gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 02:26:22 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Billy Hinsche being asked to replace Bruce in 1969  (Read 5486 times)
Rebel
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


View Profile
« on: July 12, 2021, 08:19:05 PM »

I've read before and I was just reminded watching a video that Billy Hinsche was asked to replace Bruce around 1969 and he turned it down. Is this true? If Bruce was sacked - how much do you think that would have altered the history of the Boys? It seems Bruce was always kind of on the verge of being kicked out....
Logged
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1121


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2021, 08:01:56 AM »

If Bruce had been replaced by Billy in 1969, Sunflower would have been a quite different album.
Billy seems like such an all-around nice guy perhaps he would have been a good influence on everyone and reduced a lot of the intra-band strife of the '70s.  Or not. Who knows?

Bruce's role in the group is, was and always has been odd.  Bruce though considered a de facto "Beach Boy" since he joined has never, AFAIK, been a corporate member of "The Beach Boys."  Mike Love's book has a charming anecdote about how Carl was paying Bruce on a per-show basis in the early days, based a figure that Bruce requested (the punch line was something along the lines that Bruce meant $/per week or month but Carl thought he meant $/per show).  In effect, Bruce was always a hired hand in the Wilson-Love-Jardine business.    And, yet, starting with Summer Days, there's Bruce singing (and occasionally playing) on their albums.  And not just in a don't-blink-or-you-might-miss-him way.  Bruce's voice is clear as a bell on California Girls, God Only Knows, original Wonderful etc.  How was he paid for that, if at all?  I don't think I've ever seen a good explanation on that issue.  He wasn't getting a cut of the Capitol royalties like the rest of them as he wasn't part of that contract.  Did he get a separate Capitol contract? When they reorganized as Brother Records, Inc, in January 1967, it was a 5-way equal-shares partnership of the Wilsons, Love & Jardine.  They could have cut Bruce in at that point but didn't.  When they moved to Warner-Reprise, was he formally part of that deal?  His prominent role on Sunflower would suggest that maybe he was, but wasn't the deal between Brother and the label?   Of course, Bruce would still have been getting publishing royalties for the songs that he authored regardless of the fact that he wasn't a corporate member of The Beach Boys.  It's strange for him to have been a "hired hand" on and off now for 56 years.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2021, 12:06:07 PM by juggler » Logged
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1121


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2021, 08:17:43 AM »

Just to add on one thing...  In the 1990 "hotel tape," Bruce recounts a years-earlier story of a very young Carnie Wilson playing the piano, pausing and telling him, "You know, Bruce, my daddy owns the Beach Boys."     Which was true.  Brian was and is a co-owner of The Beach Boys.  But it's an interesting remark from the perspective that even Carnie, at 6, 7, 8 or whatever, was apparently aware that Bruce did *not* own the Beach Boys.


Logged
Ian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1833


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2021, 08:51:28 AM »

I think that feeling of being an employee in the BBs led to some behavior by Bruce that rubbed them the wrong way. He had ambitions to get his name out there a bit and get out of Brian’s shadow. He mentioned in the new ESQ that he had a major argument with Jack Rieley about credits on Surfs Up. Jack was eager to make it seem like Brian was more involved than he was so he was not going to have composer credits listed on the album cover and Bruce wanted recognition that Disney Girls was all him-indeed he even put up a sign at sessions telling the Wilsons to stay out of the studio. Then when they toured in 1970 he would make them leave the stage when he sang Tears in the morning because he wanted the crowd to see him as an individual talent 
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2021, 12:15:03 PM »

I like Bruce's material and contributions to "Sunflower" and "Surf's Up", but I'm not sure how many folks in a 1970 Beach Boys concert audience were just really dying to know who was the mastermind behind "Tears in the Morning."

Bruce is a weird dude. The David Marks anecdotes about Bruce during the 1970/71 timeframe seem to sum up some aspects of Bruce. He sometimes is *too* fawning (signaling, to some, apparent *insincerity*). He did this to David Marks when he (Bruce) thought David might be rejoining the band. Bruce also does this in *some* interviews, waxing about how he's the luckiest person in the world that Brian plucked him out of obscurity. Then, other times, he's comically egotistical and/or aggressive and/or dismissive, as David also learned once Bruce knew he (David) wasn't coming back. Bruce has also done this in interviews, acting like he's doing the band or Brian a favor being there.

The sign being posted during the "Surf's Up" sessions sounds really strange. If it's true, then Bruce is lucky he wasn't immediately fired and never invited back again. Imagine Al Jardine marching into the "Summer in Paradise" sessions and posting a "No Loves or Melchers" on the studio door so that he could record "PT Cruiser" all by himself. Wtf?

Interestingly, if you look up interviews with the other band members soon after Bruce's 1972 departure, that's probably the most aggressive/negative/critical they ever were about Bruce.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2021, 12:43:25 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/
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2021, 12:21:05 PM »

And depending on who gave the interview and when it was given (or published) regarding Bruce's departure in the early 70's, we get multiple versions of what actually happened when he left, and even for something as critical as whether he was fired or voluntarily left to pursue other musical goals, the answers are different. It makes it impossible to get a straight answer, which is probably what the band wanted anyway and is something this band's history has multiple examples of well into the 21st century. We had a thread about it here a few years ago.
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 #6 on: July 13, 2021, 12:36:07 PM »

Just for reference, here is a post with relevant quotes about Bruce's leaving:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,27272.msg663926.html#msg663926

And the original thread:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,27272.0.html

And if you read the discussions before and after that one, and follow the links in the quotes, you'll find more on the topic.

Including that infamous sign on the door, according to Al, read "No Beach Boys Allowed" and it was during the recording of Disney Girls.

But the biggest contradiction for me was reading in Mike's book that "The Wilsons" got together and voted Bruce out, while other sources say Carl-Mike-Al voted him out unanimously, while other sources beyond that claim Bruce wasn't voted out but rather left the group voluntarily. Then factor other sources saying the tension was between Jack Reiley and Bruce, and others beyond that saying the tension was between Bruce and Dennis.

See how confusing all of this is when "sources" don't agree?  Huh

At least one source's penchant for and past history of blaming "The Wilsons" for nearly everything helps weed through the BS a bit.  Grin

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
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2021, 12:48:22 PM »

One could possibly surmise that it was easier for Bruce to leave in 1972 given that touring revenue was not exactly at a peak, album sales were also not at a peak, and Bruce had few songwriting credits to glean extensive royalties.

Heading into later 1972 and 1973, what was Bruce likely facing? *Maybe* getting like one song on the next BB album, and maybe a vocal spot or two in live shows.

Remember that when he returned in 1978, he likely was making significantly more money. He was surely getting *some* sort of fee as producer of LA and KTSA (whether being paid by CBS or BRI and/or getting "points" as a producer), and by 1978 into 1979 they were playing large gigs and bringing in touring revenue sufficient to pay Bruce a surely generous amount (especially given his level of contribution to live shows).
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/
WillJC
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2021, 12:58:47 PM »


The sign being posted during the "Surf's Up" sessions sounds really strange. If it's true, then Bruce is lucky he wasn't immediately fired and never invited back again. Imagine Al Jardine marching into the "Summer in Paradise" sessions and posting a "No Loves or Melchers" on the studio door so that he could record "PT Cruiser" all by himself. Wtf?


It's true, apparently - Brian, Al, and Mike all comment on it in the new ESQ.

Al: There was a lot of weird stuff. Bruce locked us out of the studio one day. We came over and a note on the door read "No Beach Boys allowed." All the doors were locked. [Laughs] ... He was working on "Disney Girls," and he didn't want us coming in and interfering with his work. It was the weirdest thing, man. He was possessive about it. It kind of upset us. We figured if he didn't want us around, we'd leave [laughs].

Mike: I think he offended the Wilson brothers [laughs] with that note.

Brian: I didn't know what to think... it was silly.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2021, 01:05:15 PM by SaltyMarshmallow » Logged
Ian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1833


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2021, 01:17:15 PM »

It’s quite clear that Bruce was uncomfortable in the counter culture era-he has stated that he never did drugs and did not enjoy the smile period-either opting not to take part in smiley smile or being asked not to.  He was not a fan of the Jack Rieley approach-a view shared by Fred Vail, whom I interviewed. Both guys loved sunflower and were not in favor of the Move to embrace relevance and the counter culture
Logged
southbay
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 1482



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 13, 2021, 02:15:52 PM »

If Bruce had been replaced by Billy in 1969, Sunflower would have been a quite different album.
Billy seems like such an all-around nice guy perhaps he would have been a good influence on everyone and reduced a lot of the intra-band strife of the '70s.  Or not. Who knows?

Bruce's role in the group is, was and always has been odd.  Bruce though considered a de facto "Beach Boy" since he joined has never, AFAIK, been a corporate member of "The Beach Boys."  Mike Love's book has a charming anecdote about how Carl was paying Bruce on a per-show basis in the early days, based a figure that Bruce requested (the punch line was something along the lines that Bruce meant $/per week or month but Carl thought he meant $/per show).  In effect, Bruce was always a hired hand in the Wilson-Love-Jardine business.    And, yet, starting with Summer Days, there's Bruce singing (and occasionally playing) on their albums.  And not just in a don't-blink-or-you-might-miss-him way.  Bruce's voice is clear as a bell on California Girls, God Only Knows, original Wonderful etc.  How was he paid for that, if at all?  I don't think I've ever seen a good explanation on that issue.  He wasn't getting a cut of the Capitol royalties like the rest of them as he wasn't part of that contract.  Did he get a separate Capitol contract? When they reorganized as Brother Records, Inc, in January 1967, it was a 5-way equal-shares partnership of the Wilsons, Love & Jardine.  They could have cut Bruce in at that point but didn't.  When they moved to Warner-Reprise, was he formally part of that deal?  His prominent role on Sunflower would suggest that maybe he was, but wasn't the deal between Brother and the label?   Of course, Bruce would still have been getting publishing royalties for the songs that he authored regardless of the fact that he wasn't a corporate member of The Beach Boys.  It's strange for him to have been a "hired hand" on and off now for 56 years.

I've always heard/read that Bruce previously sold his shares in BRI...
Logged

Summer's gone...it's finally sinking in
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1121


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 13, 2021, 02:47:05 PM »

I've always heard/read that Bruce previously sold his shares in BRI...

I'm certainly open to correction on that point if anyone has the scoop.    Anyone want to ask Abe Somer, the lawyer who did that paperwork?

 I will say, though, if the group did in fact award a share of BRI to Bruce when the corporation was formed in January 1967, it's strange that a period of reduced Bruce  involvement immediately followed, i.e., skipping Smiley Smile, skipping Lei'd in Hawaii, etc.   As mentioned in the thread linked to above, it's widely believed that Bruce was trying to cut his own record deal with Warners in Summer '67.    Does all that sound like someone who just became a corporate member of the Beach Boys? 

And if Bruce did in fact have a share of BRI, was it an equal share with the others?   Such an arrangement would have been extremely generous to Bruce who'd been with them less than 2 years at that point and was certainly a non-essential, minor contributor.  The fact is that the Wilsons, Love and Jardine did have equal shares in BRI.  That fact had been disclosed in multiple legal filings over the years related to the many BRI lawsuits.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 13, 2021, 03:15:30 PM »

I've always heard/read that Bruce previously sold his shares in BRI...

I'm certainly open to correction on that point if anyone has the scoop.    Anyone want to ask Abe Somer, the lawyer who did that paperwork?

 I will say, though, if the group did in fact award a share of BRI to Bruce when the corporation was formed in January 1967, it's strange that a period of reduced Bruce  involvement immediately followed, i.e., skipping Smiley Smile, skipping Lei'd in Hawaii, etc.   As mentioned in the thread linked to above, it's widely believed that Bruce was trying to cut his own record deal with Warners in Summer '67.    Does all that sound like someone who just became a corporate member of the Beach Boys? 

And if Bruce did in fact have a share of BRI, was it an equal share with the others?   Such an arrangement would have been extremely generous to Bruce who'd been with them less than 2 years at that point and was certainly a non-essential, minor contributor.  The fact is that the Wilsons, Love and Jardine did have equal shares in BRI.  That fact had been disclosed in multiple legal filings over the years related to the many BRI lawsuits.


In an article that would date to the period in the first half of '67 when Smile was still set for a release and "Heroes" was the single still being worked on, Derek Taylor wrote an article stating Al had just become a member of the BRI financial organization. Even though he was an original member, Al was still on salary until 1967. And later documents give a date for one of the agreements regarding Brother membership and all members as 1973 I believe, but I'd need to check.

So Bruce was not a voting member or financial part of Brother in '67, and unless someone has different info, he was still on salary much like he is and has been with Mike since the 90's. That also means he was pretty much free to come and go.

The question is still why did Mike say the Wilson brothers voted him out, after saying Bruce left on his own accord to pursue his own music. And *if* he was in fact voted out either as Mike claims by the Wilsons, or Mike-Al-Carl voting him out, or was fired instigated by Jack, that would suggest he was still a musician for-hire, and not a full voting member of BRI when that happened. I don't know for sure but don't think Bruce ever had a vote with BRI, which meant he wouldn't have financial shares in it either.
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 #13 on: July 13, 2021, 03:27:55 PM »

It’s quite clear that Bruce was uncomfortable in the counter culture era-he has stated that he never did drugs and did not enjoy the smile period-either opting not to take part in smiley smile or being asked not to.  He was not a fan of the Jack Rieley approach-a view shared by Fred Vail, whom I interviewed. Both guys loved sunflower and were not in favor of the Move to embrace relevance and the counter culture

Assuming Bruce was a salaried band member when all this happened, if the band wanted to go one direction and Bruce did not, it's pretty simple logic to see that eventually they'd part ways. And what may not be discussed as often is that Bruce seemed to be pretty right-leaning in his political opinions, probably from his background and family, along with other musicians who he grew up with like Jan Berry, and others in the surf music scene like Mike Curb. It would be logical to think if the band wanted to make music and play shows to appeal to the counterculture, and get the attention of underground FM radio jocks and press, Bruce's ideology would clash with those sensibilities. He wouldn't fit. If he chose to go along for the paycheck, he'd be able to do that too. But I don't think he had a vote any more than the other hired musicians who were playing with the group during that time.

And that's a separate and perhaps even more relevant point than the whole drug use topic, which I think is often a red herring in these issues. Perhaps Bruce just didn't agree with a lot of what he'd be asked to represent on stage and on record, whether it was environmentalist causes or anti-war opinions and anything else. Mike seemed to be like a windsock who could turn any way the wind was blowing in order to bring in more money, or he'd say different things to different audiences to appeal to those crowds for similar reasons. But he was of course a board member who had to do that.  Bruce did not.

And there is still some question over Bruce and Jack having issues over some personal matters which also turn political too, so if anyone wants to go down that rabbit hole, it's there.

It still amazes me how, 45+ years later, we still can't get a straight answer on this stuff.
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
All Summer Long
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 537



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2021, 05:51:28 PM »

I've always heard/read that Bruce previously sold his shares in BRI...

I'm certainly open to correction on that point if anyone has the scoop.    Anyone want to ask Abe Somer, the lawyer who did that paperwork?

 I will say, though, if the group did in fact award a share of BRI to Bruce when the corporation was formed in January 1967, it's strange that a period of reduced Bruce  involvement immediately followed, i.e., skipping Smiley Smile, skipping Lei'd in Hawaii, etc.   As mentioned in the thread linked to above, it's widely believed that Bruce was trying to cut his own record deal with Warners in Summer '67.    Does all that sound like someone who just became a corporate member of the Beach Boys? 

And if Bruce did in fact have a share of BRI, was it an equal share with the others?   Such an arrangement would have been extremely generous to Bruce who'd been with them less than 2 years at that point and was certainly a non-essential, minor contributor.  The fact is that the Wilsons, Love and Jardine did have equal shares in BRI.  That fact had been disclosed in multiple legal filings over the years related to the many BRI lawsuits.


In an article that would date to the period in the first half of '67 when Smile was still set for a release and "Heroes" was the single still being worked on, Derek Taylor wrote an article stating Al had just become a member of the BRI financial organization. Even though he was an original member, Al was still on salary until 1967. And later documents give a date for one of the agreements regarding Brother membership and all members as 1973 I believe, but I'd need to check.

So Bruce was not a voting member or financial part of Brother in '67, and unless someone has different info, he was still on salary much like he is and has been with Mike since the 90's. That also means he was pretty much free to come and go.

The question is still why did Mike say the Wilson brothers voted him out, after saying Bruce left on his own accord to pursue his own music. And *if* he was in fact voted out either as Mike claims by the Wilsons, or Mike-Al-Carl voting him out, or was fired instigated by Jack, that would suggest he was still a musician for-hire, and not a full voting member of BRI when that happened. I don't know for sure but don't think Bruce ever had a vote with BRI, which meant he wouldn't have financial shares in it either.

Interesting. I thought I had read that Bruce was given shares in BRI before Al, and that Al hadn’t received them until 1973 after Bruce left. That could be faulty memory or just from a poor source, though,

I also am intrigued by a Carl-Mike-Al “unanimous” vote. Would that mean Brian and Dennis were not consulted? Maybe they abstained in order not to show support Bruce or have a record of firing him, which would make the vote “unanimous”?
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2021, 06:50:12 PM »

I've always heard/read that Bruce previously sold his shares in BRI...

I'm certainly open to correction on that point if anyone has the scoop.    Anyone want to ask Abe Somer, the lawyer who did that paperwork?

 I will say, though, if the group did in fact award a share of BRI to Bruce when the corporation was formed in January 1967, it's strange that a period of reduced Bruce  involvement immediately followed, i.e., skipping Smiley Smile, skipping Lei'd in Hawaii, etc.   As mentioned in the thread linked to above, it's widely believed that Bruce was trying to cut his own record deal with Warners in Summer '67.    Does all that sound like someone who just became a corporate member of the Beach Boys? 

And if Bruce did in fact have a share of BRI, was it an equal share with the others?   Such an arrangement would have been extremely generous to Bruce who'd been with them less than 2 years at that point and was certainly a non-essential, minor contributor.  The fact is that the Wilsons, Love and Jardine did have equal shares in BRI.  That fact had been disclosed in multiple legal filings over the years related to the many BRI lawsuits.


In an article that would date to the period in the first half of '67 when Smile was still set for a release and "Heroes" was the single still being worked on, Derek Taylor wrote an article stating Al had just become a member of the BRI financial organization. Even though he was an original member, Al was still on salary until 1967. And later documents give a date for one of the agreements regarding Brother membership and all members as 1973 I believe, but I'd need to check.

So Bruce was not a voting member or financial part of Brother in '67, and unless someone has different info, he was still on salary much like he is and has been with Mike since the 90's. That also means he was pretty much free to come and go.

The question is still why did Mike say the Wilson brothers voted him out, after saying Bruce left on his own accord to pursue his own music. And *if* he was in fact voted out either as Mike claims by the Wilsons, or Mike-Al-Carl voting him out, or was fired instigated by Jack, that would suggest he was still a musician for-hire, and not a full voting member of BRI when that happened. I don't know for sure but don't think Bruce ever had a vote with BRI, which meant he wouldn't have financial shares in it either.

Interesting. I thought I had read that Bruce was given shares in BRI before Al, and that Al hadn’t received them until 1973 after Bruce left. That could be faulty memory or just from a poor source, though,

I also am intrigued by a Carl-Mike-Al “unanimous” vote. Would that mean Brian and Dennis were not consulted? Maybe they abstained in order not to show support Bruce or have a record of firing him, which would make the vote “unanimous”?

This is where it gets a bit confusing: The early '67 Derek Taylor article clearly states Al's recent entry into the band's financial organization after being on salary, with mention of Brian championing Al and his contributions, yet in Mike's 2005 lawsuit it states that Al became a Brother "shareholder" in 1973, and later states what we know that Al is and has been a 25% shareholder and voting member of BRI since '73.

So perhaps Al's status in Brother was different in 1967 than when he became a full "shareholder" in 1973. Maybe he originally had shares or financial involvement versus being a salaried employee when Taylor first reported that, but he wasn't an equal voting member and partner until 1973. Whatever the case with Al, I think Bruce was *not* in the Brother organization in any similar capacity, definitely not prior to Al's entry, and was on salary instead. He never had a vote. 
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
adamghost
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2107



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: July 13, 2021, 08:51:43 PM »

And there is still some question over Bruce and Jack having issues over some personal matters which also turn political too, so if anyone wants to go down that rabbit hole, it's there.

Yup.
Logged
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1121


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: July 13, 2021, 11:47:39 PM »

One more note...  I'm not sure if we know if the recent sale of a controlling interesting in BRI to Irving Azoff altered the Boys' relative shares.  While I'd assume that they're all still equal partners (with Carl's share owned jointly by Jonah and Justyn), I guess we don't know that for sure.  In other words, for example, could Al have sold half of his share to Azoff while Mike only sold a third?  It's not impossible, I suppose.  I kinda doubt that, but you never know.  One of them might have needed more cash, etc.

In case anyone harbors doubts that guys were equal partners at least before the Azoff deal...  From the case of Brother Records, Inc. vs. Alan Jardine (2003)

"In 1967, the members of the Be, ach Boys incorporateed 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."
https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/318-f-3d-900-598511310

At one time there were some documents from Dennis' probate case online, and if IIRC, Denny had a 20% stake of BRI which was sold back to BRI by his estate administrator for some combination of cash and debt relief.  Thus, presumably from at least the early '70s, it was an equal-share, 20%-each enterprise of the 3 Wilsons, Love & Jardine.

I'm skeptical of the notion that Bruce had a share of BRI.   It's very possible that he had a stake in the related Brother Publishing, sure, as he had some songrwriting credits under that banner.  But BRI proper?  Again, I'm unconvinced unless soneone can cite a source.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2021, 11:51:16 PM by juggler » Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2021, 06:59:25 AM »

One more note...  I'm not sure if we know if the recent sale of a controlling interesting in BRI to Irving Azoff altered the Boys' relative shares.  While I'd assume that they're all still equal partners (with Carl's share owned jointly by Jonah and Justyn), I guess we don't know that for sure.  In other words, for example, could Al have sold half of his share to Azoff while Mike only sold a third?  It's not impossible, I suppose.  I kinda doubt that, but you never know.  One of them might have needed more cash, etc.

In case anyone harbors doubts that guys were equal partners at least before the Azoff deal...  From the case of Brother Records, Inc. vs. Alan Jardine (2003)

"In 1967, the members of the Be, ach Boys incorporateed 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."
https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/318-f-3d-900-598511310

At one time there were some documents from Dennis' probate case online, and if IIRC, Denny had a 20% stake of BRI which was sold back to BRI by his estate administrator for some combination of cash and debt relief.  Thus, presumably from at least the early '70s, it was an equal-share, 20%-each enterprise of the 3 Wilsons, Love & Jardine.

I'm skeptical of the notion that Bruce had a share of BRI.   It's very possible that he had a stake in the related Brother Publishing, sure, as he had some songrwriting credits under that banner.  But BRI proper?  Again, I'm unconvinced unless soneone can cite a source.

It's an interesting theory that is worth pondering, but indeed, given the huge payday and insane and delicate business machinations involved in selling a majority stake of BRI to Iconic, I highly doubt any particular member gave up more shares than any other, nor would shareholders on either end of such an arrangement be likely amenable to it.

In the most simplified terms, the four shareholders essentially gave controlling interest in the company to Iconic, and got a nice payday for the buyout, and then will continue to get their 25% cut of the income/dividend that the now-minority stake brings in.

BRI shares as it pertains to band politics are mostly/probably/theoretically no longer an issue as of this year. That's not to say 37 lawsuits couldn't still be generated from these guys breathing let alone a corporate buyout, but Iconic essentially owns the band and brand now, and the guys got their big end-of-career payday, and then will continue to get a nice little additional dividend with their minority stake in the company (which their estates will continue to reap as well, either through a continued minority stake, or a future theoretical full buyout).

But certainly, who had what stake in the BRI business back in the 60s and 70s is an important part of the internal band politics of that era, and would continue to play a role in band politics for the remainder of their career. Think about how different the 90s and 2000s would have played out had Al never been a shareholder. Al easily could have been booted as early as 1990 given the climate of the band at that time. Mike's power grab in 1997/98 would have been even easier.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2021, 07:01:55 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/
tpesky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1031


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: July 14, 2021, 07:20:23 PM »

There’s also Wilojarston publishing which was formed some time in the late 60s and  which is different that BRI although I’m
not sure how and I always get confused but I believe Bruce retained his stake in that .
Logged
Cabinessenceking
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2164


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2021, 05:36:29 AM »

I think that feeling of being an employee in the BBs led to some behavior by Bruce that rubbed them the wrong way. He had ambitions to get his name out there a bit and get out of Brian’s shadow. He mentioned in the new ESQ that he had a major argument with Jack Rieley about credits on Surfs Up. Jack was eager to make it seem like Brian was more involved than he was so he was not going to have composer credits listed on the album cover and Bruce wanted recognition that Disney Girls was all him-indeed he even put up a sign at sessions telling the Wilsons to stay out of the studio. Then when they toured in 1970 he would make them leave the stage when he sang Tears in the morning because he wanted the crowd to see him as an individual talent 

To be fair I wouldn't want to be associated with that song either  Grin
Logged
phirnis
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2594



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2021, 11:50:43 PM »

...
Including that infamous sign on the door, according to Al, read "No Beach Boys Allowed" and it was during the recording of Disney Girls.
...

Was that at Brian's house? It's amazing he didn't get kicked out right after that.
Logged
Steven
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 21



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2021, 04:36:13 AM »

...
Including that infamous sign on the door, according to Al, read "No Beach Boys Allowed" and it was during the recording of Disney Girls.
...

Was that at Brian's house? It's amazing he didn't get kicked out right after that.

 They were astute enough to realize "Disney Girls" was good, so Bruce could remain for one more LP. But his departure was likely in the cards after the sign incident. Note also Bruce did not utilize the group as musicians, not even Carl.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2021, 04:44:12 AM by Steven » Logged

Formerly known as "Moon Dawg"
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2021, 06:50:56 AM »

...
Including that infamous sign on the door, according to Al, read "No Beach Boys Allowed" and it was during the recording of Disney Girls.
...

Was that at Brian's house? It's amazing he didn't get kicked out right after that.

 They were astute enough to realize "Disney Girls" was good, so Bruce could remain for one more LP. But his departure was likely in the cards after the sign incident. Note also Bruce did not utilize the group as musicians, not even Carl.

I tend to doubt the reason they kept Bruce around was to ensure securing "Disney Girls" for their next LP. I think the thing just didn't fall apart until early 1972. Whatever was going on about Rieley and the group that Bruce didn't like in 1971 was only becoming *more* whatever that was as 1971 wound down and moved into 1972.
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/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2021, 06:57:15 AM »

...
Including that infamous sign on the door, according to Al, read "No Beach Boys Allowed" and it was during the recording of Disney Girls.
...

Was that at Brian's house? It's amazing he didn't get kicked out right after that.

It's amazing how different the internal political dynamic of the band was back then compared to even the 80s let alone later. As I mentioned before, if Al Jardine had locked Mike Love and Terry Melcher out of the studio to add a song to "Summer in Paradise", the result would not have been Al getting the song on the album.

That being said, even in the more lax political dynamic of 1970/71 (which was still rife with backbiting and politics to be sure), it's clear Bruce was not becoming more integral and amenable as the beginning of the 70s wore on. So while the sign thing surely *didn't* get him booted, it's also surely a symptom of the unrest that led to his departure.
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/
gfx
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.465 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!