|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 4, 2023 13:29:15 GMT
Playing off another recent poll and topic that was pointed at Mike and Bruce's Beach Boys, and with the recently announced plan for Kiss to continue as a "band" of digital avatars, I thought I'd solicit thoughts along similar lines.
Brian Wilson has apparently retired from touring. The other living principals are in their 80s, with only Mike's and Bruce's Beach Boys maintaining a heavy touring schedule. (Al gets out there now and again; I'm not sure David is especially active.) Obviously Carl and Dennis are long-since deceased. (For better or worse, Ricky and Blondie are rarely even considered Beach Boys.)
In other words, the future of any iteration of the Beach Boys that includes principal members is a short-term future.
There are at least three obvious possibilities for the b(r)and going forward when the guys themselves are retired or passed on:
1. The end of any live act under the name The Beach Boys. It's all about managing product from there on out, with copyright reissues, other archival projects, perhaps other themed compilations and live shows (and videos and action figures and baseball caps and...).
2. A live band, perhaps using family or associated musicians, perhaps not, that obtains an official license to tour under the Beach Boys name.
3. A "band" of digital avatars, bringing back everyone at their peaks to perform the music flawlessly, tech glitches notwithstanding. This could cross eras within single shows, bringing out 1973 Blondie Chaplin to sing "Sail On, Sailor" right before 1990 Mike Love sings "Kokomo." Heck, we might be able to see 1966 Brian Wilson sing "Summer's Gone."
What do you find most appealing?
|
|
Emdeeh
Pacific Coast Highway
Posts: 520
Likes: 532
|
Post by Emdeeh on Dec 4, 2023 14:20:32 GMT
None of these choices are exactly what I want. If a licensed band goes out on tour without any BB principals, I'd like it to have a new name and have "The Beach Boys" name itself retired.
This is basically what California Surf, Inc. is doing.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 4, 2023 14:54:41 GMT
None of these choices are exactly what I want. If a licensed band goes out on tour without any BB principals, I'd like it to have a new name and have "The Beach Boys" name itself retired. This is basically what California Surf, Inc. is doing. I can respect that position in terms of honoring the Beach Boys name, but... My devil's advocate argument would be that such a situation might also not be the best one from the Beach Boys' own commercial perspective. If their goal is to continue promoting the Beach Boys' music and brand, I think the name itself is an awfully powerful way to do that: it lets the fans know exactly what they're in for (as opposed to thinking it's a more generic "California surfing music" show featuring Jan & Dean and the like, which could be the case with California Surf, Inc.). If such a band were to go out in an official, licensed way, I think it would only make business sense to do so under the name. By the way, I voted for an officially licensed band going forward, but I don't feel especially strongly about it. It just seems like the best option: full retirement of the brand would be a shame, as all of us know seeing a quality version of that material live can be transcendent (whether it's the hits or the more "artistic" stuff); and frankly while I can imagine a digital show being kind-of cool, I can't see it being interesting in the long term. That might just be my lack of imagination, but I like seeing real people playing real instruments and singing with real vocal cords.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Dec 4, 2023 17:51:34 GMT
I voted for the 2nd option, but I agree that the name “The Beach Boys” should be retired. I would however be fine with an officially sanctioned “The Music of The Beach Boys” featuring non principal members.
As for the 3rd option, I’m not sure I even know what that is in practice or how it would look.
|
|
Emdeeh
Pacific Coast Highway
Posts: 520
Likes: 532
|
Post by Emdeeh on Dec 4, 2023 17:59:50 GMT
I don't mind if the name gets modified, just something to differentate that it's a new act.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 4, 2023 18:09:18 GMT
As for the 3rd option, I’m not sure I even know what that is in practice or how it would look. I'm far from an expert and haven't really paid much attention to the assorted shows and tours that have happened so far. But here is a clip from the ABBA version.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Dec 4, 2023 18:24:58 GMT
I voted for The Beach Boys name to be retired. But, I ultimately wouldn't really have an issue if a Beach Boys band existed with no original Beach Boys.
The avatar thing is just odd to me.
|
|
|
Post by jk on Dec 4, 2023 18:31:29 GMT
I don't mind if the name gets modified, just something to differentate that it's a new act. Agreed. If #1 is about retiring the name The Beach Boys, it gets my vote.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 4, 2023 18:33:48 GMT
The avatar thing is just odd to me. Me, too. But then I think, maybe I'm just the idiot without the foresight to see how great it could be. After all, technology always advances, and people will come up with creative uses of whatever is available. And me, I'm the moron who heard about email circa 1993 or so and thought, "What? Why? You can just write letters, or--to be in real time--talk on the phone. What's the point?" (For that matter, a year or so later, I also dismissed mobile phones. My sophomore year roommate had one, and I thought, "who does this guy think he is?") Point being I may well be the last to see how cool it could be. Regardless, it doesn't get my vote.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Dec 4, 2023 18:55:22 GMT
I voted to retire the name...with all due respect. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if they do put a couple of Beach Boys' relatives on the stage and carry on the name - and take a cut from it. They will do anything for a buck.
I think it would be cool and maybe even interesting and maybe even musically fulfilling if they would form a band using Beach Boys' family members and musicians from Brian's and Mike & Bruce's band without calling them The Beach Boys. They definitely have the talent and something to offer. I'm not sure I would necessarily go to a show...well, maybe at least once.
My initial thought was to dismiss the avatar thing, but upon further contemplation, I don't want to be too quick to write it off. Yes, technology is an amazing thing and you never know where it's going or what it can come up with. I can imagine, just for the heck of it, seeing a Doors-type thing - with Jim Morrison and a young Ray, Robby, and John blasting away - and being blown away by it. So, maybe I'll table my vote on that for now.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 4, 2023 19:41:44 GMT
None of these choices are exactly what I want. If a licensed band goes out on tour without any BB principals, I'd like it to have a new name and have "The Beach Boys" name itself retired. This is basically what California Surf, Inc. is doing. By the way, it just occurred to me that you or others might think I had intended Option B to mean the licensed band had to be named the Beach Boys. That wasn't my intent: it could be any band with an official sanction of the corporate entity, whether as The Beach Boys or something else . (I omit other tribute bands from consideration here because they already can and do tour however they want, with their own names, etc.) But if there is still some other option you prefer that I'm missing, I'd be curious to hear it. But I think the options I have presented cover the bases: no official touring act; some official touring act (whatever the name) with live musicians; and some official touring act without live musicians, with digital avatars instead.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Dec 4, 2023 20:51:00 GMT
None of these choices are exactly what I want. If a licensed band goes out on tour without any BB principals, I'd like it to have a new name and have "The Beach Boys" name itself retired. This is basically what California Surf, Inc. is doing. By the way, it just occurred to me that you or others might think I had intended Option B to mean the licensed band had to be named the Beach Boys. That wasn't my intent: it could be any band with an official sanction of the corporate entity, whether as The Beach Boys or something else . (I omit other tribute bands from consideration here because they already can and do tour however they want, with their own names, etc.)But if there is still some other option you prefer that I'm missing, I'd be curious to hear it. But I think the options I have presented cover the bases: no official touring act; some official touring act (whatever the name) with live musicians; and some official touring act without live musicians, with digital avatars instead. Yes, I interpreted it as a future licensed band being called The Beach Boys, and I do not want that. However, even with your clarification, I am still voting for Option 1. I want the name retired. That's a priority. That being said, as I posted above, I would welcome some kind of tribute band featuring as many Beach Boys' relatives and Brian/Mike & Bruce band members as possible...just not called The Beach Boys. To some extent (and I have no idea how much), it would serve to keep the music and spirit alive. At the very least, it would provide a nice evening of music entertainment.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 4, 2023 21:03:50 GMT
So you don't want any tribute band to be licensed as the official touring band of the Beach Boys even if it isn't called the Beach Boys? I'm confused as to why that would make a difference to you. You say you want there to be a band or bands out there, even including family and associates; and I'm saying Option B does not need to be named the Beach Boys. So the name can be retired, but a band can be on the road under some official license AND a different name (or the same name, either one).
Do you just want that tribute band (or those tribute bands) to be free of any contractual obligations that might come with official licensure?
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Dec 4, 2023 21:18:30 GMT
So you don't want any tribute band to be licensed as the official touring band of the Beach Boys even if it isn't called the Beach Boys? I'm confused as to why that would make a difference to you. You say you want there to be a band or bands out there, even including family and associates; and I'm saying Option B does not need to be named the Beach Boys. So the name can be retired, but a band can be on the road under some official license AND a different name (or the same name, either one).Do you just want that tribute band (or those tribute bands) to be free of any contractual obligations that might come with official licensure? I apologize for the lack of clarification. I'll give it another shot.
Yes, I wouldn't mind what I highlighted in your above post. If that's in line with Option B...OK. But, it's still not my No. 1 priority which remains retiring The Beach Boys' name. Can I vote for two options? Retire the name and have a tribute band of relatives/ex-band members not using the name. It doesn't matter to me if they're licensed or not. I trust 'em. Of course The Beach Boys would want them licensed. $$$$$$$
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 4, 2023 21:37:08 GMT
Sounds like Option B with an asterisk! (A disqualifies there being any sanctioned/licensed band at all, regardless of name.)
In hindsight I should have had two of what is currently Option B. Alas, you can't edit a poll: you have to delete and create a new one, which would lose the existing votes. Regardless, as usual, it's more the discussion than the actual poll that matters. (I should have again added a final option along the lines of "this poll is a lame attempt to drum up conversation" ... which is true, anyway!)
|
|