dr.)

My name is Dirk. I'm not hiding anything. You sir, have a chip on your shoulder. Don't be so pompous, many folks here use handles on this board.
Howie's got a dumb angel on his shoulder. No chip whatsoever. He's the opposite of pompous. He's matter of fact, direct, even harsh, but never uninformed. I can'i believe he has much energy to expend with two boys under 5 to look after. But man, he's letting his opinions fly lately and stuff is being revealed. The board wins.
Information-wise, sure the board wins. I appreciate that Howie comes here to share it. You share your information as well, but you don't get cocky and call people out if somebody asks you a question or wants clarification or if opinion, questions it. I believe you treat people how you would like to be treated.

Maybe " Jon Stebbins " is only the professional name he uses as an author/pundit, with his given name being  something entirely different such as Shlomo Mcsherly? 
Logged

Nothing I post is my opinion, it's all a message from God
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #235 on: October 03, 2014, 05:40:35 AM »


Wouldn't the ideal position for BRI be to have one touring Beach Boys unit and receive 100%? In my opinion the issuing of a license to one member of BRI was an enormous mistake that has damaged the Beach Boys reputation and weakened the brand.

I can't help but think that there have been periods over the last twenty years or so when there has been some serious  momentum behind the Beach Boys name. There was something of a renaissance of support centred around Brian's reputation as the 'genius' architect of the Beach Boys work, particularly around Pet Sounds and onwards. Brian and the Beach Boys have been name-checked and praised as influences by an enormous number of well-respected names in music, giving the potential to open them up to new generations of fans. That's continued on and off over the years but there's been next to no ability to capitalise on those opportunities because the visible and tangible representation of the Beach Boys has been Mike and Bruce. I don't say any of this as a dig at either of them, but the touring hits show featuring one original member (who's might almost be as famous for litigation as he is for his lyrics) isn't going to be something that can feed into or feed off any increase in critical reception and the potential for a growing fan base as a result.

Having a touring group that people would see and/or accept as THE Beach Boys would have allowed all sorts of opportunities for generating new fans and interest and therefore sales for BRI. In 2012 we had exactly that and it was an incredible success, with the Beach Boys appearing all over the place and having a top-3 album and rave reviews for the live shows. We didn't have that in 2004 when Brian finished Smile, we didn't have it in 2011 when the Smile Sessions box set came out and we didn't have a 2013 'Made in California' tour. I'm not saying they would have all been worthwhile or successful but it's clear that the Beach Boys lack the ability to drive any sort of campaign without a recognisable group touring or doing promotional work. I know some people will say that no-one knows or cares who anyone in the Beach Boys is except maybe for Brian, but I think that problem is self-perpetuating. If the touring entity is made up of one original member, people won't care who's on stage or take more that a passing interest in what the Beach Boys are doing. If seeing the Beach Boys means seeing every living member of one of the greatest bands of all time, maybe people will start to notice who's there and identify more with the people they see on stage. Then a Beach Boys shows is more of an event and something more significant.

All just my opinion, but it's hard to see how the license arrangements and everything that's happened since 1998 has really served anyone but Mike that well. The Beach Boys name has been spread thinly and is now weak as a result, through a billion different budget-priced compilations of hits and constant touring by Mike and a band. It should be allowed to return to a name that means something.

I was referring only to the situation after Carl`s death.

Sure things would have been different in 2012. It still wouldn`t be 100% though I guess as that would imply that Carl`s estate would be getting a 25% cut.

Even if Mike hadn`t been given the license though, I`m not sure Brian would have been interested in touring with The Beach Boys over those years. There is that interview he gave in 1998 where he said he was planning to go on tour with The Beach Boys in 1999 though so who knows...
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #236 on: October 03, 2014, 06:18:30 AM »


Can't speak for the others (and thanks for including me in such august company), but in my case, that's the most misguided and frankly patronizing load of twaddle I've read on this forum in years, and dammit there's been some stiff competition

I win!
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Lowbacca
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3598


please let me wonder


View Profile
« Reply #237 on: October 03, 2014, 06:27:12 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!
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #238 on: October 03, 2014, 06:48:34 AM »


It has been, in my view, those defending the status quo concerning the touring band who have implied greediness on the part of Carl's estate (and Brian for that matter). Or, if not "greed", than caring more about money than the brand/band/music, etc.

Quickly back to the Al thing, your statement implies Al didn't get the "majority vote" *because* he didn't want to pay the BRI license fee. I don't buy that at all. Al's case for a license or for being in the "Beach Boys" was dead before he had even departed the touring group. It's all in the Stebbins/Marks book; he already knew what was going on, and once he knew Dave was back "in" full time, Al knew he was screwed.

That temporary "non-exclusive" license malarkey wouldn't have panned out either way; it's a non-issue and didn't impact anything other than prolonging the inevitable. The idea of Carl's estate in 1998 to grant non-exclusive licenses may have been well-intentioned, but even if Al had secured such a license, an *exclusive* license would have been issued to Mike soon enough any way, both because that's clearly what Mike wanted all along, and they ALL would have eventually come to realize that having two bands touring as the Beach Boys would have been beyond confusing. The only thing it *may* have prevented was the 1999 injunction attempts against Al's band.

I was simply referring to the statement in the court document that BRI wanted Al to pay 17.5% to tour as The Beach Boys Family and Friends.

I completely agree that Al wasn`t going to tour in a group calling itself The Beach Boys but that was never part of the equation.

It is interesting that you talk about confusion over the name because there are obviously quite varied opinions about that on this board. Some believe that Al touring using that name caused so little confusion that he should have been able to use it for free for example...

Now the ideal financially for BRI would seem to have been for Mike to go out doing 100 dates while paying them 20% with Al going out playing how ever many shows they could as BB F&F and paying 17.5%. Obviously Al didn`t feel he could pay that so it became a moot point.

The problem with the licenses and the fees for those licenses is that I’ve never seen any evidence that BRI was going to issue licenses concerning specific name variants. Also, I think there’s a huge difference between touring as “Beach Boys Family & Friends” versus “The Beach Boys.” Look at 1999. For most of the year, Al was able to use the name. Yet, he still didn’t get anywhere near as many bookings as a typical touring year for “The Beach Boys.” When you’re the *secondary* touring group, when “The Beach Boys” have the long-standing relationships with venues and booking agents, and when they can actually use the name “The Beach Boys” while you’re touring with modifiers on it, that “license” is worth FAR less.

I recall reading in the court papers about the “proposed” terms for a license for Al. Yes, they were more appealing than those for Mike’s. But I think it was still too much to pay when you’re having to follow-up behind the “primary” licensee doing over 100 shows per year with the full name. You’re basically left with the scraps that the primary licensee doesn’t take, and/or playing even more out-of-the-way markets than Mike typically plays. Didn’t Al play a gig in Alaska in 1999? So I can understand why even that reduced license didn’t seem fair or appealing to Al, and why he attempted (and failed) to make an argument that he didn’t need a license.

But, as Howie alluded to in one of his previous posts, I think going after Al in 1999 was about pettiness and ugliness and vengefulness and all of that. Yes, there were sound technical legal reasons for BRI to go after him. But I don’t think that’s what motivated them, or at least was not the only motivations. Al was doing scattered bookings under the BBFF name, and I don’t think there was particularly compelling evidence of mass confusion surrounding Al’s bookings. There were allegedly a lot of “hunts” going on for “confused” concertgoers. I also think there was scant evidence that Al’s BBFF band were “stealing” potential bookings from Mike’s band. As I said, they were taking the leftover scraps as far as bookings. I even recall some theories/assertions (of which I have no direct evidence) that a few BBFF bookings were being canceled and replaced with bookings for “The Beach Boys.”

I think the main reason Al’s band was any kind of threat was because it was getting good reviews; and some reviews were noting their show had a vocal freshness and energy missing for recent “Beach Boys” tours (including tours Al had been on). It’s ironic, because even the best reviews in the world weren’t going to lead to Al’s BBFF overtaking Mike’s “Beach Boys” on the touring market. Al’s band would have had to be the most amazing band ever, and Mike would have had to start having band members show up wasted and forgetting chords and lyrics and canceling random gigs here and there for Al’s band to make any significant dent into Mike’s touring market share.

The best Al could have hoped for was to essentially fill the new role of Mike’s “California Beach Band”; essentially the more “basic” model version of the Beach Boys that costs less money.

I do think it’s too bad Al didn’t dig in in 2000 as “Al Jardine’s Family & Friends” and really hone and refine that band concept, because it was really enjoyable. The vocals were great, in some ways even better than Brian’s band in my opinion. The musicians sounded good, on par with the best late 70’s/80’s BB touring bands (albeit with far better drumming from Bobby Figueroa), and they had started into digging into some deep, interesting rarities. Al had a lot of *ideas* about really intricate, deep-cut setlists. Doing stuff like “The Trader” and “Steamboat” and “Be Here in the Morning.” But that all got derailed.
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/
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #239 on: October 03, 2014, 07:50:09 AM »


The problem with the licenses and the fees for those licenses is that I’ve never seen any evidence that BRI was going to issue licenses concerning specific name variants. Also, I think there’s a huge difference between touring as “Beach Boys Family & Friends” versus “The Beach Boys.” Look at 1999. For most of the year, Al was able to use the name. Yet, he still didn’t get anywhere near as many bookings as a typical touring year for “The Beach Boys.” When you’re the *secondary* touring group, when “The Beach Boys” have the long-standing relationships with venues and booking agents, and when they can actually use the name “The Beach Boys” while you’re touring with modifiers on it, that “license” is worth FAR less.

I recall reading in the court papers about the “proposed” terms for a license for Al. Yes, they were more appealing than those for Mike’s. But I think it was still too much to pay when you’re having to follow-up behind the “primary” licensee doing over 100 shows per year with the full name. You’re basically left with the scraps that the primary licensee doesn’t take, and/or playing even more out-of-the-way markets than Mike typically plays. Didn’t Al play a gig in Alaska in 1999? So I can understand why even that reduced license didn’t seem fair or appealing to Al, and why he attempted (and failed) to make an argument that he didn’t need a license.

But, as Howie alluded to in one of his previous posts, I think going after Al in 1999 was about pettiness and ugliness and vengefulness and all of that. Yes, there were sound technical legal reasons for BRI to go after him. But I don’t think that’s what motivated them, or at least was not the only motivations. Al was doing scattered bookings under the BBFF name, and I don’t think there was particularly compelling evidence of mass confusion surrounding Al’s bookings. There were allegedly a lot of “hunts” going on for “confused” concertgoers. I also think there was scant evidence that Al’s BBFF band were “stealing” potential bookings from Mike’s band. As I said, they were taking the leftover scraps as far as bookings. I even recall some theories/assertions (of which I have no direct evidence) that a few BBFF bookings were being canceled and replaced with bookings for “The Beach Boys.”

I think the main reason Al’s band was any kind of threat was because it was getting good reviews; and some reviews were noting their show had a vocal freshness and energy missing for recent “Beach Boys” tours (including tours Al had been on). It’s ironic, because even the best reviews in the world weren’t going to lead to Al’s BBFF overtaking Mike’s “Beach Boys” on the touring market. Al’s band would have had to be the most amazing band ever, and Mike would have had to start having band members show up wasted and forgetting chords and lyrics and canceling random gigs here and there for Al’s band to make any significant dent into Mike’s touring market share.

The best Al could have hoped for was to essentially fill the new role of Mike’s “California Beach Band”; essentially the more “basic” model version of the Beach Boys that costs less money.

I do think it’s too bad Al didn’t dig in in 2000 as “Al Jardine’s Family & Friends” and really hone and refine that band concept, because it was really enjoyable. The vocals were great, in some ways even better than Brian’s band in my opinion. The musicians sounded good, on par with the best late 70’s/80’s BB touring bands (albeit with far better drumming from Bobby Figueroa), and they had started into digging into some deep, interesting rarities. Al had a lot of *ideas* about really intricate, deep-cut setlists. Doing stuff like “The Trader” and “Steamboat” and “Be Here in the Morning.” But that all got derailed.


Honestly I can`t think of any reason why Brian (or his representative) or Carl`s estate would have any issues with these things. Obviously we all know that Mike had big issues with Al at that time but Brian and Carl`s estate could have signed the 5% contract that Al drew up. That fact that they didn`t is crucial because if they had Mike wouldn`t have had a leg to stand on.

I can completely understand Al not wanting to pay the 17.5% too but when he made the decision not to he sealed his fate really. If the decision had been taken that no license was needed to use `The Beach Boys blah blah blah` as a touring group name then that would obviously have been a big problem for BRI.

I completely agree with you about how good Al`s group was at that time but unfortunately I don`t think there`s anyway they could have a future after he decided he couldn`t pay for the license. I`ve said before that, if push comes to shove, Al is probably my favourite Beach Boy but sadly he isn`t a businessman. To start a new group with 6 lead singers and more members on stage than Brian currently has was never going to make much business sense.

I know Al said that he had been offered plenty of club gigs after he lost the license and it`s a real shame these didn`t happen. Al could definitely have taken out a much smaller band than he did and still put on a great show.

Logged
Jon Stebbins
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2635


View Profile
« Reply #240 on: October 03, 2014, 08:52:23 AM »

Y'know what dr. beach boy? Maybe you're right.
All I know is that I continue to write, produce, and consult for all the factions of the band we're discussing.
Working on multiple BB-related projects as I write this.
My ideas are welcomed (and they know they're mine because I actually use my name, dr.)

My name is Dirk. I'm not hiding anything. You sir, have a chip on your shoulder. Don't be so pompous, many folks here use handles on this board.
Howie's got a dumb angel on his shoulder. No chip whatsoever. He's the opposite of pompous. He's matter of fact, direct, even harsh, but never uninformed. I can'i believe he has much energy to expend with two boys under 5 to look after. But man, he's letting his opinions fly lately and stuff is being revealed. The board wins.
Information-wise, sure the board wins. I appreciate that Howie comes here to share it. You share your information as well, but you don't get cocky and call people out if somebody asks you a question or wants clarification or if opinion, questions it. I believe you treat people how you would like to be treated.
I'd say there are a few regulars on this board who might disagree that I don't get cocky etc... There were seemingly endless contentious exchanges with a couple of regulars here, that turned highly negative and left me somewhat uninterested in participating on this board. But you know, things evolve, time heals, people are people, I'm no saint. I can relate to why Howie gets a little edgy, he's vastly informed compared to most posters here. He's interviewed dozens more insiders than me. He has personal friendships with many names we'd all recognize and is fed information that broadens his perspective, but that at times cannot be articulated in the absolute direct way that some folks seem to require to give credence. I've had similar problems here. There were cases where the sharing of my insider knowledge was not only rejected but even ridiculed and said to be a "spin". This will frustrate a guy. Why? Well, as cocky as it sounds, because they don't know sh*t compared to me. But saying it in those terms only gets you what Howie has gotten lately from a few of our fellow Smiley Smilers. So yes, i do try to treat people respectfully, but like Howie, i also have a history here of conflict and negativity with certain people. And once it gets to that point it's always better to be confronting a person with a real name, a known entity, because otherwise it's like swinging at ghosts. And giving endless clarifications can easily turn into a bottomless pit and has for me many times with certain posters. It's a peculiar dance, wanting to inform the exchange, but without coming off as too cocky, and without over-exposing your sources, and without seeming like you are hiding behind that excuse. It can be kind of a no win. Anyway, I think we are doing better than most boards in all ways.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #241 on: October 03, 2014, 09:21:49 AM »

Honestly I can`t think of any reason why Brian (or his representative) or Carl`s estate would have any issues with these things. Obviously we all know that Mike had big issues with Al at that time but Brian and Carl`s estate could have signed the 5% contract that Al drew up. That fact that they didn`t is crucial because if they had Mike wouldn`t have had a leg to stand on.

I can completely understand Al not wanting to pay the 17.5% too but when he made the decision not to he sealed his fate really. If the decision had been taken that no license was needed to use `The Beach Boys blah blah blah` as a touring group name then that would obviously have been a big problem for BRI.

I completely agree with you about how good Al`s group was at that time but unfortunately I don`t think there`s anyway they could have a future after he decided he couldn`t pay for the license. I`ve said before that, if push comes to shove, Al is probably my favourite Beach Boy but sadly he isn`t a businessman. To start a new group with 6 lead singers and more members on stage than Brian currently has was never going to make much business sense.

I know Al said that he had been offered plenty of club gigs after he lost the license and it`s a real shame these didn`t happen. Al could definitely have taken out a much smaller band than he did and still put on a great show.


I think the offer of a non-exclusive license to Al is a sort of unintended red herring in terms of Al's ultimate fate. They would have moved to an exclusive license for Mike either way. There's obviously no way to prove this hypothetical scenario, but I think all the evidence as well as common sense support this.

If Al had paid for that non-exclusive license, I don't we would have had 15 years of two licensed Beach Boys bands. No way. I think Mike would have had the exclusive license regardless of what Al did, and it probably would have occurred by 1999 or 2000 either way. There was too much leverage being asserted. As Al knew, Mike had been working on getting the setup just the way he wanted back in the 90's when Al and Carl were still touring. There's no way Mike would have gone for the two licenses co-existing. Indeed, precisely what unfolded was an exclusive license for Mike. That exclusive license didn't happen simply because Al didn't pay for a non-exclusive license. I think the wheels were turning and the ball was rolling on securing that exclusive license independent of Al's actions.

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/
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #242 on: October 03, 2014, 09:34:52 AM »

Honestly I can`t think of any reason why Brian (or his representative) or Carl`s estate would have any issues with these things. Obviously we all know that Mike had big issues with Al at that time but Brian and Carl`s estate could have signed the 5% contract that Al drew up. That fact that they didn`t is crucial because if they had Mike wouldn`t have had a leg to stand on.

I can completely understand Al not wanting to pay the 17.5% too but when he made the decision not to he sealed his fate really. If the decision had been taken that no license was needed to use `The Beach Boys blah blah blah` as a touring group name then that would obviously have been a big problem for BRI.

I completely agree with you about how good Al`s group was at that time but unfortunately I don`t think there`s anyway they could have a future after he decided he couldn`t pay for the license. I`ve said before that, if push comes to shove, Al is probably my favourite Beach Boy but sadly he isn`t a businessman. To start a new group with 6 lead singers and more members on stage than Brian currently has was never going to make much business sense.

I know Al said that he had been offered plenty of club gigs after he lost the license and it`s a real shame these didn`t happen. Al could definitely have taken out a much smaller band than he did and still put on a great show.


I think the offer of a non-exclusive license to Al is a sort of unintended red herring in terms of Al's ultimate fate. They would have moved to an exclusive license for Mike either way. There's obviously no way to prove this hypothetical scenario, but I think all the evidence as well as common sense support this.

If Al had paid for that non-exclusive license, I don't we would have had 15 years of two licensed Beach Boys bands. No way. I think Mike would have had the exclusive license regardless of what Al did, and it probably would have occurred by 1999 or 2000 either way. There was too much leverage being asserted. As Al knew, Mike had been working on getting the setup just the way he wanted back in the 90's when Al and Carl were still touring. There's no way Mike would have gone for the two licenses co-existing. Indeed, precisely what unfolded was an exclusive license for Mike. That exclusive license didn't happen simply because Al didn't pay for a non-exclusive license. I think the wheels were turning and the ball was rolling on securing that exclusive license independent of Al's actions.



I disagree because on the other hand BRI screwed Mike over taking an exclusive license away to give Al a license and going against their own agreements by offering Al better terms than they were giving Mike. They went way out of their way to give Al license. 
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #243 on: October 03, 2014, 09:40:28 AM »

It's all about Mike... 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
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #244 on: October 03, 2014, 09:45:40 AM »

It's all about Mike... Wink

Nah, at the time it was all about Brian (or his representative) and Carl`s estate.  Wink

They briefly had the power...
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #245 on: October 03, 2014, 09:50:49 AM »

I disagree because on the other hand BRI screwed Mike over taking an exclusive license away to give Al a license and going against their own agreements by offering Al better terms than they were giving Mike. They went way out of their way to give Al license. 

I don't think BRI ever took an exclusive license away from Mike. According to the court documents available to us, in the aftermath of Carl's death, a board meeting was held where Carl's estate proposed non-exclusive licenses for all board members. At the time Al was offered a license, Mike's (exclusive or non-exclusive) was not "taken away." Mike has not been without either a non-exclusive or exclusive license at any point since 1998.

Also, offering Al different terms wasn't going against any "agreements", unless something specifically stated in the license agreement that no other license could be offered to anyone else under alternate terms. All that sort of stuff is negotiable. If BRI had broken any agreements with Mike, then why didn't Mike sue BRI for breach? Because none occurred.

I also think the characterization of BRI "going out of their way" to give Al a license is not accurate. There was so much politics and money at play, it's FAR from that simple.

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/
Mikie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5887



View Profile
« Reply #246 on: October 03, 2014, 10:05:32 AM »

I'd say there are a few regulars on this board who might disagree that I don't get cocky etc...

Before I respond to that statement, can you and I agree that upon payment for your next book, that I get it autographed and any addendums and promo materials, pictures, posters etc. will be forthcoming in my direction?  Cheesy
Logged

I, I love the colorful clothes she wears, and she's already working on my brain. I only looked in her eyes, but I picked up something I just can't explain. I, I bet I know what she’s like, and I can feel how right she’d be for me. It’s weird how she comes in so strong, and I wonder what she’s picking up from me. I hope it’s good, good, good, good vibrations, yeah!!
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #247 on: October 03, 2014, 10:14:54 AM »

I wasn't going to add anything more to this, but I guess I can't help myself.  Cheesy

My thought is a pretty simple one, again when I hinted at it a few nights ago someone posted that perhaps it is too simple for the situations at hand, and I sadly agree.

Consider if the same standards were applied to any current or future naming issues regarding bands and tours that apply to official releases of recordings. There are no gray areas regarding an album release labeled "The Beach Boys", or any new music or recordings under that name. The only "Beach Boys" album releases since Carl's passing have had all or nearly all original or semi-original band members participating. Not counting the reissues and box sets, the only so-called "new" Beach Boys albums have had Brian, Mike, Al, David, Bruce on those tracks to varying degrees of participation. There is no gray area, nor is there a chance of anything less than that group of musicians releasing anything on their own minus the others and calling it a "Beach Boys album".

That's a good thing. When there have been individual releases, going back to NASCAR, even that cover was not labeled "The Beach Boys", it was labeled "of the Beach Boys" or "Beach Boys'..." etc, not suggesting fans were buying a Beach Boys album because they're not all there on the tracks. The promotions can say "of the Beach Boys", "Founding member of the Beach Boys", "original Beach Boys member" etc, but anything less than a collective group participation is not and cannot be called "The Beach Boys".

That's painfully simple, right? It clears everything up for fans. When the new album came out in 2012, followed by the live album, it was crystal clear that this was The Beach Boys on that record, with the membership you'd expect to hear on a Beach Boys record.

Now it's just my opinion, also in retrospect, but why was that strict naming and labeling standard applied to new recordings and releases but not applied similarly to current or future live tours?

The simplest point could be any band member could tour as a member of the Beach Boys, but like the album releases or DVD's or whatever, without a specific participation of band members, it would not be specific as "this is the 'official' Beach Boys" you're going to see play live. And Al, Mike, Brian, David, Bruce, etc could basically share equal billing on their touring activities (if they wanted) as they earned the right to do as members of the band.

Opinions like that are a dime a dozen, they don't mean much in terms of reality, but it's still something to consider for discussion.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Mikie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5887



View Profile
« Reply #248 on: October 03, 2014, 10:16:12 AM »

And for the record, my name is "Mike" in case there was any question.......... about that. I've posted under the name "Mikie" on multiple message boards since 1997. So moniker recognition on the boards is very easy and I obviously have no additional alias's to hide behind - what you see is what you get and you always know where to find me. 10-4, over and out.
Logged

I, I love the colorful clothes she wears, and she's already working on my brain. I only looked in her eyes, but I picked up something I just can't explain. I, I bet I know what she’s like, and I can feel how right she’d be for me. It’s weird how she comes in so strong, and I wonder what she’s picking up from me. I hope it’s good, good, good, good vibrations, yeah!!
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #249 on: October 03, 2014, 10:31:12 AM »

I disagree because on the other hand BRI screwed Mike over taking an exclusive license away to give Al a license and going against their own agreements by offering Al better terms than they were giving Mike. They went way out of their way to give Al license. 

I don't think BRI ever took an exclusive license away from Mike. According to the court documents available to us, in the aftermath of Carl's death, a board meeting was held where Carl's estate proposed non-exclusive licenses for all board members. At the time Al was offered a license, Mike's (exclusive or non-exclusive) was not "taken away." Mike has not been without either a non-exclusive or exclusive license at any point since 1998.

Also, offering Al different terms wasn't going against any "agreements", unless something specifically stated in the license agreement that no other license could be offered to anyone else under alternate terms. All that sort of stuff is negotiable. If BRI had broken any agreements with Mike, then why didn't Mike sue BRI for breach? Because none occurred.

I also think the characterization of BRI "going out of their way" to give Al a license is not accurate. There was so much politics and money at play, it's FAR from that simple.



That's why we disagree.

I remember the same court document very differently, BRI had already negotiated an exclusive license with terms they called the "Love License". Al threatened a lawsuit and Carl's Estate suggested non-exclusive license for Mike, Al, and Brian. So they took Mike's exclusive license away and offered Mike and Al and Brian non-exclusive licenses with the required terms the same as the "Love License". Then BRI offered Al better terms then the Love License which Al held out for even better terms than the better terms BRI offered to Al. Then for BRI trouble, Al wrote his own license with his terms and was the sole signer of it and began using the brand without a BRI license.

They very much went out of their way for Al and it is that simple. I suppose Mike didn't sue over losing the chance at his exclusive license because some of us have a mistaken idea of how Mike is possibly.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 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 0.316 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!