gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680597 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 03:57:33 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Something I think we need to realize vis-à-vis Mike and the band's name...  (Read 10134 times)
tpesky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1031


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: July 19, 2017, 07:12:51 PM »

The BB certainly over toured post 1980, that's not only Mike's fault of course but they did.

In 1998-1999, there was a vote taken where Brian and Carl's estate sided with Al and let him tour. That's when Mike really after him hard and Al did pull something shady where he wanted to use the BB in his title BB Family and Friends, but not play the full licensing fee.
Logged
Love Thang
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: July 19, 2017, 07:43:23 PM »

It's time for an intervention and a regime change. Gather your pitchforks and torches and meet me at BRI.
Mike is hiding in the club Kokomo "spider hole"

 LOL LOL LOL LOL
Logged
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: July 19, 2017, 07:58:42 PM »

So, while I totally agree that Mike is a total asshole...what is it that you all are exactly suggesting?

Do you think Brian Wilson should be able to tour as "The Beach Boys" instead of Brian Wilson? I can't see this resolving anything.

Do you think NO ONE should tour as "The Beach Boys"? I wouldn't be opposed to this, but Mike and Bruce would just about fall off the face of the earth without it.

Yes, I am of the opinion that no one should tour as "The Beach Boys" unless Brian, Mike, Al and Carl's estate agree upon it. It should be like The Beatles situation is now - if Paul, Ringo, Yoko and Olivia all can't agree on a project or idea, it doesn't go ahead. Sure, that means that we might not see quite as much stuff happen (good or bad) under the name, but what is allowed will have the consent of all four parties and therefore is probably pretty darn worthwhile.

Ergo, my opinion is that if Brian and Al are not really cool with Mike touring as The Beach Boys right now, they should be able to stop it. Instead, what I hear is that even if this was the case, and Carl's estate voted with Mike, it would deadlock it into a tie and nothing would change. Now the thing to keep in mind is, nobody has said Brian wants to take the license away. Maybe he was bummed about the group breaking up in 2012, but ultimately got over it quickly and is fine with Mike steering the ship. We don't know. Maybe we never will.
Logged
Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3932


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: July 19, 2017, 11:39:32 PM »

I would be okay with a billing such as "Mike Love's Beach Boys" or "The Beach Boys starring Mike Love". Peter Noone tours these days under the name "Herman's Hermits starring Peter Noone", because it's not the original band, and the drummer from the original band tours the UK as "Herman's Hermits Starring Barry Whitwam". The drummer and bass player from The Guess Who tour as the Guess Who, and that's just wrong. IMO, no Burton Cummings lead vocals equals no Guess Who. Either Mike or Brian could be touring under their own names with "an evening of Beach Boys music" - some of the Yes guys did that years ago (and may be doing it again). Next week, I will go see "Joey Molland's Badfinger" - Joey being the only core member from the classic lineup.
Logged
Dove Nested Towers
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 877

Goodnight, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are!


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: July 20, 2017, 01:22:07 AM »

What is the alternative that is being suggested otherwise?

When Brian returned to the road in the late 90's, should he have taken the name "The Beach Boys" with him...despite being known through music history and pop culture for not touring?

Mike Love has a long list of unscrupulous deeds that he has willingly attached to the name "The Beach Boys" over the last twenty years, but can any of us imagine a "The Beach Boys" concert without him? Songs like "Surfin' USA", "All Summer Long", "Fun, Fun, Fun", "Barbara Ann"...they all lose their nostalgic, cornball, schmaltz without Michael Edward Love at the helm of the concert stage.

Fast forward back to the present...I think the demand is just fine. Sure, the venues that either "The Beach Boys" or "Brian Wilson" play don't exceed say approx. 3,000 people BUT, I have never been to a poorly attended concert by either group. Both names have an easy time filling middle-low end professional venues such as theatres, smaller arenas, and amphitheaters.


Agreed.  It's the way it's been for 20 years now (with the exception of C50).   I highly doubt the other parties at BRI are in such a huff over the DIA single.

Maybe they're not, but they should be.
Logged

"The police aren't there to create disorder,
they're there to preserve disorder!" -Mayor
Daly, Chicago 1968
Dove Nested Towers
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 877

Goodnight, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are!


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: July 20, 2017, 01:30:45 AM »

It's time for an intervention and a regime change. Gather your pitchforks and torches and meet me at BRI.
Mike is hiding in the club Kokomo "spider hole"

Lets drag him out kicking and screaming before the magistrates, find a top pro bono attorney and begin divestiture proceedings.
Logged

"The police aren't there to create disorder,
they're there to preserve disorder!" -Mayor
Daly, Chicago 1968
KDS
Guest
« Reply #31 on: July 20, 2017, 05:13:06 AM »

What is the alternative that is being suggested otherwise?

When Brian returned to the road in the late 90's, should he have taken the name "The Beach Boys" with him...despite being known through music history and pop culture for not touring?

Mike Love has a long list of unscrupulous deeds that he has willingly attached to the name "The Beach Boys" over the last twenty years, but can any of us imagine a "The Beach Boys" concert without him? Songs like "Surfin' USA", "All Summer Long", "Fun, Fun, Fun", "Barbara Ann"...they all lose their nostalgic, cornball, schmaltz without Michael Edward Love at the helm of the concert stage.

Fast forward back to the present...I think the demand is just fine. Sure, the venues that either "The Beach Boys" or "Brian Wilson" play don't exceed say approx. 3,000 people BUT, I have never been to a poorly attended concert by either group. Both names have an easy time filling middle-low end professional venues such as theatres, smaller arenas, and amphitheaters.


Agreed.  It's the way it's been for 20 years now (with the exception of C50).   I highly doubt the other parties at BRI are in such a huff over the DIA single.

Maybe they're not, but they should be.

I'm sure BRI realizes that it's a non event. 

I'd rather they focus their efforts on releasing a full BW PS Concert (not the album only sampler we got in 2002) on DVD/BluRay. 
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 20, 2017, 09:38:43 AM »

The BB certainly over toured post 1980, that's not only Mike's fault of course but they did.

In 1998-1999, there was a vote taken where Brian and Carl's estate sided with Al and let him tour. That's when Mike really after him hard and Al did pull something shady where he wanted to use the BB in his title BB Family and Friends, but not play the full licensing fee.

This isn't quite how the story goes.

In 1998, Carl's estate pitched the idea to BRI to issue "non-exclusive" license to everybody. If I'm recalling court documents correctly, that was supported with a 3-to-1 vote in favor (with Mike most likely being the dissenting vote). Now, the vote as I understand it was simply to allow or offer the non-exclusive license. Each member that wanted it still had to engage with BRI in a licensing agreement. Mike apparently swiftly did so. What *was/is* unclear was whether Al successfully also engaged in a licensing agreement.

He eventually began touring late in 1998 and into 1999 as "Beach Boys Family & Friends." He was sued, and at various points during the case argued both that he *did have* a license, and also argued that if the court found he *didn't* have a valid license, that he didn't need one for what he was doing. He also suggested (justifiably in my opinion) that he should be able to negotiate a lower licensing fee because he was using the "BBFF" name and not "The Beach Boys." The court seemed to be unclear themselves as to whether Al had a valid license, and he successfully toured throughout most of 1999 (though still constantly being harangued and hassled). So it was never actually proven as to whether Al had violated anything during most of that year.

Now, by the end of 1999, Mike had gained an *exclusive* license to use the name. So yes, by that point, Al was out of luck. Indeed, it was only after this at the very end of 1999 and into 2000 that court injunctions keeping him from using the "BBFF" name were finally successful.

What was always clear, though, was that nobody was confusing the Wilson sisters and Owen Elliott for *The* Beach Boys. Al wasn't confusing anybody, any more than Mike was confusing people touring post-C50 without the reunion band. If someone tries really hard to be ignorant, then anything is possible and anybody can be confused of course.

But Al using the BBFF name (or any "non-exclusive" license setup where theoretically had Al wanted to pay a full licensing fee, we would have presumably had two bands simultaneously touring as "The Beach Boys") was an untenable situation. Unfortunately, he was needlessly humiliated throughout the whole process. He was indeed essentially s**t-canned in 1998 and then spent the next several years being needlessly humiliated and denigrated. He rightly so was pretty angry and disgruntled about it for awhile. But by the end of the decade in the 2000s, he was still vocal and enthusiastic about reuniting. He had as many valid gripes as Mike did during C50, yet Al wanted to keep doing it.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
B.E.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: July 20, 2017, 02:18:20 PM »


 ....The court seemed to be unclear themselves as to whether Al had a valid license, and he successfully toured throughout most of 1999 (though still constantly being harangued and hassled). So it was never actually proven as to whether Al had violated anything during most of that year.

Now, by the end of 1999, Mike had gained an *exclusive* license to use the name. So yes, by that point, Al was out of luck. Indeed, it was only after this at the very end of 1999 and into 2000 that court injunctions keeping him from using the "BBFF" name were finally successful....


Are there other legal documents besides this http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html that you are pulling from? Because other than Mike proclaiming in his 2005 Smile complaint that he had "the" exclusive license, I can't find it.

It wasn’t really proven that Al did anything wrong in 1999? Al was put on notice 10/28/98 that BRI objected to his use of the trademark. They didn't file a complaint for 5 months so that proves he wasn't doing anything wrong? Your version of events makes it sound like Mike subsequently acquiring an exclusive license was the tipping point in the lawsuit, yet it’s not even mentioned in BRI v Jardine. The ‘background’ section skips from BRI’s 4/9/99 complaint to the preliminary injunction on 3/28/00 without mentioning it. Let’s assume for a moment that Al did in fact have a non-exclusive license which expired on 12/31/99 and Mike (at this time) acquired an exclusive license which led to the injunction and ultimately BRI’s summary judgment…Was Al paying for his license in 1999? Either at Mike’s rate (which is what was agreed upon at the 7/14/98 meeting) or at Al’s 5% suggestion which was rejected? There is no evidence of that. Was he choosing from a list of approved booking agencies and managers? No. Who knows how many other potential conditions Al was violating in 1999 (assuming he even had a license). The point is, the courts don’t seem so confused over Al’s license as they were sure that he infringed on the trademark. They don’t mention Mike’s exclusive license. They do discuss, though, how in the absence of a license Al did not have protection under classic fair use or nominative fair use doctrines, nor numerous other defenses. Al threw the book at BRI and nothing stuck.

Just to be clear, I'm interested in figuring out what exactly transpired, best I can. I'm not commenting on who was in the right (or wrong) or how I wish it had gone down.
Logged

Every wave is new until it breaks.
NateRuvin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 924


"I had to prove that I could make it alone"...


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: July 20, 2017, 02:23:22 PM »

While I wish that the whole group played together, I have no problem with The Beach Boys being just Mike, Bruce and a backing band. The Beach Boys MUSIC has always been Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al (+Bruce, David, Blondie, Ricky, etc...) but The Beach Boys touring band has always been changing. Brian, Bruce, Al, and David all quit at one point and returned. There were two years without Carl. There was a show with no Mike(!) in the 80's I believe. The Beach Boys TOURING BAND has always been inconsistent with the real members of the group. Hell, the guys touring Pet Sounds in '66 (Carl, Dennis, Al, Bruce) didn't play the instruments on the record, yet they did live. What I'm trying to say, is I see them as two different entities. And as long as Mike puts on a good show (He does, I've seen him many times), I'm fine with him and Bruce being "The Beach Boys". 

Anyone agree with me?
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 20, 2017, 02:56:27 PM »


 ....The court seemed to be unclear themselves as to whether Al had a valid license, and he successfully toured throughout most of 1999 (though still constantly being harangued and hassled). So it was never actually proven as to whether Al had violated anything during most of that year.

Now, by the end of 1999, Mike had gained an *exclusive* license to use the name. So yes, by that point, Al was out of luck. Indeed, it was only after this at the very end of 1999 and into 2000 that court injunctions keeping him from using the "BBFF" name were finally successful....


Are there other legal documents besides this http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html that you are pulling from? Because other than Mike proclaiming in his 2005 Smile complaint that he had "the" exclusive license, I can't find it.

It wasn’t really proven that Al did anything wrong in 1999? Al was put on notice 10/28/98 that BRI objected to his use of the trademark. They didn't file a complaint for 5 months so that proves he wasn't doing anything wrong? Your version of events makes it sound like Mike subsequently acquiring an exclusive license was the tipping point in the lawsuit, yet it’s not even mentioned in BRI v Jardine. The ‘background’ section skips from BRI’s 4/9/99 complaint to the preliminary injunction on 3/28/00 without mentioning it. Let’s assume for a moment that Al did in fact have a non-exclusive license which expired on 12/31/99 and Mike (at this time) acquired an exclusive license which led to the injunction and ultimately BRI’s summary judgment…Was Al paying for his license in 1999? Either at Mike’s rate (which is what was agreed upon at the 7/14/98 meeting) or at Al’s 5% suggestion which was rejected? There is no evidence of that. Was he choosing from a list of approved booking agencies and managers? No. Who knows how many other potential conditions Al was violating in 1999 (assuming he even had a license). The point is, the courts don’t seem so confused over Al’s license as they were sure that he infringed on the trademark. They don’t mention Mike’s exclusive license. They do discuss, though, how in the absence of a license Al did not have protection under classic fair use or nominative fair use doctrines, nor numerous other defenses. Al threw the book at BRI and nothing stuck.

Just to be clear, I'm interested in figuring out what exactly transpired, best I can. I'm not commenting on who was in the right (or wrong) or how I wish it had gone down.

I pored over numerous lawsuit filings over the course of 15+ years debating with Cam, so it's tough to go back to it in-depth again.

But the background section of Mike's 2005 "Mail on Sunday" lawsuit states:

BRI then granted an exclusive license to Mike Love to perform at live concerts using The Beach Boys registered trademark.

I also recall one of the Jardine/BRI court rulings/documents stating something alone the lines of "it's unclear whether Jardine had a valid license or not" in response to Jardine's contention that he both had a valid license and didn't need one, with the court noting that it was a moot point by that point in time because Love had the exclusive license.

Al lost the lawsuit. All I was saying is that, to my recollection, regardless of infringement issues, in at least one court document the court acknowledged it was unclear whether Al had a valid non-exclusive license and, at least that point in time, stated they didn't need to address that issue because of subsequent events that *were* clear.

Beyond that, I put my 15 years of debate into that lawsuit and have little interest in raking Al over the coals again. He lost the lawsuit. He was victimized by that whole ordeal in my opinion and had no help from other shareholders. But I don't think anybody contends he should have won the main crux of that lawsuit.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2017, 02:57:39 PM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Don Malcolm
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 1108



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: July 20, 2017, 02:59:57 PM »

Clearly it was a sound business decision to break things up in this way. 2012 was a godsend to BB fans, but it was never billed as a permanent reunion and those who put on the rose-colored glasses did so at their own risk. Mike and Brian have been fundamentally incompatible for 50+ years and the history/myth/perception of the band has left Mike in a position where he can't let go of many things, even after some of them have been rectified. They really are oil and water and while they had many great creative moments, Brian has done much of his best work without Mike's involvement. The world has pretty much endorsed this realization, but Mike remains on a quest to reverse this--which isn't working despite all of his efforts, good and otherwise.

Since we are evidently stuck with this situation, we can either support both of them or choose sides. I agree that we should support both of them, but one is free to support one more fully than the other.

What we cannot do anything about is the likelihood that the two of them will ever work together again, either live or in the studio. It was literally and figuratively an "act of God" that brought about 2012, and those don't grow on trees. Feel free to think and wish and hope and pray for a miracle, but don't hold your breath and don't bet the ranch (or even the corral).
Logged
B.E.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: July 20, 2017, 05:15:27 PM »


 ....The court seemed to be unclear themselves as to whether Al had a valid license, and he successfully toured throughout most of 1999 (though still constantly being harangued and hassled). So it was never actually proven as to whether Al had violated anything during most of that year.

Now, by the end of 1999, Mike had gained an *exclusive* license to use the name. So yes, by that point, Al was out of luck. Indeed, it was only after this at the very end of 1999 and into 2000 that court injunctions keeping him from using the "BBFF" name were finally successful....


Are there other legal documents besides this http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html that you are pulling from? Because other than Mike proclaiming in his 2005 Smile complaint that he had "the" exclusive license, I can't find it.

It wasn’t really proven that Al did anything wrong in 1999? Al was put on notice 10/28/98 that BRI objected to his use of the trademark. They didn't file a complaint for 5 months so that proves he wasn't doing anything wrong? Your version of events makes it sound like Mike subsequently acquiring an exclusive license was the tipping point in the lawsuit, yet it’s not even mentioned in BRI v Jardine. The ‘background’ section skips from BRI’s 4/9/99 complaint to the preliminary injunction on 3/28/00 without mentioning it. Let’s assume for a moment that Al did in fact have a non-exclusive license which expired on 12/31/99 and Mike (at this time) acquired an exclusive license which led to the injunction and ultimately BRI’s summary judgment…Was Al paying for his license in 1999? Either at Mike’s rate (which is what was agreed upon at the 7/14/98 meeting) or at Al’s 5% suggestion which was rejected? There is no evidence of that. Was he choosing from a list of approved booking agencies and managers? No. Who knows how many other potential conditions Al was violating in 1999 (assuming he even had a license). The point is, the courts don’t seem so confused over Al’s license as they were sure that he infringed on the trademark. They don’t mention Mike’s exclusive license. They do discuss, though, how in the absence of a license Al did not have protection under classic fair use or nominative fair use doctrines, nor numerous other defenses. Al threw the book at BRI and nothing stuck.

Just to be clear, I'm interested in figuring out what exactly transpired, best I can. I'm not commenting on who was in the right (or wrong) or how I wish it had gone down.

I pored over numerous lawsuit filings over the course of 15+ years debating with Cam, so it's tough to go back to it in-depth again.

But the background section of Mike's 2005 "Mail on Sunday" lawsuit states:

BRI then granted an exclusive license to Mike Love to perform at live concerts using The Beach Boys registered trademark.

I also recall one of the Jardine/BRI court rulings/documents stating something alone the lines of "it's unclear whether Jardine had a valid license or not" in response to Jardine's contention that he both had a valid license and didn't need one, with the court noting that it was a moot point by that point in time because Love had the exclusive license.

Al lost the lawsuit. All I was saying is that, to my recollection, regardless of infringement issues, in at least one court document the court acknowledged it was unclear whether Al had a valid non-exclusive license and, at least that point in time, stated they didn't need to address that issue because of subsequent events that *were* clear.

Beyond that, I put my 15 years of debate into that lawsuit and have little interest in raking Al over the coals again. He lost the lawsuit. He was victimized by that whole ordeal in my opinion and had no help from other shareholders. But I don't think anybody contends he should have won the main crux of that lawsuit.

Right, I acknowledged the 'Mail On Sunday' lawsuit, but it's hard for me to lend too much weight to those complaints considering the language and inaccuracies therein. As an aside, I honestly thought it was a joke the first time I read it. I thought someone edited it before posting it on the board! Also, there were no other pertinent details, such as, a date. I do recall in the BRI/Jardine documents that 'Al's license was unclear but that it was deemed a moot point', my only contention is that i don't recall it being because Love had acquired an exclusive license.  With that said, I could totally be miss-remembering or simply wrong on that point. It's really not important, I know, but it's frustrating trying to piece it all together. I appreciate that you've researched and debated this extensively on the board in the past, and now that I've taken my swing at it, I'll be moving on too. The problem is, there is plenty of room for speculation. For instance, Mike said in his book that Al had a license. Wtf!  LOL That's just one of many.
Logged

Every wave is new until it breaks.
RubberSoul13
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1297


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: July 20, 2017, 07:51:51 PM »

So, while I totally agree that Mike is a total asshole...what is it that you all are exactly suggesting?

Do you think Brian Wilson should be able to tour as "The Beach Boys" instead of Brian Wilson? I can't see this resolving anything.

Do you think NO ONE should tour as "The Beach Boys"? I wouldn't be opposed to this, but Mike and Bruce would just about fall off the face of the earth without it.

Yes, I am of the opinion that no one should tour as "The Beach Boys" unless Brian, Mike, Al and Carl's estate agree upon it. It should be like The Beatles situation is now - if Paul, Ringo, Yoko and Olivia all can't agree on a project or idea, it doesn't go ahead. Sure, that means that we might not see quite as much stuff happen (good or bad) under the name, but what is allowed will have the consent of all four parties and therefore is probably pretty darn worthwhile.

Ergo, my opinion is that if Brian and Al are not really cool with Mike touring as The Beach Boys right now, they should be able to stop it. Instead, what I hear is that even if this was the case, and Carl's estate voted with Mike, it would deadlock it into a tie and nothing would change. Now the thing to keep in mind is, nobody has said Brian wants to take the license away. Maybe he was bummed about the group breaking up in 2012, but ultimately got over it quickly and is fine with Mike steering the ship. We don't know. Maybe we never will.

Then yeah, I totally agree with you on all of the above. I think it's obvious that all of the guys (except maybe David) really like the idea of touring (more or less) full time now...probably because they know the end is near. They also probably realize it's pretty late in the game to go changing things now.

I hate to take the route of morbidity but it always comes up when discussing this...it won't make sense to change something until one of them passes on. If Mike passes first, I think the admirable thing to do is let the captain sink with his ship....the captain being "The Beach Boys" and Mike being the ship that has carried them on stage for all these years. I'd hate to see the brand "The Beach Boys" turn into The Four Freshmen scenario. Bruce would probably gladly glide into retirement. However, if Bruce were to pass first, I wouldn't be surprised if Mike didn't even cancel his shows that weekend. He would become another faceless Beach Boy in the pictures on the screen.
Logged
tpesky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1031


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: July 20, 2017, 08:22:57 PM »

At one point, BRI chose to take a vote to issue Mike an exclusive license as opposed to the non exclusive license deal.  Brian and Carl's estate screwed over Al there by doing that. I'm sure Mike stated his case to them vehemently and in Brian's case he probably said screw it I don't care about the BB and let him have it and Carl's estate wanted the $$
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #40 on: July 21, 2017, 09:52:04 AM »

While I wish that the whole group played together, I have no problem with The Beach Boys being just Mike, Bruce and a backing band. The Beach Boys MUSIC has always been Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al (+Bruce, David, Blondie, Ricky, etc...) but The Beach Boys touring band has always been changing. Brian, Bruce, Al, and David all quit at one point and returned. There were two years without Carl. There was a show with no Mike(!) in the 80's I believe. The Beach Boys TOURING BAND has always been inconsistent with the real members of the group. Hell, the guys touring Pet Sounds in '66 (Carl, Dennis, Al, Bruce) didn't play the instruments on the record, yet they did live. What I'm trying to say, is I see them as two different entities. And as long as Mike puts on a good show (He does, I've seen him many times), I'm fine with him and Bruce being "The Beach Boys". 

Anyone agree with me?

Yes.  I've even seen long time fans say the current version of the band is putting on some of the best Beach Boys concerts in their career. 
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: July 24, 2017, 11:51:04 AM »


Right, I acknowledged the 'Mail On Sunday' lawsuit, but it's hard for me to lend too much weight to those complaints considering the language and inaccuracies therein. As an aside, I honestly thought it was a joke the first time I read it. I thought someone edited it before posting it on the board! Also, there were no other pertinent details, such as, a date. I do recall in the BRI/Jardine documents that 'Al's license was unclear but that it was deemed a moot point', my only contention is that i don't recall it being because Love had acquired an exclusive license.  With that said, I could totally be miss-remembering or simply wrong on that point. It's really not important, I know, but it's frustrating trying to piece it all together. I appreciate that you've researched and debated this extensively on the board in the past, and now that I've taken my swing at it, I'll be moving on too. The problem is, there is plenty of room for speculation. For instance, Mike said in his book that Al had a license. Wtf!  LOL That's just one of many.

I don't remember if any of the available court documents specifically state "on such-and-such date, BRI voted to give Mike an exclusive license."

But I don't think there's any evidence to contradict that Mike gained an exclusive license. He has said he has one numerous times. People who have spoken to insiders have confirmed that, as far as they know, no vote has taken place on the license issue *since* Mike was granted the exclusive license.

Given the subsequent lawsuits and also various "friendly warnings/reminders" that have been given to Brian and Al in very recent years regarding using "Beach Boys" verbiage in their concert promotions, it's pretty clear Mike has the exclusive license. So, assuming it's true that no vote has taken place *since* circa 1999, it's pretty safe to assume Mike has had the one and only exclusive license since that time in 1999 or 2000.

Regarding the court potentially saying in a document that it was unclear whether Al *initially* had a valid license and were choosing not to address it because it didn't matter anymore, the reason I remember that is because it stuck with me, that a court would mention that they essentially were like "meh, who cares, that doesn't matter anymore." But that is what courts do, they rule on the issues at hand and it was no longer relevant whether Al may have initially had a license. As I recall, the only reason imaginable that that particular issue would *no longer* matter is because at some point after that, Al did not have a license and was *ineligible* to get one due to one exclusive license being already taken.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 11:53:25 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Marty Castillo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 447



View Profile
« Reply #42 on: July 24, 2017, 06:41:26 PM »

While I wish that the whole group played together, I have no problem with The Beach Boys being just Mike, Bruce and a backing band. The Beach Boys MUSIC has always been Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al (+Bruce, David, Blondie, Ricky, etc...) but The Beach Boys touring band has always been changing. Brian, Bruce, Al, and David all quit at one point and returned. There were two years without Carl. There was a show with no Mike(!) in the 80's I believe. The Beach Boys TOURING BAND has always been inconsistent with the real members of the group. Hell, the guys touring Pet Sounds in '66 (Carl, Dennis, Al, Bruce) didn't play the instruments on the record, yet they did live. What I'm trying to say, is I see them as two different entities. And as long as Mike puts on a good show (He does, I've seen him many times), I'm fine with him and Bruce being "The Beach Boys". 

Anyone agree with me?

Yes.  I've even seen long time fans say the current version of the band is putting on some of the best Beach Boys concerts in their career. 

Yes, this is my view exactly. The touring band has seen many different iterations over the years. My preferences would be to have them all together, but that hasn't been realistic for most of the band's history.
Logged
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #43 on: July 25, 2017, 06:15:45 AM »

While I wish that the whole group played together, I have no problem with The Beach Boys being just Mike, Bruce and a backing band. The Beach Boys MUSIC has always been Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al (+Bruce, David, Blondie, Ricky, etc...) but The Beach Boys touring band has always been changing. Brian, Bruce, Al, and David all quit at one point and returned. There were two years without Carl. There was a show with no Mike(!) in the 80's I believe. The Beach Boys TOURING BAND has always been inconsistent with the real members of the group. Hell, the guys touring Pet Sounds in '66 (Carl, Dennis, Al, Bruce) didn't play the instruments on the record, yet they did live. What I'm trying to say, is I see them as two different entities. And as long as Mike puts on a good show (He does, I've seen him many times), I'm fine with him and Bruce being "The Beach Boys". 

Anyone agree with me?

Yes.  I've even seen long time fans say the current version of the band is putting on some of the best Beach Boys concerts in their career. 

Yes, this is my view exactly. The touring band has seen many different iterations over the years. My preferences would be to have them all together, but that hasn't been realistic for most of the band's history.

And this is fair. But here's the thing on that one. Every Beach Boy on the stage in 2012 wanted to continue to tour as The Beach Boys. Now the catch with that is, Brian, Al and Dave all wanted to continue with C50, whereas Mike (and presumably his lackey Brucey) apparently thought he deserved/deserves to have the name to himself to tour more than he thought Brian and Al deserved to continue to tour under that name with him.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2017, 06:18:15 AM by sweetdudejim » Logged
Marty Castillo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 447



View Profile
« Reply #44 on: July 25, 2017, 06:37:19 AM »

While I wish that the whole group played together, I have no problem with The Beach Boys being just Mike, Bruce and a backing band. The Beach Boys MUSIC has always been Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al (+Bruce, David, Blondie, Ricky, etc...) but The Beach Boys touring band has always been changing. Brian, Bruce, Al, and David all quit at one point and returned. There were two years without Carl. There was a show with no Mike(!) in the 80's I believe. The Beach Boys TOURING BAND has always been inconsistent with the real members of the group. Hell, the guys touring Pet Sounds in '66 (Carl, Dennis, Al, Bruce) didn't play the instruments on the record, yet they did live. What I'm trying to say, is I see them as two different entities. And as long as Mike puts on a good show (He does, I've seen him many times), I'm fine with him and Bruce being "The Beach Boys". 

Anyone agree with me?

Yes.  I've even seen long time fans say the current version of the band is putting on some of the best Beach Boys concerts in their career. 

Yes, this is my view exactly. The touring band has seen many different iterations over the years. My preferences would be to have them all together, but that hasn't been realistic for most of the band's history.

And this is fair. But here's the thing on that one. Every Beach Boy on the stage in 2012 wanted to continue to tour as The Beach Boys. Now the catch with that is, Brian, Al and Dave all wanted to continue with C50, whereas Mike (and presumably his lackey Brucey) apparently thought he deserved/deserves to have the name to himself to tour more than he thought Brian and Al deserved to continue to tour under that name with him.
I'm not going to disagree with that. You can go in circles on the topic all day. How much longer could the C50 tour have gone? If you believe Mike, he was ready to pull the plug several times throughout the process.

There was talk about Mike having leverage back in 1998 over Brian due to money owed. In my view, Brian has all the leverage now and could pull the plug on Mike's license if he really wanted to, but why would he when he can keep cashing the checks? Right now, he gets a piece of Mike's touring and can rake in the proceeds of touring under his own name. If you're Brian and his team, why change the status quo?
Logged
Juice Brohnston
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 627



View Profile
« Reply #45 on: July 25, 2017, 12:18:21 PM »

There was talk about Mike having leverage back in 1998 over Brian due to money owed. In my view, Brian has all the leverage now and could pull the plug on Mike's license if he really wanted to, but why would he when he can keep cashing the checks? Right now, he gets a piece of Mike's touring and can rake in the proceeds of touring under his own name. If you're Brian and his team, why change the status quo?

Always confused about how exactly Mike could lose his exclusive license. Is this as simple as a majority voting against him at any time, or does he carry this in some ill conceived perpetuity? From what I understand, there is no expiration on this license.
Logged
Love Thang
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: July 25, 2017, 12:53:54 PM »

Mikey will have the license until he gets away from it all by being called to that great big Kokomo in the sky.
Logged
urbanite
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: July 25, 2017, 01:08:27 PM »

Mike is 75.  I think he can do it for another 2-3 years, provided fans keep buying tickets.  I do not think he will be performing at 80 like Tony Bennett. 

I expect the license will be then handed off to Jeff Foskett and Scott Totten to keep the money rolling in.
Logged
Dove Nested Towers
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 877

Goodnight, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are!


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: July 25, 2017, 04:17:23 PM »

What is the alternative that is being suggested otherwise?

When Brian returned to the road in the late 90's, should he have taken the name "The Beach Boys" with him...despite being known through music history and pop culture for not touring?

Mike Love has a long list of unscrupulous deeds that he has willingly attached to the name "The Beach Boys" over the last twenty years, but can any of us imagine a "The Beach Boys" concert without him? Songs like "Surfin' USA", "All Summer Long", "Fun, Fun, Fun", "Barbara Ann"...they all lose their nostalgic, cornball, schmaltz without Michael Edward Love at the helm of the concert stage.

Fast forward back to the present...I think the demand is just fine. Sure, the venues that either "The Beach Boys" or "Brian Wilson" play don't exceed say approx. 3,000 people BUT, I have never been to a poorly attended concert by either group. Both names have an easy time filling middle-low end professional venues such as theatres, smaller arenas, and amphitheaters.


Agreed.  It's the way it's been for 20 years now (with the exception of C50).   I highly doubt the other parties at BRI are in such a huff over the DIA single.

Maybe they're not, but they should be.

I'm sure BRI realizes that it's a non event. 

I'd rather they focus their efforts on releasing a full BW PS Concert (not the album only sampler we got in 2002) on DVD/BluRay. 

It's NOT a "non-event" as you so casually contradict me by putting it. Yes, quality new releases are of more import, but BRI should care more than they obviously do.
Logged

"The police aren't there to create disorder,
they're there to preserve disorder!" -Mayor
Daly, Chicago 1968
B.E.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



View Profile
« Reply #49 on: August 02, 2017, 01:14:50 PM »

As a casual fan, I didn't have a problem with Mike & Bruce touring as the Beach Boys. I saw them twice (2004 & 2006). I knew Brian wasn't touring with them, but that wasn't exactly a new development and I just figured he was more interested in his solo career. C50 changed that. The more I learn about the Beach Boys, the less okay I am with Mike excluding founding members (assuming they want to participate; which was at least the case in the wake of C50). Ultimately, BRI's inaction bothers me, but I understand how, individually, Brian and Al don't want to have to force Mike to do anything. It wasn't that they were without recourse, but they'd rather go back to the status quo than fight it out with Mike. I don't agree, but I understand. Still, if BRI, collectively, wanted to do something about it, they could. Frankly, it's mind boggling to me that Brian Wilson wanted to continue touring with "The Beach Boys", but Mike was allowed to say "No". I mean, damn, Mike literally says in his book that he ended the reunion to maintain his license. How backwards is that? He also admits that Brian wanted to continue being a Beach Boy but "you can't change the melody once the score's been written."


There was talk about Mike having leverage back in 1998 over Brian due to money owed. In my view, Brian has all the leverage now and could pull the plug on Mike's license if he really wanted to, but why would he when he can keep cashing the checks? Right now, he gets a piece of Mike's touring and can rake in the proceeds of touring under his own name. If you're Brian and his team, why change the status quo?

Always confused about how exactly Mike could lose his exclusive license. Is this as simple as a majority voting against him at any time, or does he carry this in some ill conceived perpetuity? From what I understand, there is no expiration on this license.

It could be as simple as a majority vote at any time, depending on the conditions of the licensing agreement. I think the most likely scenario is that if they wanted to revoke it immediately, then it would have to be for a violation. But, typically, either party can simply not renew the license at the end of the term. It's been stated that there hasn't been a vote for many years, but that doesn't indicate to me that there isn't a 'term' for the license. It's common for a license to automatically renew. The initial non-exclusive license appears to have been for 1 year. It's possible (if not likely) that the current license is similar.


Given the subsequent lawsuits and also various "friendly warnings/reminders" that have been given to Brian and Al in very recent years regarding using "Beach Boys" verbiage in their concert promotions, it's pretty clear Mike has the exclusive license. So, assuming it's true that no vote has taken place *since* circa 1999, it's pretty safe to assume Mike has had the one and only exclusive license since that time in 1999 or 2000.

That’s a good point, that non-exclusive licensees generally don’t have standing to sue. Though, it’s a gray area even for “exclusive” licensees...but that's a good point.
Logged

Every wave is new until it breaks.
gfx
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.625 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!