So according to Mike, the reason he ended the reunion...

[CenturyDeprived]

I never wanted a reunion so I'm not bothered that it ended. What bothers me is the way it ended and the apparent lack of truth about the situation afterwards. It showed that the idea of a reunited Beach Boys was illusory which disappointed many and gave credence to the stories of  bad feeling between certain band members.  The Beach Boys had toured successfully and got their record to a respectable position in the charts but once again, problems between members had meant it was unsustainable. Of course it had only ever been intended as a finite thing, though of course no-one could have anticipated in advance whether it would work or not. Had it ended with a polite joint announcement that would have been fine. But yet another clumsy mess and letters to the LA Times from Mike and Brian. It should have ended triumphantly. THAT'S what protecting the legacy means.

Ang - the C50 tour for me, was both a surprise and not a surprise - only in the long continuum of their careers.  I think a real "reunion" would have meant going back to the drawing board at Brother, and figure out how to go forward with a work model for themselves while at least 3 members have had their own working bands.  

If that was a possiblity it should have maybe happened apart from the tour, maybe in the middle someplace.   There were separate bands working in different business models of operation.  Al's band had people who were working in different bands. That is a lot to consider when people have livelihoods and families to consider.  I think that would have been really selfish to leave those musicians in limbo.  This would have taken some planning. But, C50 was magnificent.          

First, I remember that Brian's solo career was an orchestration of Landy, who, as we know carved out an unethical relationship with Brian's music.  Second, what I keep separate is the calamity of Carl's death and the dilemma of how and whether to go forward to keep the music alive.  Going back to that 1998 place (and maybe before)  Landy was undermining Brian's involvement with the band.  And, after he was wrested free, Brian wanted to do the solo thing.  Had Carl been alive, and he had recovered from that calamity, I think Brian would have been back in the band had he wanted.  

But, when things splintered, with Carl's death it might have been better for Brian to do the solo thing and work on his own business model which he did build out beautifully.  It takes courage to rebuild.  

But, I think no one can be accused of not doing his best professionally.  I think that fans are looking at what a "legacy" is in a fan's eyes and not from what the track record is.  I think it is the fan wish-list.  

Last night I read the preview of Brian's book from some link - didn't know it was up for a couple of months.  It felt as though Brian was casually sitting in the same room unfolding (as though he was writing a song) his story...am looking forward to reading it when it is fully released.  

And, I would like to see them sit around King Arthur's table and figure this out. For themselves; one way or the other. Not just because the fans want it.  

The separation (and their respective struggles) have made them all grow in enormous ways, whether it was forming and performing as different bands, or recording with new artists, or whatever.  I'm not worried about a legacy.  All people have to do is walk in a store, turn on the TV, radio, or anyplace you would hear their music and that is their legacy.  There is real triumph in their survivorship and whatever business model they want to use, and keeping the music going.    

If Mike actually publicly stated "Brian and Al? Who the hell needs 'em", you'd probably actually defend it.

CD - those are my sentiments.  Am I not entitled to them?  Is this not an open forum? It is how I look at the situation.   

You're entitled to think anything you want to think, just as I should theoretically be entitled, in an open forum, to an actual response from you to my question.

[filledeplage]

I never wanted a reunion so I'm not bothered that it ended. What bothers me is the way it ended and the apparent lack of truth about the situation afterwards. It showed that the idea of a reunited Beach Boys was illusory which disappointed many and gave credence to the stories of  bad feeling between certain band members.  The Beach Boys had toured successfully and got their record to a respectable position in the charts but once again, problems between members had meant it was unsustainable. Of course it had only ever been intended as a finite thing, though of course no-one could have anticipated in advance whether it would work or not. Had it ended with a polite joint announcement that would have been fine. But yet another clumsy mess and letters to the LA Times from Mike and Brian. It should have ended triumphantly. THAT'S what protecting the legacy means.

Ang - the C50 tour for me, was both a surprise and not a surprise - only in the long continuum of their careers.  I think a real "reunion" would have meant going back to the drawing board at Brother, and figure out how to go forward with a work model for themselves while at least 3 members have had their own working bands.  

If that was a possiblity it should have maybe happened apart from the tour, maybe in the middle someplace.   There were separate bands working in different business models of operation.  Al's band had people who were working in different bands. That is a lot to consider when people have livelihoods and families to consider.  I think that would have been really selfish to leave those musicians in limbo.  This would have taken some planning. But, C50 was magnificent.          

First, I remember that Brian's solo career was an orchestration of Landy, who, as we know carved out an unethical relationship with Brian's music.  Second, what I keep separate is the calamity of Carl's death and the dilemma of how and whether to go forward to keep the music alive.  Going back to that 1998 place (and maybe before)  Landy was undermining Brian's involvement with the band.  And, after he was wrested free, Brian wanted to do the solo thing.  Had Carl been alive, and he had recovered from that calamity, I think Brian would have been back in the band had he wanted.  

But, when things splintered, with Carl's death it might have been better for Brian to do the solo thing and work on his own business model which he did build out beautifully.  It takes courage to rebuild.  

But, I think no one can be accused of not doing his best professionally.  I think that fans are looking at what a "legacy" is in a fan's eyes and not from what the track record is.  I think it is the fan wish-list.  

Last night I read the preview of Brian's book from some link - didn't know it was up for a couple of months.  It felt as though Brian was casually sitting in the same room unfolding (as though he was writing a song) his story...am looking forward to reading it when it is fully released.  

And, I would like to see them sit around King Arthur's table and figure this out. For themselves; one way or the other. Not just because the fans want it.  

The separation (and their respective struggles) have made them all grow in enormous ways, whether it was forming and performing as different bands, or recording with new artists, or whatever.  I'm not worried about a legacy.  All people have to do is walk in a store, turn on the TV, radio, or anyplace you would hear their music and that is their legacy.  There is real triumph in their survivorship and whatever business model they want to use, and keeping the music going.    

If Mike actually publicly stated "Brian and Al? Who the hell needs 'em", you'd probably actually defend it.

CD - those are my sentiments.  Am I not entitled to them?  Is this not an open forum? It is how I look at the situation.   

You're entitled to think anything you want to think, just as I should theoretically be entitled, in an open forum, to an actual response from you to my question.

Do you have a question?

I was responding to Ang.   

[CenturyDeprived]

If Mike actually publicly stated "Brian and Al? Who the hell needs 'em", you'd probably actually defend it.

CD - those are my sentiments.  Am I not entitled to them?  Is this not an open forum? It is how I look at the situation.  


You're entitled to think anything you want to think, just as I should theoretically be entitled, in an open forum, to an actual response from you to my question.
 
Do you have a question?

I was responding to Ang.  
 

My question to you (phrased as more of a statement, but if it's inaccurate, I'd love for you to say so) is highlighted above in yellow.

[SMiLE Brian]

The million dollar question.....

[filledeplage]

If Mike actually publicly stated "Brian and Al? Who the hell needs 'em", you'd probably actually defend it.

CD - those are my sentiments.  Am I not entitled to them?  Is this not an open forum? It is how I look at the situation.  


You're entitled to think anything you want to think, just as I should theoretically be entitled, in an open forum, to an actual response from you to my question.
 
Do you have a question?

I was responding to Ang.  
 

My question to you (phrased as more of a statement, but if it's inaccurate, I'd love for you to say so) is highlighted above in yellow.

CD - that is moot and I would not put words in anyone else's mouth. 

And is framed with the word, "if."  If wishes were horses...
 

And, I am not looking to be confrontational - just discuss the music - if you don't mind. 

[HeyJude]

Agreed.
Though over the course of my life, I've softened on Yoko.

And I'm definitely not a Yoko basher; the "Yoko broke up the Beatles" thing is probably even more firmly a case of being a symptom rather than a cause than even Mike's impact on "Smile."

I've often pointed out (and I believe Howie Edelson has pointed this out previously) that the current Yoko-Paul relationship (holding hands at red carpet events, etc.) proves that people with surely even *more* reasons to be at odds than Mike and Brian (or Mike and Melinda) are able to put the *brand* ahead of half-century-old grudges.

While the various post-1970 Beatles relationships waxed and waned at various points, at least McCartney could still socialize with Lennon (and thus Yoko) in the late 70s, and even tried to help Yoko and John get back together again in 1974 at the end of Lennon's "Lost Weekend", whereas apparently Mike and Brian (and obviously one would assume then Mike and Melinda) haven't spoken to each other in nearly four years.

[SMiLE Brian]

FDP-If it was about the music, the C50 lineup would still be together and not this "hang on to your ego" clusterfuck we have today.

[HeyJude]

Nobody has to answer any questions here (hypothetical or otherwise), but if someone asks me if I would defend a hypothetical statement, one way to quickly diffuse the issue is to answer (whether in the affirmative or negative).

We can pop in and out of these threads as much or little as we want. But if you pop into a thread and defend something and then get some questions in response (and it doesn't matter whether your post initially was in response to a different poster), and you refuse to answer those questions that might speak to your outlook on the issue at hand, one's credibility will then be weighed appropriately.

I would also add that when someone has a pattern of continuously and consistently defending a particular person or point of view regardless of how innocuous or heinous that person's actions or words are, that pattern will then result in more people offering you hypotheticals to try to understand just *how* consistently and without pause you will defend someone.

If someone defended Mike in certain circumstances, while renounce him or his words in other instances, I would guess that person wouldn't then be facing questions with hypotheticals testing the limits to which they would defend Mike.

[CenturyDeprived]

If Mike actually publicly stated "Brian and Al? Who the hell needs 'em", you'd probably actually defend it.

CD - those are my sentiments.  Am I not entitled to them?  Is this not an open forum? It is how I look at the situation.  


You're entitled to think anything you want to think, just as I should theoretically be entitled, in an open forum, to an actual response from you to my question.
 
Do you have a question?

I was responding to Ang.  
 

My question to you (phrased as more of a statement, but if it's inaccurate, I'd love for you to say so) is highlighted above in yellow.

CD - that is moot and I would not put words in anyone else's mouth.  

And is framed with the word, "if."  If wishes were horses...
 

And, I am not looking to be confrontational - just discuss the music - if you don't mind.  

Funny, because I have a feeling you'd have a pretty good idea of what your reaction would be if, say, a kid started repeatedly shouting inappropriate profanity in the middle of a classroom. It would be pretty easy to just go ahead and state right now, that IF that were to happen in front of you, that you would think that's an inappropriate thing for that kid to do/say, right? That wouldn't be some untouchable hypothetical, but for some reason my question must be ignored.

It's not putting words in somebody's mouth to hypothesize on IF they were to say something, what would you think. It's only putting words in their mouth to claim they actually said those words (and I don't believe Mike ever publicly said those words, so I WON'T claim and AM NOT claiming he did).  

And if you don't like the word IF, please throw out your copies of Sunflower + SIP, because Forever starts off with it. Ain't nothing wrong with hypotheticals, unless they are about Mike Love.

If every fan can't unequivocally say that IF Mike were to publicly utter those words, that this would be inappropriate, then we have a clear cut case of people not seeing things clearly, and being absurdist fanboys/fangirls.

For the record, I would not like to hear any member of this band say my hypothetical quote about any other member of this band. There, I can say it! It's possible! You can too!

[Juice Brohnston]

Reading all of this C50 talk: how it ended, Mike's intentions, what if's, etc, and especially these comments about legacy degradation: it has me circling back to this damn licence. I still don't get it. Is it irrevocable?? Can someone state in plain language what the terms of this licence is and when if ever it expires? This will undoubtably assist us in undertanding, perhaps not why Mike does what he does, but at least how.

[filledeplage]

If Mike actually publicly stated "Brian and Al? Who the hell needs 'em", you'd probably actually defend it.

CD - those are my sentiments.  Am I not entitled to them?  Is this not an open forum? It is how I look at the situation.  


You're entitled to think anything you want to think, just as I should theoretically be entitled, in an open forum, to an actual response from you to my question.
 
Do you have a question?

I was responding to Ang.  
 

My question to you (phrased as more of a statement, but if it's inaccurate, I'd love for you to say so) is highlighted above in yellow.

CD - that is moot and I would not put words in anyone else's mouth.  

And is framed with the word, "if."  If wishes were horses...
 

And, I am not looking to be confrontational - just discuss the music - if you don't mind.  

Funny, because I have a feeling you'd have a pretty good idea of what your reaction would be if, say, a kid started repeatedly shouting inappropriate profanity in the middle of a classroom. It would be pretty easy to just go ahead and state right now, that IF that were to happen in front of you, that you would think that's an inappropriate thing for that kid to do/say, right? That wouldn't be some untouchable hypothetical, but for some reason my question must be ignored.

It's not putting words in somebody's mouth to hypothesize on IF they were to say something, what would you think. It's only putting words in their mouth to claim they actually said those words (and I don't believe Mike ever publicly said those words, so I WON'T claim and AM NOT claiming he did).  

And if you don't like the word IF, please throw out your copies of Sunflower + SIP, because Forever starts off with it. Ain't nothing wrong with hypotheticals, unless they are about Mike Love.

If every fan can't unequivocally say that IF Mike were to publicly utter those words, that this would be inappropriate, then we have a clear cut case of people not seeing things clearly, and being absurdist fanboys/fangirls.

For the record, I would not like to hear any member of this band say my hypothetical quote about any other member of this band. There, I can say it! It's possible! You can too!

CD - you might be surprised.  I can tell you that I have dealt with many volatile and violent classroom situations.  If a kid is melting down, the teacher does not need "to add to the volume."  The teacher is the adult-in-the-room and needs to diffuse the situation. Responding in-kind?  No way. I am baffled by the analogy.

And, I won't be throwing out Sunflower/Forever (or SIP) for that matter.

But, I am grateful and fell only appreciation for the great gift of this music.  Going all negative on something over which I have no control is pointless.  It is up to the principals.  We cannot vicariously absorb and resolve problems that are not ours. 

Like the Serenity Prayer... Change what you can...and be wise enough to know when you can't.   

[Debbie KL]

If Mike actually publicly stated "Brian and Al? Who the hell needs 'em", you'd probably actually defend it.

CD - those are my sentiments.  Am I not entitled to them?  Is this not an open forum? It is how I look at the situation.  


You're entitled to think anything you want to think, just as I should theoretically be entitled, in an open forum, to an actual response from you to my question.
 
Do you have a question?

I was responding to Ang.  
 

My question to you (phrased as more of a statement, but if it's inaccurate, I'd love for you to say so) is highlighted above in yellow.

CD - that is moot and I would not put words in anyone else's mouth.  

And is framed with the word, "if."  If wishes were horses...
 

And, I am not looking to be confrontational - just discuss the music - if you don't mind.  

Funny, because I have a feeling you'd have a pretty good idea of what your reaction would be if, say, a kid started repeatedly shouting inappropriate profanity in the middle of a classroom. It would be pretty easy to just go ahead and state right now, that IF that were to happen in front of you, that you would think that's an inappropriate thing for that kid to do/say, right? That wouldn't be some untouchable hypothetical, but for some reason my question must be ignored.

It's not putting words in somebody's mouth to hypothesize on IF they were to say something, what would you think. It's only putting words in their mouth to claim they actually said those words (and I don't believe Mike ever publicly said those words, so I WON'T claim and AM NOT claiming he did).  

And if you don't like the word IF, please throw out your copies of Sunflower + SIP, because Forever starts off with it. Ain't nothing wrong with hypotheticals, unless they are about Mike Love.

If every fan can't unequivocally say that IF Mike were to publicly utter those words, that this would be inappropriate, then we have a clear cut case of people not seeing things clearly, and being absurdist fanboys/fangirls.

For the record, I would not like to hear any member of this band say my hypothetical quote about any other member of this band. There, I can say it! It's possible! You can too!

CD - you might be surprised.  I can tell you that I have dealt with many volatile and violent classroom situations.  If a kid is melting down, the teacher does not need "to add to the volume."  The teacher is the adult-in-the-room and needs to diffuse the situation. Responding in-kind?  No way. I am baffled by the analogy.

And, I won't be throwing out Sunflower/Forever (or SIP) for that matter.

But, I am grateful and fell only appreciation for the great gift of this music.  Going all negative on something over which I have no control is pointless.  It is up to the principals.  We cannot vicariously absorb and resolve problems that are not ours.  

Like the Serenity Prayer... Change what you can...and be wise enough to know when you can't.    

And once again, we're as far off-topic as possible.  I know, it's hard not to "bite" when this stuff is thrown out personally - as it always is.  The end of the reunion, anyone?   

[HeyJude]

Reading all of this C50 talk: how it ended, Mike's intentions, what if's, etc, and especially these comments about legacy degradation: it has me circling back to this damn licence. I still don't get it. Is it irrevocable?? Can someone state in plain language what the terms of this licence is and when if ever it expires? This will undoubtably assist us in undertanding, perhaps not why Mike does what he does, but at least how.

It's a good question, and apparently we *still* don't have absolute firm answers. Mike has never explained the license in specific detail, nor has anyone else.

We do know that as of 2000, Mike had the exclusive license to use the name to tour. Apart from C50, this setup has not changed.

The question is, how feasible or realistic is it that the others could take the license away?

First of all, just from a common sense point of view, it appears unlikely they'd want to make that move because it would likely result in years of litigation regardless of who might end up prevailing.

One person mentioned in the last year or two that, from all they had heard, *NO* vote on the license has taken place since Mike was granted his license in 1999/2000.

That would seem to imply that Mike was granted the license to some extent in perpetuity. I doubt BRI would not at least leave open the option to take the license away if they wanted to vote that way (they'd have to leave the option open for extreme scenarios; what if Mike was convicted of a serious crime or all of a sudden decided he wanted to do nothing but "Hall & Oates" covers, etc.). But, rather than "renewing" Mike's license on a yearly basis, they may have just given him a license in perpetuity that could only be revoked in a 3-to-1 vote.

Which also brings us to the other issue: Carl's estate. Even if Brian and Al wanted to revoke the license, they'd have to get the support of Carl's estate. I sense Carl's estate has remained relatively hands-off on the touring license issue and gladly takes their (rightful) share of the licensing fee. I would guess Carl's estate would be a *very* hard sell to vote to revoke Mike's license. Brian and Al would have to offer something pretty impressive or otherwise be super persuasive.

[Juice Brohnston]

Reading all of this C50 talk: how it ended, Mike's intentions, what if's, etc, and especially these comments about legacy degradation: it has me circling back to this damn licence. I still don't get it. Is it irrevocable?? Can someone state in plain language what the terms of this licence is and when if ever it expires? This will undoubtably assist us in undertanding, perhaps not why Mike does what he does, but at least how.

It's a good question, and apparently we *still* don't have absolute firm answers. Mike has never explained the license in specific detail, nor has anyone else.

We do know that as of 2000, Mike had the exclusive license to use the name to tour. Apart from C50, this setup has not changed.

The question is, how feasible or realistic is it that the others could take the license away?

First of all, just from a common sense point of view, it appears unlikely they'd want to make that move because it would likely result in years of litigation regardless of who might end up prevailing.

One person mentioned in the last year or two that, from all they had heard, *NO* vote on the license has taken place since Mike was granted his license in 1999/2000.

That would seem to imply that Mike was granted the license to some extent in perpetuity. I doubt BRI would not at least leave open the option to take the license away if they wanted to vote that way (they'd have to leave the option open for extreme scenarios; what if Mike was convicted of a serious crime or all of a sudden decided he wanted to do nothing but "Hall & Oates" covers, etc.). But, rather than "renewing" Mike's license on a yearly basis, they may have just given him a license in perpetuity that could only be revoked in a 3-to-1 vote.

Which also brings us to the other issue: Carl's estate. Even if Brian and Al wanted to revoke the license, they'd have to get the support of Carl's estate. I sense Carl's estate has remained relatively hands-off on the touring license issue and gladly takes their (rightful) share of the licensing fee. I would guess Carl's estate would be a *very* hard sell to vote to revoke Mike's license. Brian and Al would have to offer something pretty impressive or otherwise be super persuasive.

Ok because in the Jardine case transcripts it seems to state that any member can tour under their own lisence provided they adhere to the terms. (Which Al did not want to do) That's interesting, because Brian, Al and Blondie could technically go out as The Beach Boys, under the same terms as Mike. Furthermore, if they could convince the 'approved promoters' that they in fact have the superior, more legitimate band, perhaps Mike would be left without a move. Moot if, as you say Mike has an exclusive to tour in perpetuity.  If he does, he's a genius...and who knows, maybe that's the case, especially with Carl's estate having the key vote.

[urbanite]

I doubt very much that the agreement allows different members to hit the road and play as the Beach Boys.  I suspect that Mike has an exclusive license, as long as he adheres to its terms.

[Bicyclerider]

I think it's POSSIBLE that if Al had followed the terms of the license, he may have granted approval to tour under the "Beach Boys family and friends" moniker.  Of Course that ship has long since sailed.

[Juice Brohnston]

BRI vs Jardine 2003
BRI's directors met on July 14, 1998, to discuss how the trademark should be used.   The representative of Carl Wilson's estate suggested that BRI issue non-exclusive licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as the license that was being negotiated with Love, thus giving each member an equal right to tour.   Three of the four board members, including Jardine, voted to grant each Beach Boy a non-exclusive license.   On October 1, 1998, BRI executed a non-exclusive license agreement with Love (the “Love license”).   The Love license contained clauses designed to protect the value of the trademark, requiring the licensee to preserve The Beach Boys style and to choose from a list of approved booking agencies and managers.

So any idea when this was changed from non exclusive to exclusive?

[Pretty Funky]

....The Love license contained clauses designed to protect the value of the trademark, requiring the licensee to preserve The Beach Boys style....

There is a whole thread of material in one sentence.

[Ang Jones]

I never wanted a reunion so I'm not bothered that it ended. What bothers me is the way it ended and the apparent lack of truth about the situation afterwards. It showed that the idea of a reunited Beach Boys was illusory which disappointed many and gave credence to the stories of  bad feeling between certain band members.  The Beach Boys had toured successfully and got their record to a respectable position in the charts but once again, problems between members had meant it was unsustainable. Of course it had only ever been intended as a finite thing, though of course no-one could have anticipated in advance whether it would work or not. Had it ended with a polite joint announcement that would have been fine. But yet another clumsy mess and letters to the LA Times from Mike and Brian. It should have ended triumphantly. THAT'S what protecting the legacy means.

Ang - the C50 tour for me, was both a surprise and not a surprise - only in the long continuum of their careers.  I think a real "reunion" would have meant going back to the drawing board at Brother, and figure out how to go forward with a work model for themselves while at least 3 members have had their own working bands.  

If that was a possiblity it should have maybe happened apart from the tour, maybe in the middle someplace.   There were separate bands working in different business models of operation.  Al's band had people who were working in different bands. That is a lot to consider when people have livelihoods and families to consider.  I think that would have been really selfish to leave those musicians in limbo.  This would have taken some planning. But, C50 was magnificent.          

First, I remember that Brian's solo career was an orchestration of Landy, who, as we know carved out an unethical relationship with Brian's music.  Second, what I keep separate is the calamity of Carl's death and the dilemma of how and whether to go forward to keep the music alive.  Going back to that 1998 place (and maybe before)  Landy was undermining Brian's involvement with the band.  And, after he was wrested free, Brian wanted to do the solo thing.  Had Carl been alive, and he had recovered from that calamity, I think Brian would have been back in the band had he wanted.  

But, when things splintered, with Carl's death it might have been better for Brian to do the solo thing and work on his own business model which he did build out beautifully.  It takes courage to rebuild.  

But, I think no one can be accused of not doing his best professionally.  I think that fans are looking at what a "legacy" is in a fan's eyes and not from what the track record is.  I think it is the fan wish-list.  

Last night I read the preview of Brian's book from some link - didn't know it was up for a couple of months.  It felt as though Brian was casually sitting in the same room unfolding (as though he was writing a song) his story...am looking forward to reading it when it is fully released.  

And, I would like to see them sit around King Arthur's table and figure this out. For themselves; one way or the other. Not just because the fans want it.  

The separation (and their respective struggles) have made them all grow in enormous ways, whether it was forming and performing as different bands, or recording with new artists, or whatever.  I'm not worried about a legacy.  All people have to do is walk in a store, turn on the TV, radio, or anyplace you would hear their music and that is their legacy.  There is real triumph in their survivorship and whatever business model they want to use, and keeping the music going.    

We are going to have to agree to differ on the C50. It was magnificently successful on a commercial basis but the comment Mike made about it being a show in two halves (first and second) had a deeper truth. The first half was stereotypical Beach Boys complete with backdrop footage of young bodies in swimwear, sunshine etc. Oh, yes, a seductive image and one I would have fallen for once but compare with the concerts Brian had done with his band for Pet Sounds and SMiLE for example. So much more about the music rather than the image and C50 didn't come close to those IMO. The second half of the C50 show was more typical of Brian's style but I was conscious throughout the show of how un-reunited the band were - the cracks were definitely visible.

Brian has said that he hasn't spoken to Mike since the end of the C50. I cannot see much chance of another reunion and frankly sincerely hope that there won't be one.

[Emily]

BRI vs Jardine 2003
BRI's directors met on July 14, 1998, to discuss how the trademark should be used.   The representative of Carl Wilson's estate suggested that BRI issue non-exclusive licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as the license that was being negotiated with Love, thus giving each member an equal right to tour.   Three of the four board members, including Jardine, voted to grant each Beach Boy a non-exclusive license.   On October 1, 1998, BRI executed a non-exclusive license agreement with Love (the “Love license”).   The Love license contained clauses designed to protect the value of the trademark, requiring the licensee to preserve The Beach Boys style and to choose from a list of approved booking agencies and managers.

So any idea when this was changed from non exclusive to exclusive?

I don't think Love's is necessarily exclusive. It reads to me like they voted to issue licenses to all 4; they issued a license to ML; then refused to issue a license to AJ. Then he toured anyway, then everyone sued everyone.
I think that, with the Smile lawsuit combined with this one, it's become clear that any attempt to use the name will be embroiled in ugly lawsuits.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1152003.html

[thorgil]

I hope they never "reunite" again. Brian's life has been stressful enough as it is, no need to be subjected to his cousin's presence any more.

[HeyJude]

BRI vs Jardine 2003
BRI's directors met on July 14, 1998, to discuss how the trademark should be used.   The representative of Carl Wilson's estate suggested that BRI issue non-exclusive licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as the license that was being negotiated with Love, thus giving each member an equal right to tour.   Three of the four board members, including Jardine, voted to grant each Beach Boy a non-exclusive license.   On October 1, 1998, BRI executed a non-exclusive license agreement with Love (the “Love license”).   The Love license contained clauses designed to protect the value of the trademark, requiring the licensee to preserve The Beach Boys style and to choose from a list of approved booking agencies and managers.

So any idea when this was changed from non exclusive to exclusive?

I don't think Love's is necessarily exclusive. It reads to me like they voted to issue licenses to all 4; they issued a license to ML; then refused to issue a license to AJ. Then he toured anyway, then everyone sued everyone.
I think that, with the Smile lawsuit combined with this one, it's become clear that any attempt to use the name will be embroiled in ugly lawsuits.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1152003.html

I believe the way it went down is that Carl's estate initially proposed to offer everybody "non-exclusive" licenses in 1998. Court documents indicated it was probably Mike who voted against this but was outvoted.

Mike in later 1998, after a small number of shows touring under other names ("California Beach Band", etc.), went back to touring as "The Beach Boys." He apparently most likely disagreed with the non-exclusive license idea, but still took it so he could go back out and use the BB name ASAP in later 1998. He probably also assumed nobody else was interested in going out to tour as "The Beach Boys" at that stage. 

The court documents concerning the lawsuits against Al were perhaps most perplexing because the court never fully determined whether Al had a valid license to tour in 1999 (and one gig in late 1998) as "Beach Boys Family & Friends." It appears he argued in court that he had a valid license, and also separately argued that he didn't need a license to use the "BBFF" name (I interpreted this as being an argument that using the "Family & Friends" variant was different than just calling it "The Beach Boys"). He was apparently offered a license with terms he didn't agree with. It's worth keeping in mind that BRI voted in 1998 to *offer* licenses to everybody; it still meant that each member would have to actually execute a license and sign that licensing agreement.

The court indicated that in retrospect they weren't clear on whether Al had a license in 1999. I think what ended up happening is that Mike gained a firm, *exclusive* license by late 1999 or early 2000, so the issue of whether Al had previously had a valid license was moot. This also explains why there were attempts throughout 1999 to get court injunctions against Al using the "BBFF" name and they apparently failed *until* late 1999 when the injunctions stuck. I believe it was at *that* point that Mike had obtained an *exclusive* license. I think Al started running into problems with billing at this run of Las Vegas shows at the end of 1999, and by 2000 (including a gig I saw), Al was forced to tour with the same band as "Al Jardine Family & Friends Beach Band."

Certainly, from 2000 and on, Mike has had an exclusive license (and I believe has referenced specifically that is an exclusive at various times over the years). For several years, the various injunctions and/or restraining orders kept Al from even advertising that he was a Beach Boy or that he was "of the Beach Boys." I believe it was around 2005 after most of the lawsuits were dispensed with that Al was finally allowed to advertise himself at his solo concerts as being a Beach Boy.

Another indicator that Mike has an *exclusive* license is that, according to Al in an interview in the last couple years, he (Al) and Brian still have been sent "warnings" to not too prominently feature "Beach Boys" in advertising their shows.

[guitarfool2002]

The questions not being asked are not about the C50 email itself.

What emails if any came before that one often cited email, and what circumstances if any led up to it?

C50 had a specific partnership set up called "50 Big Ones LLC", and the tour enterprise involved many people and all the related attorneys, agents, marketers, booking agents, and accountants and was a multi-million dollar operation that was running more successfully than most I think were hoping from the outset.

If the notion that a standalone email was the main issue - This is where the old notion of investigative journalism kicks in and interviewers would start asking questions like "what led up to that email that is being cited, were there any other emails before that one?".

Simple fact-checking to get more answers. Unless the notion that a multi-million dollar business venture involving multiple partners and a very large crew of interested parties whose finances were banking on the tour could come down to a single email with no context given is logical to some. Consider the context and consider what else could have happened.

[HeyJude]

BRI vs Jardine 2003
BRI's directors met on July 14, 1998, to discuss how the trademark should be used.   The representative of Carl Wilson's estate suggested that BRI issue non-exclusive licenses to each shareholder on the same terms and conditions as the license that was being negotiated with Love, thus giving each member an equal right to tour.   Three of the four board members, including Jardine, voted to grant each Beach Boy a non-exclusive license.   On October 1, 1998, BRI executed a non-exclusive license agreement with Love (the “Love license”).   The Love license contained clauses designed to protect the value of the trademark, requiring the licensee to preserve The Beach Boys style and to choose from a list of approved booking agencies and managers.

So any idea when this was changed from non exclusive to exclusive?

I've defended Al in the "Family & Friends" debacle since it went down in 1999. He got screwed in just about every way the way it went down.

But I also think that the idea of giving three living members a non-exclusive license to tour as "The Beach Boys" was *never* going to work long-term. Look at what happened just when Al did a relatively piddly amount of shows in 1999 as "Beach Boys Family & Friends." Even then, it was a total clusterf**k. Promoters would either knowingly or unknowingly "oops" bill Al as "The Beach Boys." BRI, if I'm recalling correctly, as early as February 1999 was actively *searching* for people who had attended Al's "Strawberry Festival" gigs in Florida and trying to find people who would say that they were "confused" by Al's band and thought it was *THE* Beach Boys.

I think Al tried to both indicate his ties to the BBs but also call it something else so people knew it was different. I also think Al (rightly) felt that he shouldn't have to pay nearly as high of a license fee, if any, when he wasn't going out as "The Beach Boys."

And I think had everything else gone smoothly, Al could have proved that nobody was really going to a show with THREE (at that time) female singers front and center, and a six-person frontline that included FIVE people in their late 20s and early 30s with Al in the middle, as *THE* Beach Boys.

But regardless of how little Al's band actually *was* truly confusing anyone, he would have been harangued endlessly. He pretty much never had a chance to tour as "BBFF" without some sort of monkey on his back.  

Imagine if all three surviving BBs actually just went out as "The Beach Boys", which those non-exclusive licenses would have allowed. It would have been nuts.

[HeyJude]

The questions not being asked are not about the C50 email itself.

What emails if any came before that one often cited email, and what circumstances if any led up to it?

C50 had a specific partnership set up called "50 Big Ones LLC", and the tour enterprise involved many people and all the related attorneys, agents, marketers, booking agents, and accountants and was a multi-million dollar operation that was running more successfully than most I think were hoping from the outset.

If the notion that a standalone email was the main issue - This is where the old notion of investigative journalism kicks in and interviewers would start asking questions like "what led up to that email that is being cited, were there any other emails before that one?".

Simple fact-checking to get more answers. Unless the notion that a multi-million dollar business venture involving multiple partners and a very large crew of interested parties whose finances were banking on the tour could come down to a single email with no context given is logical to some. Consider the context and consider what else could have happened.

I think the "email" is a red herring and always has been. It's a convenient reason. A reason that *wasn't* cited for MONTHS and MONTHS after C50 ended. That long letter Mike wrote to the LA Times about "set end dates" and "vital small markets" and all of that? The "email" was NEVER mentioned in that letter, which is still to date Mike's most high-profile, most detailed word on the end of the reunion.

I think Mike soured on the whole thing and didn't want to do it. Initially, he at least *partly* was willing to acknowledge this. He may have qualified it with a bunch of BS logic (small markets, economic feasibility, building up demand, etc.), but he ultimately never implied in that letter to the LA Times that it was anybody's decision other than his own to not do more reunion shows. He didn't own the decision enough, but he didn't laughably pawn the decision off on another actual person at that stage.

Another reason the "email" thing is total BS is that even when Mike mentions it, he NEVER follows that up with "I was ready to do another year of touring with the reunion band, but Brian said no."

Mike says Brian's camp sent the email, but doesn't seem to ever indicate that the email actually had ANYTHING to do with why Mike didn't want to continue the reunion.