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

[maggie]

doinnothin, if there was a "like" function on this board, I'd click it on every one of your posts.

[rab2591]

I don't think of the Beach Boys as being evangelically racist, but they definitely were a product of a racist world. And I think for a lot of people if you're not actively opposing racism as someone who benefits from it, you're part of it. They had a massive platform at a time of major social upheaval and they didn't really say anything about race.

I think each person has their own voice and their own way of communicating with the world. Brian's way of communicating was with music and the message in his music was one of constant love.

We're all where we are today because of oppression of minorities - it's a sad fact of reality. We can talk about how the Boys never really spoke out against the past oppressions, or we can listen to their message in the music that Brian and the band created. The message of love transcends any debate one could have on race.

Take that simple path
And love will set you free
Live in harmony
And love will set you free

(Keeping in mind these lyrics were recorded in the studio 9 days after MLK was shot - not sure if those lyrics are connected - but they sure seem to be a response to the events in that time)

I'm not trying to be cheesy by writing those lyrics or that message. But these guys DID have a huge platform and they DID spread a message of peace and love to people in a the best way they possibly could (via music). Sometimes the music just speaks for itself - not everyone is a Bono or John Lennon where they feel comfortable in parading their world views through speeches at public venues.

[doinnothin]

They had a massive platform at a time of major social upheaval and they didn't really say anything about race.

The problem with that line of thinking = it would seem the only solution is that every single artist of every single medium needs to be talking about race/politics constantly, or face a backlash. Even if The BBs had done so a lot more than they actually did, someone educated would still come along and say "it still wasn't enough" simply because that person has randomly decided such with their expectation barometer. It's ridiculous.

Some artists don't like to get particularly involved, and they don't automatically deserve criticism for it - especially not from some highly-educated overly-PC person who happens to not be highly educated about the band as a whole. It's like there is some magical amount of "expected" political engagement that some random educated people have randomly deemed necessary for an artist to have had - a completely arbitrary amount that is literally pulled out of their butts - and somehow this measure of expected engagement is fodder for criticism and clickbait articles, if the artist they have deemed as politically deficient does not measure up.

I *get* that it would be cool if the band had done a few more socially conscious actions in the '60s, but I don't think it's fair to fault them for it. I don't fault ABBA or any of the disco bands for having song topics that are mostly apolitical either. It's nobody's decision but the artist, and really unfair to label the artist in a negative way simply by some random person's perceived reasons for the artist's inaction. I also don't fault Gilligan's Island for not having an episode tackling race relations, while I do think it's cool that Bewitched, by comparison, DID have such an episode. It just means one of those shows was perhaps more progressive and gutsy than another.

And yeah, as you also mentioned, sadly the more politically-minded songs from SMiLE wound up being unreleased. And the lack of the general public being aware that those songs - with progressive political lyrics - means that the band is once again being unfairly judged. The judgment is misdirected; any judgment should be directed towards any actions the band does *actively* promoting/supporting someone with abhorrent views, or if the band actually did or said racist, homophobic things, those things would be terrible and worthy of major criticism for sure.

Just a reminder. I love the Beach Boys. Favorite music of all time. "Don't Talk" is my favorite song. The first dance at my wedding was to "All I Wanna Do". I'm not shitting on them as a whole. But this thread is about them in a political context.

In that context, I think they're deserving of criticism. I agree that it's an individual artists decision whether to make a political statement. But they also then live with the consequences of how saying nothing comes off to people who either don't have the benefit of avoiding seeing the world through a political prism due to their existence at the center of political controversy or how it comes off to people who put political causes at the center of their own lives. The artist can do whatever they want but to say that going along with the status quo is never a fair thing to criticize seems like an opinion that ignores the stakes for a lot of people for whom the status quo is a threat.

Also, I don't know if this is in reference to me "especially not from some highly-educated overly-PC person who happens to not be highly educated about the band as a whole", but I don't really relate to any of those criticisms if they are or know what I would have said to make you feel that way. Might not have been about me though.

That wasn't in reference to you, by the way. Not at all. Apologies if it came off that way. It was directed to people such as the author who wrote the article criticizing Pet Sounds (which to tell you the truth, I didn't even finish reading all the way through), and to booksmart people who applaud that line of thinking without nuance, in an attempt to somehow demonize the band and its members (or say they must be taken down a notch from where they are artistically regarded as).

I think the whole "saying nothing" thing would hold more weight if there was a pattern of specific instances where perhaps the band - in the '60s - was asked about race relations and specifically ducked such a question in an interview, or things like that.  Or if they had been asked to perform at an anti-bigotry rally but refused because they were too afraid to make any kind of political statement. That would be super lame. The band theoretically ducking questions and ducking associations would be something to write about in a critical manner.

Simple inaction where there is some expectation that they should have gone out of their way to do/say certain things - especially being such a fractured band dealing with a member with mental illness, as well as dealing with an ongoing identity crisis as a brand - seems a bit of a stretch to me, IMO. Yet to say they were lucky to have not had to deal with certain things due to having been white kids is a very true statement. I just don't see why criticism is needed in conjunction with that statement.

I can understand that people think that it might've been nice if they'd *proactively* done x,y, and z (and I'd include myself in thinking that would have been nice), but I don't hold them to some sort of level where I *expect* that from them.  The BBs were a bunch of dorky guys from Hawthorne who signed up to be singers, not politically-engaged spokespeople. Again - I don't like the idea that they are getting singled out for that; what about The Turtles, The Mamas & The Papas, etc etc etc? I guess the singling out is only because The BBs are more famous than those bands, but it seems way unfair for them to be saddled with that expectation and resultant image (again, I am talking about the image they had pre-Trump).

Yeah, I feel like we're pretty much on the same page. I don't demonize them for not having made a stand, but I think it would have been awesome if they had. I agree with you that the precise time when they started to fracture was probably the time they had the best shot at making a stand, and it seems after that the main things was to just try to get along. I also find it hilarious how much we can love them and say things like "The BBs were a bunch of dorky guys from Hawthorne". I agree and it makes me laugh too.

[bonnevillemariner]

Sometimes the music just speaks for itself - not everyone is a Bono or John Lennon where they feel comfortable in parading their world views through speeches at public venues.

I purposely avoid artists that parade their political worldviews either in their work or in speeches. And I'll banish an artist who agrees with me politically just as soon as I'll banish an artist I disagree with. It's damn near impossible to escape politics these days. If I possibly can filter it out of my entertainment, I will.

[Senator Blutarsky]

Keep in mind that if they decide to play at the inauguration, don't assume they are playing FOR Trump.  It is an event, not an endorsement. Did Ricky Martin play FOR George W. Bush in 2001?

I kinda hope they do play after seeing how much some are freaking out about it.  

[rab2591]

Keep in mind that if they decide to play at the inauguration, don't assume they are playing FOR Trump.  It is an event, not an endorsement. Did Ricky Martin play FOR George W. Bush in 2001?

I kinda hope they do play after seeing how much some are freaking out about it.  

I think the point some people are trying to make here is that just by associating with Trump, The Beach Boys will get their name slung through the mud by the media and subsequently social media. As I said above, look at the special needs kid who just got kidnapped and was forced to say "f*** Donald Trump", look at all the people who got the sh*t beat out of them for exiting Trump rallies last summer. After Kanye associated himself with Trump (and got lambasted for it) would anyone here feel comfortable in wearing a Kanye t-shirt in the inner city? If The Beach Boys play this gig (and subsequently get raked over the coals in the media) will people be comfortable wearing a BBs shirt in the city? I don't care what anyone's politics are here, but the simple fact is that anything that associates with Trump becomes a target.

I think it's reasonable for fans on either side of the aisle to look down on this gig.

[CenturyDeprived]

Keep in mind that if they decide to play at the inauguration, don't assume they are playing FOR Trump.  It is an event, not an endorsement. Did Ricky Martin play FOR George W. Bush in 2001?

I kinda hope they do play after seeing how much some are freaking out about it.  

Does a person exist who you could perhaps find so abhorrent that you'd think that any band playing at their inauguration was a repulsive and idiotic move? What if it was President Strom Thurmond or David Duke?

Would those be ok too? Would you secretly wish the band would play those inaugurations just to piss off people and snicker at them... for example, grandchildren of slaves who might find those two pricks I mentioned above indescribably offensive? And would you still casually add your " " smiley face to that post?  Something tells me you wouldn't feel comfortable snickering at them.

At a certain point, when a person is AS toxic as Trump is, the argument "well, they're not really playing FOR them" doesn't hold weight any longer. Can't you understand that, at least if applied to those two pricks (Thurmond and Duke) I mentioned above? Honest question. There HAS to be a limit to what one candidate can do/say before any such association is beyond ill-advised.

[HeyJude]

What's the deal with numerous people hoping Mike does the gig solely in hopes people here will be upset? It get it, lamenting the idea of Mike doing this gig can get repetitive and few would argue it will foster any change in the situation. But what does wishing antagonism onto posters here possibly add to the conversation? Isn't it pretty much just trolling?

[CenturyDeprived]

What's the deal with numerous people hoping Mike does the gig solely in hopes people here will be upset? It get it, lamenting the idea of Mike doing this gig can get repetitive and few would argue it will foster any change in the situation. But what does wishing antagonism onto posters here possibly add to the conversation? Isn't it pretty much just trolling?

I agree that this becomes trolling at a certain point, if someone's motivation is partially just to piss others off. At this point, isn't it plausible that Mike himself may be taking that tack? I cannot help but think that he is giddy at the idea of pissing off Melinda, as well as liberal BB fans who prefer Brian's experimental work. Not kidding one bit.

[Don Malcolm]

They had a massive platform at a time of major social upheaval and they didn't really say anything about race.

The problem with that line of thinking = it would seem the only solution is that every single artist of every single medium needs to be talking about race/politics constantly, or face a backlash. Even if The BBs had done so a lot more than they actually did, someone educated would still come along and say "it still wasn't enough" and write an online article about it, simply because that person has randomly decided such with their expectation barometer. I don't know why anyone gets to set these expectations for bands at their random choosing. It's ridiculous.

...

I do wonder if the band hadn't continually been associated with Reagan, George HW Bush, etc, if they'd still be getting as much criticism (Trump aside) for enjoying the status quo that white privilege has afforded them. I imagine the Reagan/Bush associations have only helped further the ideology that they are worthy of criticism... but the Trump association is a whole other animal that will really take things to the next level, and it breaks my heart.

Absolutely on the money, CD. This also goes back to the "counterculture" and its hipper-than-thou interventionism which left the BBs--who had just put out "Good Vibrations" for Crissakes--up the creek without a paddle. Millions of white kids trying as hard as possible to deny they were part of a racist culture, and no way for anyone involved in the upheaval of those times to determine what was authentic and what wasn't, so there were the guys from Hawthorne who could stand in for all the retrograde politics that had to be jettisoned (at least temporarily). One of Dylan's songs with that "Canadian roots band" (and thus "exempt" from racism due to not being Americans) nailed the phenomenon of the popular application of "new left" precepts: "Nothing Was Delivered." It was the beginning of our scapegoat culture, that is still in play, and--guess what?--mostly practiced by white folks on either side of the political spectrum. This year, when the scapegoating manifested itself in an escalating economic displacement, the scapegoats rallied behind their anger and the political figure who personified it for them.

By the 80s, the band had been through so much turmoil--backlash and scapegoating being prominent within that dynamic as well--that they just went with whoever gave them a kind word. The BBs survived their Reagan moments a lot better than the Carpenters did for playing the Nixon White House, because the times had shifted back. What's happened since then is that the scapegoating has just intensified to levels beyond comprehension, fueled by the Internet and its inherent power to distort. The BBs will never get a fair shake from the PC portion of the left, and they will be triviaiized and distorted by the nostalgia merchants on the right. Mike's teenage "pop utopia," like Bruce's paean to "Disney girls," is a wish to return to the 50s, which is what the Republicans sell as their lip gloss prior to making one more failed attempt to put lipstick on a pig. Brian's music was wedded to lyrics that require a very high degree of quality in order to be overcome--but having done so, that music remains vulnerable to periodic variations of this shopworn critique from the "left" simply because--damn it all--it is still catchy and, ironically enough, timeless. (The kids in Utah and elsewhere may not agree, but they have been marinated in such puerile musical crap built around its own lame "pablum political" content that they've lost the framework for having an authentic emotional response to what they listen to.)

The BBs will be stuck in the culture wars as long as people continue to fight the culture wars, and what we don't know is whether or not having Trump in office will break this bizarre flip-flop cycle in our recent history once and for all. What's clear is that you can't "make America great again" by trying to go back to the 50s, a time frame that simply cannot be replicated--if only for the fact that media is so over-saturated now that no one can get a moment's respite from its omnivorous demands for something--anything--to blurt across the airwaves.

Regarding why Mike hasn't made an announcement: I think he knows this is a potential powder keg, and I'm guessing that he is really hoping that someone, anyone who is semi-"big time" will step up and commit. If that happens, I'm 99% certain that Mike will accept within 24 hours of such an announcement. I don't think he wants to go first here. The problem is that there's no conga line he can join, no way to slip in under reduced scrutiny.

[guitarfool2002]

Getting down to brass tacks version 3.0...

In his 2005 lawsuit part of Mike's charges involved Al's BB Family & Friends tour and Brian's solo touring since '99 damaging the brand, bastardizing the name, etc.

I cannot recall anything even in the same galaxy in terms of fan criticism and backlash for either Al's tour or Brian's 1999-2004 tours, in fact it was the opposite, with a lot of praise for both touring shows both in quality and presentation.

I absolutely cannot remember a single fan threatening to swear off the Beach Boys entirely as a result of anything Brian or Al did on their respective tours which came up as a point in Mike's lawsuit.

Irony? Hypocrisy? Who knows.

[Emily]

Do you have any thoughts on the rest of my response?

Sure. Here goes...

...pre-Trump, I don't think that negative taglines associated with the band were ever going to get much traction at all in a way that actually made people think of the term "racism"  in the same breath as the name.  There are certainly overzealous people who want to harp on the band for being too "whitebread", but in and of itself that was never going to have legs to go to the next level.

I disagree. I am a public secondary school teacher and my views are drawn from my observations at school. I usually introduce my students to the concept of digital audio by playing them an 8-bit digital cover of Pet Sounds (which we then compare to the sound of my vinyl copy on a turntable-- cool lesson, actually).  Since I started doing this in 2013, I get multiple comments each year about the Beach Boys being "white dad music" and therefore on the racist spectrum. They're being taught-- in this Utah school district-- that while cultural phenomena, artists and historical figures may not have been racist, they are a product of a systemically racist culture and should be regarded as such. It doesn't matter that the boys didn't have a racist bone in their body.

That's because the public at large understands that these songs were written decades ago in a different time...

Sure, but it doesn't matter. They are a product of an institutionally racist culture. Their music, however benign, is the product of behavioral norms that supported racist thinking. Guilt by mere chronistic association.  Again, I base this opinion on my daily interactions with 200 high school kids.

Literally billions of people will see it, and the association will be cemented.  Whatever previous ways in which the band could have been stereotyped will then become blown out of proportion, and twisted into making their previous works into something they were not. Maybe not overnight, but this will be a long-term albatross over the brand.

Agreed, to an extent.  An inauguration performance would cement the association, but I believe the long-term notion of BB as a racist symbol will stem from the mindset I described above.

But this is all true. "while cultural phenomena, artists and historical figures may not have been racist, they are a product of a systemically racist culture and should be regarded as such. It doesn't matter that the boys didn't have a racist bone in their body," and "They are a product of an institutionally racist culture. Their music, however benign, is the product of behavioral norms that supported racist thinking." Are perfectly true. It's your next, defensive, thought that is not true: "Guilt by mere chronistic association."
As a teacher, you should be able to separate your emotional reaction and be able to acknowledge the factual truth.
I think there's a failure in this thread and the other to which you refer to distinguish between discussing the institution of racism and its impact on its denizens from calling the denizens themselves actively racist on an individual basis. Some are, some aren't, but they are all affected by the institution.

[Emily]

doinnothin, if there was a "like" function on this board, I'd click it on every one of your posts.

And yours.

[rab2591]

Getting down to brass tacks version 3.0...

In his 2005 lawsuit part of Mike's charges involved Al's BB Family & Friends tour and Brian's solo touring since '99 damaging the brand, bastardizing the name, etc.

I cannot recall anything even in the same galaxy in terms of fan criticism and backlash for either Al's tour or Brian's 1999-2004 tours, in fact it was the opposite, with a lot of praise for both touring shows both in quality and presentation.

I absolutely cannot remember a single fan threatening to swear off the Beach Boys entirely as a result of anything Brian or Al did on their respective tours which came up as a point in Mike's lawsuit.

Irony? Hypocrisy? Who knows.

Exactly! But consistency and logical thought don't play a role in these ridiculous lawsuits...And likewise in this possible decision to play the inauguration. My money is on that they play the gig:

America's Band playing to Make America Great Again - it's too perfect of imagery for Trump to pass up, and I'm sure Mike will go right along with it.

[bonnevillemariner]

It's your next, defensive, thought that is not true: "Guilt by mere chronistic association."

How exactly is this not true?

As a teacher, you should be able to separate your emotional reaction and be able to acknowledge the factual truth.

I appreciate the sanctimony, but I'm quite capable of separating emotional reaction from truth. It is students (and quite frankly a lot of adults I meet) that are not.  It's one thing to acknowledge institutional racism (a subject I believe is more fluid and debatable than you probably believe). It's quite another to ascribe those institutional characteristics to individuals or to dismiss an individual's work simply because it is a product of the era. That this is happening was my initial complaint. Subscribe to white guilt all you want; it doesn't mean we need to blacklist an artist on those grounds.

I think there's a failure in this thread and the other to which you refer to distinguish between discussing the institution of racism and its impact on its denizens from calling the denizens themselves actively racist on an individual basis. Some are, some aren't, but they are all affected by the institution.

Agreed, but while I believe institutional racism exists, the degree to which it affects its denizens and the prescriptions for eliminating it are up for debate because the very parameters for defining it are subjective. You argue as if these things are set in stone, which is why you and I will never reconcile on this.

[guitarfool2002]

There is already a discussion in the Sandbox here: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24451.0.html on this topic of race and the Beach Boys and all of it.

Speaking for just my opinions, I've already posted them in that thread weeks ago and will do so again there rather than in this discussion.

[guitarfool2002]

Getting down to brass tacks version 3.0...

In his 2005 lawsuit part of Mike's charges involved Al's BB Family & Friends tour and Brian's solo touring since '99 damaging the brand, bastardizing the name, etc.

I cannot recall anything even in the same galaxy in terms of fan criticism and backlash for either Al's tour or Brian's 1999-2004 tours, in fact it was the opposite, with a lot of praise for both touring shows both in quality and presentation.

I absolutely cannot remember a single fan threatening to swear off the Beach Boys entirely as a result of anything Brian or Al did on their respective tours which came up as a point in Mike's lawsuit.

Irony? Hypocrisy? Who knows.

Exactly! But consistency and logical thought don't play a role in these ridiculous lawsuits...And likewise in this possible decision to play the inauguration. My money is on that they play the gig:

America's Band playing to Make America Great Again - it's too perfect of imagery for Trump to pass up, and I'm sure Mike will go right along with it.

When all of this started to break across the news sites and the web in general, and there was a sense that the band name itself was taking a lot of hits (again, whether someone agrees or disagrees with the reasons why or why not politically or otherwise), I had that 2005 lawsuit in mind. Al Jardine fronting a damn fine stage band and playing Beach Boys songs live, combined with Brian's live shows and incredible live band from the first run in 1999 up to 2004 when the lawsuit referenced that timeline (they played Pet Sounds and Smile live to rave reviews...any questions???) ...the court filing accused those shows and activities of "bastardizing" the brand name, and made other comments suggesting "damage" to the Beach Boys brand and name.

Logic would suggest that tours which fans are still talking about with praise and good memories having seen those shows were the exact opposite of "damaging" to the band name and the legacy of the music. But, as mentioned, logic gets thrown out the window all too often when it comes to trying to make a case that has no merit.

Maybe there is someone who saw one of those decade-old shows and decided to swear off the band entirely because they were "confused" by who was fronting the band on stage playing Beach Boys songs. Somehow, I doubt such a person exists unless they were mocked up for the lawsuit in 2005.

Yet as of this week in 2017, go to any number of major media or music websites which covered this event, browse through the comments, and find more negative vibes around the Beach Boys as a name entity than I have seen in at least several decades of following these things.

[CenturyDeprived]

I disagree. I am a public secondary school teacher and my views are drawn from my observations at school. I usually introd
But this is all true. "while cultural phenomena, artists and historical figures may not have been racist, they are a product of a systemically racist culture and should be regarded as such. It doesn't matter that the boys didn't have a racist bone in their body," and "They are a product of an institutionally racist culture. Their music, however benign, is the product of behavioral norms that supported racist thinking." Are perfectly true.

Response moved here:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24451.msg600121.html#msg600121

[guitarfool2002]

Could you please put that sidebar race discussion in the existing thread I linked to above? Thanks.

[CenturyDeprived]

Could you please put that sidebar race discussion in the existing thread I linked to above? Thanks.

Done.

[bonnevillemariner]

Could you please put that sidebar race discussion in the existing thread I linked to above? Thanks.

I don't know, man. This is a pretty civil discussion, and although I disagree with many of the political ideas presented here, I find them thoughtfully expressed and valuable. Nobody reads the sandbox. I certainly won't. Your call, obviously, but I'm not sure why we need to be so strict on this.

[guitarfool2002]

Could you please put that sidebar race discussion in the existing thread I linked to above? Thanks.

I don't know, man. This is a pretty civil discussion, and although I disagree with many of the political ideas presented here, I find them thoughtfully expressed and valuable. Nobody reads the sandbox. I certainly won't. Your call, obviously, but I'm not sure why we need to be so strict on this.

I just added my own voice and opinion to the discussion in the thread that was already active, it's not being strict but it's keeping a discussion about the Jan 20th gig and the fallout/support of it on topic.

[Hickory Violet Part IV]

I'm looking for the positives here.

Back in the late 80s I was literally the only Beach Boys fan for miles around. You couldn't get more uncool.

I loved it, they were mine and mine alone. Everone else hated them.

It'll be quite nice to be back in that position.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I'm looking for the positives here.

Back in the late 80s I was literally the only Beach Boys fan for miles around. You couldn't get more uncool.

I loved it, they were mine and mine alone. Everone else hated them.

It'll be quite nice to be back in that position.

I know that feeling all too well.

[CenturyDeprived]

I'm looking for the positives here.

Back in the late 80s I was literally the only Beach Boys fan for miles around. You couldn't get more uncool.

I loved it, they were mine and mine alone. Everone else hated them.

It'll be quite nice to be back in that position.

Why is it a *good* or *nice* thing for any fan to have to worry about what people in, say, San Francisco, might think of someone who walks down the street with a Beach Boys logo shirt on January 21? Why does it have to be "on them" if they are pissed to see that shirt? I don't want to offend someone who has every right to be offended by the brand name if they play the election. I'm an empath; I give a f***.

It's not a nice thing at all.