Damn, I miss it being C50

[Nicko1234]

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?

Sorry but again you are way off. Genuinely.

As I said before, the C50 tour had multi-faceted appeal. It had The Beach Boys name to sell tickets. It also had the the 50th anniversary element to sell tickets which is always popular. Plus it had the reunion element of Brian being there with the other guys. It appealed to all of the possible concertgoers.

Mike and Bruce`s current touring obviously doesn`t have the same appeal. The people who go, and Bruce has said this himself, know they are in for a good night out. That`s it. Does it sometimes cost $200 for a couple to watch them? Maybe. But many of their shows are played at venues where the ticket prices are much lower. There is no way that the average people going to a county fair show are researching exactly who is going to be onstage...

There is no question whatsoever that `The Beach Boys` urinates all over `Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of The Beach Boys` every time as a brand name. This would be in terms of promoters, venues and audience members. Having Scott Totten and John Cowsill wouldn`t make up for losing the name at all.

[Mikie]

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.

I was at that '83 Giants/Beach Boys show at Candlestick. Hard to believe they just closed that venue.

Yeah, Norm, the Giants knocked out the Pirates who were tough, the Nationals who were also real tough, then the Cards who were even tougher!!  And we're in the WS!!!!  Can ya believe it? Thank God for Wildcards in post season, eh? 2010, 2012, and now 2014. Bruce Bochy is in the Hall for sure.

[CenturyDeprived]

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.

Sheriff, I appreciate your reply, but I don't think my main points got addressed, namely that Mike has created a legal barrier around himself - even if it ultimately would amount to smoke and mirrors, I don't think it can just be ignored or stated to be a non-issue. I don't think people want to f*ck with him because he'd probably go to the ends of the earth to drag it out.

And the part in your post above which I've bolded is an important thing to realize too: I don't think Brian and Al want to be "allowed" to participate in The Beach Boys. They want to be part of the band and to feel welcomed. I can't imagine what it must be like to have been a member of a touring band (either for straight decades, Al-style, or off-and-on for decades, Brian-style), and to feel in a position where they have to legally "force" Mike Love to allow them to be a part of it. Who wants lawyers involved? That would have to be an incredibly icky feeling/situation to be in for them, and who'd want any part of such as scenario? That's why I don't see something actually working like what your lawyer friend suggested.

[Nicko1234]

Sheriff, I appreciate your reply, but I don't think my main points got addressed, namely that Mike has created a legal barrier around himself - even if it ultimately would amount to smoke and mirrors, I don't think it can just be ignored or stated to be a non-issue. I don't think people want to f*ck with him because he'd probably go to the ends of the earth to drag it out.

And the part in your post above which I've bolded is an important thing to realize too: I don't think Brian and Al want to be "allowed" to participate in The Beach Boys. They want to be part of the band and to feel welcomed. I can't imagine what it must be like to have been a member of a touring band (either for straight decades, Al-style, or off-and-on for decades, Brian-style), and to feel in a position where they have to legally "force" Mike Love to allow them to be a part of it. Who wants lawyers involved? That would have to be an incredibly icky feeling/situation to be in for them, and who'd want any part of such as scenario? That's why I don't see something actually working like what your lawyer friend suggested.

I think a much more pertinent factor is simply that Brian, Al AND Carl`s estate would presumably all have to vote against Mike and it is hard to see that happening.

Of course Mike would have his lawyers involved but for these guys lawyers are a part of their everyday life...

[Pretty Funky]

Don't know if its ever been mentioned but could there have been legal issues related to 2012 if the C50 band had continued? I'm thinking it was hyped by promotion that included band members saying 'one final time' or words to that effect. Could parties feel screwed and taken action if this had not been the case?

[guitarfool2002]

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?

Sorry but again you are way off. Genuinely.

As I said before, the C50 tour had multi-faceted appeal. It had The Beach Boys name to sell tickets. It also had the the 50th anniversary element to sell tickets which is always popular. Plus it had the reunion element of Brian being there with the other guys. It appealed to all of the possible concertgoers.

Mike and Bruce`s current touring obviously doesn`t have the same appeal. The people who go, and Bruce has said this himself, know they are in for a good night out. That`s it. Does it sometimes cost $200 for a couple to watch them? Maybe. But many of their shows are played at venues where the ticket prices are much lower. There is no way that the average people going to a county fair show are researching exactly who is going to be onstage...

There is no question whatsoever that `The Beach Boys` urinates all over `Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of The Beach Boys` every time as a brand name. This would be in terms of promoters, venues and audience members. Having Scott Totten and John Cowsill wouldn`t make up for losing the name at all.

We just saw this year's tour promotions with the words "50 Years" attached to the billing, in the form of "Celebrating 50 Years Of Fun Fun Fun", so obviously there is something beyond the power of that brand name itself to be capitalized on when advertising a Beach Boys show with "50th" in the title no matter how threadbare the connection to an actual anniversary to be marked.

And I need to ask about the mention of not having the same appeal: In the aftermath of the Sept. 2012 C50 press releases, when it started to go public around the Grammy event, there were suggestions given that the stripped-down touring band which was announced would be continuing rather than taking on more full band shows was what the fans came to expect from a Beach Boys show, and is what the Beach Boys tours would be returning to, as they were before C50. If the appeal is not the same as you suggested, then either that answer given in 2012 makes no sense or the choice may have involved offering a smaller number of fans what they expected from a Beach Boys show but having that be less appealing to the market overall than taking more offers as C50.

So from your post, the current touring which was being returned to after Fall 2012 would be less appealing according to what you said, but that was also what the fans came to expect from a Beach Boys live tour? I see a contradiction there.

[CenturyDeprived]

Don't know if its ever been mentioned but could there have been legal issues related to 2012 if the C50 band had continued? I'm thinking it was hyped by promotion that included band members saying 'one final time' or words to that effect. Could parties feel screwed and taken action if this had not been the case?

The "ONE FINAL TIME" phrase that Al said is something that I've wondered about. I'm guessing that this line was possibly scripted and that he was told to specifically say these words. I mean, maybe he just said the words as an off-hand remark that *happened* to make it into the final cut of those videos, but that seems a bit doubtful, especially since they kept reusing that same sentence over and over again in multiple promo clips. I wonder if Al has been asked about this since the reunion imploded.

I'd assume that Al being coached to utter those words would have had multiple intentions: to make the C50 reunion seem more special from a marketing standpoint (the implication being "catch them together now, it'll never happen again"), and also to make sure that Mike's sure-thing boat was never going to be at risk of evaporating, by unequivocally having another band member stating such, in so many words. Sort of like Mike creating a trail of breadcrumbs as legal evidence that he could return to the status quo, just in case it would ever be threatened after the C50 undertaking with then-unknown results.

Of course that would lend credence that at the time the TSS/C50 promo videos were filmed, the whole start date/end date idea was in fact the original intention at that point in time.  Or at least that it was Mike's intention that other bandmembers went along with, grudgingly or not; if Al didn't want such an end-date scenario to be the case, I don't think he'd have had much choice at that point to make demands otherwise.

I'm guessing that Al said those words on camera slightly grudgingly. While I may be reading too much into it, I'll be honest in saying that he doesn't exactly look thrilled saying them! I mean, I wonder if the BBs releasing TSS as a huge box set was a somewhat grudging concession/agreement by Mike Love in order for other things to fall into place. I seem to recall people stating things implying that there were many "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" kinds of tradeoffs behind the scenes to get this fragile reunion in place.

[Sheriff John Stone]

EDIT: I screwed up and didn't quote CenturyDeprived's post. Anyway, this is in response to his post/questions:

I touched on those issues a little. Yeah, Mike knows that he has things to his liking, and he might be thinking, "Why would they (BRI) want to ruin a good thing?" Mike might even be daring them, because he knows that money trumps everything in the Beach Boys, including friends playing together, playing big venues, massive publicity, legacies, brand-preserving - everything! Mike probably thinks that the other guys "aren't up to it" to do what is necessary to make more money than he has been generating.

Directly to your point...If BRI, as I suggested, used increased profit for the corporation as the basis for changing the terms of the license, then the individual members are basically out of the suit. I don't think I'm rationalizing, but, again, I'm far from an expert on amending contracts. This would basically be a battle of attorneys and more importantly, accountants. Testimony from Mike or Brian or any other member isn't necessary. Brian and Al wouldn't even have to make any statements other than to say that they are ready, willing, and able to tour in The Beach Boys. This wouldn't be Brian taking the stand and stating his case and then being cross-examined by one of Mike's attorneys. Frankly, the individual members would have to to ask their attorneys what's going on just to keep up to date...if they're interested. I'm not sure what they would have to fear from Mike unless Mike would question Brian's mental and physical ability to endure the rigors of touring in The Beach Boys. And, again, Brian's performance on the C50 tour would be the evidence, right?

I still believe that it would come down to dollars and cents, not legacies or brands, or fun, fun, fun. That's too hard to prove. However, if the corporation is genuinely missing out on opportunities to play these big venues and sell these expensive packages and regain their seat among rock's elite, well, go for it. I wrote in my above post that there are ways to ask for an expedited trial. I don't think it is a given that it would drag on for several months or years, due to unique circumstances. That's what high-priced attorneys are paid for.

I don't know how to address the "allowed to" issue without repeating myself and getting hammered for it. BRI made their bed a long time ago, now they gotta sleep in it. If it's THAT important to some of the members to change it, hey, go for it. I personally think that there is some wiggle room in the licensing agreement. I mean, no contract is that iron clad that it can't be amended, especially over time, over 15+ years. No attorneys worth their salt would ever agree to such a thing. I don't think they will challenge it, for reasons that have been mentioned ad nauseum and will continue to be mentioned I'm sure.

[CenturyDeprived]

EDIT: I screwed up and didn't quote CenturyDeprived's post. Anyway, this is in response to his post/questions:

I touched on those issues a little. Yeah, Mike knows that he has things to his liking, and he might be thinking, "Why would they (BRI) want to ruin a good thing?" Mike might even be daring them, because he knows that money trumps everything in the Beach Boys, including friends playing together, playing big venues, massive publicity, legacies, brand-preserving - everything! Mike probably thinks that the other guys "aren't up to it" to do what is necessary to make more money than he has been generating.

Directly to your point...If BRI, as I suggested, used increased profit for the corporation as the basis for changing the terms of the license, then the individual members are basically out of the suit. I don't think I'm rationalizing, but, again, I'm far from an expert on amending contracts. This would basically be a battle of attorneys and more importantly, accountants. Testimony from Mike or Brian or any other member isn't necessary. Brian and Al wouldn't even have to make any statements other than to say that they are ready, willing, and able to tour in The Beach Boys. This wouldn't be Brian taking the stand and stating his case and then being cross-examined by one of Mike's attorneys. Frankly, the individual members would have to to ask their attorneys what's going on just to keep up to date...if they're interested. I'm not sure what they would have to fear from Mike unless Mike would question Brian's mental and physical ability to endure the rigors of touring in The Beach Boys. And, again, Brian's performance on the C50 tour would be the evidence, right?

I still believe that it would come down to dollars and cents, not legacies or brands, or fun, fun, fun. That's too hard to prove. However, if the corporation is genuinely missing out on opportunities to play these big venues and sell these expensive packages and regain their seat among rock's elite, well, go for it. I wrote in my above post that there are ways to ask for an expedited trial. I don't think it is a given that it would drag on for several months or years, due to unique circumstances. That's what high-priced attorneys are paid for.

I don't know how to address the "allowed to" issue without repeating myself and getting hammered for it. BRI made their bed a long time ago, now they gotta sleep in it. If it's THAT important to some of the members to change it, hey, go for it. I personally think that there is some wiggle room in the licensing agreement. I mean, no contract is that iron clad that it can't be amended, especially over time, over 15+ years. No attorneys worth their salt would ever agree to such a thing. I don't think they will challenge it, for reasons that have been mentioned ad nauseum and will continue to be mentioned I'm sure.

Simply put, I don't think Brian wants to go anywhere near a courtroom again for the rest of his life. He avoids stuff like this like the plague if he can. (Not saying that anyone, including other BB members like the courtroom much either!) But I think the very idea of it is good enough reason (not to mention the many other reasons we've previously discussed) to want to avoid any kind of legal maneuvering.

[Sheriff John Stone]

EDIT: I screwed up and didn't quote CenturyDeprived's post. Anyway, this is in response to his post/questions:

I touched on those issues a little. Yeah, Mike knows that he has things to his liking, and he might be thinking, "Why would they (BRI) want to ruin a good thing?" Mike might even be daring them, because he knows that money trumps everything in the Beach Boys, including friends playing together, playing big venues, massive publicity, legacies, brand-preserving - everything! Mike probably thinks that the other guys "aren't up to it" to do what is necessary to make more money than he has been generating.

Directly to your point...If BRI, as I suggested, used increased profit for the corporation as the basis for changing the terms of the license, then the individual members are basically out of the suit. I don't think I'm rationalizing, but, again, I'm far from an expert on amending contracts. This would basically be a battle of attorneys and more importantly, accountants. Testimony from Mike or Brian or any other member isn't necessary. Brian and Al wouldn't even have to make any statements other than to say that they are ready, willing, and able to tour in The Beach Boys. This wouldn't be Brian taking the stand and stating his case and then being cross-examined by one of Mike's attorneys. Frankly, the individual members would have to to ask their attorneys what's going on just to keep up to date...if they're interested. I'm not sure what they would have to fear from Mike unless Mike would question Brian's mental and physical ability to endure the rigors of touring in The Beach Boys. And, again, Brian's performance on the C50 tour would be the evidence, right?

I still believe that it would come down to dollars and cents, not legacies or brands, or fun, fun, fun. That's too hard to prove. However, if the corporation is genuinely missing out on opportunities to play these big venues and sell these expensive packages and regain their seat among rock's elite, well, go for it. I wrote in my above post that there are ways to ask for an expedited trial. I don't think it is a given that it would drag on for several months or years, due to unique circumstances. That's what high-priced attorneys are paid for.

I don't know how to address the "allowed to" issue without repeating myself and getting hammered for it. BRI made their bed a long time ago, now they gotta sleep in it. If it's THAT important to some of the members to change it, hey, go for it. I personally think that there is some wiggle room in the licensing agreement. I mean, no contract is that iron clad that it can't be amended, especially over time, over 15+ years. No attorneys worth their salt would ever agree to such a thing. I don't think they will challenge it, for reasons that have been mentioned ad nauseum and will continue to be mentioned I'm sure.

Simply put, I don't think Brian wants to go anywhere near a courtroom again for the rest of his life. He avoids stuff like this like the plague if he can. (Not saying that anyone, including other BB members like the courtroom much either!) But I think the very idea of it is good enough reason (not to mention the many other reasons we've previously discussed) to want to avoid any kind of legal maneuvering.

I'm serious, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot. Well, yes I am. What reason would require Brian to go to court and take the stand? Could he not state through a deposition that he wants to tour in The Beach Boys? Couldn't "attendance records" be presented that he he attended and performed admirably at 70+ shows in 2012? Couldn't his doctors present physical and mental evaluations showing that he "is fit" to do the required work? And, couldn't that deposition then be accepted as evidence and we move on to the real substance of the trial - the dollars and cents. Really, I'm not seeing how and why Brian would be stressed over something like this. He's not really challenging anyone, he's fighting for something he believes in. No, his attorneys and accountants are doing the fighting.

[ontor pertawst]

Is it really so hard to believe that nobody wants to get into a protracted, expensive, painful legal battle with Mike Love at this stage of the game? You hear Alan sighing in interviews "he has brilliant lawyers."

[Sheriff John Stone]

Is it really so hard to believe that nobody wants to get into a protracted, expensive, painful legal battle with Mike Love at this stage of the game? You hear Alan sighing in interviews "he has brilliant lawyers."

I don't think anybody WANTS to. It's a matter of doing what is necessary, through attorneys. And, again, I don't know how DIRECTLY involved any of the band members would be.

[ontor pertawst]

Well it would be directly involving their wallets for YEARS. Of course they would be directly involved, it'd be a daily source of stress. I think they understand what it's like to be in endless, expensive legal fights with Mike Love a bit more than we do. You can't blame them for not wanting to stir that hornet's nest in their 70s.

[Nicko1234]

We just saw this year's tour promotions with the words "50 Years" attached to the billing, in the form of "Celebrating 50 Years Of Fun Fun Fun", so obviously there is something beyond the power of that brand name itself to be capitalized on when advertising a Beach Boys show with "50th" in the title no matter how threadbare the connection to an actual anniversary to be marked.

And I need to ask about the mention of not having the same appeal: In the aftermath of the Sept. 2012 C50 press releases, when it started to go public around the Grammy event, there were suggestions given that the stripped-down touring band which was announced would be continuing rather than taking on more full band shows was what the fans came to expect from a Beach Boys show, and is what the Beach Boys tours would be returning to, as they were before C50. If the appeal is not the same as you suggested, then either that answer given in 2012 makes no sense or the choice may have involved offering a smaller number of fans what they expected from a Beach Boys show but having that be less appealing to the market overall than taking more offers as C50.

So from your post, the current touring which was being returned to after Fall 2012 would be less appealing according to what you said, but that was also what the fans came to expect from a Beach Boys live tour? I see a contradiction there.

Yes, an anniversary is always popular as I mentioned. Next year it will doubtless be California Girls. It isn`t as powerful as the 50th anniversary of the group though... And of course it doesn`t have the reunion element.

Sorry but the meaning of the rest of your post is unclear... Any official press release is going to be BS. Mike and Bruce have gone back to playing the same size venues they did between 1999 and 2011. They are obviously, generally speaking, not the same size as the C50 venues and ticket prices are not as high.

[Nicko1234]

The "ONE FINAL TIME" phrase that Al said is something that I've wondered about. I'm guessing that this line was possibly scripted and that he was told to specifically say these words. I mean, maybe he just said the words as an off-hand remark that *happened* to make it into the final cut of those videos, but that seems a bit doubtful, especially since they kept reusing that same sentence over and over again in multiple promo clips. I wonder if Al has been asked about this since the reunion imploded.

I'd assume that Al being coached to utter those words would have had multiple intentions: to make the C50 reunion seem more special from a marketing standpoint (the implication being "catch them together now, it'll never happen again"), and also to make sure that Mike's sure-thing boat was never going to be at risk of evaporating, by unequivocally having another band member stating such, in so many words. Sort of like Mike creating a trail of breadcrumbs as legal evidence that he could return to the status quo, just in case it would ever be threatened after the C50 undertaking with then-unknown results.

Of course that would lend credence that at the time the TSS/C50 promo videos were filmed, the whole start date/end date idea was in fact the original intention at that point in time.  Or at least that it was Mike's intention that other bandmembers went along with, grudgingly or not; if Al didn't want such an end-date scenario to be the case, I don't think he'd have had much choice at that point to make demands otherwise.

I'm guessing that Al said those words on camera slightly grudgingly. While I may be reading too much into it, I'll be honest in saying that he doesn't exactly look thrilled saying them! I mean, I wonder if the BBs releasing TSS as a huge box set was a somewhat grudging concession/agreement by Mike Love in order for other things to fall into place. I seem to recall people stating things implying that there were many "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" kinds of tradeoffs behind the scenes to get this fragile reunion in place.

Jeez... 

[CenturyDeprived]

Well it would be directly involving their wallets for YEARS. Of course they would be directly involved, it'd be a daily source of stress. I think they understand what it's like to be in endless, expensive legal fights with Mike Love a bit more than we do. You can't blame them for not wanting to stir that hornet's nest in their 70s.

+1. You can also bet that if it were to get dragged into courts, that the very unpleasant thought of Brian having to go to court would be exploited by Mike's lawyers; I don't have much doubt that his lawyers would at least *try* to find a way to make that happen (maybe they'd fail) just to make continuing the fight as unpleasant as possible. That what lawyers do. They try to make things as unpleasant as they can for the other side, trying to bully the opposition into getting their clients' way. Not all laywers are always like that, but you can be sure that this would get ugly. I'm just saying that regardless of what the legal specifics would entail, it's absolutely THE hornet's nest of all hornet's nets in the entire world of the BBs.  Whatever touring income BRI gets from M&B aside, it's just not worth the fight - not at this stage for these guys.

[CenturyDeprived]

The "ONE FINAL TIME" phrase that Al said is something that I've wondered about. I'm guessing that this line was possibly scripted and that he was told to specifically say these words. I mean, maybe he just said the words as an off-hand remark that *happened* to make it into the final cut of those videos, but that seems a bit doubtful, especially since they kept reusing that same sentence over and over again in multiple promo clips. I wonder if Al has been asked about this since the reunion imploded.

I'd assume that Al being coached to utter those words would have had multiple intentions: to make the C50 reunion seem more special from a marketing standpoint (the implication being "catch them together now, it'll never happen again"), and also to make sure that Mike's sure-thing boat was never going to be at risk of evaporating, by unequivocally having another band member stating such, in so many words. Sort of like Mike creating a trail of breadcrumbs as legal evidence that he could return to the status quo, just in case it would ever be threatened after the C50 undertaking with then-unknown results.

Of course that would lend credence that at the time the TSS/C50 promo videos were filmed, the whole start date/end date idea was in fact the original intention at that point in time.  Or at least that it was Mike's intention that other bandmembers went along with, grudgingly or not; if Al didn't want such an end-date scenario to be the case, I don't think he'd have had much choice at that point to make demands otherwise.

I'm guessing that Al said those words on camera slightly grudgingly. While I may be reading too much into it, I'll be honest in saying that he doesn't exactly look thrilled saying them! I mean, I wonder if the BBs releasing TSS as a huge box set was a somewhat grudging concession/agreement by Mike Love in order for other things to fall into place. I seem to recall people stating things implying that there were many "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" kinds of tradeoffs behind the scenes to get this fragile reunion in place.

Jeez...  

Nicko - if you honestly think that the various possibilities of what could eventually happen weren't meticulously ported over by Mike and his lawyers, I'd imagine that you are mistaken. If you disagree with that, I'm all ears to hear why.

 I'm not saying that my hypothesis is absolutely correct, but I also don't think it's too far-fetched either. There was lots of scheming going on, I'm sure. And by scheming, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm trying to say it was ill-intentions by Mike, but Mike is obviously extremely protective of not letting go of what he feels he has rightly earned (the right to tour as "The BBs"), and I don't doubt that it's *possible* that if he/his lawyers could have thought that by Al saying a few choice words at a certain point in time, it would help make a case for there being a precedent that could make things go in his favor in case they ever needed that.

Mike likes his escape hatches, and this *could* possibly have been an attempt at another one.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think this is out of the question. Let's face it: it could ONLY have been beneficial to Mike for Al to say those words, right? I would think it less desirable for Al, having many times over the years hinted at a desire to regularly be back to playing with the BBs (or similar capacity) to have *happily* said such words, while Mike (who clearly is mighty happy being in control of the M&B show) would have every reason to be happy to see such words being publicly spoken by Al. Please correct me if I'm off-base on this.

If you believe that Mike from the onset has always desired an end date (as I believe you do), and if you believe that Mike has some savvy lawyers (as you probably do, and as Al does), then I don't think it's an implausible scenario worthy of an eye roll emoji.   I also suspect that the TSS/C50 promo clips (especially the TSS ones) were highly vetted for content beforehand. I think it's a no-brainer to assume these were highly crafted to avoid certain politics/topics, and probably had lawyers/PR people's opinions peripherally involved. I feel certain that some things were not allowed to be discussed (for political gain), and therefore it's really not a stretch to think that some things were specifically said as well (for potential down-the-road political gain too).

[Custom Machine]

Just for the fun of seeing what their posts would look like, for one day only, perhaps Halloween, I think it would be cool to require bgas and guitarfool2002 to flip word counts.  On that one day, all posts from bgas would be required to be a minimum of 2500 words in length, and all posts from guitarfool2002 would be required to not exceed 50 words in length.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Well it would be directly involving their wallets for YEARS. Of course they would be directly involved, it'd be a daily source of stress. I think they understand what it's like to be in endless, expensive legal fights with Mike Love a bit more than we do. You can't blame them for not wanting to stir that hornet's nest in their 70s.

+1. You can also bet that if it were to get dragged into courts, that the very unpleasant thought of Brian having to go to court would be exploited by Mike's lawyers; I don't have much doubt that his lawyers would at least *try* to find a way to make that happen (maybe they'd fail) just to make continuing the fight as unpleasant as possible. That what lawyers do. They try to make things as unpleasant as they can for the other side, trying to bully the opposition into getting their clients' way. Not all laywers are always like that, but you can be sure that this would get ugly. I'm just saying that regardless of what the legal specifics would entail, it's absolutely THE hornet's nest of all hornet's nets in the entire world of the BBs.  Whatever touring income BRI gets from M&B aside, it's just not worth the fight - not at this stage for these guys.

We don't know that there isn't just a basis provision, an "out" if you will, in the licensing agreement that falls along the lines of "for the betterment of the corporation". If the members of BRI feel that more profit could be generated by changing the terms of the agreement BY A MAJORITY VOTE, then a meeting could be called, a vote be taken, and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe, Brian and Carl's Estate ultimately - ultimately - want things to be left the way they are, despite what the fans want.

Now, of course, a member - in this case, Mike - could challenge the provision or the findings or the vote. But, wouldn't it just be Mike filing his complaint, and a judge basically making a ruling. Is it possible that it's black and white, that BRI could simply conduct a vote to make a change? What legal leg would Mike have to stand on, if the agreement allows for a re-vote down the line? The math is the math. BRI could generate more profit another way. Why would a case like that drag on and on?

[ontor pertawst]

Because once you start throwing money at lawyers, things drag on and on.

[CenturyDeprived]

Well it would be directly involving their wallets for YEARS. Of course they would be directly involved, it'd be a daily source of stress. I think they understand what it's like to be in endless, expensive legal fights with Mike Love a bit more than we do. You can't blame them for not wanting to stir that hornet's nest in their 70s.

+1. You can also bet that if it were to get dragged into courts, that the very unpleasant thought of Brian having to go to court would be exploited by Mike's lawyers; I don't have much doubt that his lawyers would at least *try* to find a way to make that happen (maybe they'd fail) just to make continuing the fight as unpleasant as possible. That what lawyers do. They try to make things as unpleasant as they can for the other side, trying to bully the opposition into getting their clients' way. Not all laywers are always like that, but you can be sure that this would get ugly. I'm just saying that regardless of what the legal specifics would entail, it's absolutely THE hornet's nest of all hornet's nets in the entire world of the BBs.  Whatever touring income BRI gets from M&B aside, it's just not worth the fight - not at this stage for these guys.

We don't know that there isn't just a basis provision, an "out" if you will, in the licensing agreement that falls along the lines of "for the betterment of the corporation". If the members of BRI feel that more profit could be generated by changing the terms of the agreement BY A MAJORITY VOTE, then a meeting could be called, a vote be taken, and let the chips fall where they may.

Now, of course, a member - in this case, Mike - could challenge the provision or the findings or the vote. But, wouldn't it just be Mike filing his complaint, and a judge basically making a ruling. Is it possible that it's black and white, that BRI could simply conduct a vote to make a change? What legal leg would Mike have to stand on, if the agreement allows for a re-vote down the line? The math is the math. BRI could generate more profit another way. Why would a case like that drag on and on?

Just remember one critical thing about the people we are talking about: Brian, on the whole, seems to care far less about profit than Mike. Yes, Brian has "sold out" and has done things for profit many times too. Of course. But... relatively speaking... I think if he were posed with potential profits of 2012/2013 (when Brian really wanted to be a BB in the C50 incarnation), and if the numbers said that M&B could make a few more bucks (or maybe even a lot more bucks) in a stripped-down/zillion shows type of setup, I think the fun making music with all of the Boys desire would win out in Brian's mind.  To Brian, I don't think his desire to continue with the BBs in a C50 capacity had anything whatsoever to do with more profit/less profit compared to M&B.

I think at that point, he was willing to not give two sh*ts about profit, because he was digging being a BB again so much, and the more these guys give *less* of a crap about profit (and more of a crap about music and what it means to be a band), usually the better the result.  While I agree that both control and money were factors, ultimately, I think Mike's actions were dictated more from a desire to not cede control, compared to the potential of making less money.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Well it would be directly involving their wallets for YEARS. Of course they would be directly involved, it'd be a daily source of stress. I think they understand what it's like to be in endless, expensive legal fights with Mike Love a bit more than we do. You can't blame them for not wanting to stir that hornet's nest in their 70s.

+1. You can also bet that if it were to get dragged into courts, that the very unpleasant thought of Brian having to go to court would be exploited by Mike's lawyers; I don't have much doubt that his lawyers would at least *try* to find a way to make that happen (maybe they'd fail) just to make continuing the fight as unpleasant as possible. That what lawyers do. They try to make things as unpleasant as they can for the other side, trying to bully the opposition into getting their clients' way. Not all laywers are always like that, but you can be sure that this would get ugly. I'm just saying that regardless of what the legal specifics would entail, it's absolutely THE hornet's nest of all hornet's nets in the entire world of the BBs.  Whatever touring income BRI gets from M&B aside, it's just not worth the fight - not at this stage for these guys.

We don't know that there isn't just a basis provision, an "out" if you will, in the licensing agreement that falls along the lines of "for the betterment of the corporation". If the members of BRI feel that more profit could be generated by changing the terms of the agreement BY A MAJORITY VOTE, then a meeting could be called, a vote be taken, and let the chips fall where they may.

Now, of course, a member - in this case, Mike - could challenge the provision or the findings or the vote. But, wouldn't it just be Mike filing his complaint, and a judge basically making a ruling. Is it possible that it's black and white, that BRI could simply conduct a vote to make a change? What legal leg would Mike have to stand on, if the agreement allows for a re-vote down the line? The math is the math. BRI could generate more profit another way. Why would a case like that drag on and on?

Just remember one critical thing about the people we are talking about: Brian, on the whole, seems to care far less about profit than Mike. Yes, Brian has "sold out" and has done things for profit many times too. Of course. But... relatively speaking... I think if he were posed with potential profits of 2012/2013 (when Brian really wanted to be a BB in the C50 incarnation), and if the numbers said that M&B could make a few more bucks (or maybe even a lot more bucks) in a stripped-down/zillion shows type of setup, I think the fun making music with all of the Boys desire would win out in Brian's mind.  To Brian, I don't think his desire to continue with the BBs in a C50 capacity had anything whatsoever to do with more profit/less profit compared to M&B. I think at that point, he was willing to not give two sh*ts about profit, because he was digging being a BB again so much, and the more these guys give *less* of a crap about profit (and more of a crap about music and what it means to be a band), usually the better the result.  

Yes, but you see, and I mentioned this way back as my attorney acquaintance suggested, you USE the profit argument as a way to get what you really want - the fun of touring as a Beach Boy, playing the large venues, the increased publicity from the major publications, the preservation of the legacy, giving the fans what they deserve, and, in Al's case having a job. If you try to achieve all of THOSE things by a simple vote, surely Mike can and will fight it, and it will go on and on. But, if you play the increased profit for the corporation card - even if that's not really important to you - you have a much better chance at winning. It's more black and white, it's finite, and, according to many fans on this board, it's achievable! And, with that, have a good evening (I can hear the applause...)

[bgas]

what is the sound of one hand clapping?

[feelsflow]

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.

I was at that '83 Giants/Beach Boys show at Candlestick. Hard to believe they just closed that venue.

Yeah, Norm, the Giants knocked out the Pirates who were tough, the Nationals who were also real tough, then the Cards who were even tougher!!  And we're in the WS!!!!  Can ya believe it? Thank God for Wildcards in post season, eh? 2010, 2012, and now 2014. Bruce Bochy is in the Hall for sure.

Yes, that was a Great show - wish they would have let us on the field.  Maybe if I had brought a cheerleader outfit...  I think that was the first time they had the cheerleaders out front.  Soon they would be on the stage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they doing all those $5 shows (including one with CSN) because the Giants couldn't fill the seats?  I couldn't believe they kept doing it, a really great deal.  I was at all of them.  1983 being the Best.  Carl was rockin' out, and seemed happy to be there.  I thought Brian and Dennis both did very well - the last time with all the brothers together for me.

Not a put down, I'm for the Giants to win, just sayin'.

[bgas]

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.

I was at that '83 Giants/Beach Boys show at Candlestick. Hard to believe they just closed that venue.

Yeah, Norm, the Giants knocked out the Pirates who were tough, the Nationals who were also real tough, then the Cards who were even tougher!!  And we're in the WS!!!!  Can ya believe it? Thank God for Wildcards in post season, eh? 2010, 2012, and now 2014. Bruce Bochy is in the Hall for sure.

Yes, that was a Great show - wish they would have let us on the field.  Maybe if I had brought a cheerleader outfit...  I think that was the first time they had the cheerleaders out front.  Soon they would be on the stage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they doing all those $5 shows (including one with CSN) because the Giants couldn't fill the seats?  I couldn't believe they kept doing it, a really great deal.  I was at all of them.  1983 being the Best.  Carl was rockin' out, and seemed happy to be there.  I thought Brian and Dennis both did very well - the last time with all the brothers together for me.

Not a put down, I'm for the Giants to win, just sayin'.

Would you have looked good in a cheerleader outfit then?  now?