gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
678324 Posts in 27401 Topics by 4045 Members - Latest Member: reecemorgan January 27, 2023, 02:13:31 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mike Love book out in September  (Read 56192 times)
The LEGENDARY OSD
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1935

luHv Estrangement Syndrome. It's a great thing!


View Profile
« Reply #150 on: April 12, 2016, 09:25:40 AM »

If you follow touring bands, from the 175-per-year variety (Mike) to the lucky-if-you-can-book-a-dozen-rib-cook-offs variety (Al solo), what you'll find is that it is typically *more difficult* to hold a backing band together when you play fewer shows.

It's why, if you open up Al's "Live in Las Vegas" CD, I think it shows like three different bass players, a few drummers, etc. Obviously, he had one set of musicians on that album. But doing scattershot dates usually means your band is more likely to drift apart.

That Brian has kept all of the guys he has over 17 years when he has done very scattered touring during certain years, is even more impressive in terms of mutual loyalty and consistency between Brian and band. Even more so considering the people currently in the band are probably *not* kept on retainer the way, say, McCartney keeps his guys, or Mike keeps his guys (and even if Mike doesn't literally keep this band on retainer, they are employed for nearly the entire year, every year, even if they're simply being contracted for specific blocks of dates).

And in addition to the loyality that Brian has earned, I'm sure that it has something to do with playing with a true legend unlike the myKe and br00th BB tribute band.

We agree about Brian but it would be an honor to perform with the living legends Mike and Bruce (and Al, and Dave) too.

myKe luHv and posse legends?? Maybe in myKe's book and your book but very few would call them something like legends.
Logged

myKe luHv, the most hated, embarrassing clown the world of music has ever witnessed.
KDS
Guest
« Reply #151 on: April 12, 2016, 09:55:06 AM »

OSD,

I'm curious. 

Are you actually going to read any of Mike's book to have something real to complain about on or around Sept 13?

Or, do you plan on sticking with your usual repetitive and tired nonsense? 
Logged
You Kane, You Commanded, You Conquered
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 467


spoons rattling


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: April 12, 2016, 10:30:06 AM »

OSD,

I'm curious. 

Are you actually going to read any of Mike's book to have something real to complain about on or around Sept 13?

Or, do you plan on sticking with your usual repetitive and tired nonsense? 

Probably the former while also doing much of the latter.
Logged

"Oh! Don't beat on those sticks!"
Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3870


View Profile
« Reply #153 on: April 12, 2016, 11:12:46 PM »

If you follow touring bands, from the 175-per-year variety (Mike) to the lucky-if-you-can-book-a-dozen-rib-cook-offs variety (Al solo), what you'll find is that it is typically *more difficult* to hold a backing band together when you play fewer shows.

It's why, if you open up Al's "Live in Las Vegas" CD, I think it shows like three different bass players, a few drummers, etc. Obviously, he had one set of musicians on that album. But doing scattershot dates usually means your band is more likely to drift apart.

That Brian has kept all of the guys he has over 17 years when he has done very scattered touring during certain years, is even more impressive in terms of mutual loyalty and consistency between Brian and band. Even more so considering the people currently in the band are probably *not* kept on retainer the way, say, McCartney keeps his guys, or Mike keeps his guys (and even if Mike doesn't literally keep this band on retainer, they are employed for nearly the entire year, every year, even if they're simply being contracted for specific blocks of dates).

And in addition to the loyality that Brian has earned, I'm sure that it has something to do with playing with a true legend unlike the myKe and br00th BB tribute band.
Brian's band is as much a tribute band as Mike's. Both tour the world doing the music created by Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al and David in the 60's. Both occasionally throw in a few newer songs, but the bulk of the show is songs recorded from 1962-1969. With Mike's band, you get the guy who was the lead singer on a lot of the hits, and lyric writer on many of those; and another long time BB, who also sang on the records; With Brian's band, you get the guy who was the main writer/visionary of the group, and he sang lead on a good number of the hits; and another core member of the group, the voice of "Help Me, Rhonda". I'm sure the guys that back up Mike have as much respect for him as Brian's band members do for him.
Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #154 on: April 13, 2016, 05:40:41 AM »

If you follow touring bands, from the 175-per-year variety (Mike) to the lucky-if-you-can-book-a-dozen-rib-cook-offs variety (Al solo), what you'll find is that it is typically *more difficult* to hold a backing band together when you play fewer shows.

It's why, if you open up Al's "Live in Las Vegas" CD, I think it shows like three different bass players, a few drummers, etc. Obviously, he had one set of musicians on that album. But doing scattershot dates usually means your band is more likely to drift apart.

That Brian has kept all of the guys he has over 17 years when he has done very scattered touring during certain years, is even more impressive in terms of mutual loyalty and consistency between Brian and band. Even more so considering the people currently in the band are probably *not* kept on retainer the way, say, McCartney keeps his guys, or Mike keeps his guys (and even if Mike doesn't literally keep this band on retainer, they are employed for nearly the entire year, every year, even if they're simply being contracted for specific blocks of dates).

And in addition to the loyality that Brian has earned, I'm sure that it has something to do with playing with a true legend unlike the myKe and br00th BB tribute band.

We agree about Brian but it would be an honor to perform with the living legends Mike and Bruce (and Al, and Dave) too.

myKe luHv and posse legends?? Maybe in myKe's book and your book but very few would call them something like legends.

To each his own ol' pal.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Debbie KL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 817


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: April 13, 2016, 11:07:56 AM »

If you follow touring bands, from the 175-per-year variety (Mike) to the lucky-if-you-can-book-a-dozen-rib-cook-offs variety (Al solo), what you'll find is that it is typically *more difficult* to hold a backing band together when you play fewer shows.

It's why, if you open up Al's "Live in Las Vegas" CD, I think it shows like three different bass players, a few drummers, etc. Obviously, he had one set of musicians on that album. But doing scattershot dates usually means your band is more likely to drift apart.

That Brian has kept all of the guys he has over 17 years when he has done very scattered touring during certain years, is even more impressive in terms of mutual loyalty and consistency between Brian and band. Even more so considering the people currently in the band are probably *not* kept on retainer the way, say, McCartney keeps his guys, or Mike keeps his guys (and even if Mike doesn't literally keep this band on retainer, they are employed for nearly the entire year, every year, even if they're simply being contracted for specific blocks of dates).

And in addition to the loyality that Brian has earned, I'm sure that it has something to do with playing with a true legend unlike the myKe and br00th BB tribute band.
Brian's band is as much a tribute band as Mike's. Both tour the world doing the music created by Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al and David in the 60's. Both occasionally throw in a few newer songs, but the bulk of the show is songs recorded from 1962-1969. With Mike's band, you get the guy who was the lead singer on a lot of the hits, and lyric writer on many of those; and another long time BB, who also sang on the records; With Brian's band, you get the guy who was the main writer/visionary of the group, and he sang lead on a good number of the hits; and another core member of the group, the voice of "Help Me, Rhonda". I'm sure the guys that back up Mike have as much respect for him as Brian's band members do for him.

So Brian Wilson, the creator of the music, touring under his own name with another founding member of the band - Al Jardine, the spectacular Blondie Chaplin and his own band of many years is a tribute band?  Brian's band has been publicly acknowledged as the best band performing - this by some of their most gifted competitors in the business.  Whatever logic you put into that paragraph above defies any kind of thinking that I can begin to grasp.

Given the thread topic here, I can only hope that there won't be any similar sentiment in Mike's book.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 11:10:33 AM by Debbie KL » Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9855



View Profile WWW
« Reply #156 on: April 13, 2016, 11:31:35 AM »

I would agree that while the "tribute band" pejorative doesn't really accomplish much of anything, *if* we're going to start throwing the term around, Brian and Mike's bands can't be judged in the same fashion, as Mike *chooses* to actually use the name "The Beach Boys." To many (including the licensor), such a band is held to a different standard.

Any band member that leaves a band and tours under his or her own name can have the "tribute band" accusation lobbed at them. But they're doing everything they can, using their own name and playing the music they wrote and/or originally performed. When a member leaves a band (and let's be honest, Mike essentially has *left* the Beach Boys in both 1998 and 2012 and then re-formed his own band and then pursued/used a license) but then continues touring under that band's name, the "tribute band" accusation is going to sting a lot more, because they don't *have* to use the original band's name.

When you have two or three splintered remnants of a band out there touring, they're all going to resemble "tribute" bands to some degree, because they all have to fill out their bands. If anything, you're certainly going to get more actual Beach Boys singing leads at a BW show than you do at a Mike show.

I think "tribute band" status starts to become less of an unfair slam when you start getting more than the occasional lead vocal from a "backing band" member. I'd argue especially with Matt Jardine being essentially an adjunct Beach Boys in the 90s, you don't get much non-BB lead vocal material presently at a BW show. Darian sings a song or two, that's about it.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 11:35:33 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/
mikeddonn
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 976


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: April 13, 2016, 05:05:07 PM »

If you follow touring bands, from the 175-per-year variety (Mike) to the lucky-if-you-can-book-a-dozen-rib-cook-offs variety (Al solo), what you'll find is that it is typically *more difficult* to hold a backing band together when you play fewer shows.

It's why, if you open up Al's "Live in Las Vegas" CD, I think it shows like three different bass players, a few drummers, etc. Obviously, he had one set of musicians on that album. But doing scattershot dates usually means your band is more likely to drift apart.

That Brian has kept all of the guys he has over 17 years when he has done very scattered touring during certain years, is even more impressive in terms of mutual loyalty and consistency between Brian and band. Even more so considering the people currently in the band are probably *not* kept on retainer the way, say, McCartney keeps his guys, or Mike keeps his guys (and even if Mike doesn't literally keep this band on retainer, they are employed for nearly the entire year, every year, even if they're simply being contracted for specific blocks of dates).

And in addition to the loyality that Brian has earned, I'm sure that it has something to do with playing with a true legend unlike the myKe and br00th BB tribute band.
Brian's band is as much a tribute band as Mike's. Both tour the world doing the music created by Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al and David in the 60's. Both occasionally throw in a few newer songs, but the bulk of the show is songs recorded from 1962-1969. With Mike's band, you get the guy who was the lead singer on a lot of the hits, and lyric writer on many of those; and another long time BB, who also sang on the records; With Brian's band, you get the guy who was the main writer/visionary of the group, and he sang lead on a good number of the hits; and another core member of the group, the voice of "Help Me, Rhonda". I'm sure the guys that back up Mike have as much respect for him as Brian's band members do for him.

So Brian Wilson, the creator of the music, touring under his own name with another founding member of the band - Al Jardine, the spectacular Blondie Chaplin and his own band of many years is a tribute band?  Brian's band has been publicly acknowledged as the best band performing - this by some of their most gifted competitors in the business.  Whatever logic you put into that paragraph above defies any kind of thinking that I can begin to grasp.

Given the thread topic here, I can only hope that there won't be any similar sentiment in Mike's book.

In fairness Lonely Summer maybe doesn't believe either to be a tribute act.  But would merely be stating they are both as valid as each other and was in responsive to the usual unhelpful comment before his.

Personally, I prefer to see Brian's band.  I just hate the way certain posters constantly dredge up the same old tired stuff, most of which are one or two sentence posts, and rarely about the actual music or new releases.
Logged
Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3870


View Profile
« Reply #158 on: April 13, 2016, 05:12:17 PM »

If you follow touring bands, from the 175-per-year variety (Mike) to the lucky-if-you-can-book-a-dozen-rib-cook-offs variety (Al solo), what you'll find is that it is typically *more difficult* to hold a backing band together when you play fewer shows.

It's why, if you open up Al's "Live in Las Vegas" CD, I think it shows like three different bass players, a few drummers, etc. Obviously, he had one set of musicians on that album. But doing scattershot dates usually means your band is more likely to drift apart.

That Brian has kept all of the guys he has over 17 years when he has done very scattered touring during certain years, is even more impressive in terms of mutual loyalty and consistency between Brian and band. Even more so considering the people currently in the band are probably *not* kept on retainer the way, say, McCartney keeps his guys, or Mike keeps his guys (and even if Mike doesn't literally keep this band on retainer, they are employed for nearly the entire year, every year, even if they're simply being contracted for specific blocks of dates).

And in addition to the loyality that Brian has earned, I'm sure that it has something to do with playing with a true legend unlike the myKe and br00th BB tribute band.
Brian's band is as much a tribute band as Mike's. Both tour the world doing the music created by Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al and David in the 60's. Both occasionally throw in a few newer songs, but the bulk of the show is songs recorded from 1962-1969. With Mike's band, you get the guy who was the lead singer on a lot of the hits, and lyric writer on many of those; and another long time BB, who also sang on the records; With Brian's band, you get the guy who was the main writer/visionary of the group, and he sang lead on a good number of the hits; and another core member of the group, the voice of "Help Me, Rhonda". I'm sure the guys that back up Mike have as much respect for him as Brian's band members do for him.

So Brian Wilson, the creator of the music, touring under his own name with another founding member of the band - Al Jardine, the spectacular Blondie Chaplin and his own band of many years is a tribute band?  Brian's band has been publicly acknowledged as the best band performing - this by some of their most gifted competitors in the business.  Whatever logic you put into that paragraph above defies any kind of thinking that I can begin to grasp.

Given the thread topic here, I can only hope that there won't be any similar sentiment in Mike's book.

In fairness Lonely Summer maybe doesn't believe either to be a tribute act.  But would merely be stating they are both as valid as each other and was in responsive to the usual unhelpful comment before his.

Personally, I prefer to see Brian's band.  I just hate the way certain posters constantly dredge up the same old tired stuff, most of which are one or two sentence posts, and rarely about the actual music or new releases.
Anytime Brian and Al want to Mike to stop calling his band the Beach Boys, they can put a stop to it. Don't let him license the name again.
Logged
The LEGENDARY OSD
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1935

luHv Estrangement Syndrome. It's a great thing!


View Profile
« Reply #159 on: April 13, 2016, 05:55:21 PM »

We're all waiting for Brian and his tribute band to do exactly that. While Brian has certainly established himself as a solo artist, he is THE Beach Boy who most identify as the creative force behind the band. Let's see what myKe luHv can do peddling a band with just his name alone and...good luck with that.  LOL
Logged

myKe luHv, the most hated, embarrassing clown the world of music has ever witnessed.
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5741



View Profile
« Reply #160 on: April 13, 2016, 07:25:24 PM »

If you follow touring bands, from the 175-per-year variety (Mike) to the lucky-if-you-can-book-a-dozen-rib-cook-offs variety (Al solo), what you'll find is that it is typically *more difficult* to hold a backing band together when you play fewer shows.

It's why, if you open up Al's "Live in Las Vegas" CD, I think it shows like three different bass players, a few drummers, etc. Obviously, he had one set of musicians on that album. But doing scattershot dates usually means your band is more likely to drift apart.

That Brian has kept all of the guys he has over 17 years when he has done very scattered touring during certain years, is even more impressive in terms of mutual loyalty and consistency between Brian and band. Even more so considering the people currently in the band are probably *not* kept on retainer the way, say, McCartney keeps his guys, or Mike keeps his guys (and even if Mike doesn't literally keep this band on retainer, they are employed for nearly the entire year, every year, even if they're simply being contracted for specific blocks of dates).

And in addition to the loyality that Brian has earned, I'm sure that it has something to do with playing with a true legend unlike the myKe and br00th BB tribute band.
Brian's band is as much a tribute band as Mike's. Both tour the world doing the music created by Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al and David in the 60's. Both occasionally throw in a few newer songs, but the bulk of the show is songs recorded from 1962-1969. With Mike's band, you get the guy who was the lead singer on a lot of the hits, and lyric writer on many of those; and another long time BB, who also sang on the records; With Brian's band, you get the guy who was the main writer/visionary of the group, and he sang lead on a good number of the hits; and another core member of the group, the voice of "Help Me, Rhonda". I'm sure the guys that back up Mike have as much respect for him as Brian's band members do for him.

So Brian Wilson, the creator of the music, touring under his own name with another founding member of the band - Al Jardine, the spectacular Blondie Chaplin and his own band of many years is a tribute band?  Brian's band has been publicly acknowledged as the best band performing - this by some of their most gifted competitors in the business.  Whatever logic you put into that paragraph above defies any kind of thinking that I can begin to grasp.

Given the thread topic here, I can only hope that there won't be any similar sentiment in Mike's book.

In fairness Lonely Summer maybe doesn't believe either to be a tribute act.  But would merely be stating they are both as valid as each other and was in responsive to the usual unhelpful comment before his.

Personally, I prefer to see Brian's band.  I just hate the way certain posters constantly dredge up the same old tired stuff, most of which are one or two sentence posts, and rarely about the actual music or new releases.
Anytime Brian and Al want to Mike to stop calling his band the Beach Boys, they can put a stop to it. Don't let him license the name again.

Do you honestly think that it would be easy if they wanted to stop Mike? That it wouldn't devolve into a prolonged legal battle which would be an emotional albatross over their heads for likely all their remaining years, when they are 75 years old? Even if they wanted to stop it, it's really not worth the fight at this stage of the game. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking it would be a remotely easy thing to do.
Logged
lastofmykind
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


View Profile
« Reply #161 on: April 13, 2016, 07:25:39 PM »

We're all waiting for Brian and his tribute band to do exactly that. While Brian has certainly established himself as a solo artist, he is THE Beach Boy who most identify as the creative force behind the band. Let's see what myKe luHv can do peddling a band with just his name alone and...good luck with that.  LOL

Actualy OSD, Mr. Love does have another band, full of the touring BB band members minus BJ, they play corporate and private events for half the booking fee of the current touring BB.
Logged
Vernon Surfer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 87


Don't fight the sea


View Profile
« Reply #162 on: April 13, 2016, 08:02:06 PM »

I have seen both bands several times. IMHO, Brian's band is far superior to the M&B group referred occasionally as the Beach Boys.
That is not to say that Mike's version is not entertaining. They are both superlative bands however BW's is much better
Logged

Make waves, not love
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #163 on: April 13, 2016, 10:21:01 PM »

Anytime Brian and Al want to Mike to stop calling his band the Beach Boys, they can put a stop to it. Don't let him license the name again.

No, they cannot.

If they could, why haven't they since 1998 (especially in fall 2012) ? If Brian & Al decided to call a special meeting of BRI to revote on the license issue (assuming they could - as fans we don't know if, or how, things have changed since 1998), the vote would still be locked at 2-2 as Carl's estate are highly unlikely to give up a yearly six-figure income purely on a supposed point of artistic principle, thus the status quo would prevail. But anyway, fact is they can't do it at the drop of a hat.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5811


View Profile
« Reply #164 on: April 13, 2016, 10:31:09 PM »

 If I was to look up threads from 2006 chances are this M&B vs Brian topic would have the same replies. (and 2007, 2008, 2009....)
Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #165 on: April 13, 2016, 10:35:33 PM »

Tribute bands: as ever I stand to be corrected but tribute bands do not routinely include one or more original/core members. Members of the "mother" band may sit in now and then (Mike Rutherford with In The Cage is one example that springs to mind) but they don't tour exclusively with them. Thus, neither Brian's nor Mike's is a tribute band.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9855



View Profile WWW
« Reply #166 on: April 13, 2016, 10:42:35 PM »

I think the whole point of the pejorative nature of calling a legit band a "tribute band" is that they're not, but that they resemble one due to having few original members, or because of the middling quality of the show. Hence people even referring to, say, a McCartney show as a McCartney tribute band, etc.
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/
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5811


View Profile
« Reply #167 on: April 13, 2016, 10:44:47 PM »

End of the day they are both bands paying tribute to the music, but not tribute bands by definition.
Logged
Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3870


View Profile
« Reply #168 on: April 13, 2016, 11:26:47 PM »

I think the whole point of the pejorative nature of calling a legit band a "tribute band" is that they're not, but that they resemble one due to having few original members, or because of the middling quality of the show. Hence people even referring to, say, a McCartney show as a McCartney tribute band, etc.
Macca is the leader of the world's highest paid, biggest drawing Beatles tribute band.
Logged
The Shift
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7427


Moderation in all things


View Profile
« Reply #169 on: April 13, 2016, 11:38:51 PM »

Given the fact that most BW Band members were big fans of the big man long before they even met him, I suppose you could argue that Brian Wilson (as billed) is a Brian Wilson tribute band.

(Enough of this, surely?  Undecided )
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 11:39:45 PM by John Manning » Logged

Who watches the Watchmen?
KDS
Guest
« Reply #170 on: April 14, 2016, 05:30:10 AM »

All this talk of tribute bands has me thinking of my favorite line from the movie Rock Star. 

When, Mark Walhburg's character is kicked out of the Steel Dragon tribute band, he's asked if he wants to play in a cover band forever.

"We're not a cover band, we're a tribute band!!!" 

While I really don't think called them "The Beach Boys," Mike and Bruce (and sometimes David) are far from a tribute band. 
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9855



View Profile WWW
« Reply #171 on: April 14, 2016, 07:23:40 AM »

Anytime Brian and Al want to Mike to stop calling his band the Beach Boys, they can put a stop to it. Don't let him license the name again.

No, they cannot.

If they could, why haven't they since 1998 (especially in fall 2012) ? If Brian & Al decided to call a special meeting of BRI to revote on the license issue (assuming they could - as fans we don't know if, or how, things have changed since 1998), the vote would still be locked at 2-2 as Carl's estate are highly unlikely to give up a yearly six-figure income purely on a supposed point of artistic principle, thus the status quo would prevail. But anyway, fact is they can't do it at the drop of a hat.

Exactly. Brian and Al don't have a majority vote even if they want the license yanked. And I would guess even if they got the three votes they needed, the thing would immediately be tied up in litigation for years.

Their situation is also messy because they're all individuals, but things have to run through BRI as a corporation. Just as "BRI" had to go after Al in 1999, if there were a 3-to-1 vote against Mike and Mike had a gripe or wanted to tie it up in litigation, he might have to take action *against* BRI in that case. Thus, the Beach Boys at various points have literally fallen into the "Rutles" category of suing themselves.

But yeah, I don't think Brian and Al want to pay hundreds of thousands if not millions in legal fees just to then *not* make their cut of the licensing fee.

Some observers have also speculated that *no* vote on the license has taken place since Mike got his exclusive license in 1999 or 2000 or whenever it was. In other words, BRI probably don't meet every year to "renew" the license. The potential semi-perpetuity of the license may also play into the difficulty involved in revoking it.

I think it's technically possible it could be done, as in the corporate/legal machinations could be attempted. Indeed, Mike's 2005 lawsuit included the accusation/allegation that Brian threatened to vote to revoke the license and tour with Al Jardine as "The Beach Boys." I don't think they voted in 1999 to give Mike a permanent license with no ability to revisit it ever.

But, however contentious relations are between the parties, I think they probably all enjoy *not* having to pay teams of lawyers to litigate stuff. They've been lawsuit free (with each other anyway) for a little while now, so maybe they see the wisdom in letting the dogs sleep.
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/
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5741



View Profile
« Reply #172 on: April 14, 2016, 08:26:20 AM »

Anytime Brian and Al want to Mike to stop calling his band the Beach Boys, they can put a stop to it. Don't let him license the name again.

No, they cannot.

If they could, why haven't they since 1998 (especially in fall 2012) ? If Brian & Al decided to call a special meeting of BRI to revote on the license issue (assuming they could - as fans we don't know if, or how, things have changed since 1998), the vote would still be locked at 2-2 as Carl's estate are highly unlikely to give up a yearly six-figure income purely on a supposed point of artistic principle, thus the status quo would prevail. But anyway, fact is they can't do it at the drop of a hat.

Exactly. Brian and Al don't have a majority vote even if they want the license yanked. And I would guess even if they got the three votes they needed, the thing would immediately be tied up in litigation for years.

Their situation is also messy because they're all individuals, but things have to run through BRI as a corporation. Just as "BRI" had to go after Al in 1999, if there were a 3-to-1 vote against Mike and Mike had a gripe or wanted to tie it up in litigation, he might have to take action *against* BRI in that case. Thus, the Beach Boys at various points have literally fallen into the "Rutles" category of suing themselves.

But yeah, I don't think Brian and Al want to pay hundreds of thousands if not millions in legal fees just to then *not* make their cut of the licensing fee.

Some observers have also speculated that *no* vote on the license has taken place since Mike got his exclusive license in 1999 or 2000 or whenever it was. In other words, BRI probably don't meet every year to "renew" the license. The potential semi-perpetuity of the license may also play into the difficulty involved in revoking it.

I think it's technically possible it could be done, as in the corporate/legal machinations could be attempted. Indeed, Mike's 2005 lawsuit included the accusation/allegation that Brian threatened to vote to revoke the license and tour with Al Jardine as "The Beach Boys." I don't think they voted in 1999 to give Mike a permanent license with no ability to revisit it ever.

But, however contentious relations are between the parties, I think they probably all enjoy *not* having to pay teams of lawyers to litigate stuff. They've been lawsuit free (with each other anyway) for a little while now, so maybe they see the wisdom in letting the dogs sleep.

I wonder what would have happened if, in 1998/1999, the terms of Mike getting to use the band name also included the stipulation that Al could tour as "BB Family and Friends". If the whole "licensing fee" was waived for Al, and was thus a non-issue for Al's entire band, being as they would have played smaller, lower profit shows, and if Al was required to share profits with BRI when shows were profitable and actually made money (seems fair to me).

I assume if Mike *had* to let Al use the name he wanted to use in order for Mike to use "The BB" name for himself, that he'd have grudgingly gone along with it. In fact, I'm not sure there's anything that Mike wouldn't have done or conceded to at the time, if it were the only way to get the "BB" band name to himself.  
« Last Edit: April 14, 2016, 08:29:13 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9855



View Profile WWW
« Reply #173 on: April 14, 2016, 09:04:23 AM »

The sense I get is that in 1998/99, Al had no other corporate support in what he was trying to do, so he had no leverage.

My recollection of court documents is that Carl's estate proposed the idea in 1998 of everybody getting non-exclusive licenses. Mike may have voted against this, but this idea was voted in by BRI.

I think Al wanted to pay a lower license fee because he was calling his band "BBFF" instead of "The Beach Boys", and may have even been offered a reduced license fee by BRI at some point (one which he apparently didn't feel was enough of an accommodation).

While that all sounds sensible (the general idea of paying a smaller fee by using the BBFF name instead of the BB name), it was probably an awful move strategically, because it eventually led to lawsuits because Al was not abiding by the terms of the license and/or didn't have a license, and his arguments in court that he *had* a license and also that he *didn't need one*, obviously didn't win the court over.

By the end of 1999, Mike had an exclusive license, which I can only imagine is what he wanted all along. I wouldn't be surprised if he was surprised Al even attempted to go back out with his own band.

So I don't think there would have been any scenario where BRI or Mike agreed to let Al tour as "BBFF" with minimal or no licensing fees. I would imagine part of the reason Al wanted to try something, *anything* to pay less licensing fees, was due to the overhead costs of starting a band, a touring production company, etc. all from scratch. He may not have been *able* to afford even BRI's proposed reduced licensing fees when starting his band out.

If Al had had any support in that 1998 timeframe, he could have received some help in leveraging something like an arrangement where Al would agree to vote to give Mike the license if Mike agreed to let Al use the "BBFF" name with perhaps no initial licensing fee, or a licensing fee kicking in after a certain threshold of profit was reached.

But there were a lot of factors at play at that time. I think once Al started actually touring and was getting better reviews than Mike (even some Mike supporters would acknowledge that Al's band sounded better in 1999 than Mike's band did in 1999), it made it even less likely that Mike would be agreeable to anything that kept Al on the touring circuit using the BB name in *any* fashion.

Based on very recent Al interviews (as in the last year or two), Brian and Al may *still* get warnings to not emphasize their "Beach Boys" connection too prominently. So it's *still* an issue nearly 20 years later. I can only hope that Brian and Al (or their attorneys) would tell anyone trying to strong-arm 50% of the shareholders of BRI regarding their billing as original BBs to go f**k off, but whatever happened, it still appears to be an issue.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2016, 09:09:22 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/
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #174 on: April 14, 2016, 10:34:23 AM »

I was going to say it can be done and has been done multiple times I believe: BRI voted Mike an exclusive license; they voted to take it away after Al threatened a law suit; they voted non- exclusive licenses for Brian, Mike, and Al; they voted to offer sweetened terms for Al's non-exclusive license; then they voted to take Al's license away; they voted to restore an exclusive license to Mike.

It's very doable even when one of the principles goes rogue and sues his fellow board members.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2016, 10:36:52 AM by Cam Mott » Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.508 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!