gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680598 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 05:22:24 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: When did Mike realize "he" could be The BBs...  (Read 6851 times)
NateRuvin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 924


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


View Profile
« on: April 13, 2020, 12:40:40 PM »

I've often defended Mike's usage of The BBs name due to him being the only member of the group who hasn't quit touring with the group, at any point for any reason. Say what you will about the other guys, but you can't say that. I can understand why he feels an emotional ownership of the touring group- just as I understand how Brian or Carl would feel that way about the studio.

I don't think it was Mike's plan in the 60's and 70's to replace his cousins and friend. Then again, he wasn't in the place of power to say so. Like most things in life, it was probably a gradual realization and decision- not one that happened over night, to delude the core members onstage to Bruce and himself. The first time we see a Mike led BBs was when Carl left in the early 80's to pursue his solo career... Note Adrian's tenure during this time, and replacement soon upon Carl's return. Mike and Adrian were collaborating at the time, so Adrian being in Mike's version of the band makes sense. The set lists were also clearly Mike driven, with cuts like Surfin and Long Tall Texan showing up frequently... Can't imagine Brian begging to play those.

Was it during this time that Mike possibly first thought that it didn't/doesn't matter to mass audiences how many principle members were onstage? With Carl gone, Brian & Dennis' lack of consistency, I can imagine Mike starting to think "Maybe I could do this on my own"


Or perhaps it was moderate success with California Beach Band/Endless Summer Band/Mike & Dean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLDg8-W6ywU

In this video, the audience is pretty nice. Obviously not equal to the BBs touring stadiums- but a crowd size/venue I can't see many artists, let alone Mike caring about. I watch this video (which is a quite great performance by the way) and I can almost imagine Mike's gears spinning...

And by the 90's, his relationship with Al was strained (which is something I'm still longing to understand better) and by the time he secured the license, he could, for the first time since 1982  choose who was on stage, and more glaringly, who wasn't.

I don't write this to make Mike out as the bad guy. I actually write it as an observer of his show for many years. Giggens made a good point on a recent Youtube video about liking the variety the current BBs fan is presented with. I couldn't agree more. You can go for a pop symphony or a great rock, guitar driven band. Al, David Marks, and Dean Torrence all offer their own flavor of show too (sometimes all three of them together!) All give me that great BBs feeling. These guys know what they're doing. Much credit owed to Paul Von Mertens and Scott Totten (Musical Directors), and other MVPs like Darian, Matt Jardine, Tim Bonhomme and Cowsill for playing their respective roles in keeping the legacy alive....

When do you think Mike realized he could "seize" the band so to speak? And perhaps Al was catching onto this and it is the reason for their strained relationship?



Also, side question: is it true that Dean filled in for Bruce sometime in the early 2000's? If so, are there any pictures, and did he take Bruce's leads? I remember reading something to that extent on here years ago.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2020, 12:43:56 PM by NateRuvin » Logged
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 5855


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2020, 01:52:54 PM »

Just one reason springs to mind immediately. By Carl’s death there were any number of bands with only 1-2 original members touring. Mike must have thought ‘why not?’. I have said before that he possibly dipped his toe in the water in 1998 but would be surprised it has kept going for now on 22 years.
Logged
UEF
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 330


Sheriff John-ston


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2020, 01:56:12 PM »

They’d been doing the lineup shuffle ever since the days of David Marks/Al, Glen Campbell and so on so it seemed the idea of a band over individuals was there for a while
Logged
NateRuvin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 924


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


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2020, 02:41:21 PM »

UEF,

I think that is the current band's best justification, and why I support Mike's band, and when I'm going, I'll say I'm seeing "The Beach Boys" not "Mike Love & Bruce Johnston"... If people inquire, which they usually do- "Is Brian still with them?" - I'll inform them of the lineup.

Yes, I see many, many classic acts have morphed into one or two principal members- Chicago, Guns N Roses, Jeff Lynne's ELO, The Temptations- so I can see Mike looking around and thinking "Hmm, why don't I do that?" and forsake all the stress associated with the BBs touring act.

I don't blame Mike for "re-casting" the band so to speak, if there was tension, since he was given permission by BRI's voting members. I know what it's like to play in a band with other personalities. Their can be differences of feel or opinion that become more gradual as the years pass- just look at The Beatles. Oftentimes you have butting heads who feel different ways about the look, setlist, etc... Yes, I don't play in an iconic band, but I can tell you for a fact that no one would bat an eye, if anyone in my band was different, except for the lead singer. That seems to be the case with most bands.

With Carl gone, and Brian seemingly uninterested, it makes sense that the powers that be see Mike as the "recognizable" "front man" figure of the group.... I'm a huge fan of Al, but Mike is more recognizable as "The Beach Boys"....

I've often wonder about the disparity in how principles would think about the band... When Al and Brian reflect about "The Beach Boys", they'd think of a group that began in 1961, disbanded in 1998, reunited in 2012, and disbanded once more... Whereas, Mike and Bruce would most likely reflect about "The Beach Boys", in terms of a group that was founded and 1961, and toured every summer since! David Marks would probably fall somewhere in the middle, having played with Mike both before and after C50...

That's why I don't argue with those feel The Beach Boys passed with Carl. Those who feel The Beach Boys are only the core members. I see things in a slightly broader way- I look at the studio players and touring musicians- guys like Glen Campbell, Ed Carter, Jeff Foskett, Billy Hinshe, Scott Totten, etc.... Those who left their mark and/or played with the group for years and years. In that light, Mike's band certainly becomes an easier pill to swallow. I think in the world of The BBs, you have to be able to separate the touring and studio groups- because as early as the mid 60's, they have been different.

I think I'm comfortable with our real life history of the way the BBs evolved to way they are today. I think a benefit of the separate factions, is that we've gotten to witness a 20+ year solo career from BW... Wouldn't have been possible if he never left The BBs... The one who really lost out was Al, it taking him a good amount of years to solidify a touring act, and once the 'Family & Friends' idea was deemed unusable, very little attempt was made to brand the band as anything more complicated than the "Endless Summer Band" or variant of that... Something to indicate BBs music without stepping on Mike's toes...

On a side note, Dean Torrence operates in a gray era, playing shows as "The Jan & Dean Beach Party". You can get the idea of how someone not paying close attention could be mislead... When I saw Dean perform, it was under the banner of "The Jan & Dean Beach Party", but the marquee read JAN & DEAN. I heard a few "Where's Jan?"... But I'd say 75% of the audience didn't notice or mind. Personally, I can see why the name works well for Dean. It has the name which is recognizable, but the concept of a "Beach Party" allows for a more diverse, greatest hits of the 60's type of set list, with more BBs than J&D, and Beatles, Instrumental Surf, and Eagles all thrown in.
Logged
NateRuvin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 924


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


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2020, 02:42:52 PM »

UEF,

I think that is the current band's best justification, and why I support Mike's band, and when I'm going, I'll say I'm seeing "The Beach Boys" not "Mike Love & Bruce Johnston"... If people inquire, which they usually do- "Is Brian still with them?" - I'll inform them of the lineup.

Yes, I see many, many classic acts have morphed into one or two principal members- Chicago, Guns N Roses, Jeff Lynne's ELO, The Temptations- so I can see Mike looking around and thinking "Hmm, why don't I do that?" and forsake all the stress associated with the BBs touring act.

I don't blame Mike for "re-casting" the band so to speak, if there was tension, since he was given permission by BRI's voting members. I know what it's like to play in a band with other personalities. Their can be differences of feel or opinion that become more gradual as the years pass- just look at The Beatles. Oftentimes you have butting heads who feel different ways about the look, setlist, etc... Yes, I don't play in an iconic band, but I can tell you for a fact that no one would bat an eye, if anyone in my band was different, except for the lead singer. That seems to be the case with most bands.

With Carl gone, and Brian seemingly uninterested, it makes sense that the powers that be see Mike as the "recognizable" "front man" figure of the group.... I'm a huge fan of Al, but Mike is more recognizable as "The Beach Boys"....

I've often wonder about the disparity in how principles would think about the band... When Al and Brian reflect about "The Beach Boys", they'd think of a group that began in 1961, disbanded in 1998, reunited in 2012, and disbanded once more... Whereas, Mike and Bruce would most likely reflect about "The Beach Boys", in terms of a group that was founded and 1961, and toured every summer since! David Marks would probably fall somewhere in the middle, having played with Mike both before and after C50...

That's why I don't argue with those feel The Beach Boys passed with Carl. Those who feel The Beach Boys are only the core members. I see things in a slightly broader way- I look at the studio players and touring musicians- guys like Glen Campbell, Ed Carter, Jeff Foskett, Billy Hinshe, Scott Totten, etc.... Those who left their mark and/or played with the group for years and years. In that light, Mike's band certainly becomes an easier pill to swallow. I think in the world of The BBs, you have to be able to separate the touring and studio groups- because as early as the mid 60's, they have been different.

I think I'm comfortable with our real life history of the way the BBs evolved to way they are today. I think a benefit of the separate factions, is that we've gotten to witness a 20+ year solo career from BW... Wouldn't have been possible if he never left The BBs... The one who really lost out was Al, it taking him a good amount of years to solidify a touring act, and once the 'Family & Friends' idea was deemed unusable, very little attempt was made to brand the band as anything more complicated than the "Endless Summer Band" or variant of that... Something to indicate BBs music without stepping on Mike's toes...

On a side note, Dean Torrence operates in a gray era, playing shows as "The Jan & Dean Beach Party". You can get the idea of how someone not paying close attention could be mislead... When I saw Dean perform, it was under the banner of "The Jan & Dean Beach Party", but the marquee read JAN & DEAN. I heard a few "Where's Jan?"... But I'd say 75% of the audience didn't notice or mind. Personally, I can see why the name works well for Dean. It has the name which is recognizable, but the concept of a "Beach Party" allows for a more diverse, greatest hits of the 60's type of set list, with more BBs than J&D, and Beatles, Instrumental Surf, and Eagles all thrown in.
Logged
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1120


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2020, 06:27:32 PM »

FWIW, on p. 391-93 of Mike Love's book, he explains that upon Carl's death in 1998, it was decided that Brother would offer SEPARATE licenses to Mike, Al and Brian each to tour as "The Beach Boys."  Brian declined, but Mike and Al each accepted a "Beach Boys" license.  According to Mike's book, Al and his band did tour as The Beach Boys for a "a few months" but generated refund requests.  As such, BRI rescinded Al's license and granted ML an exclusive license.  Mike says that he abstained from the vote, but that Brian & Justyn/Jonah voted for the exclusive license to ML.

« Last Edit: April 13, 2020, 06:28:43 PM by juggler » Logged
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1120


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2020, 06:36:43 PM »

Also, in his book, Mike does offer some insights into why he and Al were ready for a "divorce" in 1998.  He mentions a dispute over a "symphonic tour" in the wake of Carl's death (which, according to Mike, Al wanted to do while Mike didn't).  A few pages earlier, Mike also mentions a verbal dispute between Al and Jackie Love about one of the mid-90s "dancers" who had also been acting as the Jardines' nanny.  Mike describes an ugly argument which ended with Jackie threatening Al with a clothes iron from her luggage (only to be restrained by Carl).
Logged
All Summer Long
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 537



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2020, 06:56:27 PM »

Also, in his book, Mike does offer some insights into why he and Al were ready for a "divorce" in 1998.  He mentions a dispute over a "symphonic tour" in the wake of Carl's death (which, according to Mike, Al wanted to do while Mike didn't).  A few pages earlier, Mike also mentions a verbal dispute between Al and Jackie Love about one of the mid-90s "dancers" who had also been acting as the Jardines' nanny.  Mike describes an ugly argument which ended with Jackie threatening Al with a clothes iron from her luggage (only to be restrained by Carl).

I’m assuming that must be the proposed tour with Peter Cetera? So would that still have been the Pet Sounds tour with Brian proposed before Carl’s death?
Logged
NateRuvin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 924


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


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2020, 08:02:00 AM »

Very interesting to imagine a time when both Mike and Al were touring, separately as The Beach Boys. I have to admit, I'm a little surprised, given that the Mike & Bruce band has done very well, that people were asking for refunds after Al's show. It certainly supports my idea that Mike is more recognizable as "The Beach Boys", but I'm surprised the average concert goer was upset to see Al and co titled The Beach Boys, but Mike & Bruce get a pass... With Carnie & Wendy onstage, I suppose the "Boys" illusion is instantly shattered, but I don't think Mike & Bruce look THAT much more like The BBs than Al's band... Both dressed in the Hawaiian garb anyway.

 I can't imagine this arrangement lasting very long. Even if people hadn't been asking for refunds, it seems nearly impossible to properly manage and promote two groups under one name. Even as a seasoned fan, I'd be confused/annoyed trying to figure out which group I was actually seeing, when going to "The Beach Boys".

I can understand the cheerleaders and symphonic tour causing tension between Mike and Al, but I don't see that as much different than the type of head-butting that had existed in the band since the mid 60's, and yet the guys still played together. And what makes the divorce even more surprising, is that Mike and Al were a team, or faction, in The BBs. The Golden Oldies TM camp if you will, whereas the Wilsons would reside the Progressive side of things. What happened during the 90's that pushed Al from Mike's biggest ally to the one guy who Mike really doesn't seem to want to play with? There must have been some major disagreements- more than a tour and dancers.

Makes me think that once his production input was no longer being used, Bruce really must have kept his mouth shut, showed up and played- whereas Al and Carl might have been disagreeing with Mike over the direction of the act, at every step. While Al and Carl wanted to mix up the setlists with BBs deep cuts, Bruce appeared perfectly happy singing "Duke Of Earl" and "Sherry"... If he has had any quarrels with the last 30 years of touring, he certainly hasn't made it public information. Besides the occasional "I miss the guys" type of statement...

Here's an interesting thought. If Bruce had also isolated himself from Mike, in a way similar to Al, would Mike have taken the name solely for himself? If Bruce had beef with Mike about setlists and cheerleaders, would the last 20 years of "The Beach Boys" been just Mike and backing band? Would he have had more of an incentive to keep David Marks onboard after 1999? For those of you who also enjoy the Mike & Bruce band, could you have if it was just the Mike band?

Al and Bruce play a similar role in their respective current groups, by being the most important person you don't notice. With Mike and Brian being such larger than life figures, it's easy to just pay attention to them. They both add a lot of credibility the harmonies. Where Brian solo or Mike without Bruce sound like A+ BBs impressions, Mike with Bruce and Brian with Al do a fantastic job of sounding just like The Beach Boys. It's definitely having those real voices blending. There's a certain magic there. That blend is part of what made C50 so special. If there's one issue I have with Mike, it's that he seems to have forgotten that, THAT blend, those voices- you can't beat it. There's never been another blend in Pop music quite like that of Mike, Brian, Carl, Dennis, Al, Bruce, etc... Mike can have Bruce, the license, a video screen, and one of the best backing bands in the business, but that original blend is the foundation for which everything lies upon...

But like I've said, with the group playing the "lineup shuffle" since 1963, and given how hard it is to be in a band with the same people for years and years, I don't blame  Mike for his actions. He's human. He doesn't want the stress that touring with the other core members induces, and for better or worse, he doesn't have to. You have to give Mike credit for turning his version of The BBs into a profitable, relevant act. Sure, he's not doing stadiums, but I don't think anyone would scoff at Mike's lineup of 150+ shows a year, at some quite beautiful venues. In 1998 or 99, it didn't exactly look like the Mike & Bruce band is something that would go on, and get better, over 20 years.  It looked like there wasn't much steam left. But thanks to Mike, Bruce, and especially Scott Totten, The Beach Boys have continued to be one of America's most beloved touring acts, spreading positivity and "Good Vibrations".

That's ultimately why I support Mike's band. By the ending notes of Fun, Fun Fun, the entire audience is on cloud nine. A  Beach Boys show is a spiritual experience, and positivity radiates among the crowd by the time the show is over. If these shows make people so happy, can you really complain? If people around the world, night after night, pay money and are delighted to sing along to the BBs with classics, with Mike, Bruce, and co, I think that's a great thing. I'm happy the music is being kept alive. If anything, I enjoy seeing Brian, Mike, David, Dean, etc separately as then I usually have multiple BBs related shows a year to look forward to. And they all do a terrific job with their respective bands of keeping the music alive, and that is the ultimate goal of touring in the first place.
Logged
Rocker
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 10622


"Too dumb for New York City, too ugly for L.A."


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2020, 08:12:56 AM »

I've often defended Mike's usage of The BBs name due to him being the only member of the group who hasn't quit touring with the group, at any point for any reason.


Don't want to be a nitpicker, but I believe Dennis never formally quit but was fired. Of course since his early death it's of no importance for the discussion.
Logged

a diseased bunch of mo'fos if there ever was one… their beauty is so awesome that listening to them at their best is like being in some vast dream cathedral decorated with a thousand gleaming American pop culture icons.

- Lester Bangs on The Beach Boys


PRO SHOT BEACH BOYS CONCERTS - LIST


To sum it up, they blew it, they blew it consistently, they continue to blow it, it is tragic and this pathological problem caused The Beach Boys' greatest music to be so underrated by the general public.

- Jack Rieley
Mr. Tiger
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2020, 08:25:58 AM »

Here's an interesting thought. If Bruce had also isolated himself from Mike, in a way similar to Al, would Mike have taken the name solely for himself?

Yes.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2020, 09:42:48 AM »

FWIW, on p. 391-93 of Mike Love's book, he explains that upon Carl's death in 1998, it was decided that Brother would offer SEPARATE licenses to Mike, Al and Brian each to tour as "The Beach Boys."  Brian declined, but Mike and Al each accepted a "Beach Boys" license.  According to Mike's book, Al and his band did tour as The Beach Boys for a "a few months" but generated refund requests.  As such, BRI rescinded Al's license and granted ML an exclusive license.  Mike says that he abstained from the vote, but that Brian & Justyn/Jonah voted for the exclusive license to ML.


Since it was raised, it's important to consider Al's cases with BRI and Mike Love as the complex cases which they were, and not boil it down to a few lines or soundbites as Mike may have done in his book. There were several issues and cases surrounding this which wound their way up to various appeals courts, district courts, and a Superior Court hearing. It wasn't just a case of "Al started to use the name and was ordered to stop".

So with that in mind, I usually take what is written in Mike's book with a grain of salt, if not the entire salt shaker in some instances, and try to look for the details.

Here is an excerpt from one of the court decisions (9th Circuit Court) which explains the background as well as anything I've read, including specific dates and some events not as often reported, and understand there were other cases and decisions which followed this one.

Link: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html

Excerpt:


United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.

BROTHER RECORDS, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. Alan JARDINE, an individual, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant.

No. 01-57095.
Decided: January 28, 2003
Before PREGERSON, NOONAN, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Jeffrey S. Benice, Irvine, CA, for the defendant-counter-claimant-appellant. Phillip H. Stillman, Del Mar, CA, Edwin McPherson, McPherson & Kalmansohn, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-counter-defendant-appellee.

OPINION

Alan Jardine appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Brother Records, Inc. (“BRI”), on BRI's Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1129, trademark infringement action alleging that Jardine infringed BRI's “The Beach Boys” trademark.   Jardine also appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of BRI on Jardine's counterclaims that BRI breached a lifetime employment agreement and license agreement.   Finally, Jardine appeals the district court's denial of his motion to amend his counterclaim to add third-party claims and an additional counterclaim.   We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In 1961, Al Jardine, Mike Love, Brian Wilson, Carl Wilson, and Dennis Wilson formed The Beach Boys. The band shortly thereafter achieved huge commercial success, producing numerous hit songs and touring to huge audiences throughout the country.   In 1967, the members of the Beach Boys incorporated BRI to hold and administer the intellectual property rights for The Beach Boys. Currently, BRI is equally owned by four shareholders, who are also its directors:  Al Jardine, Mike Love, Brian Wilson, and the estate of Carl Wilson.   BRI is the registered owner of “The Beach Boys” trademark.

Over the years, personal difficulties arose between some of the members, and some members of the band decided to not tour full time, or at all.   In 1991, the members of the Beach Boys incorporated Brother Tours, Inc., which handled their touring and distributed their touring income.   In 1993, the directors of BRI agreed to devote a certain percentage of the touring income to the corporation for use of the trademark and designated a larger percentage of the income to those members who actually toured.   By 1998, Carl Wilson had died, Love and Jardine no longer wanted to tour together, and Brian Wilson did not want to tour at all.   Love began negotiating with BRI the terms of a license to use “The Beach Boys” trademark in connection with his own band.

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.

The parties dispute whether BRI and Jardine entered into a non-exclusive license agreement.   After the July 1998 BRI board meeting, Jardine began touring with his own band, using a booking agent and manager that were not included in the list approved by the Love license.   On October 25, 1998, Jardine's attorney sent BRI a letter saying that Jardine would be performing as “Beach Boys Family and Friends,” and that therefore, “a license from BRI [was] unnecessary.”   On October 28, 1998, BRI told Jardine that his unlicensed use of the trademark would be an infringement.


Jardine then proposed a license that included terms different from those included in the Love license.   Jardine's proposal contemplated only a five-percent royalty to BRI on the first $1 million of gross receipts and a 17.5 percent royalty thereafter.   BRI proposed a 17.5 percent royalty across the board.   Love's license required a royalty of 20 percent of the first $1 million and 17.5 percent of receipts thereafter.   Also, Jardine wanted to use a booking agent and manager that were not on the approved list.   Jardine stated that, whether or not BRI accepted the proposal, he would continue performing as the “Beach Boys Family and Friends.”

The BRI board scheduled another meeting for November 24, 1998 to discuss Jardine's proposal.   Before the meeting, Jardine's attorney sent a letter to the board with a proposed license agreement signed by Jardine.   At the meeting, the BRI board voted to reject Jardine's proposal.   In the months following the meeting, Jardine both attempted to negotiate an agreement and claimed he had a license.

Jardine and his band continued to perform using names that included “The Beach Boys” trademark.   The performances were promoted under names such as:  Al Jardine of the Beach Boys and Family & Friends;  The Beach Boys “Family and Friends”;  Beach Boys Family & Friends;  The Beach Boys, Family & Friends;  Beach Boys and Family;  as well as, simply, The Beach Boys. Jardine and his band performed in locations and on dates close to Love's “The Beach Boys” shows.   With two bands touring as The Beach Boys or as a similar-sounding combination, show organizers sometimes were confused about what exactly they were getting when they booked Jardine's band.   A number of show organizers booked Jardine's band thinking they would get The Beach Boys along with special added guests, but subsequently canceled the booking when they discovered that Jardine's band was not what they thought it was.   Numerous people who attended one of Jardine's shows said that they had been confused about who was performing.   During this time period, BRI sent Jardine cease and desist letters objecting to Jardine's use of the trademark.

On April 9, 1999, BRI filed its complaint in the district court alleging that Jardine was infringing its trademark.   Jardine answered, asserting the defenses of fair use, laches, estoppel, and unclean hands, and counterclaimed for breach of employment agreement, breach of license agreement, and for a declaratory judgment that Jardine could tour as the “Beach Boys Family and Friends.”   On March 28, 2000, the district court issued the preliminary injunction prohibiting Jardine from using “The Beach Boys,” “The Beach Boys Family and Friends,” and other similar combinations, but still allowing Jardine to refer to his past membership in the band “in a descriptive fashion.”

On March 19, 2001, two weeks before the close of discovery, Jardine moved for leave to amend his pleading to add third-party claims against the shareholders and directors of BRI and an additional counterclaim against BRI for breach of fiduciary duty.   The district court denied the motion.   On June 4, 2001, BRI moved for summary judgment on its trademark infringement claim and Jardine's counterclaims.   The district court granted summary judgment in favor of BRI and issued a permanent injunction against Jardine's use of the trademark.   This timely appeal followed.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2020, 09:58:50 AM by guitarfool2002 » Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2020, 09:55:52 AM »

After the 9th Circuit Court decision listed above, in 2003, Al filed and won an appeal which allowed him to file suit against Mike Love and BRI board members which is outlined here:

Link: https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/68217/al-jardine-gets-ok-to-sue-mike-love

Excerpt:
<<<<<<<
Al Jardine Gets OK To Sue Mike Love

11/12/2003

Founding Beach Boys member Al Jardine has won an appeal against ex-bandmate Mike Love, clearing the way for a breach-of-fiduciary-duty lawsuit against Love. "This is the first step in a long journey," Jardine tells Billboard.

Love became the sole licensee to perform under the Beach Boys name in 1998, when bandmate Carl Wilson died. In 2001, Love sued Jardine in California superior court to prevent Jardine from using the band's name when he toured. According to the complaint, Jardine had been touring under the names "Beach Boys Family & Friends," "Al Jardine, Beach Boy" and "Al Jardine of the Beach Boys."

At the time, the lower court ruled in Love's favor, denying Jardine use of the name. Jardine then appealed the decision, seeking $4 million in damages. By now, the damage amount has ballooned to "something in the tens of millions of dollars," says Jardine. "But it's about much more than just the money. I want to be able to tour again, and to be able to identify myself as a Beach Boy again."

In the latest decision, the California Court of Appeal on Oct. 29 ruled that Love acted wrongfully in freezing Jardine out of touring under the Beach Boys name. Other defendants in the appeal included Brian Wilson; Wilson's wife, Melinda Wilson; the trust of the late Carl Wilson and Brother Records, Inc.

A trial date is expected in mid-2004.
>>>>>>


And *that* appeal involved this previous case and decision from 2001:

Link: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/jardine-sues-beach-boys-238363/

Excerpt:

<<<<<<
Jardine Sues Beach Boys

July 5, 2001

Beach Boy charges former bandmates with excluding him from concerts
By Charles Bermant

More than a year after a California court ruled that he couldn’t tour under the moniker “The Beach Boys’ Family and Friends,” Beach Boys founding member Alan Jardine has sued his former bandmates for $4 million, claiming that he has been excluded from recent concerts.

The defendants in the suit are Mike Love, Brian Wilson, the Carl Wilson Trust and Brother Records Inc., the owner and administrator of the Beach Boys trademark. An initial ruling is expected on July 23rd.

“This is frivolous harassment, where Alan is trying to get money that he does not deserve,” said Brother Records attorney Michael Flynn.

“The entire premise of the Beach Boys has been to promote love, harmony and music,” Jardine said as he prepared for a show at an Indian casino in Bow, Washington. “But right now the ‘Beach Boys’ are taking the financial rather than the creative route, and Mike is making an end run to grab all of the income. This is a moral issue.”

Jardine had no desire to bill himself as “The Beach Boys,” instead opting for “The Beach Boys’ Family and Friends.” But in granting a license to Love, Brother Records prevented any use of the name by Jardine, a decision that was upheld by a California court in December 1999. Jardine claims that he was offered use of the name in 1998, but the offer was withdrawn.

Currently, the band formerly known as the Beach Boys can be seen in three performing ensembles, each with one original band member: The licensed version with Love and touring replacement Bruce Johnston, Brian Wilson’s touring band and Jardine’s Family and Friends, which includes Brian Wilson’s daughters Carnie and Wendy.

That Jardine has filed suit against his former band mates has not affected what he calls the “wonderful spiritual connection” that occurs onstage. Says Billy Hinsche, the music director of Jardine’s band, “the topic never comes up. It’s only business and has nothing to do with anything personal.”

Upon returning to California from this week’s show, Jardine plans to do the final mixing for Live in Las Vegas, a recording of a 1999 concert to be sold on his Web site (www.aljardine.com). While the album has many of the expected hits played by the other iterations it also includes more obscure selections like “Breakaway” and “Wild Honey.”

Despite all the ill feeling, Jardine said he would play with Love and/or Wilson if they could bury their differences. “These guys are my lifelong partners,” he said.

>>>>>>


Consider there were even more cases and filings...so it's not something that can be explained in a few lines from a book or soundbites. And there was still more to come.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2020, 10:03:30 AM »


Also, Jardine wanted to use a booking agent and manager that were not on the approved list.  


What's with this "approved list"?

I have to think that it's something that would have allowed Mike to secretly pull the strings and control the outcome, under the guise of Al not being "unfair competition".

Didn't Mike try to bring a band therapist of some sort into the fold to "help" work out interpersonal disputes between the band around the early 90s? (Mainly disputes between Mike and Al, if I recall what I read). And didn't it turn out that this band therapist, who obviously should have been impartial, was really somebody in Mike's back pocket, who was a member of some organization that Mike had deep ties to?

So yeah, I'm gonna make a not-too-giant-leap and assumption that Mike wanting Al to book only via some "approved list" was a similar scenario. To avoid Al "going rogue", because, as proven with Mike's pro-hunting 2020 show, going rogue is Mike's detail, and nobody else is allowed to go rogue but Mike himself. 
« Last Edit: April 14, 2020, 10:06:09 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2020, 10:06:39 AM »

Fast forward to March 2008 when one of these suits specific to Al and Mike and centered more on financial issues than the use of the trademark name was finally settled. And the details of that settlement were confidential, but the reports state both parties were happy with the outcome.

Since the details were sealed, draw your own conclusions on the settlement details and who got what, but these reports say both parties left the court's negotiation table happy.

Link: https://www.tmz.com/2008/03/20/beach-boys-wouldnt-it-be-nice-to-settle-lawsuit/

Excerpt:
<<<<<<
Beach Boys -- Wouldn't It Be Nice to Settle Lawsuit

3/20/2008 2:14 PM PT

Beach Boy Mike Love and former bandmate Al Jardine have finally settled a lawsuit over a feud over the band's name.

The case, we've learned, mainly centered around Love's request for roughly $2.2 million in attorney's fees spent in previous litigation against Jardine.

Love sued Jardine in April 2003 after he toured with groups under the names "Beach Boys Family & Friends," "Al Jardine, Beach Boy" and "Al Jardine of the Beach Boys." A federal judge ruled that Jardine could not use any reference to "Beach Boys" as it violated copyright laws. According to the suit, Love is the only person who may perform under the name "Beach Boys."

An attorney for the Carl Wilson Trust says the terms of the settlement are confidential, but that both Love and Jardine were pleased with the outcome.

>>>>>>

Link: https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/03/23/beach-boys-lawsuit-settled/

Excerpt:

<<<<<<


Beach Boys lawsuit settled

By Associated Press |
March 23, 2008 at 9:50 p.m.

Two former members of the Beach Boys settled a five-year legal dispute over use of the band’s name, a lawyer said.

Al Jardine and Mike Love (neither exactly considered the creative nexus of the band) reached an agreement after a two-day conference in Superior Court, attorney Lawrence Noble, who represents Jardine, said Thursday. Details of the settlement were not disclosed.

“Mr. Jardine feels very happy and feels that this is a friendly settlement that allows them to focus on the talent and future of this American iconic band,” Noble said without a trace of irony.

Love sued Jardine in 2003, claiming he fronted a group that used various versions of the Beach Boys name. The lawsuit said Love was the sole licensee to perform under the name, and that Jardine was denied use because he did not agree to abide by terms of a proposed license.

Love was seeking $2 million in court costs and $1 million he said Jardine collected from using the name.

A judge ruled in January that the case could go to trial. It was set to begin April 14.

The Beach Boys were founded in 1961 by brothers Brian, Carl and Dennis Wilson, their cousin Love and Brian Wilson’s friend Jardine.

Dennis Wilson died in 1983 and Carl Wilson died in 1998.


>>>>>>
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2020, 10:15:44 AM »


Also, Jardine wanted to use a booking agent and manager that were not on the approved list.  


What's with this "approved list"?

I have to think that it's something that would have allowed Mike to secretly pull the strings and control the outcome, under the guise of Al not being "unfair competition".

Didn't Mike try to bring a band therapist of some sort into the fold to "help" work out interpersonal disputes between the band around the early 90s? (Mainly disputes between Mike and Al, if I recall what I read). And didn't it turn out that this band therapist, who obviously should have been impartial, was really somebody in Mike's back pocket, who was a member of some organization that Mike had deep ties to?

So yeah, I'm gonna make a not-too-giant-leap and assumption that Mike wanting Al to book only via some "approved list" was a similar scenario. To avoid Al "going rogue", because, as proven with Mike's pro-hunting 2020 show, going rogue is Mike's detail, and nobody else is allowed to go rogue but Mike himself. 


CD - Exactly. Reading that passage, it does give the impression that Mike had his booking agent and tour management in place, and under whatever terms he tried to cite wanted to almost force Al to use either that same agency/management or someone else who was "approved" by Mike. It does sound like Mike was playing with a stacked deck against Al if somehow Mike was telling Al he had to use the same people when booking shows.

One facet of this which I purposely highlighted was that BRI had a vote - suggested by Carl's sons on the board - to grant *equal* non-exclusive licenses to all members if they wanted to use the name to book shows. Brian had already been touring with his own band, under his own name, and getting great results so he declined. But the vote among BRI was 3 to 1. This was while Mike was still negotiating with BRI to get the license.

Again it's more complex than a few soundbites from a book, but you can draw conclusions by piecing together the various reports and details.

Ask again, is it hard to see who were the 3 voting yes and who was the 1 voting no in that board vote to grant equal licenses to all members if they wanted? All that obviously fell apart.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Robbie Mac
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 877


Carl Wilson is not amused.


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2020, 11:44:41 AM »

Also, in his book, Mike does offer some insights into why he and Al were ready for a "divorce" in 1998.  He mentions a dispute over a "symphonic tour" in the wake of Carl's death (which, according to Mike, Al wanted to do while Mike didn't).  A few pages earlier, Mike also mentions a verbal dispute between Al and Jackie Love about one of the mid-90s "dancers" who had also been acting as the Jardines' nanny.  Mike describes an ugly argument which ended with Jackie threatening Al with a clothes iron from her luggage (only to be restrained by Carl).

What the hell?
Logged

The world could come together as one
If everybody under the sun
Adds some 🎼 to your day
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2020, 11:55:17 AM »

The BW less band of the 1990s was strange trip.... Cool Guy
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Summer_Days
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 734


...and your dream comes true.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2020, 12:06:27 PM »

Indeed. It was like the return of the 1978 tour with the group struggling to keep from falling apart or killing each other. Any semblance of brotherhood and all for one spirit completely came undone when Carl passed. That just tells you how important he was to the band carrying on together for so long. Take away the mortar and the wall falls down. That they were ever able to patch it back up, for a while anyway, in 2012, post-Carl, was amazing. I suspect (read: it’s very likely) that the marketing prospects alone had Mike’s eyes fall in place like a slot machine, all dollar signs.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2020, 12:08:53 PM by Summer_Days » Logged

Wouldn't it be nice if we were older, then we wouldn't have to wait so long
And wouldn't it be nice to live together, in the kind of world where we belong?
http://wildsmiley.weebly.com
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1120


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2020, 12:49:48 PM »

Also, in his book, Mike does offer some insights into why he and Al were ready for a "divorce" in 1998.  He mentions a dispute over a "symphonic tour" in the wake of Carl's death (which, according to Mike, Al wanted to do while Mike didn't).  A few pages earlier, Mike also mentions a verbal dispute between Al and Jackie Love about one of the mid-90s "dancers" who had also been acting as the Jardines' nanny.  Mike describes an ugly argument which ended with Jackie threatening Al with a clothes iron from her luggage (only to be restrained by Carl).

What the hell?

Here you go, straight from the book:

But in one instance, we were including professional dancers in the show, with Jacquelyne working as the producer.
The band was in Atlanta, and after a long day of rehearsal with the dancers, Al approached Jacquelyne and began chastising her.
Al was angry because a dancer who'd been released was also working as Al's nanny, and now Al would have to pay her travel
expenses if she continued to work in that capacity.
I had to leave early that day, and the hostilities continued. Jacquelyne, who also had little Brian nearby crying and with our
nanny visibly upset, had had enough. She reached into a wardrobe case, pulled out an iron, and swung back to clobber Al.
Carl grabbed her. "You don't want to do that," he said.
"Yes, I do."
"No, you don't."
Jacquelyne put down the iron, and Carl turned to Al and said, "Shame on you." (Al called Jacquelyne that night and
apologized.)
Logged
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 5855


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2020, 01:58:53 PM »

I’ve said it before but will say it again. As much as I love their music, I have no interest in meeting them.  Grin
Logged
All Summer Long
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 537



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2020, 02:14:40 PM »

Ok so I had a long post which I was pretty happy with -- and then the board went down for a few seconds and I lost the post.

I'll try to summarize as fast as possible because I don't want to spend 10 minutes retyping.  

First, I believe the therapist was tied into one of Mike's foundations and happened during SIP (I remember reading that from HeyJude).

I believe it is likely the Mike-Al relationship broke down in the '80's, using the Goldmine interview and its reference of Island Girl as evidence.  I can explain further if people would like.

I'm assuming Al tried to reconnect with Brian, Carl, and Dennis after the 1977 tarmac incident on Al's birthday.  Obviously, Carl is the most relevant to this discussion. Carl may have rejected this, regardless of it was before or after December 1983, because of the breakdown between the factions around 1977/1978.  As early as 1980, I remember reading, Al was worried about how heavily the setlist was biased towards "oldies."  As Carl withdrew, Al became the primary source advocating for deep cuts, seen from at least 1990-1993.  

Regarding the iron story, if Mike isn't embellishing Carl's reaction too much (while also remembering that Al wasn't the calmest), then the Al-Carl relationship had broken down so much, possibly due to the tarmac incident and Dennis' unfortunate death six years later.

I had more but can't remember.  Also, I know much less than many of the experts on the board, so I welcome and encourage corrections from those who know more than I do.

Also, I really doubt that a proposed tour with Peter Cetera would have been done without Mike.  Are these symphonic and/or Cetera tours the same as the Pet Sounds tour with Brian proposed before Carl's death?
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2020, 02:20:00 PM »

Also, in his book, Mike does offer some insights into why he and Al were ready for a "divorce" in 1998.  He mentions a dispute over a "symphonic tour" in the wake of Carl's death (which, according to Mike, Al wanted to do while Mike didn't).  A few pages earlier, Mike also mentions a verbal dispute between Al and Jackie Love about one of the mid-90s "dancers" who had also been acting as the Jardines' nanny.  Mike describes an ugly argument which ended with Jackie threatening Al with a clothes iron from her luggage (only to be restrained by Carl).

What the hell?

Here you go, straight from the book:

But in one instance, we were including professional dancers in the show, with Jacquelyne working as the producer.
The band was in Atlanta, and after a long day of rehearsal with the dancers, Al approached Jacquelyne and began chastising her.
Al was angry because a dancer who'd been released was also working as Al's nanny, and now Al would have to pay her travel
expenses if she continued to work in that capacity.
I had to leave early that day, and the hostilities continued. Jacquelyne, who also had little Brian nearby crying and with our
nanny visibly upset, had had enough. She reached into a wardrobe case, pulled out an iron, and swung back to clobber Al.
Carl grabbed her. "You don't want to do that," he said.
"Yes, I do."
"No, you don't."
Jacquelyne put down the iron, and Carl turned to Al and said, "Shame on you." (Al called Jacquelyne that night and
apologized.)


I guess we know what Monopoly piece is Jacquelyne's go-to when the Love family dusts off the Monopoly set for board game night  LOL
Logged
NateRuvin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 924


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


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 14, 2020, 02:47:41 PM »

All Summer Long,

I'd really like to hear more about the dissolution of Mike and Al's friendship/partnership beginning in the 80's, with the Goldmine interview, as well as the 1977 tarmac incident. Never heard of that before.

My original meaning for the thread wasn't to once again get into the legal aspects (thought I do love that stuff), but to tap into the emotional side of things ie:

When did Mike no longer want to tour with his bandmates, and in particular his relationship with Al... the human, emotional side of the events, which of course can only be speculatory.
Logged
All Summer Long
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 537



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2020, 03:19:06 PM »

All Summer Long,

I'd really like to hear more about the dissolution of Mike and Al's friendship/partnership beginning in the 80's, with the Goldmine interview, as well as the 1977 tarmac incident. Never heard of that before.

My original meaning for the thread wasn't to once again get into the legal aspects (thought I do love that stuff), but to tap into the emotional side of things ie:

When did Mike no longer want to tour with his bandmates, and in particular his relationship with Al... the human, emotional side of the events, which of course can only be speculatory.

Most of what I have is varying levels of educated guesses based on what HeyJude and many others have stated before on this board.  My guesses are that the tarmac incident, at least Al and Dennis' remarks, would have at least temporarily hurt their relationship.  With Carl supporting the POB tour, I'm assuming he would have sided with Dennis.  Dennis' unfortunate demise, regardless of if he had made up with Al, probably still woiuld have sat with Carl.  Had the POB tour gone on, maybe Dennis doesn't die, and maybe Carl is pissed at Mike and Al for this.  A little ranging into alternate history here, because I'm not sure.

What I can say for sure is in that interview, Mike complains about "Island Girl" (and others, like Brian's "In My Car") being added to "Still Cruisin'" and turning it from a repackage (typical Mike) into a hodgepodge studio/compilation album.  He refers to Al, IIRC, as "Jardine."  People don't often refer to people they like solely by their last name (unless it's a nickname thing, and I don't have much evidence that Al was ever referred often as just "Jardine."  This implies tension by 1992, obviously with SIP, but it's not a stretch to say this tension occurred in 1988/89.  I believe Al and Carl had mentioned Mike's neverending obsession with "Kokomo."  Since Mike was discussing a song from 1988/89 ("Island Girl") in a negative (IIRC) manner, it is certainly possible that this tension occurred back then as well, placing a Mike-Al dissolution occuring sometime between 1980 and 1988.  Maybe (getting back into alternate history again here) Al was disappointed that his alliance with Mike hurt his relationship with Carl and Dennis, especially as Carl left his '77/'78 state?  I'll guess sometime after 1985, using "California Calling" as my half-evidence.  I believe I read about a full Al lead vocal, but mostly due to Mike being the primary surf lead vocalist, Mike and Al eventually would (as we know) divide the lead between them.  

EDIT: Again, this is without having really read any books on the band, and just using my knowledge from Wikipedia and what I've read from those here on the board.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2020, 03:20:35 PM by All Summer Long » Logged
gfx
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.42 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!