Billboard: "Beach Boys" Considering Invitation to Perform at Trump Inauguration

[Pretty Funky]

Any chance there is push-back from within the touring group?

[KDS]

That depends.  If it comes down to a vote, that's one thing.  But, if Mike doesn't need Brian's and Al's votes to accept the invitation, then it's really a non issue.  I don't know the parameters of the agreement.  
 

As I've mentioned, I'm at the moment focusing on this issue irrelevant from whether or not Mike actually *needs* their votes to accept the invitation. I'm posing the question about whether it's right/ethical to use the brand name - founded by not just him, but by Brian and Al as well - in the probable event that Brian and Al don't want the brand name used at the inauguration (regardless of whether or not they have the ability to block him or not).  

I don't see how there's any way to make that right.

Bottom line.  If he has the right to use the brand name, and there's no votes involved, then it's his choice when and where he gets to play under the banner. 

[HeyJude]

And, at the end of the day, playing the inauguration doesn't necessarily associate the Beach Boys brand with the 45th President IMO.  

Any PR person or branding expert or agent or manager with half their wits about them would surely tell you this is completely inaccurate.

No, nobody remembers or cares that "The Beach Boys" played both Carter and Reagan functions.

But the 2016 election is different in terms of who won. If even Romney had won, or McCain, or whomever, it wouldn't be a huge deal in *any* of those other scenarios.  But the "big deal" this is or would be right now today, both in terms of PR and "brand association" or whatever else you want to call it, is VERY different from how it would have been in 1976 for them to play a Carter function or in 1980 to play a Regan function, etc.

Tell that to the singer who agreed to sing the National Anthem.  Her album went to #1 in her respective chart.  

Evancho's career is not comparable to the Beach Boys for about a gazillion reasons. Nobody will care in five or ten years that she did the gig, because nobody much will know or care about her at all. If another name comparable to the Beach Boys had booked the gig, then the comparison would be potentially apt, as the discussion here is not just what is happening in the moment, but what it means about a legacy and the "brand."

And, it's worth nothing that Evancho charts on the "Classical" charts, which require *far lower* sales numbers to reach #1 as compared to the main Top 200 albums charts. It appears her "#1" album is #93 on the Billboard 200. I can't get a precise sales number on how many copies got it to #93, but the #50 album on the chart sold 9,211 copies. So I'm guessing Evancho probably moved, at most, a few thousand copies of her album.

Point me to a PR person who thinks booking this gig is a good LONG TERM decision.

This guy also sold more records than most of the finalists on "American Idol":



If you want to go with the "all publicity is good publicity", feel free. It's often true in the short term.

[HeyJude]

That depends.  If it comes down to a vote, that's one thing.  But, if Mike doesn't need Brian's and Al's votes to accept the invitation, then it's really a non issue.  I don't know the parameters of the agreement.  
 

As I've mentioned, I'm at the moment focusing on this issue irrelevant from whether or not Mike actually *needs* their votes to accept the invitation. I'm posing the question about whether it's right/ethical to use the brand name - founded by not just him, but by Brian and Al as well - in the probable event that Brian and Al don't want the brand name used at the inauguration (regardless of whether or not they have the ability to block him or not).  

I don't see how there's any way to make that right.

Bottom line.  If he has the right to use the brand name, and there's no votes involved, then it's his choice when and where he gets to play under the banner. 

Who said it wasn't Mike's choice? Hoping BRI votes to block him for the sake of the brand is a totally different thing. I haven't seen anybody suggest Mike isn't allowed to book the show.

[KDS]

That depends.  If it comes down to a vote, that's one thing.  But, if Mike doesn't need Brian's and Al's votes to accept the invitation, then it's really a non issue.  I don't know the parameters of the agreement.  
 

As I've mentioned, I'm at the moment focusing on this issue irrelevant from whether or not Mike actually *needs* their votes to accept the invitation. I'm posing the question about whether it's right/ethical to use the brand name - founded by not just him, but by Brian and Al as well - in the probable event that Brian and Al don't want the brand name used at the inauguration (regardless of whether or not they have the ability to block him or not).  

I don't see how there's any way to make that right.

Bottom line.  If he has the right to use the brand name, and there's no votes involved, then it's his choice when and where he gets to play under the banner. 

Who said it wasn't Mike's choice? Hoping BRI votes to block him for the sake of the brand is a totally different thing. I haven't seen anybody suggest Mike isn't allowed to book the show.

CD asked whether or not if was ethical of Mike to accept if Brian and Al wished we wouldn't.   

[HeyJude]

Any chance there is push-back from within the touring group?

Anything's possible, but I highly doubt it. They're under contract to go where Mike tells them to go.

It would be great if one or more of those guys made a stand on this issue, but I'm not holding my breath.

[HeyJude]

CD asked whether or not if was ethical of Mike to accept if Brian and Al wished we wouldn't.   

Yes, and that's a perfectly straightforward, reasonable question, and one which has nothing to do with whether Mike is legally/contractually allowed to play the show.

If someone is saying there's a moral or ethical issue, then that is a 100% subjective, opinion-based discussion. Answering that subjective, moral/ethical question with "it's Mike's choice whether to do the gig" is a rather Cam-esque dodge in my opinion.

[KDS]

CD asked whether or not if was ethical of Mike to accept if Brian and Al wished we wouldn't.   

Yes, and that's a perfectly straightforward, reasonable question, and one which has nothing to do with whether Mike is legally/contractually allowed to play the show.

If someone is saying there's a moral or ethical issue, then that is a 100% subjective, opinion-based discussion. Answering that subjective, moral/ethical question with "it's Mike's choice whether to do the gig" is a rather Cam-esque dodge in my opinion.

Or it's my opinion. 

[HeyJude]

CD asked whether or not if was ethical of Mike to accept if Brian and Al wished we wouldn't.   

Yes, and that's a perfectly straightforward, reasonable question, and one which has nothing to do with whether Mike is legally/contractually allowed to play the show.

If someone is saying there's a moral or ethical issue, then that is a 100% subjective, opinion-based discussion. Answering that subjective, moral/ethical question with "it's Mike's choice whether to do the gig" is a rather Cam-esque dodge in my opinion.

Or it's my opinion. 

If your opinion can include answering a different question than the one that was asked, then yes.

[KDS]

CD asked whether or not if was ethical of Mike to accept if Brian and Al wished we wouldn't.   

Yes, and that's a perfectly straightforward, reasonable question, and one which has nothing to do with whether Mike is legally/contractually allowed to play the show.

If someone is saying there's a moral or ethical issue, then that is a 100% subjective, opinion-based discussion. Answering that subjective, moral/ethical question with "it's Mike's choice whether to do the gig" is a rather Cam-esque dodge in my opinion.

Or it's my opinion. 

If your opinion can include answering a different question than the one that was asked, then yes.

No, my honest opinion is that, if Brian or Al morally object to Mike's playing on 1/20, it doesn't matter because Mike controls the brand name. 

That's my answer to CD's question. 

[Pretty Funky]

Any chance there is push-back from within the touring group?

Anything's possible, but I highly doubt it. They're under contract to go where Mike tells them to go.

F*** that!

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

The only thing is...if they morally object enough it could be called to a vote, and that could potentially effect Mike's license. . Whether or not they do, I honestly don't know...haven't asked.

[HeyJude]

CD asked whether or not if was ethical of Mike to accept if Brian and Al wished we wouldn't.   

Yes, and that's a perfectly straightforward, reasonable question, and one which has nothing to do with whether Mike is legally/contractually allowed to play the show.

If someone is saying there's a moral or ethical issue, then that is a 100% subjective, opinion-based discussion. Answering that subjective, moral/ethical question with "it's Mike's choice whether to do the gig" is a rather Cam-esque dodge in my opinion.

Or it's my opinion. 

If your opinion can include answering a different question than the one that was asked, then yes.

No, my honest opinion is that, if Brian or Al morally object to Mike's playing on 1/20, it doesn't matter because Mike controls the brand name. 

That's my answer to CD's question. 

So your answer to whether Mike's decision would be "ethical" is "it doesn't matter", which in my opinion is dodging the question.

One could easily answer whether, in their own opinion, something is ethical while still pointing out that legally it doesn't matter.

You're essentially arguing that legal contracts don't take subjective ethics into account, which nobody doesn't already understand, and is certainly not what CenturyDeprived was trying to discuss.

Much like when CenturyDeprived would desperately try to get Cam Mott or Filledeplage to tell us how they *feel* about something on a moral/ethical personal level, and we would all see a mouth full of legalese and dodging. I'm just trying to say that your answer reads much like those non-answers that those old posters used to provide. I'm not saying you're just like those old posters, nor is anybody suggesting anybody *has* to answer a question from someone else asking for one's personal ethical/moral opinion.

If Brian wanted to do something with the BB name, and Al, Mike, and Carl's estate were all vehemently opposed to it, I would have no problem saying that regardless of the legalities, Brian would be treading into morally questionable areas in my opinion if he did something against the wishes of the other members. I would not simply say "Brian can legally do that" and drop the mic.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Any chance there is push-back from within the touring group?

Anything's possible, but I highly doubt it. They're under contract to go where Mike tells them to go.

F*** that!

It is possible that there may be pushback but the affected person could go anyway albeit bregrudingly. If we see a temporary fill-in replacement for this particular performance (or a permanent line-up change) then that would pretty much confirm that.

All this is merely conjecture on my part, though.

[HeyJude]

The only thing is...if they morally object enough it could be called to a vote, and that could potentially effect Mike's license. . Whether or not they do, I honestly don't know...haven't asked.

I wish they would, but it's so, so unlikely to happen. I think the only way BRI would convene a vote to strip the license of Mike would be if he had pending serious criminal charges and refused to give up the license, or something crazy and extreme like that.

Also worth pointing out is that it's actually possible that even if BRI convened today and tried to block Mike from doing the gig, he could easily contest it in court and use any number of legal arguments that could or could not succeed.

It has been speculated a number of times that if BRI voted to strip Mike's license, Mike could well tie it up in court for *years*, which is probably one of the main reasons BRI never takes any action on the issue.

[HeyJude]

Any chance there is push-back from within the touring group?

Anything's possible, but I highly doubt it. They're under contract to go where Mike tells them to go.

F*** that!

It is possible that there may be pushback but the affected person could go anyway albeit bregrudingly. If we see a temporary fill-in replacement for this particular performance (or a permanent line-up change) then that would pretty much confirm that.

All this is merely conjecture on my part, though.

It would be great to see any of his band members take a stand and skip the gig; and I'm not even 100% convinced Mike would fire them if they asked to not do the gig.

A decent solution for this would be for Mike to book the appearance under *his own damn name* and bring whatever musicians want to come along. The PR damage to the BB name will have already been done to some degree, but it would be a decent gesture to BRI shareholders.

[HeyJude]

I will also say that, if Mike does the gig, a clear, thoughtful and precise statement from Brian and Al disavowing the decision would be much appreciated. They could easily explain why *in this particular instance* they object and want to clarify further that this isn't *THE* Beach Boys that is involved.

Here's the opposite end of the corporate/trademark issue: Would or could Mike take legal action against Brian and Al for speaking ill of Mike's show, or tour, or decision to play a gig? We know from comments from Al in recent years that Brian and Al continue to be harangued and reminded to not use the BB name too prominently for their shows.

So as much as I'd like to think BRI and/or Brian's people have been sending messages to Mike's people asking or advising him against doing this gig, it's just as likely that Mike's people could be sending notes to Brian and Al "reminding" them not to besmirch Mike's band.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

It has been speculated a number of times that if BRI voted to strip Mike's license, Mike could well tie it up in court for *years*, which is probably one of the main reasons BRI never takes any action on the issue

Good point, and at their ages, time is of the essence and is not on their side.

[CenturyDeprived]

Any chance there is push-back from within the touring group?

Anything's possible, but I highly doubt it. They're under contract to go where Mike tells them to go.

F*** that!

It is possible that there may be pushback but the affected person could go anyway albeit bregrudingly. If we see a temporary fill-in replacement for this particular performance (or a permanent line-up change) then that would pretty much confirm that.

All this is merely conjecture on my part, though.

It would be great to see any of his band members take a stand and skip the gig; and I'm not even 100% convinced Mike would fire them if they asked to not do the gig.

A decent solution for this would be for Mike to book the appearance under *his own damn name* and bring whatever musicians want to come along. The PR damage to the BB name will have already been done to some degree, but it would be a decent gesture to BRI shareholders.

It would be a decent gesture, and it will never happen because it would remind the public that "The BBs" isn't really The BBs, and is really just Mike with hired hands. That's not something Mike wants people thinking about, because it would beg the question as to why any future post-inauguration shows should legitimately be considered "BB" shows, as opposed to just "Mike" shows. It would be the ultimate "what's the difference between the two" question - not a question Mike wants to be asked in interviews, I am sure.

[HeyJude]

It would be a decent gesture, and it will never happen because it would remind the public that "The BBs" isn't really The BBs, and is really just Mike with hired hands. That's not something Mike wants people thinking about, because it would beg the question as to why any future post-inauguration shows should legitimately be considered "BB" shows, as opposed to just "Mike" shows. It would be the ultimate "what's the difference between the two" question - not a question Mike wants to be asked in interviews, I am sure.

Indeed, Jean Sievers's recent statement concerning this fiasco is one of the only times someone from Brian's camp has clearly and explicitly stated that it's Mike Love's band and is *licensing* the Beach Boys name to tour behind.

[CenturyDeprived]

CD asked whether or not if was ethical of Mike to accept if Brian and Al wished we wouldn't.  

Yes, and that's a perfectly straightforward, reasonable question, and one which has nothing to do with whether Mike is legally/contractually allowed to play the show.

If someone is saying there's a moral or ethical issue, then that is a 100% subjective, opinion-based discussion. Answering that subjective, moral/ethical question with "it's Mike's choice whether to do the gig" is a rather Cam-esque dodge in my opinion.

Or it's my opinion.  

If your opinion can include answering a different question than the one that was asked, then yes.

No, my honest opinion is that, if Brian or Al morally object to Mike's playing on 1/20, it doesn't matter because Mike controls the brand name.  

That's my answer to CD's question.  

So you have no problem with the idea of a bandmate - and relative - believing their fellow bandmate/relative's moral objections are of zero concern to them, and that it's perfectly ok to do absolutely whatever they want just "because they can"?

[mtaber]

I haven't posted here in a long time and haven't read through this entire thread, so forgive me if I've missed something.  It seems to me that virtually everyone on the board is viewing the President-elect as the worst human being on earth, and that anyone who associates with him, much less actually supports him, is darkly evil and idiotic.  Am I fairly accurate?

[the captain]

Briefly and just in the interest of accuracy, Bannon (who has the famous derogatory comments about lesbians [and actually feminists in general]) isn't nominated for a cabinet position, but rather a high-level advisory position.

[mtaber]

And Hillary is better than that?  

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I'd rather continue this discussion in the Sandbox, please.