Mike and Bruce Tour 2015

[Cam Mott]

Westboro Baptist Church, huh?  

I'm guessing there is a certain level of venue which can afford the fees, so unless promoters or BRI want to intentionally lose money, the venue level is self-regulating.

Re. C50: It's not like they all got together and did everything they agreed on and did not do anything they did not get together and agree on.

Oh wait.......that is what it is like.

[CenturyDeprived]

Westboro Baptist Church, huh?  

I'm guessing there is a certain level of venue which can afford the fees, so unless promoters or BRI want to intentionally lose money, the venue level is self-regulating.

Re. C50: It's not like they all got together and did everything they agreed on and and did not do anything they did not get together and agree on.

Mind you - I seriously don't think a Westboro Baptist Church gig would *ever* happen, and I think M&B would thankfully have the good sense to turn it down even if such an offer came about - I'd hope very much it would solely be out of disgust, but at the very least out of wanting to avoid media backlash. I wonder if the 1981 South Africa shows would have happened if the internet existed in 1981, because they might have turned down those gigs just out wanting to avoid internet-age media backlash too.

[filledeplage]

Westboro Baptist Church, huh?  

I'm guessing there is a certain level of venue which can afford the fees, so unless promoters or BRI want to intentionally lose money, the venue level is self-regulating.

Re. C50: It's not like they all got together and did everything they agreed on and and did not do anything they did not get together and agree on.

Mind you - I seriously don't think a Westboro Baptist Church gig would *ever* happen, and I think M&B would thankfully have the good sense to turn it down even if such an offer came about - I'd hope very much it would solely be out of disgust, but at the very least out of wanting to avoid media backlash. I wonder if the 1981 South Africa shows would have happened if the internet existed in 1981, because they might have turned down those gigs just out wanting to avoid internet-age media backlash too.

Century Deprived - it was an inflammatory remark. If that kind of extreme statement is made, someone is going to react.  It has been highly denounced and is not affiliated with any Baptist denomination. But could be highly offensive to those fans, here who might be Baptists.  And it connotes intolerance. 

Things have changed radically since 1981.  People know more and can make more informed decisions.

[Cyncie]

Also worth keeping in mind is that there have been indications that Brian in the last year or so has been given any number of “friendly reminders” from legal quarters to make sure he doesn’t over-emphasize the “Beach Boys” name in advertising his solo shows. Al alluded to this in an interview last year.

And, this is where I have a problem. If BRI is in agreement that Mike will continue to license the name, that's their business. Mike has the right to tour where he wants, even if I disagree with his run it into the ground approach, in general.

However, when the guy who wrote all that music Mike sings every night is getting "cease and desist" letters because he dares to emphasize his own contribution, that's just wrong. It's not like he's going out there calling himself "The Beach Boys Too" or anything.  He's Brian Wilson, founding member of The Beach Boys and the man responsible for the hits, Pet Sounds and SMiLE. He has the right to say so, dammit!

Good thing most of the press already know this and can say it for him.

[CenturyDeprived]

The first rule of Mike Love is: You do not talk about the faults of Mike Love. The second rule of Mike Love is: You do not talk about anything ever remotely being blamed on Mike Love. Them's the rules. I didn't make 'em.

A swift once-over of the coverage of Mike in any given media post-1978 to date suggests your comment may be slightly wide of the mark. 

The Fight Club reference I made was intended as a joke (a bad one at that)... but I don't think it's particularly off the mark. I meant it in a general sense, of Mike Love's own "rules" about himself - I'm not sure where media coverage factors into what I was referring to.

It's perfectly OK to criticize Mike for his actual faults, like becoming a religious fanatic over TM in the early 70s resulting in non-meditators being removed from the scene for example. Post a rant about that, fine with me. Spewing bile over Mike for something Brian also did is IMHO hypocritical.

Again, my Fight Club thing was just a jokey remark about how I think Mike Love publicly conducts himself, without ever taking personal responsibility or blame (certainly not in a public interview that I know of). It was a general comment of how I see things in a general sense. I was not intending to start comparisons between his actions and Brian's, but to respond to your comment, since you mentioned it, I would offer up the example of Brian self-deprecatingly in interviews talking about being a poor parent vs. Mike not acknowledging Shawn or her son Gage exist/existed. I agree Brian isn't perfect, but I see distinct differences between the character of the two men.

[CenturyDeprived]

Westboro Baptist Church, huh?  

I'm guessing there is a certain level of venue which can afford the fees, so unless promoters or BRI want to intentionally lose money, the venue level is self-regulating.

Re. C50: It's not like they all got together and did everything they agreed on and and did not do anything they did not get together and agree on.

Mind you - I seriously don't think a Westboro Baptist Church gig would *ever* happen, and I think M&B would thankfully have the good sense to turn it down even if such an offer came about - I'd hope very much it would solely be out of disgust, but at the very least out of wanting to avoid media backlash. I wonder if the 1981 South Africa shows would have happened if the internet existed in 1981, because they might have turned down those gigs just out wanting to avoid internet-age media backlash too.

Century Deprived - it was an inflammatory remark. If that kind of extreme statement is made, someone is going to react.  It has been highly denounced and is not affiliated with any Baptist denomination. But could be highly offensive to those fans, here who might be Baptists.  And it connotes intolerance.  

Things have changed radically since 1981.  People know more and can make more informed decisions.

filledeplage- I was trying to think of a name of a ridiculous organization or venue to wonder if such a wacky place would ever be turned down by The Beach Boys as a venue (either by Mike himself, or by BRI pressure). Wasn't intended to be inflammatory, and I sincerely apologize for even referencing that despicable organization that has an iota to do with lifestyle and/or racial intolerance. But my point is, I wonder if a place/organization would have to be on the level of Westboro despicability for it to be outright turned down as a "BB" venue without a second thought given. I'm curious where the line would be drawn.

[filledeplage]

Also worth keeping in mind is that there have been indications that Brian in the last year or so has been given any number of “friendly reminders” from legal quarters to make sure he doesn’t over-emphasize the “Beach Boys” name in advertising his solo shows. Al alluded to this in an interview last year.

And, this is where I have a problem. If BRI is in agreement that Mike will continue to license the name, that's their business. Mike has the right to tour where he wants, even if I disagree with his run it into the ground approach, in general.

However, when the guy who wrote all that music Mike sings every night is getting "cease and desist" letters because he dares to emphasize his own contribution, that's just wrong. It's not like he's going out there calling himself "The Beach Boys Too" or anything.  He's Brian Wilson, founding member of The Beach Boys and the man responsible for the hits, Pet Sounds and SMiLE. He has the right to say so, dammit!

Good thing most of the press already know this and can say it for him.

Hey Jude - if they (letters of advisement) are sent (and I'm not privy to that) It might be just to make sure there is "no confusion in the marketplace." And a uniform standard that is already in place.  I remember some "marketplace confusion" with some post C50 shows.  It could mean for promoters and advertisers.  Advertisers might take some "poetic license" and  even innocently do ads that are misleading. The standard is uniform.  

[CenturyDeprived]

Also worth keeping in mind is that there have been indications that Brian in the last year or so has been given any number of “friendly reminders” from legal quarters to make sure he doesn’t over-emphasize the “Beach Boys” name in advertising his solo shows. Al alluded to this in an interview last year.

And, this is where I have a problem. If BRI is in agreement that Mike will continue to license the name, that's their business. Mike has the right to tour where he wants, even if I disagree with his run it into the ground approach, in general.

However, when the guy who wrote all that music Mike sings every night is getting "cease and desist" letters because he dares to emphasize his own contribution, that's just wrong. It's not like he's going out there calling himself "The Beach Boys Too" or anything.  He's Brian Wilson, founding member of The Beach Boys and the man responsible for the hits, Pet Sounds and SMiLE. He has the right to say so, dammit!

Good thing most of the press already know this and can say it for him.

Hey Jude - if they (letters of advisement) are sent (and I'm not privy to that) It might be just to make sure there is "no confusion in the marketplace." And a uniform standard that is already in place.  I remember some "marketplace confusion" with some post C50 shows.  It could mean for promoters and advertisers.  Advertisers might take some "poetic license" and  even innocently do ads that are misleading. The standard is uniform.  

The thought that Mike legitimately, truly is deeply concerned about the terminology "confusion in the marketplace" is preposterous to the extreme. C'mon. He only cares about it when it doesn't apply to him.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I wonder if the 1981 South Africa shows would have happened if the internet existed in 1981, because they might have turned down those gigs just out wanting to avoid internet-age media backlash too.

Internet had nothing to do with it. Queen played Sun City and got flayed for it... Paul Simon merely recorded in SA, with non-white musicians, paying them union scale and still got sh*t thrown at him for breaking the "spirit" of the UN boycott.

Beach Boys played Sun City for nine consecutive nights over the 1981 holidays... no-one said a thing. Know why ? 'Cause in 1981, no-one gave a toss about the band, to the extent that they'd rather play their 20th anniversary gig on a different continent. That's how irrelevant they were back then.

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude - if they (letters of advisement) are sent (and I'm not privy to that) It might be just to make sure there is "no confusion in the marketplace." And a uniform standard that is already in place.  I remember some "marketplace confusion" with some post C50 shows.  It could mean for promoters and advertisers.  Advertisers might take some "poetic license" and  even innocently do ads that are misleading. The standard is uniform.  

You are of course free to read it that way. I don't. I think that's the most legalistic, sympthetic, benefit-of-the-doubt explanation possible. Howie Edelson offered some excellent and interesting commentary on this last year:

As far as the “brand” being neutral. No so quick. The “brand” is not just the owners of the names — but the licensee. And in the cases I’ve been made aware of, it’s been the licensee -- not BRI -- that's gone after the promoters and bandmembers who have been billed lazily and/or incorrectly at 200-seat venues or random street fairs.

That's not about correcting or protecting anything.
That’s about power and revenge. Period.

Here's Howie's original post: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,18293.msg476723.html#msg476723

[filledeplage]

Also worth keeping in mind is that there have been indications that Brian in the last year or so has been given any number of “friendly reminders” from legal quarters to make sure he doesn’t over-emphasize the “Beach Boys” name in advertising his solo shows. Al alluded to this in an interview last year.

And, this is where I have a problem. If BRI is in agreement that Mike will continue to license the name, that's their business. Mike has the right to tour where he wants, even if I disagree with his run it into the ground approach, in general.

However, when the guy who wrote all that music Mike sings every night is getting "cease and desist" letters because he dares to emphasize his own contribution, that's just wrong. It's not like he's going out there calling himself "The Beach Boys Too" or anything.  He's Brian Wilson, founding member of The Beach Boys and the man responsible for the hits, Pet Sounds and SMiLE. He has the right to say so, dammit!

Good thing most of the press already know this and can say it for him.

Hey Jude - if they (letters of advisement) are sent (and I'm not privy to that) It might be just to make sure there is "no confusion in the marketplace." And a uniform standard that is already in place.  I remember some "marketplace confusion" with some post C50 shows.  It could mean for promoters and advertisers.  Advertisers might take some "poetic license" and  even innocently do ads that are misleading. The standard is uniform.  

The thought that Mike legitimately, truly is deeply concerned about the terminology "confusion in the marketplace" is preposterous to the extreme. C'mon. He only cares about it when it doesn't apply to him.

No, Century Deprived - confusion in the marketplace it is a legitimate legal standard.  Not some bluster. And plenty of info from the US Patent and Trademark Office.

How do you know "what he (Mike) cares about?" Only Mike "knows" what Mike "cares about."

[CenturyDeprived]

I wonder if the 1981 South Africa shows would have happened if the internet existed in 1981, because they might have turned down those gigs just out wanting to avoid internet-age media backlash too.

Internet had nothing to do with it. Queen played Sun City and got flayed for it... Paul Simon merely recorded in SA, with non-white musicians, paying them union scale and still got sh*t thrown at him for breaking the "spirit" of the UN boycott.

Beach Boys played Sun City for nine consecutive nights over the 1981 holidays... no-one said a thing. Know why ? 'Cause in 1981, no-one gave a toss about the band, to the extent that they'd rather play their 20th anniversary gig on a different continent. That's how irrelevant they were back then.

Totally. I agree with what you're saying. In 1981, the band was irrelevant, and in 2015 the band touring as The BBs is also irrelevant. It's just that even an irrelevant band (with famous people in it) will get destroyed and endlessly hammered in social media. I think if social media existed in 1981 to the extent it does today, they probably wouldn't have dared play the place, quick money grabbing or not.

Or at the very least, they would have had to think much more about possible ramifications before doing so.

[filledeplage]

Hey Jude - if they (letters of advisement) are sent (and I'm not privy to that) It might be just to make sure there is "no confusion in the marketplace." And a uniform standard that is already in place.  I remember some "marketplace confusion" with some post C50 shows.  It could mean for promoters and advertisers.  Advertisers might take some "poetic license" and  even innocently do ads that are misleading. The standard is uniform.  

You are of course free to read it that way. I don't. I think that's the most legalistic, sympthetic, benefit-of-the-doubt explanation possible. Howie Edelson offered some excellent and interesting commentary on this last year:

As far as the “brand” being neutral. No so quick. The “brand” is not just the owners of the names — but the licensee. And in the cases I’ve been made aware of, it’s been the licensee -- not BRI -- that's gone after the promoters and bandmembers who have been billed lazily and/or incorrectly at 200-seat venues or random street fairs.

That's not about correcting or protecting anything.
That’s about power and revenge. Period.

Here's Howie's original post: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,18293.msg476723.html#msg476723

That is a big accusation: power and revenge. The licensee answers to BRI as I understand it, absent seeing the papework.  I always give the "benefit of the doubt." It is only fair. I wouldn't have it any other way.  "Innocent until proven guilty."  That is The American Way.

[CenturyDeprived]

Also worth keeping in mind is that there have been indications that Brian in the last year or so has been given any number of “friendly reminders” from legal quarters to make sure he doesn’t over-emphasize the “Beach Boys” name in advertising his solo shows. Al alluded to this in an interview last year.

And, this is where I have a problem. If BRI is in agreement that Mike will continue to license the name, that's their business. Mike has the right to tour where he wants, even if I disagree with his run it into the ground approach, in general.

However, when the guy who wrote all that music Mike sings every night is getting "cease and desist" letters because he dares to emphasize his own contribution, that's just wrong. It's not like he's going out there calling himself "The Beach Boys Too" or anything.  He's Brian Wilson, founding member of The Beach Boys and the man responsible for the hits, Pet Sounds and SMiLE. He has the right to say so, dammit!

Good thing most of the press already know this and can say it for him.

Hey Jude - if they (letters of advisement) are sent (and I'm not privy to that) It might be just to make sure there is "no confusion in the marketplace." And a uniform standard that is already in place.  I remember some "marketplace confusion" with some post C50 shows.  It could mean for promoters and advertisers.  Advertisers might take some "poetic license" and  even innocently do ads that are misleading. The standard is uniform.  

The thought that Mike legitimately, truly is deeply concerned about the terminology "confusion in the marketplace" is preposterous to the extreme. C'mon. He only cares about it when it doesn't apply to him.

No, Century Deprived - confusion in the marketplace it is a legitimate legal standard.  Not some bluster. And plenty of info from the US Patent and Trademark Office.

How do you know "what he (Mike) cares about?" Only Mike "knows" what Mike "cares about."

I don't "know", and apologies for not stating IMHO before my post. It's an assumption based on actions I've read about. Hell - I could be wrong, entirely 110% offbase. I just doubt I am.

[filledeplage]

Also worth keeping in mind is that there have been indications that Brian in the last year or so has been given any number of “friendly reminders” from legal quarters to make sure he doesn’t over-emphasize the “Beach Boys” name in advertising his solo shows. Al alluded to this in an interview last year.

And, this is where I have a problem. If BRI is in agreement that Mike will continue to license the name, that's their business. Mike has the right to tour where he wants, even if I disagree with his run it into the ground approach, in general.

However, when the guy who wrote all that music Mike sings every night is getting "cease and desist" letters because he dares to emphasize his own contribution, that's just wrong. It's not like he's going out there calling himself "The Beach Boys Too" or anything.  He's Brian Wilson, founding member of The Beach Boys and the man responsible for the hits, Pet Sounds and SMiLE. He has the right to say so, dammit!

Good thing most of the press already know this and can say it for him.

Hey Jude - if they (letters of advisement) are sent (and I'm not privy to that) It might be just to make sure there is "no confusion in the marketplace." And a uniform standard that is already in place.  I remember some "marketplace confusion" with some post C50 shows.  It could mean for promoters and advertisers.  Advertisers might take some "poetic license" and  even innocently do ads that are misleading. The standard is uniform.  

The thought that Mike legitimately, truly is deeply concerned about the terminology "confusion in the marketplace" is preposterous to the extreme. C'mon. He only cares about it when it doesn't apply to him.

No, Century Deprived - confusion in the marketplace it is a legitimate legal standard.  Not some bluster. And plenty of info from the US Patent and Trademark Office.

How do you know "what he (Mike) cares about?" Only Mike "knows" what Mike "cares about."

I don't "know", and apologies for not stating IMHO before my post. It's an assumption based on actions I've read about. Hell - I could be wrong, entirely 110% offbase. I just doubt I am.

People make inferences about personages in this band based on Heaven knows what.  Making assumptions about a 50 year plus organization is pretty risky business.  And they are family who are in business, whose kids have formed a band, and maybe they will work together in the future?  But, I'm not seeing all this discord helps anyone.  It just appears to fuel rumors and division.  Just sayin!   .

[SMiLE Brian]

Howie is dead right on this issue, Mike has the BBs name and will do anything to keep it while keeping the other members out of the group. Mike seems extremely hard to work with and enjoys the attention of being the only original BB in M&B. Honestly, he is a total piece of crap to have treated BW so badly after BW voted him a license in 1998 after "America's band" shows flopped badly without the BBs name.

Mike is a serial abuser of the BBs brand for his selfish ego and greed, he could not give two shits about the music or Brian Wilson.

[Cam Mott]

Hey Jude - if they (letters of advisement) are sent (and I'm not privy to that) It might be just to make sure there is "no confusion in the marketplace." And a uniform standard that is already in place.  I remember some "marketplace confusion" with some post C50 shows.  It could mean for promoters and advertisers.  Advertisers might take some "poetic license" and  even innocently do ads that are misleading. The standard is uniform.  

You are of course free to read it that way. I don't. I think that's the most legalistic, sympthetic, benefit-of-the-doubt explanation possible. Howie Edelson offered some excellent and interesting commentary on this last year:

As far as the “brand” being neutral. No so quick. The “brand” is not just the owners of the names — but the licensee. And in the cases I’ve been made aware of, it’s been the licensee -- not BRI -- that's gone after the promoters and bandmembers who have been billed lazily and/or incorrectly at 200-seat venues or random street fairs.

That's not about correcting or protecting anything.
That’s about power and revenge. Period.

Here's Howie's original post: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,18293.msg476723.html#msg476723

Howie's entitled to his opinion but as we all know Mike is the licensee and an owner. Shouldn't the other owners be careful with their brand, which they licensed so it would be protected?

[filledeplage]

Howie is dead right on this issue, Mike has the BBs name and will do anything to keep it while keeping the other members out of the group. Mike seems extremely hard to work with and enjoys the attention of being the only original BB in M&B. Honestly, he is a total piece of crap to have treated BW so badly after BW voted him a license in 1998 after "America's band" shows flopped badly without the BBs name.

Mike is a serial abuser of the BBs brand for his selfish ego and greed, he could not give two shits about the music or Brian Wilson.

Smile Brian - you might agree with Howie, and that is your right, and he seems to have a lot of information which is also fine, (I like informed opinions) but those decisions were apparently made with legal counsel, and the BRI group has been around a long time, but the insult hurling is getting ridiculous.  I was not there, and I assume you weren't there either.  
There are a lot of people who were not happy that C50 ended.  But, people can self-determine.  

In the scores of shows I've seen since Carl passed, there has been not one that Brian is not given his props by Mike.  And, when the license was finally established (according to the Larry King interview) Mike was named because he was "family."
Brian was on his own path and has done remarkable work.  I wouldn't miss a chance to see Brian.  That BRI group is the final word as I understand it.  I'd just stay tuned.  Expect to be surprised.  It's always worked for me!  

David Marks is on the record about this trashing of his band mates...just sayin'!

[Andrew G. Doe]

Mike is a serial abuser of the BBs brand for his selfish ego and greed, he could not give two shits about the music or Brian Wilson.

The requirements of "the brand", as agreed by the voting members of BRI, are laid out in the license agreement. They're not optional: you fail to comply, goodbye license. As for not giving two shits about the music or BW, that's your opinion, however ill-informed, and you're entitled to express it, however imperfectly.

[bgas]

Also worth keeping in mind is that there have been indications that Brian in the last year or so has been given any number of “friendly reminders” from legal quarters to make sure he doesn’t over-emphasize the “Beach Boys” name in advertising his solo shows. Al alluded to this in an interview last year.

And, this is where I have a problem. If BRI is in agreement that Mike will continue to license the name, that's their business. Mike has the right to tour where he wants, even if I disagree with his run it into the ground approach, in general.

However, when the guy who wrote all that music Mike sings every night is getting "cease and desist" letters because he dares to emphasize his own contribution, that's just wrong. It's not like he's going out there calling himself "The Beach Boys Too" or anything.  He's Brian Wilson, founding member of The Beach Boys and the man responsible for the hits, Pet Sounds and SMiLE. He has the right to say so, dammit!

Good thing most of the press already know this and can say it for him.

Hey Jude - if they (letters of advisement) are sent (and I'm not privy to that) It might be just to make sure there is "no confusion in the marketplace." And a uniform standard that is already in place.  I remember some "marketplace confusion" with some post C50 shows.  It could mean for promoters and advertisers.  Advertisers might take some "poetic license" and  even innocently do ads that are misleading. The standard is uniform.  

The thought that Mike legitimately, truly is deeply concerned about the terminology "confusion in the marketplace" is preposterous to the extreme. C'mon. He only cares about it when it doesn't apply to him.

No, Century Deprived - confusion in the marketplace it is a legitimate legal standard.  Not some bluster. And plenty of info from the US Patent and Trademark Office.

How do you know "what he (Mike) cares about?" Only Mike "knows" what Mike "cares about."

I don't "know", and apologies for not stating IMHO before my post. It's an assumption based on actions I've read about. Hell - I could be wrong, entirely 110% offbase. I just doubt I am.

No apologies are necessary, to my mind; EVERY post should be considered as that poster's opinion. What other interpretation is possible?

[Mendota Heights]

No apologies are necessary, to my mind; EVERY post should be considered as that poster's opinion. What other interpretation is possible?

A poster can take orders from an external part and relay that part's talking points.

[CenturyDeprived]

Also worth keeping in mind is that there have been indications that Brian in the last year or so has been given any number of “friendly reminders” from legal quarters to make sure he doesn’t over-emphasize the “Beach Boys” name in advertising his solo shows. Al alluded to this in an interview last year.

And, this is where I have a problem. If BRI is in agreement that Mike will continue to license the name, that's their business. Mike has the right to tour where he wants, even if I disagree with his run it into the ground approach, in general.

However, when the guy who wrote all that music Mike sings every night is getting "cease and desist" letters because he dares to emphasize his own contribution, that's just wrong. It's not like he's going out there calling himself "The Beach Boys Too" or anything.  He's Brian Wilson, founding member of The Beach Boys and the man responsible for the hits, Pet Sounds and SMiLE. He has the right to say so, dammit!

Good thing most of the press already know this and can say it for him.

Hey Jude - if they (letters of advisement) are sent (and I'm not privy to that) It might be just to make sure there is "no confusion in the marketplace." And a uniform standard that is already in place.  I remember some "marketplace confusion" with some post C50 shows.  It could mean for promoters and advertisers.  Advertisers might take some "poetic license" and  even innocently do ads that are misleading. The standard is uniform.  

The thought that Mike legitimately, truly is deeply concerned about the terminology "confusion in the marketplace" is preposterous to the extreme. C'mon. He only cares about it when it doesn't apply to him.

No, Century Deprived - confusion in the marketplace it is a legitimate legal standard.  Not some bluster. And plenty of info from the US Patent and Trademark Office.

How do you know "what he (Mike) cares about?" Only Mike "knows" what Mike "cares about."

I don't "know", and apologies for not stating IMHO before my post. It's an assumption based on actions I've read about. Hell - I could be wrong, entirely 110% offbase. I just doubt I am.

No apologies are necessary, to my mind; EVERY post should be considered as that poster's opinion. What other interpretation is possible?

True dat. I admittedly tend to overapologize, but that's because I'm not afraid to try to clear up any misconceptions, should someone inadvertently actually think that I believe I am stating absolute facts. Some stuff just seems pretty blatantly obvious to me, but the key is being willing to admit that my semi-informed opinion could in fact be wrong, or that it could be nuanced a bit; a small handful of posters here seem to be as afraid of ever making a sincere apology devoid of sarcasm, and it's probably fitting that those posters seem to most defend the bandmate who IMO seems to have a similar unfortunate trait. Unapologetic, defensive people defending other unapologetic, defensive people.

[filledeplage]

Also worth keeping in mind is that there have been indications that Brian in the last year or so has been given any number of “friendly reminders” from legal quarters to make sure he doesn’t over-emphasize the “Beach Boys” name in advertising his solo shows. Al alluded to this in an interview last year.

And, this is where I have a problem. If BRI is in agreement that Mike will continue to license the name, that's their business. Mike has the right to tour where he wants, even if I disagree with his run it into the ground approach, in general.

However, when the guy who wrote all that music Mike sings every night is getting "cease and desist" letters because he dares to emphasize his own contribution, that's just wrong. It's not like he's going out there calling himself "The Beach Boys Too" or anything.  He's Brian Wilson, founding member of The Beach Boys and the man responsible for the hits, Pet Sounds and SMiLE. He has the right to say so, dammit!

Good thing most of the press already know this and can say it for him.

Hey Jude - if they (letters of advisement) are sent (and I'm not privy to that) It might be just to make sure there is "no confusion in the marketplace." And a uniform standard that is already in place.  I remember some "marketplace confusion" with some post C50 shows.  It could mean for promoters and advertisers.  Advertisers might take some "poetic license" and  even innocently do ads that are misleading. The standard is uniform.  

The thought that Mike legitimately, truly is deeply concerned about the terminology "confusion in the marketplace" is preposterous to the extreme. C'mon. He only cares about it when it doesn't apply to him.

No, Century Deprived - confusion in the marketplace it is a legitimate legal standard.  Not some bluster. And plenty of info from the US Patent and Trademark Office.

How do you know "what he (Mike) cares about?" Only Mike "knows" what Mike "cares about."

I don't "know", and apologies for not stating IMHO before my post. It's an assumption based on actions I've read about. Hell - I could be wrong, entirely 110% offbase. I just doubt I am.

No apologies are necessary, to my mind; EVERY post should be considered as that poster's opinion. What other interpretation is possible?

bgas - Some posters, specifically many of the Honored Guests, were "there" and are eyewitnesses to this history, and their posts aren't "opinion." I think there is a difference on this board.  I'm just a fan, so mine is personal opinion, generally.

And those statements are akin to "putting words and thoughts in someone else's head or mouth."  It was mighty gracious for Century Deprived to apologize. And that's JMHO 

[Steve Latshaw]

I saw a great post a while back on this thread about what songs M&B might be doing from Summer Days this tour.  I've been looking for follow-up posts and, instead, I'm getting nothing but the same old Mike bashing and, at one point, a mention of Westboro Baptist Church.

Really?  

I'd just love to know if these guys are doing Amusement Parks USA live this tour.  Be worth the price of admission.

[filledeplage]

I saw a great post a while back on this thread about what songs M&B might be doing from Summer Days this tour.  I've been looking for follow-up posts and, instead, I'm getting nothing but the same old Mike bashing and, at one point, a mention of Westboro Baptist Church.
Really?  
I'd just love to know if these guys are doing Amusement Parks USA live this tour.  Be worth the price of admission.

Steve - I'd love to hear Our Car Club and In The Parkin' Lot