Thread for arguments with or about moderation

[Debbie KL]

How wonderfully some of you spin and control the threads.

You've completely ignored my first 2 points about what was being promoted on BBB.

1)  I got a follow-up newsletter 2013/14 where there was an article from an associate of hers, Andrew Hickey, claiming that he’d heard from an "unimpeachable source" that he/she had seen a 5-word email proving that Brian’s “people” had ended the C-50 tour.  Third-hand hearsay, no less.  There are two serious problems with this.  First, a 5-word, out of context email proves absolutely nothing.  Secondly, if such an email was shared, it would have been a violation of BRI confidentiality.
 
No comments on this?  Why?

2) Then, I discovered that Ms. Johnson-Howe had been prattling on about her medical background and how Brian was “frail” and shouldn’t be “forced to tour.”  She’s provided 12 years of this nonsense.  Clearly, he’s not been too frail to tour, nor was he forced to do so.  He’s made it clear that he’s there because he wants to tour.  Yet the story lives on in the ridiculous world of BBB

What about this doesn't disgust you?  Brian's wife was being accused of exploiting him and taking actions that weren't in the best interests of his health.  Yet, there's no outrage there?

So neither of these 2 issues deserve any conversation?  

As far as the cancellation of the tour - You don't scoop the White House when you're working with them on a project - D'ya think?  Suggesting a lawsuit by using the word "recompense" somehow doesn't count as encouraging a lawsuit?  The usual spin.  I knew it would be coming.  

[KDS]

I'll agree with you on the supposed email regarding the end of the reunion and the belief that Brian's being forced to tour. 

But I'm sorry Debbie, I didn't see anything in Val's post that amounted to seeking a lawsuit. 

Just a fan, rightfully angry about the lack of an explanation for the cancellation of the UK Tour. 

[Emily]

The "forced to tour" thing is a huge insult, not only Melinda Wilson, but to Brian Wilson, to all the touring band and crew, to the management and promoters, and to the fans who attend the concerts.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

The "forced to tour" thing is a huge insult, not only Melinda Wilson, but to Brian Wilson, to all the touring band and crew, to the management and promoters, and to the fans who attend the concerts.

Agreed. Also, one of the things I learned about Brian is you can't force him to do *anything*. At one time that wasn't the case, but that's been like that for most of my lifetime. This isn't just speculation on my part, either; ask anybody who knows him.

[Fire Wind]

 Suggesting a lawsuit by using the word "recompense" somehow doesn't count as encouraging a lawsuit?  The usual spin.  I knew it would be coming.  

You're taking the word, 'recompense', out of context.  The lines that follow it clearly show her talking about the recompense being shows or a jam.  Unrealistic, perhaps, but she isn't talking about financial repayment.

"It really saddens me to write this, but shame on you BW Management - and I would love to see some form of recompense for the fans, who have lost such a lot through your poor judgement.

Surely, even a "residency" at The Royal Festival Hall in London for a few nights, with a show or two in Scotland and maybe Birmingham, would have been the best decision made and would have saved face?

A Jam Session/Charity Gig with our lovely Beach Boys Britain Musicians and Brian's Musicians would be the icing on the cake, to heal some very open wounds right now and I would be delighted to work with you on this.

Sent with Love and Respect. "

Also, we discussed the tour cancellation because you brought it up.

[Juice Brohnston]

How wonderfully some of you spin and control the threads.

You've completely ignored my first 2 points about what was being promoted on BBB.

1)  I got a follow-up newsletter 2013/14 where there was an article from an associate of hers, Andrew Hickey, claiming that he’d heard from an "unimpeachable source" that he/she had seen a 5-word email proving that Brian’s “people” had ended the C-50 tour.  Third-hand hearsay, no less.  There are two serious problems with this.  First, a 5-word, out of context email proves absolutely nothing.  Secondly, if such an email was shared, it would have been a violation of BRI confidentiality.
 
No comments on this?  Why?

2) Then, I discovered that Ms. Johnson-Howe had been prattling on about her medical background and how Brian was “frail” and shouldn’t be “forced to tour.”  She’s provided 12 years of this nonsense.  Clearly, he’s not been too frail to tour, nor was he forced to do so.  He’s made it clear that he’s there because he wants to tour.  Yet the story lives on in the ridiculous world of BBB

What about this doesn't disgust you?  Brian's wife was being accused of exploiting him and taking actions that weren't in the best interests of his health.  Yet, there's no outrage there?

So neither of these 2 issues deserve any conversation?  

As far as the cancellation of the tour - You don't scoop the White House when you're working with them on a project - D'ya think?  Suggesting a lawsuit by using the word "recompense" somehow doesn't count as encouraging a lawsuit?  The usual spin.  I knew it would be coming.  

If items 1&2 could be augmented with some reference, ie copy of newsletter or some emails or posts ( which there must be if she has had this agenda for over a decade) then I assume discussion would shift more to those points. As it is, thus far the only bit of info people can reference is the post in regards to the cancellation of the UK tour, which doesn't seem to back up the idea that Val was suggesting a lawsuit.

[Cam Mott]

How wonderfully some of you spin and control the threads.

You've completely ignored my first 2 points about what was being promoted on BBB.

1)  I got a follow-up newsletter 2013/14 where there was an article from an associate of hers, Andrew Hickey, claiming that he’d heard from an "unimpeachable source" that he/she had seen a 5-word email proving that Brian’s “people” had ended the C-50 tour.  Third-hand hearsay, no less.  There are two serious problems with this.  First, a 5-word, out of context email proves absolutely nothing.  Secondly, if such an email was shared, it would have been a violation of BRI confidentiality.
 
No comments on this?  Why?

2) Then, I discovered that Ms. Johnson-Howe had been prattling on about her medical background and how Brian was “frail” and shouldn’t be “forced to tour.”  She’s provided 12 years of this nonsense.  Clearly, he’s not been too frail to tour, nor was he forced to do so.  He’s made it clear that he’s there because he wants to tour.  Yet the story lives on in the ridiculous world of BBB

What about this doesn't disgust you?  Brian's wife was being accused of exploiting him and taking actions that weren't in the best interests of his health.  Yet, there's no outrage there?

So neither of these 2 issues deserve any conversation?  

As far as the cancellation of the tour - You don't scoop the White House when you're working with them on a project - D'ya think?  Suggesting a lawsuit by using the word "recompense" somehow doesn't count as encouraging a lawsuit?  The usual spin.  I knew it would be coming.  

Some of us even spin a falsehood about another Smiley Smile board member and control the threads.

I'm not avoiding comment. After your false claims in #3, we are going to have too see some higher form of proof than just your claims before there is much to comment on.

#1 you are holding Val responsible for something even you don't claim she said, so it is irrelevant.

#2 please cite some evidence of your claims about Val's opinion (if you feel you haven't done enough already).

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Although this was not directed towards me, I do need to respond to this...

#1 you are holding Val responsible for something even you don't claim she said, so it is irrelevant

Just an FYI...I know who the 'unimpeachable source' Andrew H was referring to, and yes there was a 'link' between said person and Val, although said link it indeed over to my knowledge

2 please cite some evidence of your claims about Val's opinion (if you feel you haven't done enough already).

Are you asking for proof that Brian is not too frail to tour, and proof that he is not being forced to tour? 

[Cam Mott]

Although this was not directed towards me, I do need to respond to this...

#1 you are holding Val responsible for something even you don't claim she said, so it is irrelevant

Just an FYI...I know who the 'unimpeachable source' Andrew H was referring to, and yes there was a 'link' between said person and Val, although said link it indeed over to my knowledge

2 please cite some evidence of your claims about Val's opinion (if you feel you haven't done enough already).

Are you asking for proof that Brian is not too frail to tour, and proof that he is not being forced to tour?  

#1 which is still not Val, so still no one is claiming any of this as coming from Val.

#2 In light of recent claims I'm asking for the proof of Val making the claims or the claims she made, if any, as her opinion; which I believe we are still entitled to our opinion based on our own experience and observation.  If you think enough hasn't been done already without going after her opinion.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

1) Never said it was coming from Val when I said that; however, if she did, then I knew who she'd heard it from.

2) Feeling Brian is 'too frail to tour' is an opinion (and one not shared by anybody who actually tours with him, or Brian himself last I checked). Him being 'forced' to tour , however, is not an opinion and is a quite risky claim to make without proof, providing such claim was made.

[18thofMay]

1) Never said it was coming from Val when I said that; however, if she did, then I knew who she'd heard it from.

2) Feeling Brian is 'too frail to tour' is an opinion (and one not shared by anybody who actually tours with him, or Brian himself last I checked). Him being 'forced' to tour , however, is not an opinion and is a quite risky claim to make without proof, providing such claim was made.

Interesting points you make, which as you and I both know can be easily substantiated.

[Jay]

*deleted*

[Debbie KL]

Although this was not directed towards me, I do need to respond to this...

#1 you are holding Val responsible for something even you don't claim she said, so it is irrelevant

Just an FYI...I know who the 'unimpeachable source' Andrew H was referring to, and yes there was a 'link' between said person and Val, although said link it indeed over to my knowledge

2 please cite some evidence of your claims about Val's opinion (if you feel you haven't done enough already).

Are you asking for proof that Brian is not too frail to tour, and proof that he is not being forced to tour? 

She published the Hickey claim as an article in a BBB newsletter.  I think she bears some responsibility, don't you?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I would think so, yeah.

[AndrewHickey]

*Sigh*
So once again I am being dragged into other people's arguments about other other people's views on other other other people. (An argument I wouldn't even know about had someone not PMd me asking me about all this).

For the record, here's what I wrote https://andrewhickey.info/2014/07/20/why-did-mike-love-sack-brian-wilson-from-the-beach-boys/

Val saw that blog post and asked if she could reprint it in the BBB newsletter, as she's done with other things I've written on my blog. I don't know if she made any editorial changes to what I wrote, and I don't have a copy of the newsletter.

Debbie, in her posts, is putting things in quote marks that aren't actual quotes from what I wrote -- which I wrote with no agenda whatsoever other than that for two whole years the single most common search term that got people to my blog was "why did Mike Love fire Brian Wilson from the Beach Boys?"

Most of what I wrote there is simply summarising what was posted on this board. *NOTHING* in there came from Val, who I'm "an associate" of in the same way I'm "an associate" of about half the people in this thread. I didn't talk to Val before I wrote it (well, to be absolutely accurate, I had a chat with her a couple of weeks earlier at a Mike & Bruce gig. We mostly talked about her mum's health problems and her son's new job, as I recall). I didn't even know she'd *read* it until a few weeks later when she asked if she could reprint it.

I know, and care, nothing about any intra-fandom squabbling, or any agendas to promote one band or the other. If anyone wants to know what I think of Brian's current touring, see https://andrewhickey.info/2016/05/26/brian-wilson-al-jardine-and-blondie-chaplin-manchester-apollo-24516/ , and specifically the bit where I say:
"Brian was more on form than I’ve ever seen him. His voice has got noticeably frailer in the last few years (not worse — just aging), and he’s relying more on the other vocalists than he used to, but he still took about two thirds of the leads, and did a good job. Some have been saying “Brian should retire” and so on in their reviews. No. He’ll never be a great singer again like he was in the 60s and 70s — though he’s still very, very strong as a harmony singer, actually — but he’s as good as he ever has been since he started touring solo in the late 90s, and he’s more enthusiastic than I’ve ever seen him."

One thing I don't mention there, incidentally, is that Probyn gave me a huge hug, pointed me out to people around him, and said "this man is my biggest fan!" -- hardly something likely to happen with someone dedicated to destroying Brian's career or whatever it is I'm apparently doing.

I am part of no conspiracy, agenda, or affinity group. I love Brian, his band, and his music. I also enjoy Mike's band and don't actually see any reason why I can't or shouldn't like both. My opinions are my own -- right or wrong -- and I am *absolutely fucking sick* of being dragged into other people's drama. I've deliberately not posted here for months, because it's become an utter fucking sewer and has been *severely* affecting my mental health. Stop dragging me in to fights that have nothing to do with me.

If what I wrote was inaccurate -- and it may be, just because *I* think people are trustworthy (the word I used, not the "unimpeachable" that Debbie keeps putting into my mouth) doesn't mean my judgement is correct -- then it's just that. Inaccurate -- *NOT* part of some campaign to destroy Brian. And if it's accurate -- which I still think it is -- then it doesn't reflect badly on Brian, his management, or anyone else involved *one iota*, at least in my opinion.

As I say *in the very post that Debbie is pointing to as evidence that I am in some way part of some vast Kokomaoist conspiracy against Brian*:

"Brian Wilson is responsible for at least 85% of what I like about the Beach Boys, and a vastly more talented artist than Love. If I had to pick a side, I would pick Brian over Mike every time, but I simply don’t think there is any value whatsoever in choosing goodies and baddies and fighting for one side in interpersonal problems between people I don’t know."

The backstabbing, snide insinuations, and general nastiness on this forum have already gone a *LONG* way towards destroying my love of the Beach Boys' music. Please, just leave me out of your petty arguments and vendettas -- and please, also, if people *do* try to drag me into their arguments, could people *just not tell me about it*? I avoid the Sandbox for a reason, and don't appreciate being PMd about stuff in it.

Leave me out of your petty, stupid, squabbles. I want no part of them.

[Tab Lloyd]

Andrew I feel a lot of passive aggressive anger in your post. Why do you care so much about the opinions of a few noisy posters on this site? It seems to me more a letter from the trenches than from the ivory tower you claim to inhabit. Just an unwanted observation to be deleted!

[Cam Mott]

Can anyone confirm or deny that Andrew's blog post was published in the BBB newsletter as written?

[Fire Wind]

Just out of interest, but from the blog post -

"That license has various conditions attached — Love must pay a (hefty) fee to BRI, must use only male vocalists, must do shows that feature a lot of fun and sun songs, and so on — in order to make sure that Love’s band don’t damage the value of the Beach Boys brand name, so Love definitely doesn’t own the name."

How is the bit I've bolded worded in the license?  Is there a proportion of fun songs noted?  Are any songs named?  I suppose I could just ask, where does one see this license?

[HeyJude]

I don't think anyone knows the precise terms of the license. I tend to doubt that, presently, it has that many specific *setlist* guidelines (or, if it does, they don't appear to be enforced), because Mike's band plays a number of deep cuts from time to time, often with the sidemen singing the lead. Perhaps there previously were more strict guidelines (and/or they were enforced more heavily), as some of the articles around the time of the lawsuits/injunctions against Al's "Family & Friends" band in 1999 mentioned that Al's band were playing songs that didn't fit the "sun, surf, cars" image.

That blog post discussed above is obviously just an opinion piece, but I would tend to disagree with some of the overall tone of the piece. I would also disagree with the characterization that Mike pays a "hefty" fee to BRI. I think some, if not all, of the licensing fees have been laid out in some court documents over the years, and it is in my opinion a *more than fair* fee to use such a hugely valuable, ticket-selling trademark. Further, Mike collects back 25% of that licensing fee as a member of BRI. Brian, Al, and Carl's estate probably all rake in more on album royalties than they do from the touring license. Yes, it's a nice hunk of change for doing nothing other than owning a stake in a trademark. But it's not an insane amount of money relative either to all of their past incomes, or what they would be making actually touring in the Beach Boys and taking an equal cut alongside Mike.

Separately, and again this doesn't matter much, but if someone (especially a Beach Boys newsletter of some sort) asked to use a piece I wrote, I would be very interested in paying attention to whether they altered my piece or made any editorial changes.

I'm curious as well, and again this is more of an aside: Why would a Beach Boys newsletter need, on or after July of 2014 (nearly two years after the reunion ended), need to publish a piece explaining (and, I would argue, going to some degree to defend) Mike's position vis-à-vis the breakdown of the reunion?

The trotting out of Brian's "no more shows" e-mail is, to me, a telltale sign of having a very specific point of view regarding the reunion, one that folks are of course free to have, but one that I believe completely misses the big picture about the reunion and avoids a TON of details. That Mike Love himself didn't cite the "no more shows" e-mail in his lengthy LA Times piece defending himself in the aftermath of the end of the reunion is very telling.

Read Howie Edelson's posts about the demise of C50. This guy interviews ALL of the Beach Boys, including Mike, and has a good rapport with all of them. He called it correctly. The "set end date" nonsense was BS. Mike quit the Beach Boys in 2012.

I'd also say Brian's alleged e-mail (why was Mike's daughter going out using that alleged e-mail to shunt responsibility for the end of the reunion?) was irrrelvant, and that blog article doesn't mention that, obviously, Brian *before* the end of the tour said he wanted to continue.

[filledeplage]

I don't think anyone knows the precise terms of the license. I tend to doubt that, presently, it has that many specific *setlist* guidelines (or, if it does, they don't appear to be enforced), because Mike's band plays a number of deep cuts from time to time, often with the sidemen singing the lead. Perhaps there previously were more strict guidelines (and/or they were enforced more heavily), as some of the articles around the time of the lawsuits/injunctions against Al's "Family & Friends" band in 1999 mentioned that Al's band were playing songs that didn't fit the "sun, surf, cars" image.

That blog post discussed above is obviously just an opinion piece, but I would tend to disagree with some of the overall tone of the piece. I would also disagree with the characterization that Mike pays a "hefty" fee to BRI. I think some, if not all, of the licensing fees have been laid out in some court documents over the years, and it is in my opinion a *more than fair* fee to use such a hugely valuable, ticket-selling trademark. Further, Mike collects back 25% of that licensing fee as a member of BRI. Brian, Al, and Carl's estate probably all rake in more on album royalties than they do from the touring license. Yes, it's a nice hunk of change for doing nothing other than owning a stake in a trademark. But it's not an insane amount of money relative either to all of their past incomes, or what they would be making actually touring in the Beach Boys and taking an equal cut alongside Mike.

Separately, and again this doesn't matter much, but if someone (especially a Beach Boys newsletter of some sort) asked to use a piece I wrote, I would be very interested in paying attention to whether they altered my piece or made any editorial changes.

I'm curious as well, and again this is more of an aside: Why would a Beach Boys newsletter need, on or after July of 2014 (nearly two years after the reunion ended), need to publish a piece explaining (and, I would argue, going to some degree to defend) Mike's position vis-à-vis the breakdown of the reunion?

The trotting out of Brian's "no more shows" e-mail is, to me, a telltale sign of having a very specific point of view regarding the reunion, one that folks are of course free to have, but one that I believe completely misses the big picture about the reunion and avoids a TON of details. That Mike Love himself didn't cite the "no more shows" e-mail in his lengthy LA Times piece defending himself in the aftermath of the end of the reunion is very telling.

Read Howie Edelson's posts about the demise of C50. This guy interviews ALL of the Beach Boys, including Mike, and has a good rapport with all of them. He called it correctly. The "set end date" nonsense was BS. Mike quit the Beach Boys in 2012.

I'd also say Brian's alleged e-mail (why was Mike's daughter going out using that alleged e-mail to shunt responsibility for the end of the reunion?) was irrrelvant, and that blog article doesn't mention that, obviously, Brian *before* the end of the tour said he wanted to continue.

Hey Jude - in order for Mike to license the name, certain conditions preceded.  They have been enumerated here, at some time.  Or in some other docs that I have read.  They need to play in the style of the BB's alongside other criteria, both financial and conditions of use.  Those "deep cut" setlist numbers are largely and predominantly right off BB's released material.   They have been doing more deep cuts from the Holland-late 60's/early 70's because it is BB material.  They should be playing deep cuts but not in every venue and not every show, but where good acoustics and demographic allow.  They should not be boxed into what fans think they can/should play as that is more tail-wagging-the- dog nonsense.  And the same very old harangue.

The C50 end-of-tour-blather raged well into 2014 and Hickey chose to write on it. Disparaging a BB newsletter "of some sort" disses someone else's work.  How it ended is none of our business and is inter-band business and none of ours.  How they deal with their company, resides with the small number of BRI members.

They are big boys and can work it out and self-determine how they go forward.  I do believe that there was a set "end date" as a separate entity created to celebrate the 50th, and not an indefinite arrangement, because the Touring Band appeared to be booking out at least a year in advance with venues offering a standing invite (or offer) to perform.  It was others in the business or tour promotion who may have seen monies for themselves (the promoters) and could care less about the wishes of the band members.  There is no denying that C50 was a magnificent fan experience.  It was a special event.  No one could have predicted the immense response.  And, maybe they will "get together and Do It Again" sometime in the future.  One can only hope.     

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude - in order for Mike to license the name, certain conditions preceded.  They have been enumerated here, at some time.

If you can find a court document, or some other document, that *specifically* outlines the conditions of the license (and not articles vaguely referencing things, such as the circa 2000 articles highlighting Al's "female singers" and non-traditional setlist), please by all means point us all to it. I've never seen such specific information (nor would I expect such terms to be easily or readily available for public consumption).

They should not be boxed into what fans think they can/should play as that is more tail-wagging-the- dog nonsense.  And the same very old harangue.

I agree. Someone should have told that to BRI attorneys in 1999. I only mention setlist conformity because articles back circa 1999/2000 pointed out (presumably via contentions from BRI legal counsel) that Al was shirking some sort of setlist conditions via his 1999 setlists, and I've seen just about every extant Al setlist from 1999 and he wasn't doing anything that Mike wasn't already doing or would eventually do. Al's setlists didn't go any deeper than the BBs had in previous years or Mike had in subsequent years.

Disparaging a BB newsletter "of some sort" disses someone else's work.

If the verbiage "of some sort" is disparagement by your definition, I'm not sure what else to say. I suppose such verbiage might be a bit dismissive, and certainly connotes a lack of familiarity. I would stand by that. Indeed, a quick search finds that the letter isn't published anymore, and I've rarely if ever seen anyone on this board make mention of it. I've found some issues online, and it indeed looks like a fan newsletter similar in nature to newsletters I remember from the 70s and 80s, like "Beatles Video Digest" and the like. Good for them for putting it together. I'm not disparaging it at all. I'm not impressed by the examples I've just now seen (several PDF issues are available online); it appears to have been a sporadically-published slimmed-down version of what you'd find online and in ESQ.

How it ended is none of our business and is inter-band business and none of ours.  How they deal with their company, resides with the small number of BRI members.

I disagree. They are under no obligation to give us any of that information, but I think it's absolutely fine as a topic of discussion. Your countless posts on the very same topic (including your very own post above *telling* us how the BRI license works) suggests you find it to be your business enough to comment on it.

It was others in the business or tour promotion who may have seen monies for themselves (the promoters) and could care less about the wishes of the band members. 

With all due respect, that description sounds more like a potential description of Mike than anyone else (and why are *you* disparaging unnamed people who worked in and around the tour in a business or promotion capacity by suggesting, well, whatever it is you're suggesting?)

[Cam Mott]

I don't know if I remember this right but wasn't there a court document for one of Al's cases or appeals or a complaint where BRI or MELECO specified Al was not following the license by, among other things, having women singing leads or something?  I seem to remember fans winding up over it because "Toni" Tennille.

[filledeplage]

Hey Jude - I don't respond to split posts, dissecting every sentence.  

From LA Times, "The tour was always envisioned as a limited run." Mike, on October 5, 2012.  

And, as Cam notes, there were some cases where the terms and conditions were enumerated, in terms of the BRI agreement to license to tour.  

The article does mention promoters (who would stand to make more dough) and the fact that the Touring Band had been on the road for 13 years at that point in time (2012.)  

[HeyJude]

I don't know if I remember this right but wasn't there a court document for one of Al's cases or appeals or a complaint where BRI or MELECO specified Al was not following the license by, among other things, having women singing leads or something?  I seem to remember fans winding up over it because "Toni" Tennille.

The female singers were also cited in articles, and from a purely objective point of view, *that* argument made a little more sense. A bunch of old dudes in Hawaiian shirts will more easily pass as "The Beach Boys" than up-front female singers. I don't know whether the license terms actual bar the licensee from having female band members. I always assumed the commentary was just another vague salvo of the "it doesn't look and feel like the Beach Boys" variety lobbed at Al at the time. It was all moot anyway, as he never got a license. My guess is BRI was trying to say "he doesn't have a license, but even if he did, here's how he's not abiding by it."

And yes, Toni Tennille was cited back then as a contradiction to this, and one could argue Ambha Love's later guest spots singing with Mike might also contradict this. (All three examples are different of course, before someone points that out; I'm aware of that.)

But apart from all of the female singer citations (which I guessed someone might bring up), *separate* references were made back then to Al's setlist. That 1999 Rolling Stone article (the one with comments from Elliott Lott about Mike refusing to appear on stage with Carl) also had the references to the song selection/setlist issue. I can't find the full article, only an excerpt from the Usenet days (later reposted here). But I recall the article mentioning that it had been cited that it was an issue that Al was doing songs that didn't fit the surf, sun, cars, etc. image. I also recall the article pointing out that these contentions were contradicted by Mike's own setlist at the time (God Only Knows, etc.).

Mike's current setlist and setlist of recent years has more deep cuts (and is much longer) than Al's ever had in 1999, so either BRI was/is being selective about enforcing this rule/term of the license, or something about the terms of the license were changed.

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude - I don't respond to split posts, dissecting every sentence.  

From LA Times, "The tour was always envisioned as a limited run." Mike, on October 5, 2012.  

And, as Cam notes, there were some cases where the terms and conditions were enumerated, in terms of the BRI agreement to license to tour.  

The article does mention promoters (who would stand to make more dough) and the fact that the Touring Band had been on the road for 13 years at that point in time (2012.)  

As for split posts, don't have much to say about that. I took the time and energy and consideration, against my better judgment, to respond to your post. If you don't want to take that same time and consideration, that's your prerogative.

There's no point in poring over what Mike said in 2012. As Howie Edelson said back at the time based on his own *IN PERSON* interviews with Mike *during* the tour, Mike didn't say at that point, mid-tour, that it was a limited run. He was specifically asked what was in store for 2013, and did not say there was a "set end date." Maybe Mike always envisioned it as a "limited run", but his LA Times piece from 2012 clearly *wasn't* speaking on behalf of the feelings and beliefs of all members.

Back to license terms, there have been few if any *specific* terms of the license that have been published. We have some general ideas, based mostly on that one 1999 Rolling Stone article (which is somewhat vague and unclear on the topic, and which the author of the article pointed out contained some contradictions). Again, please point to any specifics. I'd love to read them. I think a few might actually be buried in various court filings, or at least something closer to specifics. "I think female singers aren't allowed" isn't a specific.

I'm not sure what article you're even referring to in reference to "promoters." Of course promoters make money on tours, that's the whole point. But your previous post seemed to imply (as best as I can decipher) that it was promoters seeking "monies" that was driving talk of more tour dates, and that those promoters "could care less" [sic] about the wishes of the band members. I call false on both counts. Clearly, Brian and Al were also on board for more tour dates, certainly were talking about such, and I think it's unfair to assume promoters (whom ALL of the guys work with, including Mike) don't care about the wishes of the band members. On the contrary, promoters have a strong vested interest in working *with* the artists; it's obviously quite a symbiotic relationship.