Q&A: Mike Love's Half-Century With The Beach Boys

[drbeachboy]

Seeing mike talk about working on a new solo album it makes me wonder. Since he essentially just rents the Beach Boys name for touring, would be have the authority to release a new album under the Beach Boys name? I'm guessing it'd have to be voted on by the trust?

Mike's license to use The Beach Boys name is for touring purposes only: he cannot release an album as by The Beach Boys any more than Brian or Alan can. Only The Beach Boys can record as The Beach Boys.

How is it then that SIP came to be, from a legal, corporate BB releasability standpoint? Did Brian have to be officially asked if he was going to be a part of the album, but then Brian turned down the offer but signed off on the album happening in his absence? Or was it a matter of the other BRI voters deciding to make the album (sans Brian) and Brian was out-voted? I'm well aware of Brian's rough times being extracted from Landy at the time, but I'm speaking purely from a "how did this happen" perspective, since it seems that from a corporate standpoint, this could not happen again in 2015, right?

Could MIU have happened without Dennis? Could it have been released had My Diane been left off? Or the L.A. (Light Album), could it have happened without Shortenin' Bread on it? They had to have had a different recording arrangement than what they have since Carl passed away.

[drbeachboy]

Double post.

[CenturyDeprived]

Seeing mike talk about working on a new solo album it makes me wonder. Since he essentially just rents the Beach Boys name for touring, would be have the authority to release a new album under the Beach Boys name? I'm guessing it'd have to be voted on by the trust?

Mike's license to use The Beach Boys name is for touring purposes only: he cannot release an album as by The Beach Boys any more than Brian or Alan can. Only The Beach Boys can record as The Beach Boys.

How is it then that SIP came to be, from a legal, corporate BB releasability standpoint? Did Brian have to be officially asked if he was going to be a part of the album, but then Brian turned down the offer but signed off on the album happening in his absence? Or was it a matter of the other BRI voters deciding to make the album (sans Brian) and Brian was out-voted? I'm well aware of Brian's rough times being extracted from Landy at the time, but I'm speaking purely from a "how did this happen" perspective, since it seems that from a corporate standpoint, this could not happen again in 2015, right?

Could MIU have happened without Dennis. Could it have been released had My Diane been left off? Or the L.A. (Light Album), could have happened without SHortenin' Bread on it? They had to have had a different recording arrangement than what they have since Carl passed away.

Right... I imagine it was a different corporate arrangement/structure compared to now, which is why I posed the question.

In 2015, everyone (including me) seems dead-certain that no "BB" album could be released sans Brian's involvement, but I am wondering what the "sign-off rules" were in 1992. For that matter, it's an interesting question that you pose regarding how BB albums like MIU + LA were in fact made with virtually no (but not technically zero) involvement from Brian and/or Dennis, but I think that every single BB album released pre-12/28/1983 had all the then-current corporate BRI shareholders present in some recorded capacity on the albums, no?  (The murky waters of David Marks' departure excepted).

Legally speaking, could there theoretically have been a new "BB" album every single year from 1986-1998 released with zero Brian involvement? Or with zero Mike involvement?

I almost wonder if including the "Surfin" remake was some sort of obligatory legal thing to make Brian in some tiny way be credited on SIP.

[guitarfool2002]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but under previous contracts with the various labels going back to Warner/Reprise after the band split with Capitol, the only Beach Boy whose involvement in the recordings on the studio albums was specified in the contract was Brian Wilson. He had to have a certain level of involvement in the recording process under the terms of the label contract, although there may have been an addendum or something to cover the live album. Take note of the label that released "Summer In Paradise", it was released on a totally different label than any of the other albums, and I believe under a completely different set of terms and conditions that had previously been in place for the various contracts with the labels. It may have even been a one-off deal to get that album out and that album alone, or maybe any future plans were scuppered by the album's commercial failure.

After Carl's passing, as has been said many times, the organization itself was in chaos as far as who was going to do what moving forward, and again it can be looked up but I believe the current terms of who can release a "Beach Boys" album were on the table at that time. And as mentioned, without at least Brian Wilson involved there can be nothing released as a "Beach Boys" album of new material or even new recordings, as it should be and as I (opinion inserted) hope it remains.

[filledeplage]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but under previous contracts with the various labels going back to Warner/Reprise after the band split with Capitol, the only Beach Boy whose involvement in the recordings on the studio albums was specified in the contract was Brian Wilson. He had to have a certain level of involvement in the recording process under the terms of the label contract, although there may have been an addendum or something to cover the live album. Take note of the label that released "Summer In Paradise", it was released on a totally different label than any of the other albums, and I believe under a completely different set of terms and conditions that had previously been in place for the various contracts with the labels. It may have even been a one-off deal to get that album out and that album alone, or maybe any future plans were scuppered by the album's commercial failure.

After Carl's passing, as has been said many times, the organization itself was in chaos as far as who was going to do what moving forward, and again it can be looked up but I believe the current terms of who can release a "Beach Boys" album were on the table at that time. And as mentioned, without at least Brian Wilson involved there can be nothing released as a "Beach Boys" album of new material or even new recordings, as it should be and as I (opinion inserted) hope it remains.

GF - as I suspected and was verified by wiki (a good place to start, but reliability must be re-verified)..."All surviving original band members except Brian Wilson(who was in legal process of being removed from the care of Eugene Landy) contributed to this project." It was released on Brother Records.  It may have done better in sales a few years earlier with the Kokomo era, but Still Cruisin' was released then.  Maybe a missed window of opportunity.

There may have been some "designee" in the event Brian was "unavailable" which the L&M movie clarifies, in the time line of the band, and the interloping self-dealing actions of the "doctor." If Brian was being distracted to work to advance Landy's business goals, he would be "unavailable" for the band. (The real band)

[drbeachboy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but under previous contracts with the various labels going back to Warner/Reprise after the band split with Capitol, the only Beach Boy whose involvement in the recordings on the studio albums was specified in the contract was Brian Wilson. He had to have a certain level of involvement in the recording process under the terms of the label contract, although there may have been an addendum or something to cover the live album. Take note of the label that released "Summer In Paradise", it was released on a totally different label than any of the other albums, and I believe under a completely different set of terms and conditions that had previously been in place for the various contracts with the labels. It may have even been a one-off deal to get that album out and that album alone, or maybe any future plans were scuppered by the album's commercial failure.

After Carl's passing, as has been said many times, the organization itself was in chaos as far as who was going to do what moving forward, and again it can be looked up but I believe the current terms of who can release a "Beach Boys" album were on the table at that time. And as mentioned, without at least Brian Wilson involved there can be nothing released as a "Beach Boys" album of new material or even new recordings, as it should be and as I (opinion inserted) hope it remains.

GF - as I suspected and was verified by wiki (a good place to start, but reliability must be re-verified)..."All surviving original band members except Brian Wilson(who was in legal process of being removed from the care of Eugene Landy) contributed to this project." It was released on Brother Records.  It may have done better in sales a few years earlier with the Kokomo era, but Still Cruisin' was released then.  Maybe a missed window of opportunity.

There may have been some "designee" in the event Brian was "unavailable" which the L&M movie clarifies, in the time line of the band, and the interloping self-dealing actions of the "doctor." If Brian was being distracted to work to advance Landy's business goals, he would be "unavailable" for the band. (The real band)

Actually, it was released by Brother Entertainment, not Brother Records.

[CenturyDeprived]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but under previous contracts with the various labels going back to Warner/Reprise after the band split with Capitol, the only Beach Boy whose involvement in the recordings on the studio albums was specified in the contract was Brian Wilson. He had to have a certain level of involvement in the recording process under the terms of the label contract, although there may have been an addendum or something to cover the live album. Take note of the label that released "Summer In Paradise", it was released on a totally different label than any of the other albums, and I believe under a completely different set of terms and conditions that had previously been in place for the various contracts with the labels. It may have even been a one-off deal to get that album out and that album alone, or maybe any future plans were scuppered by the album's commercial failure.

After Carl's passing, as has been said many times, the organization itself was in chaos as far as who was going to do what moving forward, and again it can be looked up but I believe the current terms of who can release a "Beach Boys" album were on the table at that time. And as mentioned, without at least Brian Wilson involved there can be nothing released as a "Beach Boys" album of new material or even new recordings, as it should be and as I (opinion inserted) hope it remains.

GF - as I suspected and was verified by wiki (a good place to start, but reliability must be re-verified)..."All surviving original band members except Brian Wilson(who was in legal process of being removed from the care of Eugene Landy) contributed to this project." It was released on Brother Records.  It may have done better in sales a few years earlier with the Kokomo era, but Still Cruisin' was released then.  Maybe a missed window of opportunity.

There may have been some "designee" in the event Brian was "unavailable" which the L&M movie clarifies, in the time line of the band, and the interloping self-dealing actions of the "doctor." If Brian was being distracted to work to advance Landy's business goals, he would be "unavailable" for the band. (The real band)

Actually, it was released by Brother Entertainment, not Brother Records.

"Oh Brother Entertainment" might have been more appropriate 

[filledeplage]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but under previous contracts with the various labels going back to Warner/Reprise after the band split with Capitol, the only Beach Boy whose involvement in the recordings on the studio albums was specified in the contract was Brian Wilson. He had to have a certain level of involvement in the recording process under the terms of the label contract, although there may have been an addendum or something to cover the live album. Take note of the label that released "Summer In Paradise", it was released on a totally different label than any of the other albums, and I believe under a completely different set of terms and conditions that had previously been in place for the various contracts with the labels. It may have even been a one-off deal to get that album out and that album alone, or maybe any future plans were scuppered by the album's commercial failure.

After Carl's passing, as has been said many times, the organization itself was in chaos as far as who was going to do what moving forward, and again it can be looked up but I believe the current terms of who can release a "Beach Boys" album were on the table at that time. And as mentioned, without at least Brian Wilson involved there can be nothing released as a "Beach Boys" album of new material or even new recordings, as it should be and as I (opinion inserted) hope it remains.

GF - as I suspected and was verified by wiki (a good place to start, but reliability must be re-verified)..."All surviving original band members except Brian Wilson(who was in legal process of being removed from the care of Eugene Landy) contributed to this project." It was released on Brother Records.  It may have done better in sales a few years earlier with the Kokomo era, but Still Cruisin' was released then.  Maybe a missed window of opportunity.

There may have been some "designee" in the event Brian was "unavailable" which the L&M movie clarifies, in the time line of the band, and the interloping self-dealing actions of the "doctor." If Brian was being distracted to work to advance Landy's business goals, he would be "unavailable" for the band. (The real band)

Actually, it was released by Brother Entertainment, not Brother Records.

Thanks.

Maybe whomever has access to the wiki account page, might correct that. 

[Andrew G. Doe]

Seeing mike talk about working on a new solo album it makes me wonder. Since he essentially just rents the Beach Boys name for touring, would be have the authority to release a new album under the Beach Boys name? I'm guessing it'd have to be voted on by the trust?

Mike's license to use The Beach Boys name is for touring purposes only: he cannot release an album as by The Beach Boys any more than Brian or Alan can. Only The Beach Boys can record as The Beach Boys.

How is it then that SIP came to be, from a legal, corporate BB releasability standpoint? Did Brian have to be officially asked if he was going to be a part of the album, but then Brian turned down the offer but signed off on the album happening in his absence? Or was it a matter of the other BRI voters deciding to make the album (sans Brian) and Brian was out-voted? I'm well aware of Brian's rough times being extracted from Landy at the time, but I'm speaking purely from a "how did this happen" perspective, since it seems that from a corporate standpoint, this could not happen again in 2015, right?

Mike's license was voted to him in 1999. SIP was released in 1992. As far as I know, the license wasn't retroactive.

[Cam Mott]

Seeing mike talk about working on a new solo album it makes me wonder. Since he essentially just rents the Beach Boys name for touring, would be have the authority to release a new album under the Beach Boys name? I'm guessing it'd have to be voted on by the trust?

Mike's license to use The Beach Boys name is for touring purposes only: he cannot release an album as by The Beach Boys any more than Brian or Alan can. Only The Beach Boys can record as The Beach Boys.

How is it then that SIP came to be, from a legal, corporate BB releasability standpoint? Did Brian have to be officially asked if he was going to be a part of the album, but then Brian turned down the offer but signed off on the album happening in his absence? Or was it a matter of the other BRI voters deciding to make the album (sans Brian) and Brian was out-voted? I'm well aware of Brian's rough times being extracted from Landy at the time, but I'm speaking purely from a "how did this happen" perspective, since it seems that from a corporate standpoint, this could not happen again in 2015, right?

Mike's license was voted to him in 1999. SIP was released in 1992. As far as I know, the license wasn't retroactive.

Maybe a time machine was involved.

[Autotune]

Now, what is the exact reason for Brian's lack of involvement. My guess is that by the time of the autobio, there was more estrangement than ever and with Landy not fully away it must have been an impossible deal.

[guitarfool2002]

It wasn't just Brian, as the sessions progressed Al was eventually out of the process too and therefore didn't participate at all on certain parts of the record. There was still the issue lingering of Mike having tried to shut him out of the group entirely in the years just before this album was started.

[guitarfool2002]

I wanted to come back to the earlier discussions about the label which released Summer In Paradise. It was essentially, if you look at it this way, an independent release under a slightly different "Brother" corporate name. "Brother Records" could have a album ready to release but they'd still need to get a label to distribute the record itself, the same process that started with Capitol distributing their albums first in '67 and continued with every label they were on after that.

Summer In Paradise apparently couldn't secure a distribution deal with a label, therefore you see the corporate name as listed on the record and a credit for Mike showing him as "Executive in charge of production for Brother Entertainment: Mike Love".

What was or is "Brother Entertainment"? It's not BRI, it's not "Brother Records"...there's one of your answers. It could read like the album was an indie release since none of the associated labels would agree to put it out.

Now what gets confusing is you'll see copies tagged with the EMI name, that was the re-release if you want to call it that which was done for the UK market and other areas after the initial US release flopped on epic proportions.

There were remixes done, some guest artists were highlighted perhaps as well more than they had been originally, and it was basically a modified version of the original record for the UK...if I'm getting my facts straight. And again, if memory serves, it laid an egg in the UK as well.

Without a major label distributor, it started as essentially an indie release through whatever "Brother Entertainment" had to do with releasing new product in the early 90's, with Mike skippering the boat. It wasn't the same as Brother Records putting it out and Capitol or Warners or whoever else picking up the ball like in the past.

Then...adding to the confusion, maybe someone can pitch in this info: They tried to release "Summer Of Love" as a single to jump on the Baywatch thing, and that sunk as well...but wasn't that a totally different label and distributor as well? Maybe some offshoot of what was Boardwalk who released Mike's solo album? I just can't remember.

[The Cincinnati Kid]

I wanted to come back to the earlier discussions about the label which released Summer In Paradise. It was essentially, if you look at it this way, an independent release under a slightly different "Brother" corporate name. "Brother Records" could have a album ready to release but they'd still need to get a label to distribute the record itself, the same process that started with Capitol distributing their albums first in '67 and continued with every label they were on after that.

Summer In Paradise apparently couldn't secure a distribution deal with a label, therefore you see the corporate name as listed on the record and a credit for Mike showing him as "Executive in charge of production for Brother Entertainment: Mike Love".

What was or is "Brother Entertainment"? It's not BRI, it's not "Brother Records"...there's one of your answers. It could read like the album was an indie release since none of the associated labels would agree to put it out.

Now what gets confusing is you'll see copies tagged with the EMI name, that was the re-release if you want to call it that which was done for the UK market and other areas after the initial US release flopped on epic proportions.

There were remixes done, some guest artists were highlighted perhaps as well more than they had been originally, and it was basically a modified version of the original record for the UK...if I'm getting my facts straight. And again, if memory serves, it laid an egg in the UK as well.

Without a major label distributor, it started as essentially an indie release through whatever "Brother Entertainment" had to do with releasing new product in the early 90's, with Mike skippering the boat. It wasn't the same as Brother Records putting it out and Capitol or Warners or whoever else picking up the ball like in the past.

Then...adding to the confusion, maybe someone can pitch in this info: They tried to release "Summer Of Love" as a single to jump on the Baywatch thing, and that sunk as well...but wasn't that a totally different label and distributor as well? Maybe some offshoot of what was Boardwalk who released Mike's solo album? I just can't remember.

Do you think it would be a fair point to say that SIP did so poorly commercially because of the "indie" release?  Obviously Still Cruisin' went gold because of Kokomo, but even excluding Kokomo, pretty much everything they were releasing was doing reasonably ok for a band that had been around since the early 60s.  IMO it would have made the top 200 if released in the same way their previous albums were.

[Alan Smith]

Then...adding to the confusion, maybe someone can pitch in this info: They tried to release "Summer Of Love" as a single to jump on the Baywatch thing, and that sunk as well...but wasn't that a totally different label and distributor as well? Maybe some offshoot of what was Boardwalk who released Mike's solo album? I just can't remember.

Summer of Love was gonna be a due with Bart Simpson, but then ended up in Baywatch in '95.

It was released on Scotti Brothers records - acording to discogs: American record label founded in the mid-seventies by brothers Anthony and Benjamin Scotti.

Boardwalk went out of business in '82 - according to discogs: US Record company founded by Neil Bogart in 1980, after selling Casablanca Records to Polygram. Boardwalk Records, Inc. owned the The Boardwalk Entertainment Co label.
After Bogart's death in 1982, the company went out of business.

[guitarfool2002]

Something I saw firsthand tells me it flopped because fans simply didn't like it and/or didn't buy it, if it were the indie thing then it would more likely have been a case of lesser availability due to smaller distribution networks and smaller manufacturing numbers affecting actually getting it into stores. But that wasn't the case. I lived about a half-block away from a Tower Records when this album was new and in the few years after it. I checked the Beach Boys rack almost every time I went in, which could be daily some weeks. There was never a shortage of copies in the bins, it was always there in numbers. Eventually the cut-out bins got what looked like all of those unsold copies because those cut-out discount bins were stuffed for a long time full of Summer In Paradise. It was almost like a running joke.

And I know also there was no shortage of "push" coming from Mike on the concert stage as late as July 4th 1995 when they featured the title song and played it for what felt like an eternity on that Philly stage, even though it seemed most of the crowd didn't know what they were hearing. This is, what, just about 3 years after the initial release? And it never generated interest or increased demand even after being played and featured - check the setlist archives for details - at a string of live shows for years if I recall. Fans just didn't dig it.

That's the thing with Baywatch too - They tried to reintroduce "Summer Of Love" as the new Beach Boys single complete with video and TV tie-in on what was one of the hotter shows of the moment, and it was D.O.A., flopped, sunk without a trace - no one was into it.

[Juice Brohnston]

Brian appears in the Summer of Love video, which I guess means nothing, but he was obviously not completely disassociated from the project. And if there was a song to disassociate yourself from, you think it would've been SOL

[guitarfool2002]

Then...adding to the confusion, maybe someone can pitch in this info: They tried to release "Summer Of Love" as a single to jump on the Baywatch thing, and that sunk as well...but wasn't that a totally different label and distributor as well? Maybe some offshoot of what was Boardwalk who released Mike's solo album? I just can't remember.

Summer of Love was gonna be a due with Bart Simpson, but then ended up in Baywatch in '95.

It was released on Scotti Brothers records - acording to discogs: American record label founded in the mid-seventies by brothers Anthony and Benjamin Scotti.

Boardwalk went out of business in '82 - according to discogs: US Record company founded by Neil Bogart in 1980, after selling Casablanca Records to Polygram. Boardwalk Records, Inc. owned the The Boardwalk Entertainment Co label.
After Bogart's death in 1982, the company went out of business.

Ahhh yes, that was it! Scotti Brothers! I couldn't think of the name earlier and didn't bother to look it up. Scotti Brothers it was.

Bart Simpson then Baywatch, end result a complete commercial failure of a single and fans asking WTF...Yep, that was the world of the Beach Boys in the early to mid 90's. At the same time the music was getting a lot of positive attention in the underground press and with alternative bands, then the Don Was film and news of PS AND Smile sessions box sets were in the pipeline...and we got Summer Of Love on Baywatch. Jekyll and Hyde.

[CenturyDeprived]

It wasn't just Brian, as the sessions progressed Al was eventually out of the process too and therefore didn't participate at all on certain parts of the record. There was still the issue lingering of Mike having tried to shut him out of the group entirely in the years just before this album was started.

How did the Al exclusions happen? Was this during breaks from touring? Did Al simply not get told about recording sessions? I'm just wondering since I wasn't aware of any concurrent banishment from the live BB stage that Al had to endure at the time.

[CenturyDeprived]

Something I saw firsthand tells me it flopped because fans simply didn't like it and/or didn't buy it, if it were the indie thing then it would more likely have been a case of lesser availability due to smaller distribution networks and smaller manufacturing numbers affecting actually getting it into stores. But that wasn't the case. I lived about a half-block away from a Tower Records when this album was new and in the few years after it. I checked the Beach Boys rack almost every time I went in, which could be daily some weeks. There was never a shortage of copies in the bins, it was always there in numbers. Eventually the cut-out bins got what looked like all of those unsold copies because those cut-out discount bins were stuffed for a long time full of Summer In Paradise. It was almost like a running joke.

And I know also there was no shortage of "push" coming from Mike on the concert stage as late as July 4th 1995 when they featured the title song and played it for what felt like an eternity on that Philly stage, even though it seemed most of the crowd didn't know what they were hearing. This is, what, just about 3 years after the initial release? And it never generated interest or increased demand even after being played and featured - check the setlist archives for details - at a string of live shows for years if I recall. Fans just didn't dig it.

That's the thing with Baywatch too - They tried to reintroduce "Summer Of Love" as the new Beach Boys single complete with video and TV tie-in on what was one of the hotter shows of the moment, and it was D.O.A., flopped, sunk without a trace - no one was into it.

Brian just looks so out of place and uncomfortable in that video. Was that right around the time he and Melinda were married? And also right around the Paley sessions and Soul Searchin'/ You're Still a Mystery?

I'm guessing Brian's appearance was less about loving/endorsing SOL, and more about just trying to be a team player since the band seemed to be trying to repair relationships and come together as much as possible circa 1995.

That said, what's the story again with Dave being inexplicably present in the Baywatch live concert footage from the episode itself? The whole Baywatch thing is so odd, with Dave being there sometimes, and the band promoting a 3-year old stillborn (both times) wannabe single...

[Cam Mott]

Apparently Melcher couldn't deliver hitwise this album (I guess Kokomo will have to make up for it) but Brian and Al and Dave still wanted in on the credit.