Beach Boys 2021 Feel Flows World Tour Thread

[guitarfool2002]

We do disagree Captain, I think the issue too is that the world of jazz, big bands, and dance bands that you're citing Count Basie as an example are a different universe with a different set of parameters than the rock and roll bands. Big bands since the 30's had shifting membership which fans of those bands (like my mom for one, back in the day lol) used to follow and keep track of who was in what band. Like who was Harry James playing with, where did *insert musician* end up now, etc. Like following a sports team and all the trades and deals that changed the roster.

Rock changed all that. For one, the core groups of players were just that - The bands were a core group of members that fans knew. Cite any example of the bands in the upper echelon and fans can name the core group. Anything less, minus the usual shifting of one or 2 members, wouldn't be the same.

Let me pose this as a question. I love the album "Time Out" by the Dave Brubeck Quartet. Would I pay to see a group calling itself "The Dave Brubeck Quartet" in 2018 playing that album live? I would not, because the key members are dead. It's as simple as that. If a group under another name were doing it, I wouldn't have an issue at all because they're not trying to take the name.

The big bands, like Basie, Miller, Dorsey? Yes, they all have touring versions and have for decades, long after the namesake bandleader had died...in Miller's case, since 1944. But they play the original book that everyone knows and expects to hear, and apart from the leader's name, there was never quite the same "core" group of musicians in any majority number traveling with those bands, with some exceptions.

But it's not quite the same scene as if we got a Led Zeppelin tour in 2027 with guys named Freddie, Jack, Smitty, and Sunny Jim playing the tunes instead of Page, Plant, or Jones. It would be a farce unless that group goes out as a tribute or cover band and didn't call themselves Led Zeppelin. I think in some cases like Zeppelin, fans would actually think it was so absurd they may even laugh at it instead of buying tickets, and why not at that point just do a tribute band like exists now for everyone from Led Zep to The Talking Heads at this point?

[Zesterz]

Ah, but guitarfool....tribute bands steal clothes anyway. I wd favour continuity to stop that at least, or at least to reduce it

[guitarfool2002]

Ah, but guitarfool....tribute bands steal clothes anyway. I wd favour continuity to stop that at least, or at least to reduce it

haha, I can see that. Honestly, and I don't mean to offend here, but it's become more than tired and played out to see upcoming concerts by various Beach Boys tribute bands and see all the members wearing Hawaiian shirts. I mean, guys...we get it. Fun in the sun, party, beach balls...etc. But it does make me laugh to see these billings and ads and it seems they are always sporting Hawaiian shirts. You don't need Hawaiian shirts just because you're a Beach Boys cover band. That's the kind of C-level showbiz hackery that I get a kick out of.

The tribute band that does it right? I mean this 100% seriously, no joke. The Fab Faux. Besides the fact that among the members are Will Lee on bass and Jimmy Vivino on guitar, two of my favorite players in general, they don't wear Sgt Pepper costumes or don fake moustaches and Beatle wigs to play the shows. They put all their energy into paying tribute to the music, and getting the minute details of the music spot-on, which is why I love them.

[Zesterz]

I agree. It makes me laugh, not in a good way, too see Tributes thus. Fendertones must be a high standard for competitors.....except they arent competing. Now THAT is a tribute

[the captain]

Rock changed all that. For one, the core groups of players were just that - The bands were a core group of members that fans knew. Cite any example of the bands in the upper echelon and fans can name the core group. Anything less, minus the usual shifting of one or 2 members, wouldn't be the same.

Let me pose this as a question. I love the album "Time Out" by the Dave Brubeck Quartet. Would I pay to see a group calling itself "The Dave Brubeck Quartet" in 2018 playing that album live? I would not, because the key members are dead. It's as simple as that. If a group under another name were doing it, I wouldn't have an issue at all because they're not trying to take the name.

This would hold more water with me if the Beach Boys followed that model. But the touring band The Beach Boys has had dozens of people in and out through the years, and most audience members probably knew little to nothing about who was who beyond recognizing a couple of the principals. The Beach Boys have operated more like the jazz bands than they have like the Beatles or Led Zeppelin. If you can be The Beach Boys with one Beach Boy on stage, with non-Beach Boys in the band for decades, and with non-Beach Boys carrying prominent roles, then you can be the Beach Boys with one fewer.

Any damage to the legacy is already done. I'm reminded of the old quote "haggling over the price" line often attributed to Churchill and to Shaw.

As to the second paragraph I left, there is no question (for me) in it. You asked yourself a question: would you pay to see that band. You answered yourself with a no. And that's fine. I am not saying you would. But that's irrelevant to me.

[HeyJude]

While the BB's brand/trademark has been watered down to the point where, as has been established over the last 20 years, it *can* continue to exist with few (and surely zero) original members and have some level of success, the fact that the band name *can* exist regardless of membership doesn't mean that membership in the band doesn't impact its success. By that I mean the C50 tour. That tour garnered bookings, advances, and interest that Mike's tour doesn't (and never could). That tour could have continued and had the ability, *unlike* most again Motown and other oldies acts with few if any original members, to *build* up on that success and actually *change* the perception and brand/value.

As Howie Edelson referenced some time back regarding what an industry person said about C50 (and its demise), C50 managed to turn an AARP brand into an arena act. That *is* very rare. That's where the BB name and reputation *does* have some remnant of a "classic rock" type of band where its reconstituted form can bring fans and ticket sales back.

[KDS]

Rock changed all that. For one, the core groups of players were just that - The bands were a core group of members that fans knew. Cite any example of the bands in the upper echelon and fans can name the core group. Anything less, minus the usual shifting of one or 2 members, wouldn't be the same.

Let me pose this as a question. I love the album "Time Out" by the Dave Brubeck Quartet. Would I pay to see a group calling itself "The Dave Brubeck Quartet" in 2018 playing that album live? I would not, because the key members are dead. It's as simple as that. If a group under another name were doing it, I wouldn't have an issue at all because they're not trying to take the name.

This would hold more water with me if the Beach Boys followed that model. But the touring band The Beach Boys has had dozens of people in and out through the years, and most audience members probably knew little to nothing about who was who beyond recognizing a couple of the principals. The Beach Boys have operated more like the jazz bands than they have like the Beatles or Led Zeppelin. If you can be The Beach Boys with one Beach Boy on stage, with non-Beach Boys in the band for decades, and with non-Beach Boys carrying prominent roles, then you can be the Beach Boys with one fewer.

Any damage to the legacy is already done. I'm reminded of the old quote "haggling over the price" line often attributed to Churchill and to Shaw.

As to the second paragraph I left, there is no question (for me) in it. You asked yourself a question: would you pay to see that band. You answered yourself with a no. And that's fine. I am not saying you would. But that's irrelevant to me.

I agree with you Captain.

Frankly, I think the current Mike and Bruce show is better for the legacy than some of the shows they were doing in the early 80s after Carl jumped ship, Dennis was in and out of the lineup because he couldn't keep himself clean, Brian sitting onstage doing very little most nights, and Mike, Al, and Bruce not really committing to rehearsing the material. 

[guitarfool2002]

Rock changed all that. For one, the core groups of players were just that - The bands were a core group of members that fans knew. Cite any example of the bands in the upper echelon and fans can name the core group. Anything less, minus the usual shifting of one or 2 members, wouldn't be the same.

Let me pose this as a question. I love the album "Time Out" by the Dave Brubeck Quartet. Would I pay to see a group calling itself "The Dave Brubeck Quartet" in 2018 playing that album live? I would not, because the key members are dead. It's as simple as that. If a group under another name were doing it, I wouldn't have an issue at all because they're not trying to take the name.

This would hold more water with me if the Beach Boys followed that model. But the touring band The Beach Boys has had dozens of people in and out through the years, and most audience members probably knew little to nothing about who was who beyond recognizing a couple of the principals. The Beach Boys have operated more like the jazz bands than they have like the Beatles or Led Zeppelin. If you can be The Beach Boys with one Beach Boy on stage, with non-Beach Boys in the band for decades, and with non-Beach Boys carrying prominent roles, then you can be the Beach Boys with one fewer.

Any damage to the legacy is already done. I'm reminded of the old quote "haggling over the price" line often attributed to Churchill and to Shaw.

As to the second paragraph I left, there is no question (for me) in it. You asked yourself a question: would you pay to see that band. You answered yourself with a no. And that's fine. I am not saying you would. But that's irrelevant to me.

Clumsy wording, my bad. Sometimes I'm better at multitasking than others.

But seriously, Captain - Are there any rock bands of note, and I don't mean C-listers like 1910 Fruitgum Company and the like, who are touring minus an original member? Genuine question, because I can't think of any.

And I guess my reasoning in asking that is how I would hate to see a group like the Beach Boys at some point becoming Foskett or whoever buys the rights going out as "The Beach Boys" with even less legitimacy minus even one guy who was actually in the band that created the legacy in the first place. It's a tribute band, not *the* band. There has to be a line drawn somewhere.

[the captain]

No, I don't think there are any such rock bands--though to be clear and fair, I don't really follow that many older bands all that closely, so it's entirely possible that I just don't know of any. But as I know KDS and I have discussed on occasion, it's entirely possible that KISS will be the first/one such band.

And in most cases, to be clear, I'm not saying I'd prefer some kind of replacements with a licensing deal. I'm just saying they have a right to do so and in this particular case, musically, the results could well be better. Obviously the ideal situation would be a band that just breaks up and stops touring so that it never comes to that. But...

[guitarfool2002]

Rock changed all that. For one, the core groups of players were just that - The bands were a core group of members that fans knew. Cite any example of the bands in the upper echelon and fans can name the core group. Anything less, minus the usual shifting of one or 2 members, wouldn't be the same.

Let me pose this as a question. I love the album "Time Out" by the Dave Brubeck Quartet. Would I pay to see a group calling itself "The Dave Brubeck Quartet" in 2018 playing that album live? I would not, because the key members are dead. It's as simple as that. If a group under another name were doing it, I wouldn't have an issue at all because they're not trying to take the name.

This would hold more water with me if the Beach Boys followed that model. But the touring band The Beach Boys has had dozens of people in and out through the years, and most audience members probably knew little to nothing about who was who beyond recognizing a couple of the principals. The Beach Boys have operated more like the jazz bands than they have like the Beatles or Led Zeppelin. If you can be The Beach Boys with one Beach Boy on stage, with non-Beach Boys in the band for decades, and with non-Beach Boys carrying prominent roles, then you can be the Beach Boys with one fewer.

Any damage to the legacy is already done. I'm reminded of the old quote "haggling over the price" line often attributed to Churchill and to Shaw.

As to the second paragraph I left, there is no question (for me) in it. You asked yourself a question: would you pay to see that band. You answered yourself with a no. And that's fine. I am not saying you would. But that's irrelevant to me.

I agree with you Captain.

Frankly, I think the current Mike and Bruce show is better for the legacy than some of the shows they were doing in the early 80s after Carl jumped ship, Dennis was in and out of the lineup because he couldn't keep himself clean, Brian sitting onstage doing very little most nights, and Mike, Al, and Bruce not really committing to rehearsing the material. 

Straight up direct question, and feel free anyone to insert this too:  

If the content of the shows is drawing people to them, why not just go out on tour as original members of this or any band as something like "...original members of (insert band name)" and not get tangled up in calling yourselves"The Beach Boys" or "The Rolling Stones" or whatever other name applies?

And it's not just the Beach Boys who have influenced my opinions of other classic bands who I love but whose squabbles and drama with which 2nd line member gets to book using the band name have kind of dirtied the rep a bit. Just my opinion, but there is something noble if that's the right word to a band calling it quits after it is unable to play with certain key members actually involved in the shows. And if those members left want to tour, they go out as their own name. There is something cheap to me about using a name to boost ticket sales if a majority of the members fans know aren't there. Again, not just the BB's.

[guitarfool2002]

No, I don't think there are any such rock bands--though to be clear and fair, I don't really follow that many older bands all that closely, so it's entirely possible that I just don't know of any. But as I know KDS and I have discussed on occasion, it's entirely possible that KISS will be the first/one such band.

And in most cases, to be clear, I'm not saying I'd prefer some kind of replacements with a licensing deal. I'm just saying they have a right to do so and in this particular case, musically, the results could well be better. Obviously the ideal situation would be a band that just breaks up and stops touring so that it never comes to that. But...

And even with KISS, with me not even being a fan but still following the various dramas, Gene Simmons has been as divisive a figure among the diehard fans as we have seen with the BB's, and KISS is rife with feuds and squabbles and fan arguments surrounding former members who are not involved who either got the boot, or left on bad terms, and are replaced by Simmons as if they were no more vital to making the band who they were in the 70's as it would be simply giving the greasepaint and costume to a new musician to replace them, as they back Gene Simmons on his next run of shows.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

That’s why I liked it when Al was doing “The Beach Boys Friends and Family “. The name was honest

[the captain]

Again, just saying it could (will?) happen. Not that it would be uncontroversial. The more commercially minded entities presumably will always want to preserve their brands and generating revenue.

The fact is that all art is always a balance of art and commerce. Different people balance them differently. The ones making money are likely to see and like the opportunity to make more of it. There are innumerable opinions, but they're only that. The "right" thing to do doesn't really exist without defining a preferred end state. A band has its own right to define its own goals.

[guitarfool2002]

That’s why I liked it when Al was doing “The Beach Boys Friends and Family “. The name was honest

Me too. And that honesty in Al's case got him sued by Mike for causing "confusion".  

[HeyJude]

That’s why I liked it when Al was doing “The Beach Boys Friends and Family “. The name was honest

It was a good name, about as descriptive as a band name can possibly get. To boot, while a very minor point, the band name didn't technically have a "The" in front of it; it was "Beach Boys Family & Friends" as I recall, which I think helped in terms of the name not getting truncated to "The Beach Boys."

But the screws were put to that band from the get-go. We're lucky they got some decent touring done that one year in 1999. I managed to catch one of the few gigs they did in 2000, under the name "Al Jardine Family & Friends Beach Band."

It may well have been that the BBFF name wasn't sustainable in a world of shady promoters trying to imply an "official" Beach Boys band. But really, nobody was going to these shows and seeing the Wilson sisters, Owen Elliott, and Daryl Dragon and mistaking it for "THE" Beach Boys.

The 2000 gig I saw was one of my all-time favorites, even though it wasn't a super long show. That BBFF band was smokin' vocally, as good as any BB-related vocal unit I've seen live (even Brian's band), and they also had the great 70s backline BB band guys there as well.

[guitarfool2002]

Again, just saying it could (will?) happen. Not that it would be uncontroversial. The more commercially minded entities presumably will always want to preserve their brands and generating revenue.

The fact is that all art is always a balance of art and commerce. Different people balance them differently. The ones making money are likely to see and like the opportunity to make more of it. There are innumerable opinions, but they're only that. The "right" thing to do doesn't really exist without defining a preferred end state. A band has its own right to define its own goals.

Right, and my own opinion, I think the phrase "No Wilsons, no Beach Boys" pretty much summed it up. As a comparison, sure he was essential and a terrific musician, but how many fans would buy the notion of John Paul Jones touring alone as "Led Zeppelin" without Page or Plant? It would be a laughingstock, as it would be if other bands of that stature were to have a similar scenario unfold. But again, that's all dead horse territory.

[KDS]

Rock changed all that. For one, the core groups of players were just that - The bands were a core group of members that fans knew. Cite any example of the bands in the upper echelon and fans can name the core group. Anything less, minus the usual shifting of one or 2 members, wouldn't be the same.

Let me pose this as a question. I love the album "Time Out" by the Dave Brubeck Quartet. Would I pay to see a group calling itself "The Dave Brubeck Quartet" in 2018 playing that album live? I would not, because the key members are dead. It's as simple as that. If a group under another name were doing it, I wouldn't have an issue at all because they're not trying to take the name.

This would hold more water with me if the Beach Boys followed that model. But the touring band The Beach Boys has had dozens of people in and out through the years, and most audience members probably knew little to nothing about who was who beyond recognizing a couple of the principals. The Beach Boys have operated more like the jazz bands than they have like the Beatles or Led Zeppelin. If you can be The Beach Boys with one Beach Boy on stage, with non-Beach Boys in the band for decades, and with non-Beach Boys carrying prominent roles, then you can be the Beach Boys with one fewer.

Any damage to the legacy is already done. I'm reminded of the old quote "haggling over the price" line often attributed to Churchill and to Shaw.

As to the second paragraph I left, there is no question (for me) in it. You asked yourself a question: would you pay to see that band. You answered yourself with a no. And that's fine. I am not saying you would. But that's irrelevant to me.

I agree with you Captain.

Frankly, I think the current Mike and Bruce show is better for the legacy than some of the shows they were doing in the early 80s after Carl jumped ship, Dennis was in and out of the lineup because he couldn't keep himself clean, Brian sitting onstage doing very little most nights, and Mike, Al, and Bruce not really committing to rehearsing the material. 

Straight up direct question, and feel free anyone to insert this too:  

If the content of the shows is drawing people to them, why not just go out on tour as original members of this or any band as something like "...original members of (insert band name)" and not get tangled up in calling yourselves"The Beach Boys" or "The Rolling Stones" or whatever other name applies?

And it's not just the Beach Boys who have influenced my opinions of other classic bands who I love but whose squabbles and drama with which 2nd line member gets to book using the band name have kind of dirtied the rep a bit. Just my opinion, but there is something noble if that's the right word to a band calling it quits after it is unable to play with certain key members actually involved in the shows. And if those members left want to tour, they go out as their own name. There is something cheap to me about using a name to boost ticket sales if a majority of the members fans know aren't there. Again, not just the BB's.

Some artists do that, or amend the name of the band.  Queen + Adam Lambert, The Doors of the 21st Century, and Joey Molland's Badfinger come to mind.  

But, then you also have bands who made major personnel changes while still relevant.  Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Iron Maiden, Chicago, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, etc etc.

You could seriously write a tome about the debates of who / what makes a certain band who they are?  Are Daltrey and Townshend enough to qualify as The Who?   Should Dreja and McCarty tour as The Yardbirds?  

So, to answer your question, I think it would make more sense for fractured bands to amend their names, and I include the current Beach Boys in that.   I think it's a great concert, but more often than not, I still refer to it as "Mike and Bruce" because while it's a great live version of a great band, it's not truly The Beach Boys.   But, to some, The Beach Boys ceased to exist on Dec 28, 1983.  

But, there are also exceptions for bands like Deep Purple who have never really had a constant lineup.  In fact, their current lineup has been in place for 15 years, so they've been together longer than their original and "classic" lineups combined.  

As for big time legacy bands will all originals.   The big one is Aerosmith.  Though they don't tour as often as they once did.  There's also Poison.  Granted, not on the same level as Aerosmith, but they are pretty much the "Beatles of (So Called) Hair Metal."  

So, yeah, there really is no answer because it's different for every band.  

But the one thing I'll say is that I, personally, think it's more acceptable for bands like The Beach Boys to tour with greatly fractured lineups than to release new music.  

[mikeddonn]

The Beach Boys will be like a football team.  Still have the same name but different players.  Unfortunately, it has become a franchise.  Most people support the same football team they did 30 years ago, but it won't have any of the same players, for obvious reasons.

[guitarfool2002]

The Beach Boys will be like a football team.  Still have the same name but different players.  Unfortunately, it has become a franchise.  Most people support the same football team they did 30 years ago, but it won't have any of the same players, for obvious reasons.

Will that happen to The Beatles, Stones, Who, Zeppelin, U2, Sex Pistols, Clash, Public Enemy, Boston, etc? Or any other truly top-tier band? Will they be like a football team?

I left out Guns N Roses because of everyone I could think of, Axl Rose will be the Mike Love of his generation in 25 years, still tourin' with a band having no original GnR members, with whatever auxiliary member he can grab to go with him. And laughing all the way to the bank as they sell 80's nostalgia kilts and Axl re-records a soundalike "Sweet Child O Mine" for his solo album due in the Fall of 2043.

[RubberSoul13]

This logic has "Beach Boys" written all over it. This is what they are all about. They are totally a brand. They determined this from the get go. It never mattered to the majority (NOT folks like the few of us), who is up on that stage.

So, I don't think there's any question this will happen, the only uncertainty is "when?" .

The other wildcard (as morbid as it is, I've discussed it here before), who passes away first. Frankly, if anyone other than Mike passes, I don't think anything will change. If Mike were to pass before the other four, I would be well beyond intrigued as to what would happen next. Would Brian, Alan, and David become Beach Boys (with Bruce)? It's hard to imagine The Beach Boys without a "front man", at least, a Beach Boys that centralize around the early surfin'/car/girl hits.

[Kid Presentable]

The Beach Boys will be like a football team.  Still have the same name but different players.  Unfortunately, it has become a franchise.  Most people support the same football team they did 30 years ago, but it won't have any of the same players, for obvious reasons.

Will that happen to The Beatles, Stones, Who, Zeppelin, U2, Sex Pistols, Clash, Public Enemy, Boston, etc? Or any other truly top-tier band? Will they be like a football team?

I left out Guns N Roses because of everyone I could think of, Axl Rose will be the Mike Love of his generation in 25 years, still tourin' with a band having no original GnR members, with whatever auxiliary member he can grab to go with him. And laughing all the way to the bank as they sell 80's nostalgia kilts and Axl re-records a soundalike "Sweet Child O Mine" for his solo album due in the Fall of 2043.

There is a lot to criticise about Axl Rose, but in this comparison it's important to keep in mind that at the very least he has always been committed to being a progressive and creative musician above everything else.  He has just always been hard to work with and hasn't always been successful with his ideas.  I actually see him as having more in common with Dennis than with Mike in this comparison.  Axl accepts the legacy portion of his music, but in my opinion would likely not do a "rent the license and do a yearly endless tour" thing unless it also had the ability or at least the hope of creatively moving forward with something new.

I don't think the BBs will be like a football team franchise but eventually will be like an "Elvis: The Musical" thing that you can find for a few weeks every year at theaters in many major cities. 

[mikeddonn]

The Beach Boys will be like a football team.  Still have the same name but different players.  Unfortunately, it has become a franchise.  Most people support the same football team they did 30 years ago, but it won't have any of the same players, for obvious reasons.

Will that happen to The Beatles, Stones, Who, Zeppelin, U2, Sex Pistols, Clash, Public Enemy, Boston, etc? Or any other truly top-tier band? Will they be like a football team?

I'm not sure of your point regarding the bands you mention.  They obviously are not a franchise as the Beatles, for example, stopped touring in the 60s so I think it would be highly unlikely a 'Beatles' will tour in the future with different members.  The others have also had long periods of not touring and when the members die it is likely any chance of the band touring will also die with them. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the public at large the Beach Boys are not a top-tier band.  Evidenced when I go to Record Fayre's like today and see an abundance of stuff for all the above groups, but very little for Beach Boys.

[Zesterz]

mikedonn is right imo.....I have used the football team analogy before often to "justify" my onging interest , beyond just Brian's work

[Juice Brohnston]

This logic has "Beach Boys" written all over it. This is what they are all about. They are totally a brand. They determined this from the get go. It never mattered to the majority (NOT folks like the few of us), who is up on that stage.

So, I don't think there's any question this will happen, the only uncertainty is "when?" .

The other wildcard (as morbid as it is, I've discussed it here before), who passes away first. Frankly, if anyone other than Mike passes, I don't think anything will change. If Mike were to pass before the other four, I would be well beyond intrigued as to what would happen next. Would Brian, Alan, and David become Beach Boys (with Bruce)? It's hard to imagine The Beach Boys without a "front man", at least, a Beach Boys that centralize around the early surfin'/car/girl hits.

I believe a 'Beach Boys' without Mike, would cruise right along. If Brian, Al, Bruce and Dave were to start touring as The Beach Boys tomorrow because Mike was out of the picture, it would work for exactly the same reasons Mike and Bruce do. As mentioned, it's a brand at this point. People want to see the Beach Boys, and many of those people aren't hardcore fans, who are all absorbed in the machinations of lineups, band politics, etc. I guess to summarize, the very reason it works so well for Mike, is the very reason it would work so well without him.

As for a band without any of them present, going out under the name, that's where I would lose interest..but I could see it happening.

[KDS]

This logic has "Beach Boys" written all over it. This is what they are all about. They are totally a brand. They determined this from the get go. It never mattered to the majority (NOT folks like the few of us), who is up on that stage.

So, I don't think there's any question this will happen, the only uncertainty is "when?" .

The other wildcard (as morbid as it is, I've discussed it here before), who passes away first. Frankly, if anyone other than Mike passes, I don't think anything will change. If Mike were to pass before the other four, I would be well beyond intrigued as to what would happen next. Would Brian, Alan, and David become Beach Boys (with Bruce)? It's hard to imagine The Beach Boys without a "front man", at least, a Beach Boys that centralize around the early surfin'/car/girl hits.

I believe a 'Beach Boys' without Mike, would cruise right along. If Brian, Al, Bruce and Dave were to start touring as The Beach Boys tomorrow because Mike was out of the picture, it would work for exactly the same reasons Mike and Bruce do. As mentioned, it's a brand at this point. People want to see the Beach Boys, and many of those people aren't hardcore fans, who are all absorbed in the machinations of lineups, band politics, etc. I guess to summarize, the very reason it works so well for Mike, is the very reason it would work so well without him.

As for a band without any of them present, going out under the name, that's where I would lose interest..but I could see it happening.

KISS is talking about doing that, and I could see more artists do the same. 

Rock music has been stagnant a long time, and much of the genre's touring venue is from legacy artists.  I could forsee a future of more holograms and in name only bands.