gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 06:08:41 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Damn, I miss it being C50  (Read 35035 times)
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #75 on: October 17, 2014, 06:42:31 PM »



I don't think Al is "content" with this situation. It's simply a situation he's found himself in, largely due to having been pushed out for some unknown personality differences/musical disputes with Mike. I think he'd like to play quite a few more shows (and I'm not talking about tiny gigs which are mostly all he could get under just his name).  And part of the reason Brian tours so much less is because he spends far more time writing/recording compared to Mike. When there's a completed product he has pride in which he feels like promoting, he wants to play more shows, like circa September 2012. All that said, Mike apparently just can't stop his touring pace... he's set in his ways, and he's showed the world where his priorities lie.  It's his prerogative, but it's a bummer to the majority of people except himself.

All the more reason why things wouldn`t have worked out in 2013 I guess....

Is it a bummer for most people? On this board perhaps but the M&B shows sell tickets and, generally speaking, people enjoy those shows.
Logged
Wirestone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6043



View Profile
« Reply #76 on: October 17, 2014, 07:30:31 PM »

Things were obviously always going to revert to the Mike and Bruce touring at some point.

Not the way many of us interpreted interviews and events at the time. Not the conclusion drawn when BW said he didn't want to make records with anyone other than the BBs.
Logged
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 722



View Profile
« Reply #77 on: October 17, 2014, 08:20:43 PM »

Things were obviously always going to revert to the Mike and Bruce touring at some point.

Not the way many of us interpreted interviews and events at the time. Not the conclusion drawn when BW said he didn't want to make records with anyone other than the BBs.

Every single promotional video for the C50 tour had Al saying "We're getting together ONE FINAL TIME". Obviously he changed his mind, as did Brian. I never considered the C50 tour going beyond the 50th year myself. I always saw it as a victory lap to celebrate 50 years in the business (although it was actually 51). It was a great thing. They played a lot of shows....but....in my opinion....without Carl and Dennis I don't consider that or any lineup to be the true Beach Boys, so if they continued with C51, C52, C53, etc or if they continue as they do now in separate iterations, it's all just dessert after the meal. Enjoy it. Bon Appetit.
Logged
Cyncie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 714



View Profile
« Reply #78 on: October 17, 2014, 09:30:00 PM »

Things were obviously always going to revert to the Mike and Bruce touring at some point.

Not the way many of us interpreted interviews and events at the time. Not the conclusion drawn when BW said he didn't want to make records with anyone other than the BBs.

Every single promotional video for the C50 tour had Al saying "We're getting together ONE FINAL TIME". Obviously he changed his mind, as did Brian. I never considered the C50 tour going beyond the 50th year myself. I always saw it as a victory lap to celebrate 50 years in the business (although it was actually 51). It was a great thing. They played a lot of shows....but....in my opinion....without Carl and Dennis I don't consider that or any lineup to be the true Beach Boys, so if they continued with C51, C52, C53, etc or if they continue as they do now in separate iterations, it's all just dessert after the meal. Enjoy it. Bon Appetit.

So, basically the C50 was just a bigger and better cover band than the cover band we have now? I guess I sort of understand the sentiment that the band died with Carl. But, in that case, the name should have been retired. It wasn't. So, what we now have is a less good cover band touring under the band name when we could have had the bigger/better version.  I'd rather have the bigger/better one. Some don't care. Regardless, we're still going to all get on here and complain.
Logged
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #79 on: October 17, 2014, 09:33:57 PM »



I don't think Al is "content" with this situation. It's simply a situation he's found himself in, largely due to having been pushed out for some unknown personality differences/musical disputes with Mike. I think he'd like to play quite a few more shows (and I'm not talking about tiny gigs which are mostly all he could get under just his name).  And part of the reason Brian tours so much less is because he spends far more time writing/recording compared to Mike. When there's a completed product he has pride in which he feels like promoting, he wants to play more shows, like circa September 2012. All that said, Mike apparently just can't stop his touring pace... he's set in his ways, and he's showed the world where his priorities lie.  It's his prerogative, but it's a bummer to the majority of people except himself.

All the more reason why things wouldn`t have worked out in 2013 I guess....

Is it a bummer for most people? On this board perhaps but the M&B shows sell tickets and, generally speaking, people enjoy those shows.

Here's a question for you Nicko. And no need to skirt it or anything. Which would you have preferred in 2013 (and maybe today), the real Beach Boys with Brian and Al, or Mike Love's Beach Boy group? Serious.

Also, I have to say that I don't understand the whole "well Mike Love's Beach Boy group goes out there and makes people happy, so shut up" thing. Couldn't him and Brucie tour under their own names and make those same people happy all the same? It could be the same show, just no Beach Boys logo behind them. No, it's obvious these people go there to have fun, but at the same time I think they do presume that they are seeing THE BEACH BOYS and not some 35 year old dudes who were barely five when "Kokomo" was a hit. And let's also be honest, if you threw Dean Torrence or Al Jardine a baseball cap and had them sing the leads in front of Mike's group instead of Mike, I bet hardly anybody that's made to be "so happy" at these "Beach Boy" concerts would give a flying f***.

And also, what's funny about the "escape hatch"? He did use it. Regardless of what Mike Love's little daughter tells people or whatever about "no more dates for the Wilsons" (which obviously was referring to the spring/summer tour, not the entire C50 venture), Brian and Al wanted to do more Beach Boys stuff. Mike didn't. He also had the name to fall back on. If he didn't have said name to fall back on, you can bet he probably woulda wanted to keep it together. So yeah, it was an "escape hatch" as he got to go back to being "the Beach Boys" without having to deal with other actual Beach Boys or having to worry about things like recording new songs or introducing different songs into the setlist. He went solo. Except he got to keep the name. And I got the feeling that many here somehow prefer this to any other way it coulda went down. Personally I think Mike should do whatever the hell pleases himself. However, I do think it was sleazy to move forward in 2012 with his little "Beach Boy" group when the reason for the bands existence was being left out of the band. However, Brian and company set themselves up for that in 1999 or whenever when they basically gave Mike the right to "be" the Beach Boys.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #80 on: October 17, 2014, 09:37:49 PM »

What I see actually are largely people who like the ENTIRE band being bummed the tour ended, and pointing out it was Mike who, in the immediate term, dictated that that happened. On the other side, I don't see so much "pro Mike" folks, but more people who are trying to use semantics to attack those who lament the end of C50.

Frankly, I think some of the people who dismissed and ridiculed the folks who lamented the end of C50 (e.g. implying anyone who though it could continue are unrealistic idiots) got off repeating variations of "set end date" far more than any fans who lamented end of C50 got off on criticizing Mike. Simply put, criticism of Mike in the aftermath of C50 is 100% justified. Ad hominem attacks aren't, but I haven't seen much of that on this board. On-point criticism is justified.

Hilarious. Nice to end the day with a good belly laugh. One thing: you say "On-point criticism is justified." I'd modify that to "On-point criticism is justified if backed by plausible evidence as opposed to personal opinion". "Simply put, criticism of Mike in the aftermath of C50 is 100% justified" is your own opinion. From what he said in a recent interview, dude called Marks would seem to disagree with you.

I haven't yet met a fan who doesn't think Mike at some stage deserved *some* criticism in relation to C50. There is plenty of evidence, including Mike's own words.

David Marks chooses not to criticize Mike. That's fine. But he hasn't contradicted that Mike *chose* to go back to his own thing. Dave just clearly isn't as bothered by Mike's decision as Al and some fans are.

"It was the plan all along" doesn't address the criticism for the decision Mike made. Marks didn't address Brian and Al wanting to continue. He simply addressed the now red herring of "Mike fired Brian." That *is* total BS. But "we're all doing our own thing, back to the way it was" is dismissive of the quality of the reunion and of the fans who enjoyed it.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2014, 09:39:47 PM by HeyJude » 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/
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #81 on: October 17, 2014, 10:54:17 PM »

I haven't yet met a fan who doesn't think Mike at some stage deserved *some* criticism in relation to C50. There is plenty of evidence, including Mike's own words.

Some criticism, yes. No argument here, never has been.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #82 on: October 17, 2014, 10:58:28 PM »

Who's winning?

Tied ball game with 1.03 left to go in the final quarter. Overtime looking a good bet.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #83 on: October 18, 2014, 01:40:46 AM »


Here's a question for you Nicko. And no need to skirt it or anything. Which would you have preferred in 2013 (and maybe today), the real Beach Boys with Brian and Al, or Mike Love's Beach Boy group? Serious.

Also, I have to say that I don't understand the whole "well Mike Love's Beach Boy group goes out there and makes people happy, so shut up" thing. Couldn't him and Brucie tour under their own names and make those same people happy all the same? It could be the same show, just no Beach Boys logo behind them. No, it's obvious these people go there to have fun, but at the same time I think they do presume that they are seeing THE BEACH BOYS and not some 35 year old dudes who were barely five when "Kokomo" was a hit. And let's also be honest, if you threw Dean Torrence or Al Jardine a baseball cap and had them sing the leads in front of Mike's group instead of Mike, I bet hardly anybody that's made to be "so happy" at these "Beach Boy" concerts would give a flying f***.

And also, what's funny about the "escape hatch"? He did use it. Regardless of what Mike Love's little daughter tells people or whatever about "no more dates for the Wilsons" (which obviously was referring to the spring/summer tour, not the entire C50 venture), Brian and Al wanted to do more Beach Boys stuff. Mike didn't. He also had the name to fall back on. If he didn't have said name to fall back on, you can bet he probably woulda wanted to keep it together. So yeah, it was an "escape hatch" as he got to go back to being "the Beach Boys" without having to deal with other actual Beach Boys or having to worry about things like recording new songs or introducing different songs into the setlist. He went solo. Except he got to keep the name. And I got the feeling that many here somehow prefer this to any other way it coulda went down. Personally I think Mike should do whatever the hell pleases himself. However, I do think it was sleazy to move forward in 2012 with his little "Beach Boy" group when the reason for the bands existence was being left out of the band. However, Brian and company set themselves up for that in 1999 or whenever when they basically gave Mike the right to "be" the Beach Boys.

Ok. An honest answer...

I think it would have been great if the 5 man Beach Boys could have continued into 2013 and further forward than that. It would have been great if they could have agreed a way to record another album in 2013 (if the quality was similar to TWGMTR) and to do another 73 tour dates.

But I also recognize that the C50 thing did not happen on a whim. It was obviously planned well in advance so that it made business sense in terms of both the touring and the releasing of new material and The Smile Sessions. Mike himself has been quoted as being impressed, or amazed even, that Joe Thomas could pull all of that together.

For somebody to have arranged all of that for a second year would have been no mean feat. For that to have continued into this year just doesn`t seem vaguely possible to me. Especially as, and I know I`ve said it before, reunions do not tend to continue year in, year out. Even for bands who have had much less turbulent histories than The Beach Boys.

Now does Mike deserve some criticism for how C50 ended? Of course he does. The press release issued was very poorly worded and conceived and obviously led to a lot of negative headlines. Does he deserve some criticism for the tour ending at all? Very probably yes. It should have been possible to come to some sort of arrangement to keep the tour going until the end of 2012, for example, when it could have had a natural ending.

But does it follow that he was 100% to blame as some on here seem to believe? I think that is impossible to answer. None of us know exactly what Mike was told about what would happen with regard to the writing and recording of TWGMTR and none of us know precisely what went down between Mike (or his wife) and Melinda at the end of the tour. But would Mike have needed 100% control of things in order to continue as some on here seem to believe?

All I know is that the situation was complicated (Jason Fine`s article aptly described it as `fragile`) and it isn`t black and white. Even in Brian`s solo career, and this is not a criticism as I have commented elsewhere about what a good job I think Brian`s management have done over the years, you can see how often collaborators come and go. The Jeff Beck and Jeff Foskett issues give an indication into how tricky these things can be. I don`t think that necessarily means that everytime things don`t go as we wish that there are good and bad guys though.

So what do I mean by all of this blathering? Well of course the C50 band was better than Mike and Bruce`s current touring. But I also think it`s unfortunate that people now have to make entirely inaccurate comments about the current touring band. `35 year old dudes` they are not (though I`m sure they`d be flattered by that) and we also had another poster recently claiming that non-Beach Boys sing an hour or more of their songs every night which is obviously completely untrue. Whether people like them or not, they deserve to commented on with some accuracy.






Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #84 on: October 18, 2014, 06:57:02 AM »

If you don't particularly care for him one way or the other, why bother getting so worked up about it to the tune of thousands and thousands of words? You sound awfully defensive. What's bugging you, then?

Not moving on. But, see, that would entail MOVING ON from making Mike Love the sole villain, which is clearly the most fun, to asking what the other voting factions of BRI are doing about it, which isn't any fun at all. That would be making some people put their money where their mouth is - literally.

It's much easier to say or think "it would get tied up in the courts for too long" which isn't necessarily true, and "it would be too cumbersome and emotional for the parties involved" which isn't necessarily true, or "it would result in outrageous legal fees to fight it" which is probably true, but....isn't it worth it? No contract is that iron clad that it can't be challenged. I find it hard to believe the parties' attorneys would've agreed to such a licensing agreement that the circumstances of today (2014) couldn't/wouldn't result in a challenge. Things have changed (which have been mentioned ad nauseum on this board) that were unforeseen 15 years ago. BRI making tons and tons more money from a C50 tour than Mike & Bruce's lineup is one significant one. Not that I necessarily believe that, I don't, but if it is true, the licensing could be challenged.

Sheriff - other than the obvious fact that Brian and Carl's estate like receiving M&B  income, which of course is a major factor - do you honestly not think that Mike's past lawsuits (especially the legal action against Al, which many people have said seemed particularly vindictive) would put some measurable fear into anyone from legally challenging him? And by fear, I mean the implied idea that it would get dragged on for years and years, wasting many millions. I think that fear is in the air, and that all parties are aware of it.  At Brian's age, and considering how much emotional crapola he's dealt with over the years, who needs that type of emotional stress/uncertainty lingering around them for who knows how many years? There would be too many question marks. Mike knows this, and it's obviously to his advantage to have been lawsuit-happy, as this has created an implied barrier around him, don't you think? I think that's probably the most significant factor in why the status quo has continued (besides the obvious fact that all BRI members get the free income).

Plus, I think the other thing is that, despite the hurt feelings that Brian had/has over C50, trying to organize steps to actually strip the name from his cousin would be something that he knows would deeply wound Mike, as close to a knife to the heart/ego as you can get, and I'm not sure that Brian wants to do something so vindictive himself.  He doesn't strike me as wanting to do an action that would wound somebody so much, especially when we're talking about old men who don't have a ton of years left. I also think that Brian feels that Mike, for his major contributions to the brand, probably deserves to use the name - to an extent. I think ultimately, Brian's team and Carl's estate just want peace , and rocking the boat too much could cause things to get uglier than they ever have in the past. I do applaud the Wilson brothers' children/ex-wives, etc for attending M&B shows, because despite the media ugliness that set in post C50, I imagine in part they do it to help try and keep peace between the other parties of the older generation (the BBs themselves) who come from such dysfunction.

CenturyDeprived, I recently shared a table at a wedding reception with an attorney. When "Kokomo" was played, it leaked out that he was a casual Beach Boys' fan, and he actually attended one of the C50 shows. I couldn't resist discussing C50 with him. Now, we were just talking and (cough) drinking, and I'm just writing about some of the things we discussed. This is just for conversation on a rock and roll message board...please don't hold me to the letter in regard to the legal system or the legal terms I use.

This attorney thinks that they should use $$$$$$$$$$$$$ as the reason for making any changes to the licensing agreement. There are now changing and unforeseen circumstances from the original agreement of 15 years ago - Brian Wilson wanting to tour as a Beach Boy, and five "core" members being able to coexist and perform onstage - which would directly result in SIGNIFICANTLY MORE MONEY FOR BRI than the Mike & Bruce lineup. The accountants would have the financial records from the C50 tour to prove this. That's the evidence; that's their case in a nutshell.

This attorney thinks that the best way to approach it would not necessarily "to strip" Mike of the license (actually thank him for his years of outstanding service/performance), but to make two amendments to the agreement. The first change would be for BRI to have the final say on any band members. They would not be critical of the existing band members - Totten, Cowsill, Foskett et al could/would stay - but Brian, Al, and David could be voted in as members of the touring band for the purpose of reaching the stated goal which is maximizing profit for BRI.

The second change would be for BRI, by voting, to have approval/denial of all bookings. This would, in effect, allow Brian and Al to participate but not have to endure a 100+ tour. Again, they would have to tour ENOUGH TO MAKE MORE MONEY (which is the basis for the changes) than a Mike & Bruce tour. The accountants would have the facts and figures as to how many shows that would be.

By approaching the changes for the purposes of increasing profit for BRI, most if not all of the testimony would be handled by the attorneys and accountants. None of the actual band members would have anything to do with the case. The depositions - if they are needed at all - from Mike, Brian, Al, and Carl's Estate could be taken, written, and presented by the attorneys. Brian wouldn't even have to utter a syllable; everything would be written for him. This is not a case of "he said - he said" like the songwriting credits suit. It's not BRI against Mike; BRI isn't "against" anyone. They are just trying to maximize profits for the corporation. 

How long would it take? The attorneys would use the ages of the participants (approaching their mid 70's), the potential for changes in the mental and physical health of the participants (especially Brian), time is of the essence (a possible Pet Sounds, "Good Vibrations", or SMiLE anniversary tour), and just the volatility of the rock & roll business (striking when the iron is hot). And, maybe, hey, it's The Beach Boys! They have raised money and contributed to numerous charitable organizations over the decades. They have built up good will.

My attorney acquaintance did mention, however, to be careful what you ask for. The C50 reunion tour, with the stated beginning AND END, did have its merits. It avoided most confusion with the fans, promoters, and other interested parties. You basically knew who you were getting....and eventually not. By potentially having Brian and/or Al coming and going from tour to tour, you run the risk of confusing a lot of people and bringing on a lot of bad and embarrassing publicity. It would almost have to be an all or nothing proposition. Either they are all in - Mike, Brian, Al, David, and Bruce - or nothing. And. if you have nothing, you have no $$$$$$$$$$$$$. And, that would be Mike's defense if you will. With Mike & Bruce, you ALWAYS had something.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #85 on: October 18, 2014, 07:36:42 AM »

The stumbling block still in place in all of that, the sticking point actually in the whole situation itself, is still the use of the name "The Beach Boys" to describe anything less than C50, which is the most band members you'll be able to pull on stage at this point. And I've said on the board numerous times that the use of the name in billings and promotions for any live show is the issue.

Something else I've said often is why not amend it so "The Beach Boys" as a standalone name would only be applied if the C50 lineup is contracted to play the gig. Anything else, no matter which original band member would be on tour, could be tagged as the original member's name plus "of the Beach Boys", "original member(s)", "founding members", whatever the case, and it is a level playing field for any original member since they earned the right to bill themselves as a Beach Boy...but not co-opt the name "The Beach Boys". Isn't it "StubHub" that even bills the Beach Boys now in a similar way? They clarify which band members' lineup the show will feature. Simple solution, zero confusion, no mix-ups over using the wrong promo photos of the bands to promote the show, etc.

Someone said that was too simple of a possible solution for this band. Maybe it is. But if you reserve the branded name for the full lineup and have *that* be the overriding condition for billing a show with the branded name, no asterisks or band members listed, there would be no confusion for anyone. Level playing field. *And* BRI could still in some way have some quality control power over the individual members' bands as well, so you don't get a substandard group from anyone using the "of the Beach Boys" moniker to book shows. You also wouldn't get a guy who played conga and tambourine for one tour in the 80's booking some half-assed group with the Beach Boys name.

And I'll suggest again, it's the use of the name as an exclusive thing that has been the issue in all of this. C50 was not thought possible, perhaps, when the agreements were made. After 2012, the parameters changed where you actually had a group called The Beach Boys and another group called The Beach Boys booking shows within the same year. One of them had 5 band members from the 60's, the other had two, yet "The Beach Boys" was describing both in the same year.

Not critical, not finger-pointing, just commenting: The name itself is perhaps the biggest factor in all of this, and the agreement perhaps didn't change sufficiently with the times and the situation at hand, retroactive to 2012.

And I don't think amending the naming conditions would negatively affect anyone involved, but rather even it out. Whereas the situation in place can or even has be used as an exclusionary measure to effectively prevent an original band member from advertising the fact that he was an original member of the Beach Boys to book shows, which I think some fans might have issues with.
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
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #86 on: October 18, 2014, 08:07:36 AM »

The stumbling block still in place in all of that, the sticking point actually in the whole situation itself, is still the use of the name "The Beach Boys" to describe anything less than C50, which is the most band members you'll be able to pull on stage at this point. And I've said on the board numerous times that the use of the name in billings and promotions for any live show is the issue.

Something else I've said often is why not amend it so "The Beach Boys" as a standalone name would only be applied if the C50 lineup is contracted to play the gig. Anything else, no matter which original band member would be on tour, could be tagged as the original member's name plus "of the Beach Boys", "original member(s)", "founding members", whatever the case, and it is a level playing field for any original member since they earned the right to bill themselves as a Beach Boy...but not co-opt the name "The Beach Boys". Isn't it "StubHub" that even bills the Beach Boys now in a similar way? They clarify which band members' lineup the show will feature. Simple solution, zero confusion, no mix-ups over using the wrong promo photos of the bands to promote the show, etc.

Someone said that was too simple of a possible solution for this band. Maybe it is. But if you reserve the branded name for the full lineup and have *that* be the overriding condition for billing a show with the branded name, no asterisks or band members listed, there would be no confusion for anyone. Level playing field. *And* BRI could still in some way have some quality control power over the individual members' bands as well, so you don't get a substandard group from anyone using the "of the Beach Boys" moniker to book shows. You also wouldn't get a guy who played conga and tambourine for one tour in the 80's booking some half-assed group with the Beach Boys name.

And I'll suggest again, it's the use of the name as an exclusive thing that has been the issue in all of this. C50 was not thought possible, perhaps, when the agreements were made. After 2012, the parameters changed where you actually had a group called The Beach Boys and another group called The Beach Boys booking shows within the same year. One of them had 5 band members from the 60's, the other had two, yet "The Beach Boys" was describing both in the same year.

Not critical, not finger-pointing, just commenting: The name itself is perhaps the biggest factor in all of this, and the agreement perhaps didn't change sufficiently with the times and the situation at hand, retroactive to 2012.

And I don't think amending the naming conditions would negatively affect anyone involved, but rather even it out. Whereas the situation in place can or even has be used as an exclusionary measure to effectively prevent an original band member from advertising the fact that he was an original member of the Beach Boys to book shows, which I think some fans might have issues with.

I can`t agree there at all...

The fact is that over the past year or so Brian, Al and Dave have all had shows advertised as being, `....of The Beach Boys`. Now this may have helped their ticket sales to some extent but it certainly doesn`t seem to have had a massive effect in terms of the numbers of gigs they have been offered or the size of venues that they`ve played.

Now `Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of The Beach Boys` would do much worse business than they do currently. Much worse. Crappier venues and with much smaller crowds.

Even if all members were forced to give BRI 20% for every gig it would still mean far less money for Carl`s estate so they would have no reason to agree with it.

So while I can understand that all of them being equal would seem fair, that is not how BRI has operated in the past. It is a business and the current set-up makes much more business sense for both Mike and Carl`s estate than any `fair` solution would.
Logged
bgas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6372


Oh for the good old days


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: October 18, 2014, 08:22:19 AM »

The stumbling block still in place in all of that, the sticking point actually in the whole situation itself, is still the use of the name "The Beach Boys" to describe anything less than C50, which is the most band members you'll be able to pull on stage at this point. And I've said on the board numerous times that the use of the name in billings and promotions for any live show is the issue.

Something else I've said often is why not amend it so "The Beach Boys" as a standalone name would only be applied if the C50 lineup is contracted to play the gig. Anything else, no matter which original band member would be on tour, could be tagged as the original member's name plus "of the Beach Boys", "original member(s)", "founding members", whatever the case, and it is a level playing field for any original member since they earned the right to bill themselves as a Beach Boy...but not co-opt the name "The Beach Boys". Isn't it "StubHub" that even bills the Beach Boys now in a similar way? They clarify which band members' lineup the show will feature. Simple solution, zero confusion, no mix-ups over using the wrong promo photos of the bands to promote the show, etc.

Someone said that was too simple of a possible solution for this band. Maybe it is. But if you reserve the branded name for the full lineup and have *that* be the overriding condition for billing a show with the branded name, no asterisks or band members listed, there would be no confusion for anyone. Level playing field. *And* BRI could still in some way have some quality control power over the individual members' bands as well, so you don't get a substandard group from anyone using the "of the Beach Boys" moniker to book shows. You also wouldn't get a guy who played conga and tambourine for one tour in the 80's booking some half-assed group with the Beach Boys name.

And I'll suggest again, it's the use of the name as an exclusive thing that has been the issue in all of this. C50 was not thought possible, perhaps, when the agreements were made. After 2012, the parameters changed where you actually had a group called The Beach Boys and another group called The Beach Boys booking shows within the same year. One of them had 5 band members from the 60's, the other had two, yet "The Beach Boys" was describing both in the same year.

Not critical, not finger-pointing, just commenting: The name itself is perhaps the biggest factor in all of this, and the agreement perhaps didn't change sufficiently with the times and the situation at hand, retroactive to 2012.

And I don't think amending the naming conditions would negatively affect anyone involved, but rather even it out. Whereas the situation in place can or even has be used as an exclusionary measure to effectively prevent an original band member from advertising the fact that he was an original member of the Beach Boys to book shows, which I think some fans might have issues with.

I can`t agree there at all...

The fact is that over the past year or so Brian, Al and Dave have all had shows advertised as being, `....of The Beach Boys`. Now this may have helped their ticket sales to some extent but it certainly doesn`t seem to have had a massive effect in terms of the numbers of gigs they have been offered or the size of venues that they`ve played. Now `Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of The Beach Boys` would do much worse business than they do currently. Much worse. Crappier venues and with much smaller crowds.

Even if all members were forced to give BRI 20% for every gig it would still mean far less money for Carl`s estate so they would have no reason to agree with it.

So while I can understand that all of them being equal would seem fair, that is not how BRI has operated in the past. It is a business and the current set-up makes much more business sense for both Mike and Carl`s estate than any `fair` solution would.

 I'd take exception with your supposition for the highlighted section, unless you're privy to their private thoughts
We don't know how many shows/venues they've been offered, only the shows they've performed. Perhaps they HAVE been offered other opportunities that didn't fit their schedule, or they just didn't want to perform.
Logged

Nothing I post is my opinion, it's all a message from God
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #88 on: October 18, 2014, 08:25:42 AM »




 I'd take exception with your supposition for the highlighted section, unless you're privy to their private thoughts
We don't know how many shows/venues they've been offered, only the shows they've performed. Perhaps they HAVE been offered other opportunities that didn't fit their schedule, or they just didn't want to perform.

Of course Brian could have played more shows. I didn`t think that needed to be said.

Al and Dave though. If they`d been offered a significant number of shows at decent venues then it is hard to imagine them turning them all down...
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #89 on: October 18, 2014, 09:06:09 AM »

I can`t agree there at all...

The fact is that over the past year or so Brian, Al and Dave have all had shows advertised as being, `....of The Beach Boys`. Now this may have helped their ticket sales to some extent but it certainly doesn`t seem to have had a massive effect in terms of the numbers of gigs they have been offered or the size of venues that they`ve played.

Now `Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of The Beach Boys` would do much worse business than they do currently. Much worse. Crappier venues and with much smaller crowds.

Even if all members were forced to give BRI 20% for every gig it would still mean far less money for Carl`s estate so they would have no reason to agree with it.

So while I can understand that all of them being equal would seem fair, that is not how BRI has operated in the past. It is a business and the current set-up makes much more business sense for both Mike and Carl`s estate than any `fair` solution would.

The highlighted part - That's a very pessimistic assumption to make, isn't it? The market ultimately decides what kind of business any tour will do, so if the presentation is strong and the show is strong, people will come to see those shows. If the product being offered is strong, there will be a demand for it in the market. If ticket sales are slumping in a particular city for an upcoming show, start pounding the pavement, hit all the market-specific radio stations and local TV shows...get some of the old-fashioned elbow-grease, hard work ethic in motion and promote the sh*t out of the upcoming show in that area. Go to whatever mall or public place is in that town for an hour during the lunch break and start shaking hands and taking selfies! Hit social media hard.  Don't assume the name itself will carry the load, right? (I know, I'm exaggerating there on purpose...)

However it brings up an issue which isn't really being addressed but is also important to consider. The promoters in each area will invest in shows where they can turn a good profit and get a decent return on their investment. In basic terms, they'll book any given act in a 2,000 seat venue if they can be somewhat confident they'll get around 75% of those seats sold. So they would not book an act that on average plays mid-level venues into a larger arena because they would take a bath on their investment, and the place could be more than half empty with all those tickets unsold.

In 2012 "The Beach Boys" on the C50 tour were booking large arenas, close to the upper-tier of live booking venues in terms of the bigger venues for an act to play in any given town. I think the return or the sales were something at least above 80% on average which put that tour among the most successful of that year.

So the bookings reflected that. There is a difference between not wanting to book larger venues and preferring to play for smaller or mid-size crowds versus simply not getting the offers to play larger venues to larger crowds. When the C50 tour was being planned, the promoters invested in the fact that this group "The Beach Boys" with 5 original members could in fact sell tickets and fill the larger venues and arenas in any given city or region. Other incarnations of the band previously or other tours from band members could not offer that level of return.

Up to C50, in the past decade or so, have similar offers been made for The Beach Boys or any individual members to play those arena type venues, where the expectation to sell upwards of 20,000 or 30,000 tickets was in place?

Something that didn't happen before C50 in terms of booking larger venues (i.e. making more money through sales and offers) and isn't happening now doesn't seem to suggest that "worse business" would be done if a name agreement were amended in some way, especially if the decisions to play the smaller and mid-level venues were made consciously over the offers to play more of the arena-type venues, or in light of the fact that those arena venues are not calling The Beach Boys or individual members to play those venues in 2014 short of having another full C50 lineup. It would probably be exactly the same situation as it is now, in terms of those people who want to see this music performed live would still buy tickets to see it performed live by an original member or members of the band. Any confusion that exists was in place already.
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
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #90 on: October 18, 2014, 09:30:37 AM »


The highlighted part - That's a very pessimistic assumption to make, isn't it? The market ultimately decides what kind of business any tour will do, so if the presentation is strong and the show is strong, people will come to see those shows. If the product being offered is strong, there will be a demand for it in the market. If ticket sales are slumping in a particular city for an upcoming show, start pounding the pavement, hit all the market-specific radio stations and local TV shows...get some of the old-fashioned elbow-grease, hard work ethic in motion and promote the sh*t out of the upcoming show in that area. Go to whatever mall or public place is in that town for an hour during the lunch break and start shaking hands and taking selfies! Hit social media hard.  Don't assume the name itself will carry the load, right? (I know, I'm exaggerating there on purpose...)

However it brings up an issue which isn't really being addressed but is also important to consider. The promoters in each area will invest in shows where they can turn a good profit and get a decent return on their investment. In basic terms, they'll book any given act in a 2,000 seat venue if they can be somewhat confident they'll get around 75% of those seats sold. So they would not book an act that on average plays mid-level venues into a larger arena because they would take a bath on their investment, and the place could be more than half empty with all those tickets unsold.

In 2012 "The Beach Boys" on the C50 tour were booking large arenas, close to the upper-tier of live booking venues in terms of the bigger venues for an act to play in any given town. I think the return or the sales were something at least above 80% on average which put that tour among the most successful of that year.

So the bookings reflected that. There is a difference between not wanting to book larger venues and preferring to play for smaller or mid-size crowds versus simply not getting the offers to play larger venues to larger crowds. When the C50 tour was being planned, the promoters invested in the fact that this group "The Beach Boys" with 5 original members could in fact sell tickets and fill the larger venues and arenas in any given city or region. Other incarnations of the band previously or other tours from band members could not offer that level of return.

Up to C50, in the past decade or so, have similar offers been made for The Beach Boys or any individual members to play those arena type venues, where the expectation to sell upwards of 20,000 or 30,000 tickets was in place?

Something that didn't happen before C50 in terms of booking larger venues (i.e. making more money through sales and offers) and isn't happening now doesn't seem to suggest that "worse business" would be done if a name agreement were amended in some way, especially if the decisions to play the smaller and mid-level venues were made consciously over the offers to play more of the arena-type venues, or in light of the fact that those arena venues are not calling The Beach Boys or individual members to play those venues in 2014 short of having another full C50 lineup. It would probably be exactly the same situation as it is now, in terms of those people who want to see this music performed live would still buy tickets to see it performed live by an original member or members of the band. Any confusion that exists was in place already.

Sorry but you are way off in this instance. Way off.

It is the brand that is all important when selling tickets. `The Beach Boys` is a great brand and it is soooo much stronger than `Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of The Beach Boys`. Mike and Bruce had a much weaker band when Mike Kowalski and Adrian Baker were part of things but they still didn`t have a problem selling tickets.

As for your comments about 20,000 or 30,000 seater venues, of course Mike and Bruce aren`t going to be offered these venues. The C50 tour had two great publicity angles. The hype around the 50th anniversary and the hype around Brian being back in the band and the 5 man reunion. It appealed to hardcore fans and casual fans alike. Mike and Bruce`s shows appeal to the casual fans who see `The Beach Boys` name on a poster and know they are in for a fun night out.

Going back to 1998, it would have been absolutely fair for all 3 members of BRI to have been allowed to call themselves `...of The Beach Boys`. None of the members seemed to advocate this though as they knew it wouldn`t make business sense. Mike and Al knew just how valuable The Beach Boys name was which is precisely why they fought so hard for it.
Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #91 on: October 18, 2014, 09:35:38 AM »

In my opinion, if you start relying on the C50 Beach Boys - Mike, Brian, Al, Bruce, and David - and supplement it with the additional/occasional shows from Mike Love & Bruce Johnston Of The Beach Boys or Al Jardine Of The Beach Boys or whatever, you are treading on some dangerous water.  

Like I mentioned in my above post, it has to be an all (C50 Beach Boys' lineup for every show) or nothing (leaving things the way they are). Mike and band, or Al and band, or David and band  - with Of The Beach Boys tacked on, and "Of" being the key word - cannot sustain. I don't know how much longer Brian can even sell tickets. You are really getting into Peter Noone Of Herman's Hermits territory then. It won't take long before the public realizes they aren't getting the real deal, but a tribute show, an oldies show, with maybe one original member. I mean, we're talking very, very small venues, meaning significantly less money.

BRI and The Beach Boys and Mike Love fooled the people for a long time. And I gotta give them them credit for it. They managed to "sell" this incarnation (Mike & Bruce and gang) as THE BEACH BOYS for the last fifteen years. The public bought it...literally. It worked and it continues to work. If BRI starts messing with it, and has too many factions of The Beach Boys (with the related acts) out there, it ain't gonna be pretty. If you think the publicity at the end of the C50 tour was bad, and if you think it's bad having two Beach Boys-related shows going on the same night like they did recently, wait until you have three or four or five different acts out there singing "Barbara Ann" at the same time! Shocked

EDIT: Sorry, Nicko1234, for repeating some points. I was typing as you were posting...
« Last Edit: October 18, 2014, 09:56:45 AM by Sheriff John Stone » Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #92 on: October 18, 2014, 09:48:13 AM »

In my opinion, if you start relying on the C50 Beach Boys - Mike, Brian, Al, Bruce, and David - and supplement it with the additional/occasional shows from Mike Love & Bruce Johnston Of The Beach Boys or Al Jardine Of The Beach Boys or whatever, you are treading on some dangerous water.  

Like I mentioned in my above post, it has to be an all (C50 Beach Boys' lineup for every show) or nothing (leaving things the way they are). Mike and band, or Al and band, or David and band  - with Of The Beach Boys tacked on, and "Of" being the key word - cannot sustain. I don't know how much longer Brian can even sell tickets. You are really getting into Peter Noone Of Herman's Hermits territory then. It won't take long before the public realizes they aren't getting the real deal, but a tribute show, an oldies show, with maybe one original member. I mean, we're talking very, very small venues, meaning significantly less money.

BRI and The Beach Boys and Mike Love fooled the people for a long time. And I gotta give them them credit for it. They managed to"sell" this incarnation (Mike & Bruce and gang) as THE BEACH BOYS for the last fifteen years. The public bought it...literally. It worked and it continues to work. In BRI starts messing with it, and has too many factions of The Beach Boys (with the related acts) out there, it ain't gonna be pretty. If you think the publicity at the end of the C50 tour was bad, and if you think it's bad having two Beach Boys-related shows going on the same night like they did recently, wait until you have three or four or five different "acts" out there singing "Barbara Ann" at the same time! Shocked

I don`t agree about Brian. He has built a good solo career and shouldn`t have a problem touring next year as the movie can only help his stock.

But yeah, otherwise `...of The Beach Boys` means crappy venues. There is no way that many of the places that Mike and Bruce play at now, some of them on a yearly basis, would just say, `Oh you can`t call yourself The Beach Boys anymore? No problem, we`ll still pay you the same amount of money and expect the same size audience to attend`.
Logged
NHC
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 529


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: October 18, 2014, 09:56:51 AM »

Mikie's not telling anybody what or what not to do or y or talk about.  He's only pointing out how some of this gets grandly tiresome after a year or two.  Or three.  Or four. But then again I've been fielding that complaint about me at home for decades, so we learn to live with it, I guess.

Exactly.  Go Giants!

To Kansas City, as it turns out.  I was just looking yesterday at some BB concert photos I took at Candlestick in 1983, and the team the Giants beat that day was: The Cardinals. Giants baseball, Beach Boys, all good.
Logged
NHC
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 529


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: October 18, 2014, 09:58:59 AM »

Who's winning?

The Giants, San Francisco baseball version.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #95 on: October 18, 2014, 10:05:37 AM »

There are similar cases with some very familiar rock bands and artists, I don't like to compare but I'm curious to know the reactions and opinions among their fans just the same. How about Roger Waters - The guy staged his own "The Wall" events, played the Floyd music at his shows while still doing his own solo material, and the fans came to see him. At the same time, there was Gilmour and the other Floyd bandmates touring and releasing music as Pink Floyd, along with Gilmour doing his own solo projects, and the fans came to see him (and them) too. Now in 2014 there was just a bunch of hype around a "new" Pink Floyd release, and it's basically warmed-over vault material that's not really new in any sense of the word, and Waters and Gilmour are still polar opposites in terms of getting back together as Pink Floyd. How are fans taking that situation, or how did they take "The Wall" being staged as a Roger Waters presentation when everyone knows it as a Pink Floyd production?

How about The Doors? I'm asking because I really have no clue what's been happening since Ray passed away. I know Robbie has made some appearances as "of the Doors" or "original Doors guitarist", and I know for years there were disputes and legal challenges around Densmore using The Doors name for his projects, but where does it stand in 2014 now that Ray is gone?

What kind of floored me, or at least zapped me into reality (as well as the fact that we're all getting older) was reading that Fleetwood Mac piece in the WSJ this week that said Stevie Nicks was 66. I don't know why that surprised me, but it did. I still see her on MTV singing "Edge Of Seventeen" and the Tom Petty duet, and it doesn't feel like 30 years ago, you know?  Smiley

The point there is the situations with these acts in general have to change as time marches on, so to suggest things about The Beach Boys as if it were 15 years ago or even thinking the same situation that existed in 2005 will exist in the next year or two as audiences change and we all get older along with the music seems a bit unrealistic. If having to separate, say, Roger Waters hypothetically staging The Wall in 2015 from the original album and film that younger fans even today discover and like, in order to basically define that separation and say "this is from the guy that wrote a majority of it, not Pink Floyd" and likewise with Gilmour choosing to release studio outtakes as Pink Floyd and people calling it a new Pink Floyd album as of 2014, maybe things will need to change with the times.

I would, however, suggest that the basis of these issues might not be able to reduce itself to that "x factor" of fans who decide on a whim to buy tickets to any given show. If ticket sales with established catalog artists came down to that group of potential buyers, the only sure bet would be small venues in general. I think Doors fans in any area will buy tickets to see Robbie or John perform live no matter who has the name "The Doors" at this point, and that will be the driving force over a casual fan who likes hearing Light My Fire or Roadhouse Blues on classic rock radio. Are the Beach Boys situations and scenarios any different?
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
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #96 on: October 18, 2014, 10:10:57 AM »

There are similar cases with some very familiar rock bands and artists, I don't like to compare but I'm curious to know the reactions and opinions among their fans just the same. How about Roger Waters - The guy staged his own "The Wall" events, played the Floyd music at his shows while still doing his own solo material, and the fans came to see him. At the same time, there was Gilmour and the other Floyd bandmates touring and releasing music as Pink Floyd, along with Gilmour doing his own solo projects, and the fans came to see him (and them) too. Now in 2014 there was just a bunch of hype around a "new" Pink Floyd release, and it's basically warmed-over vault material that's not really new in any sense of the word, and Waters and Gilmour are still polar opposites in terms of getting back together as Pink Floyd. How are fans taking that situation, or how did they take "The Wall" being staged as a Roger Waters presentation when everyone knows it as a Pink Floyd production?

How about The Doors? I'm asking because I really have no clue what's been happening since Ray passed away. I know Robbie has made some appearances as "of the Doors" or "original Doors guitarist", and I know for years there were disputes and legal challenges around Densmore using The Doors name for his projects, but where does it stand in 2014 now that Ray is gone?

What kind of floored me, or at least zapped me into reality (as well as the fact that we're all getting older) was reading that Fleetwood Mac piece in the WSJ this week that said Stevie Nicks was 66. I don't know why that surprised me, but it did. I still see her on MTV singing "Edge Of Seventeen" and the Tom Petty duet, and it doesn't feel like 30 years ago, you know?  Smiley

The point there is the situations with these acts in general have to change as time marches on, so to suggest things about The Beach Boys as if it were 15 years ago or even thinking the same situation that existed in 2005 will exist in the next year or two as audiences change and we all get older along with the music seems a bit unrealistic. If having to separate, say, Roger Waters hypothetically staging The Wall in 2015 from the original album and film that younger fans even today discover and like, in order to basically define that separation and say "this is from the guy that wrote a majority of it, not Pink Floyd" and likewise with Gilmour choosing to release studio outtakes as Pink Floyd and people calling it a new Pink Floyd album as of 2014, maybe things will need to change with the times.

I would, however, suggest that the basis of these issues might not be able to reduce itself to that "x factor" of fans who decide on a whim to buy tickets to any given show. If ticket sales with established catalog artists came down to that group of potential buyers, the only sure bet would be small venues in general. I think Doors fans in any area will buy tickets to see Robbie or John perform live no matter who has the name "The Doors" at this point, and that will be the driving force over a casual fan who likes hearing Light My Fire or Roadhouse Blues on classic rock radio. Are the Beach Boys situations and scenarios any different?

Take a look at how many tickets Al Jardine sells. Then a look at how many `The Beach Boys` sell. I think you will find your answer.
Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #97 on: October 18, 2014, 10:31:17 AM »

Nicko1234 keeps beating me to the punch! Grin

guitarfool2002, I think the major difference between those individuals you mentioned - Waters, Gilmour, Nicks, Krieger, Manzarek, etc. - and The Beach Boys' members is not only name recognition, and I mean no offense, but mostly talent.

All of those artists can CARRY a show by themselves, whether it's through their singing, or their musicianship, or both. Being a Doors' fan, I'll address Robby Krieger. I WOULD pay good money to see him play guitar to old Doors' songs. A lot of them. A whole show of them, including some solo stuff. Robby's a legend. Same with Waters and/or Gilmour. And Stevie Nicks. I probably wouldn't pay to hear Al Jardine play rhythm guitar and sing some Beach Boys' songs, including "Help Me, Rhonda". The appeal just isn't there. With The Beach Boys, it goes back to that cliche' about the sum being greater than the parts. I know we love 'em, but it would be a tough road out there for Al, Bruce, David, AND Mike - by themselves. As much as the music is the star of the show, I still think they need "the name" to be a successful draw. I think Mike & Bruce are proving that.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2014, 10:49:03 AM by Sheriff John Stone » Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #98 on: October 18, 2014, 10:39:36 AM »

Nicko1234 keeps beating me to the punch! Grin

guitarfool2002, I think the major difference between those individuals you mentioned - Waters, Gilmour, Nicks, Krieger, Manzarek, etc. - and The Beach Boys' members is not only name recognition, and I mean no offense, but mostly talent.

All of those artists can CARRY a show by themselves, whether it's through their singing, or their musicianship, or both. Being a Doors' fan, I'll address Robby Krieger. I WOULD pay good money to see him play guitar to old Doors' songs. A lot of them. A whole show of them, including some solo stuff. Robby's a legend. Same with Waters and/or Gilmour. And Stevie Nicks. I probably wouldn't pay to hear Al Jardine play rhythm guitar and sing some Beach Boys' songs, including "Help Me, Rhonda". The same goes for Mike, even with his recognizable voice. The appeal just isn't there. With The Beach Boys, it goes back to that cliche' about the sum being greater than the parts. I know we love 'em, but it would be a tough road out their for Al, Bruce, David, AND Mike - by themselves. As much as the music is the star of the show, I still think they need "the name" to be a successful draw. I think Mike & Bruce are proving that.

I fear you`ve beaten me to the punch this time.  Smiley

I completely agree about name recognition (and talent to some degree). Dave Gilmour, for example, has had a solo number one album I think I`m right in saying. Mike and Al are not in the same stratosphere...
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #99 on: October 18, 2014, 10:40:04 AM »

There are similar cases with some very familiar rock bands and artists, I don't like to compare but I'm curious to know the reactions and opinions among their fans just the same. How about Roger Waters - The guy staged his own "The Wall" events, played the Floyd music at his shows while still doing his own solo material, and the fans came to see him. At the same time, there was Gilmour and the other Floyd bandmates touring and releasing music as Pink Floyd, along with Gilmour doing his own solo projects, and the fans came to see him (and them) too. Now in 2014 there was just a bunch of hype around a "new" Pink Floyd release, and it's basically warmed-over vault material that's not really new in any sense of the word, and Waters and Gilmour are still polar opposites in terms of getting back together as Pink Floyd. How are fans taking that situation, or how did they take "The Wall" being staged as a Roger Waters presentation when everyone knows it as a Pink Floyd production?

How about The Doors? I'm asking because I really have no clue what's been happening since Ray passed away. I know Robbie has made some appearances as "of the Doors" or "original Doors guitarist", and I know for years there were disputes and legal challenges around Densmore using The Doors name for his projects, but where does it stand in 2014 now that Ray is gone?

What kind of floored me, or at least zapped me into reality (as well as the fact that we're all getting older) was reading that Fleetwood Mac piece in the WSJ this week that said Stevie Nicks was 66. I don't know why that surprised me, but it did. I still see her on MTV singing "Edge Of Seventeen" and the Tom Petty duet, and it doesn't feel like 30 years ago, you know?  Smiley

The point there is the situations with these acts in general have to change as time marches on, so to suggest things about The Beach Boys as if it were 15 years ago or even thinking the same situation that existed in 2005 will exist in the next year or two as audiences change and we all get older along with the music seems a bit unrealistic. If having to separate, say, Roger Waters hypothetically staging The Wall in 2015 from the original album and film that younger fans even today discover and like, in order to basically define that separation and say "this is from the guy that wrote a majority of it, not Pink Floyd" and likewise with Gilmour choosing to release studio outtakes as Pink Floyd and people calling it a new Pink Floyd album as of 2014, maybe things will need to change with the times.

I would, however, suggest that the basis of these issues might not be able to reduce itself to that "x factor" of fans who decide on a whim to buy tickets to any given show. If ticket sales with established catalog artists came down to that group of potential buyers, the only sure bet would be small venues in general. I think Doors fans in any area will buy tickets to see Robbie or John perform live no matter who has the name "The Doors" at this point, and that will be the driving force over a casual fan who likes hearing Light My Fire or Roadhouse Blues on classic rock radio. Are the Beach Boys situations and scenarios any different?

Take a look at how many tickets Al Jardine sells. Then a look at how many `The Beach Boys` sell. I think you will find your answer.

And how is that different from looking at the bookings and offers from promoters with C50 versus "The Beach Boys" minus Brian, Al, and David or any combination of the current touring band? If the whole notion of carrying the torch and building the legacy of "The Beach Boys" is and has been the stated goal, bringing the music to the people, then why aren't there offers from those same promoters to book the kinds of shows as there were with the full lineup? And minus the name itself, why couldn't you assume the strength and quality of the shows being presented would be strong enough on merit and word of mouth to sell tickets, why assume that basically adding a band member's name to the brand would lead to smaller gigs and less interest?

It all comes back to the name, if you have "The Beach Boys" selling out arenas in 2012, then getting offers to play similar high profile gigs on the strength of Brian and Mike and Al being on stage together (and not taking them), versus "The Beach Boys" in 2014 suggesting it is a choice to play smaller or mid-size venues when that is the only option on the table, how would things change if there already was a definite shift in public perception and interest from both ticket buyers and promoters on the simple fact that Brian and Al were not going to be involved? And a perception made very clear after 2012 that there were in fact two separate and different versions of "The Beach Boys" that fans were paying to see perform?

I also tend to think that the market power of those buying tickets on a whim at a cost of at least 200 dollars for two people including travel/parking and concessions plus ticket price is being overstated. If you're only marginally interested in the Beach Boys music and are looking for something to do on a Saturday night, you're not going to suddenly decide to drop 200 bucks on tickets to see a band based on a name used to bill the show. I'd argue most fans willing to invest that much know more than to decide to see the Beach Boys because they saw or heard an ad promoting the show and the name itself sold them on the idea of spending that much money, whether Mike's name is there or not.

Or does it make more sense to assume that someone willing to spend that hypothetical $200 for them and a companion to see Mike and Bruce perform would see Mike and Bruce perform because they're fans beyond casual status and know something of the history of the band whether it's "The Beach Boys" or some variant that lists Mike and Bruce's names?
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
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 4.266 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!