Jeffrey Foskett and the future of the Beach Boys touring franchise

[pixletwin]

I've wondered about this too. Do these guys have 401ks or something comparable? What happens when the touring guy retires? Like Paul McCartney's band. What will those guys do? Is there any kind of security net?

I will also add my opinion that I do like the idea of the Beach Boys touring group continuing on and on and on.

[Lonely Summer]

Maybe the grandkids can carry on the name and tradition after Mike and Bruce are gone.

[tpesky]

Jeff's not exactly a young guy either. He's gotta be pushing 60.  Hypothetically if Mike toured 5 more years, Jeff would be about 65. Is he really going to suddenly assume leadership of a major touring band at 65?

[Lee Marshall]

Jeff'll be 61 in February.  You really think Mike will tour 'til he's 80?  Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  5 more years of dumb-asshat interview quotes and nasal renderings of formerly great memories.  Bury me alive.  And soon.  Heaven is already hell.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Jeff'll be 61 in February.  You really think Mike will tour 'til he's 80?  Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  5 more years of dumb-asshat interview quotes and nasal renderings of formerly great memories.  Bury me alive.  And soon.  Heaven is already hell.

 

[delete this account]

.

[Jonathan Blum]

How about a Beach Boys with Jeff Foskett and David Marks?

Or with various members of California Saga?

Cheers,
Jon Blum

[Marty Castillo]

My guess, as long as there is an "original" member (I would include any of the C50 guys), there is a chance the Beach Boys name is used on tour. Once those members are retired or deceased, we will see tribute bands, many consisting of family members, touring band members, etc. I could see a scenario where the Beach Boys name is used in the title, kind of like what Al was doing before Mike squashed that.

The Four Freshman have been mentioned a few times, but are there any other bands that have no original members that are still touring?

[acedecade75]

My guess, as long as there is an "original" member (I would include any of the C50 guys), there is a chance the Beach Boys name is used on tour. Once those members are retired or deceased, we will see tribute bands, many consisting of family members, touring band members, etc. I could see a scenario where the Beach Boys name is used in the title, kind of like what Al was doing before Mike squashed that.

The Four Freshman have been mentioned a few times, but are there any other bands that have no original members that are still touring?

 Didn't The Drifters do it at one time?

[KDS]

My guess, as long as there is an "original" member (I would include any of the C50 guys), there is a chance the Beach Boys name is used on tour. Once those members are retired or deceased, we will see tribute bands, many consisting of family members, touring band members, etc. I could see a scenario where the Beach Boys name is used in the title, kind of like what Al was doing before Mike squashed that.

The Four Freshman have been mentioned a few times, but are there any other bands that have no original members that are still touring?

I'm pretty sure that the current version of Molly Hatchet has no original members. 

Also, this past summer, Foreigner played some shows without their lone original member, Mick Jones. 

[LostArt]

My guess, as long as there is an "original" member (I would include any of the C50 guys), there is a chance the Beach Boys name is used on tour. Once those members are retired or deceased, we will see tribute bands, many consisting of family members, touring band members, etc. I could see a scenario where the Beach Boys name is used in the title, kind of like what Al was doing before Mike squashed that.

The Four Freshman have been mentioned a few times, but are there any other bands that have no original members that are still touring?

I'm pretty sure that the current version of Molly Hatchet has no original members. 

Also, this past summer, Foreigner played some shows without their lone original member, Mick Jones. 

The Grass Roots are touring with no original members.

[KDS]

My guess, as long as there is an "original" member (I would include any of the C50 guys), there is a chance the Beach Boys name is used on tour. Once those members are retired or deceased, we will see tribute bands, many consisting of family members, touring band members, etc. I could see a scenario where the Beach Boys name is used in the title, kind of like what Al was doing before Mike squashed that.

The Four Freshman have been mentioned a few times, but are there any other bands that have no original members that are still touring?

I'm pretty sure that the current version of Molly Hatchet has no original members. 

Also, this past summer, Foreigner played some shows without their lone original member, Mick Jones. 

The Grass Roots are touring with no original members.

I thought I heard that Creed Bratton was doing shows with them again.  Maybe I heard wrong, so he was just a guest (or maybe it was one of those C50 scenarios where an incorrect photo was used). 

[guitarfool2002]

The Beach Boys legacy is the music - I have to say bluntly and honestly that the name should be retired in terms of touring once there are no members able to tour. The Beatles got it right. Once the band split, once Lennon was gone, followed by Harrison, there would and could be no more "Beatles" tours or shows, period. That puts the focus of all future generations on the original music that they created and all related works. Everything else done live is a tribute, there is no licensing of musicians to call themselves The Beatles and book shows as The Beatles. Tribute bands can pay all associated fees to charge people to hear the music live, they can wear the right costumes and stage a great show, but the decision that there would be no more Beatles after a certain point was a very wise decision when it was agreed upon by the band members. Kudos to Paul and Ringo as the only true authorities able to make such decisions for letting the music remain the legacy. I cannot imagine Paul or Ringo attempting to assemble a band - no matter how good - and tour as The Beatles.

Look at that legacy. The Beatles are arguably the strongest and most recognizable rock and roll "brand" of them all. And there has not been a single Beatles live show since the rooftop in January 1969. The Anthology recordings were done only with the agreement that John's contributions would be a key component, and with the assembled team going into the project with the attitude that John left these recordings to be finished and went away on holiday. That was the way they justified and proceeded with the work on recording those reunion tracks. It was the right way. The tracks released have grown better with time. It was not at all a stain on the legacy, and people can hear the four Beatles on "new" recordings with their respective signature sounds and contributions. Everything else including "Love" and those remixes was done with the support and blessings of all respective estates.

If The Beach Boys legacy falls into a situation where anyone who played with them or backed them up can start touring as The Beach Boys, I don't want to see it happen. Harsh, but that's my honest opinion. In this scenario, there needs to be a set end date where it ends and there will be tribute bands and shows like "Rain" and "The Fab Faux", but no Beach Boys under an official name.

Protecting the brand at some point has to include common sense and respect as much as looking toward generating income through touring. See The Beatles and Apple Corp. for a prime example of how this works. Not a single Beatles show since January 1969 and the brand still going strong.

[KDS]

The Beach Boys legacy is the music - I have to say bluntly and honestly that the name should be retired in terms of touring once there are no members able to tour. The Beatles got it right. Once the band split, once Lennon was gone, followed by Harrison, there would and could be no more "Beatles" tours or shows, period. That puts the focus of all future generations on the original music that they created and all related works. Everything else done live is a tribute, there is no licensing of musicians to call themselves The Beatles and book shows as The Beatles. Tribute bands can pay all associated fees to charge people to hear the music live, they can wear the right costumes and stage a great show, but the decision that there would be no more Beatles after a certain point was a very wise decision when it was agreed upon by the band members. Kudos to Paul and Ringo as the only true authorities able to make such decisions for letting the music remain the legacy. I cannot imagine Paul or Ringo attempting to assemble a band - no matter how good - and tour as The Beatles.

Look at that legacy. The Beatles are arguably the strongest and most recognizable rock and roll "brand" of them all. And there has not been a single Beatles live show since the rooftop in January 1969. The Anthology recordings were done only with the agreement that John's contributions would be a key component, and with the assembled team going into the project with the attitude that John left these recordings to be finished and went away on holiday. That was the way they justified and proceeded with the work on recording those reunion tracks. It was the right way. The tracks released have grown better with time. It was not at all a stain on the legacy, and people can hear the four Beatles on "new" recordings with their respective signature sounds and contributions. Everything else including "Love" and those remixes was done with the support and blessings of all respective estates.

If The Beach Boys legacy falls into a situation where anyone who played with them or backed them up can start touring as The Beach Boys, I don't want to see it happen. Harsh, but that's my honest opinion. In this scenario, there needs to be a set end date where it ends and there will be tribute bands and shows like "Rain" and "The Fab Faux", but no Beach Boys under an official name.

Protecting the brand at some point has to include common sense and respect as much as looking toward generating income through touring. See The Beatles and Apple Corp. for a prime example of how this works. Not a single Beatles show since January 1969 and the brand still going strong.

I agree, and I think there's a lot to say about bands who had great runs, who didn't "wear out their welcome."

Take The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Cream, etc.  Granted, with some of these, there have been one offs and tours under amended names) but they ceased to exist after the original group went away or retired. 

On the other hand, there are bands like Deep Purple, The Who, and The Beach Boys who are not nearly as revered as the other bands I mentioned, and I think that's in part to the fact that, other than some hiatuses, those b(r)ands still exist. 

[thorgil]

I agree with the points being made here... up to a point. Imho the "way of the Beatles", if it's the best, should have been taken at the very latest in 1998 (or better, 1983): now it's too late to protect the Beach Boys legacy as a precious, unrepeatable moment in the past.
The way things have gone, maybe it's better to go all the way in that direction, and make the Beach Boys the Never Ending Band. There is more than one way to become legends.
And I thnk music is not there to be revered, but to make people happy.

[HeyJude]

I also think that what happens when Mike is no longer fronting the band will depend on *why* Mike in any given scenario is no longer fronting the band.

If he chose to retire, then we'd have to weigh what Mike would want and vote for; and I'm pretty 50/50 on that. I could see him taking the ego-driven angle of feeling his fronting the band *is* irreplaceable. But I could also envision him retiring and seeing making a few hundred K per year sitting at home as the preferable approach.

But I don't think that scenario is particularly likely. Despite Elliott Lott telling the media in 1999 or so that Mike only had a few more years of touring left (though that was probably just said to strengthen the case that Al touring as "BBFF" was taking a finite amount of potential revenue away from Mike), I see no indication that anything short of death or being incapacitated will lead to Mike no longer fronting the band.

At that point, it will most likely be Mike's estate being 1/4 of the decision making process. Considering even Carl's estate has not seemed to be particularly protective of the preserving any sort of legacy for the band (in as much as allowing the name to be used with fewer and fewer members is concerned), I can't imagine a potential Mike estate would be anything but just as inclined if not more so to continue to net some licensing revenue one way or another.

What's sad is that, given the politics and weirdness of what's left of BRI, I could envision a scenario where Jeff Foskett takes the license even with a living and able Al Jardine still kicking. Which would probably be just as well; I would have little interest in Al taking Mike's place in a "Beach Boys" show at this stage.

It's one of many reasons why I think it's funny when some fans get pegged as to adamantly anti-Mike; I think myself and others would agree that, if Mike weren't around, a "Beach Boys" reunion tour consisting of Brian, Al, Bruce, and Dave doesn't seem to be particularly interesting of worth the trouble, and that would be because Mike *would* be integral to such a venture.

[SMiLE Brian]

What Mike COULD have been if the 2012 reunion continued is what makes the current situation so maddening.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

What Mike COULD have been if the 2012 reunion continued is what makes the current situation so maddening.

Agreed

[GoogaMooga]

Yes, the Drifters had at least two major incarnations. The original, and the UK-based Drifters in the 1970s, who scored big with "Saturday Night at the Movies". The difference is that the second incarnation actually had chart hits of their own, making them more valid than being just a tribute band.

[Kid Presentable]

One reason that this thread is strange to me- let's be realistic, I am very sure that even Jeffrey Foskett would tell you that Jeffrey Foskett fronting the Beach Boys doesn't have a whole lot of drawing power.  And that isn't a slight against Jeffrey Foskett. 

I could see him doing something like licensing Pet Sounds and having a chamber group cover the entire thing, with him singing.  But Foskett paying money to hit the road and sling Surfin' USA doesn't make sense.

[guitarfool2002]

One reason that this thread is strange to me- let's be realistic, I am very sure that even Jeffrey Foskett would tell you that Jeffrey Foskett fronting the Beach Boys doesn't have a whole lot of drawing power.  And that isn't a slight against Jeffrey Foskett. 

I could see him doing something like licensing Pet Sounds and having a chamber group cover the entire thing, with him singing.  But Foskett paying money to hit the road and sling Surfin' USA doesn't make sense.

Do you really think there would be a market for such a presentation of Pet Sounds considering how many people in 2016 and into 2017 are filling venues to hear Brian, Al, and the band play the full album including some select cities where they had orchestral backing on stage?

[Lee Marshall]

Yes, the Drifters had at least two major incarnations. The original, and the UK-based Drifters in the 1970s, who scored big with "Saturday Night at the Movies". The difference is that the second incarnation actually had chart hits of their own, making them more valid than being just a tribute band.

There were at least 3 authentic versions of the HIT-MAKING Drifters in the U.S. alone.  So the fact that there were a bunch of Drifters groups is actually valid.  Clyde McPhatter was the lead vocalist for the original incarnation.  Ben E. King and Johnny Moore also scored hits as the group's lead singer.  Heck...I almost forgot Rudy Lewis.  These guys were employees.  Ask for a raise?  You're toast.  Then came the move to England and more lineup changes.  So?  There were something like 6 versions of the Drifters who had a hand in the hit-making and the group's success.  As far as I'm concerned they ALL deserved to make a living performing the collective body of work.

The Platters on the other hand?  There were too many versions of that group to be honest.  Same with the Beach Boys.  Mike [and Al previously] contributed to the watering down of the product.  ONLY Brian has the true, real cred for as long as he's active.  To not link up with him is misleading and cheapens the group name and legacy.  It's only a facsimile...reasonable or otherwise.

[CJS]

My guess, as long as there is an "original" member (I would include any of the C50 guys), there is a chance the Beach Boys name is used on tour. Once those members are retired or deceased, we will see tribute bands, many consisting of family members, touring band members, etc. I could see a scenario where the Beach Boys name is used in the title, kind of like what Al was doing before Mike squashed that.

The Four Freshman have been mentioned a few times, but are there any other bands that have no original members that are still touring?

Blood, Sweat and Tears tour with no original members
www.bloodsweatandtears.com

[Lee Marshall]

No David Clayton Thomas?  [Who's still alive and recording new material...and still has that entirely distinctive voice]  That ain't B.S. and T's.  It's just B.S.

[Robbie Mac]

Thomas was not an original member of BST.