Mike's continuing beef with Al

[Andrew G. Doe]

Mike never claims to have written Surfin' USA. That's just a case of bad journalism, and the reporter putting parentheses inside a quote.

Actually he does in the BBC doc.

And also in two other interviews I've read. He also kicked up a fuss about the lyrics to "GV", which puzzled me because he's always been given label credit for that. I'm not doubting that Mike was gypped out of major lyrical credits -"Cal Girls" is ample proof of that - but I do have my doubts about some of them (e.g. "WIBN").

[matt-zeus]

Mike never claims to have written Surfin' USA. That's just a case of bad journalism, and the reporter putting parentheses inside a quote.

Actually he does in the BBC doc.

And also in two other interviews I've read. He also kicked up a fuss about the lyrics to "GV", which puzzled me because he's always been given label credit for that. I'm not doubting that Mike was gypped out of major lyrical credits -"Cal Girls" is ample proof of that - but I do have my doubts about some of them (e.g. "WIBN").

Apparently he might have come up with the bit "I'm picking up Good Vibrations", thats the hook you see, thats what made people want to like the crazy music. I don't know though, he's far too modest to admit that. 

[Cam Mott]

Cam - I think you are mixing apples and oranges. 

I may be, could you spell out which are apples and which are oranges, please.

Jude, why don't we stick to what each other says instead of projecting what each other might mean.

[Aegir]

but I do have my doubts about some of them (e.g. "WIBN").

Mike's only contributions to Wouldn't It Be Nice are "run run wheeo" "bop bop ba ba bop ba ba ba doo doo" and "good night baby, sleep tight baby", I think.

[Jeff Mason]

Those who argue the Mike vs. Al thing need to keep one thing in mind -- there WAS history before 1999.  All of these arguments assume that everything was fine until 1999 when Al went and screwed/didn't screw the band.  All that I have found indicates that whatever feud exists between Mike and Al started as early as 1990 if not earlier, and that Carl kept them at a stalemate so that the band could continue.  The significance of 1999 was that it was the first full year after Carl's death for touring, and Mike and Al were seeking out their place in a world without Carl.

Two events to bear in mind here, the only public ones I know of prior to 1999 (the nature of the feud has been a secret fairly well kept) -- in 1992, AGD reports that Al was thrown off the sessions for SIP and only allowed back in very late in the game; in 1998 for the Super Bowl, Mike had "America's Band" play with David Marks, Bruce and Glen Campbell -- no Al, no invitation (he found out about it by watching it like the rest of us).  Whatever "hatchets" you discuss need to bear this in mind.

[Rocker]

Mike never claims to have written Surfin' USA. That's just a case of bad journalism, and the reporter putting parentheses inside a quote.

Well, on the BBC-docu he said he made up the words.... When I said he claimes to have written the song, I wasn't talking 'bout music, even Mike wouldn't go that far.

Oh, well I was just talking about the article; I'm pretty sure that first quote is from something lawsuit-related press release from months ago with songs in parentheses that were put there by the reporter.

Oh, okay, I thought you were saying that Mike never claimed it....

[matt-zeus]

Didn't Al organise a BB style tour with Peter Cetera around 1999? Or was it Mike? I can't remember, I've got a Record Collector from a few years ago with an interview with Al where he says that Bruce says that he would never share a stage with Al again (I think, I can't really remember).

[shelter]

I read an interview with Mike where he said that Al tried to set up a symphonic BB tour without him.

[matt-zeus]

That must be the one

[Jon Stebbins]

The events surrounding Al's 1998 departure are examined in my upcoming David Marks book. The process that resulted in the shuffling of the BB's lineup was in motion starting around '95 or '96...Carl's illness and death caused it all to shake down slightly differently than originally envisioned. Most people would think that everything happened as a result of Carl's illness, but actually the facts don't support that. Things were underway prior to that...with Carl still on board.

[MBE]

I can hardly wait to read the Marks book.

[Cam Mott]

I was about to ask if David/Carrie had any insight on what happened.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Hi Cam - What i meant about 'apples and oranges' is that there are two different issues here.  1) Al Jardine as a member of the Beach boys in the 1990s and 2) Al Jardine post Beach Boys and BRI issues.  I think your comments were mixing the two up.

i know it got nasty after Jardine left.  I remember reading where Mike stated that Al had mental issues/suffered from depression and more.  To me, that was a very nasty hatchett publically put in Al's back!  But I think it was going both ways.

Anyway, Rolling Stone still has an article up titled "Beach Boy vs. Beach Boy" concerning the lawsuits.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5925546/beach_boy_vs_beach_boy

[Cam Mott]

Hi Cam - What i meant about 'apples and oranges' is that there are two different issues here.  1) Al Jardine as a member of the Beach boys in the 1990s and 2) Al Jardine post Beach Boys and BRI issues.  I think your comments were mixing the two up.

Maybe, but I have been pretty much limiting my comments to Al's actions after Carl's death which resulted in and include the lawsuits which create the irony I was referencing.

Here's another link:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0157095p.pdf

[Eric Aniversario]

The events surrounding Al's 1998 departure are examined in my upcoming David Marks book. The process that resulted in the shuffling of the BB's lineup was in motion starting around '95 or '96...Carl's illness and death caused it all to shake down slightly differently than originally envisioned. Most people would think that everything happened as a result of Carl's illness, but actually the facts don't support that. Things were underway prior to that...with Carl still on board.

Jon, thanks for mentioning this.  There was a lot of talk around 2000 (?) or so on the PSML and perhaps some message boards about this.  I remember looking at paperwork that someone had put online about Mike not being willing to tour with Al or Carl anymore around 1996 because they didn't "represent the image" of the Beach Boys or something like that.  I mentioned this a few months back here and was attacked by several people thinking that I was making all of it up.  How I wish that I had saved images of those documents.

I look forward to reading your book.  I find all the eras of the Beach Boys fascinating, but I particularly find the events surrounding 1998 through 2004 very interesting to read about, as there seem to be so many different stories and rumors flying around about why certain things happened.  As newer fans learn about the band, they form their own opinion given the limited information available and start postulating their version of things.  As a result, there are dozens of different theories and a lot of misinformation out there!  I look very much forward to reading the Marks book!

Good vibes,
Eric

[Rocker]

I remember looking at paperwork that someone had put online about Mike not being willing to tour with Al or Carl anymore around 1996 because they didn't "represent the image" of the Beach Boys or something like that.

Oh my gosh, and Mike did represent the image ? I wonder if they talked about disbanding, letting "The Beach Boys" rest in peace. Maybe Mike wouldn't have a band called "The Beach Boys" if Carl had died later (no disrespect) . Thanks for that little info Eric, I never heard about that.

[HeyJude]

Cam - I think you are mixing apples and oranges. 

I may be, could you spell out which are apples and which are oranges, please.

Jude, why don't we stick to what each other says instead of projecting what each other might mean.

Cam, this sounds fine. My only problem is that, more than once, you stepped into the thread and made these slightly ambiguous, one-line statements about Al putting a hatchet into the back of the other band members and heirs. The statements just seemed like rather offensive digs at one band member; statements made without any explanation as to how Al's actions amounted to Al metaphorically stabbing the group members and heirs in the back. I understand the actions and contentions that Al made that you disagree with, and in many cases the courts disagreed with. I'm trying to understand (and this may be where you feel I was trying to "project" what you meant) why you used such language (the "hatchet" comments) to describe Al's actions. You mentioned in another post that you were mainly confining your comments in this discussion to post-1998 information. Perhaps this is the problem I'm having, because the original discussion began regarding "hatchets" in a more general sense among band members, and I felt that your simply focusing on one member's actions in the last 8 years and using the "hatchet" language to portray that band member simply ignores the rest of the history of the band. But even taking only the last 8 years into consideration, I believe it's silly to single Al out, with such hyperbolic language to boot.

[Dave in KC]

I just wish that Alan hadn't relented to Mike at the rooftop shindig when he answered a question about a possible re-union by saying and looking up at Mike, " Well, it's really up to this guy here." Maybe it really is, but I wish he hadn't said that aloud.

[Sheriff John Stone]

What, specifically, are Mike's issues with Al?  

I would also like to know.  SPECIFICALLY, what was the reason for Al being dismissed from The Beach Boys? I'm not being sarcastic, and I'm not trying to add more fuel to the fire. I really don't know. What happened?

[Cam Mott]

What, specifically, are Mike's issues with Al?  

I would also like to know.  SPECIFICALLY, what was the reason for Al being dismissed from The Beach Boys? I'm not being sarcastic, and I'm not trying to add more fuel to the fire. I really don't know. What happened?

Al was not dismissed from the Beach Boys, he is prevented from using the trademark because he refused to meet the requirements, he helped define and agreed to abide by, to be eligible for a license to use the trademark. He felt he had rights that BRI, Superior Court [?], Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court [?] said he did not. 

[Charles LePage @ ComicList]

From Ivan Hoffman's analyis of the April 1999 lawsuit BRI filed against Al Jardine:

The Court then discussed “nominative fair use.”  Nominative fair use defense may arise in situations where a defendant uses a trademark of another party to describe the other party’s product.  In other words, when a defendant uses the other party’s trademark in a trademark manner but claims, as a defense, that it is impossible to refer to the product or service without the use of the trademark.   In such instances, the determination has to be whether or not the said use of the trademark will create a likelihood of confusion in the minds of the public and thus the defense is only available if such use does not create such confusion and where the mark is not being used to capitalize on the rights of the trademark owner.  The Court cited numerous cases including those involving New Kids On The Block and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.  In these instances, the defendant used the trademark of the plaintiff to describe the plaintiff’s own product.  Nominative fair use also can occur when the defendant uses the plaintiff’s mark to describe the title of the defendant, as in the Playboy vs. Welles case in which the defendant referred to herself on her web site as a former Playboy Playmate of the year.  In this latter regard, read “Keywords, Meta Tags and Trademarks.”  In the instance of The Beach Boys case, this would mean that Jardine’s use of the mark described the product of The Beach Boys i.e. their style of music.

        The Court cited to the New Kids case and set forth 3 requirements when such nominative fair use might be available to a defendant.  The Court said:

        First, the product or service in question must be one not readily identifiable without use of the trademark; second, only so much of the mark or marks may be used as is reasonably necessary to identify the product or service; and third, the user must do nothing that would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner.

        The Court ruled that Jardine satisfied the first 2 requirements but could not avail himself of this fair use defense either since he failed to qualify under the standards in “third” above.  The various marketing and promotional materials used by Jardine to promote the concerts he gave “display ‘The Beach Boys’ more prominently and boldly than ‘Family and Friends,’ suggesting sponsorship by the Beach Boys….”  The Court found other instances in the evidence to suggest that Jardine implied such sponsorship and referred to the evidence of actual confusion.

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/bandnames.html


June 29, 2005:    Al Jardine named Brian Wilson, Mike Love, the Carl Wilson Trust and Brother Records Inc. (BRI) as defendants in a suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, according to Jeffrey Benice, his attorney. "Al's position is that no one Beach Boy could vote to exclude another Beach Boy from touring and using the Beach Boy name," Benice said. "He's been wrongfully excluded from touring with the Beach Boys. He's a Beach Boy, always has been. He's a 25-percent shareholder of Brother Records Inc., and he's been wrongfully excluded by virtue of BRI giving Mike Love – instead of Mike Love and Al Jardine – the exclusive right to tour as the Beach Boys." Benice also noted that the $4 million figure is a low-end number, and the suit could amount to much more once the receipts from Love's tour, which grossed $18-20 million by his estimation, are calculated.

<a href="http://www.technorati.com/claim/wyiu8wbdpq" rel="me">Technorati Profile[/url]

[Sheriff John Stone]

What, specifically, are Mike's issues with Al?  

I would also like to know.  SPECIFICALLY, what was the reason for Al being dismissed from The Beach Boys? I'm not being sarcastic, and I'm not trying to add more fuel to the fire. I really don't know. What happened?

Al was not dismissed from the Beach Boys, he is prevented from using the trademark because he refused to meet the requirements, he helped define and agreed to abide by, to be eligible for a license to use the trademark. He felt he had rights that BRI, Superior Court [?], Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court [?] said he did not. 

I'm not referring to why Al can't tour using a Beach Boys-related name. I understand that. I'll re-phrase my question. What SPECIFICALLY happened between Mike and Al that Al is no longer touring with Mike and Bruce in The Beach Boys? Was it creative differences, did Al call Mike a name, was there a physical altercation, did Al say something derogatory in an interview? Specifically, what caused Al to leave The Beach Boys? 

[c-man]

[I'm not referring to why Al can't tour using a Beach Boys-related name. I understand that. I'll re-phrase my question. What SPECIFICALLY happened between Mike and Al that Al is no longer touring with Mike and Bruce in The Beach Boys? Was it creative differences, did Al call Mike a name, was there a physical altercation, did Al say something derogatory in an interview? Specifically, what caused Al to leave The Beach Boys? 

Specifically, Mike did the 1998 Super Bowl with Bruce, Glen Campbell, Dean Torrence, and John Stamos. 
Al decided if he wasn't wanted for that, he didn't really wanna be around at all.  There were lots of little reasons building up to that, chief among which was Carl was no longer there to keep the peace.  Mike and Al began to be at odds shortly after "Kokomo", and I think it was kinda like a longtime marriage where the two people drift apart gradually, and it eventually gets to the point where they can't stand to be around each other.

[Sheriff John Stone]

[I'm not referring to why Al can't tour using a Beach Boys-related name. I understand that. I'll re-phrase my question. What SPECIFICALLY happened between Mike and Al that Al is no longer touring with Mike and Bruce in The Beach Boys? Was it creative differences, did Al call Mike a name, was there a physical altercation, did Al say something derogatory in an interview? Specifically, what caused Al to leave The Beach Boys? 

Specifically, Mike did the 1998 Super Bowl with Bruce, Glen Campbell, Dean Torrence, and John Stamos. 
Al decided if he wasn't wanted for that, he didn't really wanna be around at all.  There were lots of little reasons building up to that, chief among which was Carl was no longer there to keep the peace.  Mike and Al began to be at odds shortly after "Kokomo", and I think it was kinda like a longtime marriage where the two people drift apart gradually, and it eventually gets to the point where they can't stand to be around each other.

Thanks, c-man. You wouldn't happen to know why Al wasn't at that Super Bowl performance, would you? Didn't Al know about it? I mean, I don't think it was Mike Love's job to telephone band members to let them know when the next gig is! That sounds very Syd Barrett-like, when the band simply refused to pick up Syd for the next gig - and that was the end of him as a member of Pink Floyd.

I'm really not trying to dredge up any dirt; I'm just curious to find out what was the straw that broke the camel's back. I agree with your marriage analogy. I guess it could be an accumulation of a lot of things. But when a member leaves a group like The Beach Boys, well, that's a pretty dramatic move, I think. And now it appears that Al would like back in, but can't get back in...

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I'd like to know what the problem during the SIP sessions was.