Please sign petition for Beach Boys to withdraw from performing on 2/5/20

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Maybe I’m late, but has anybody else read ESQ’s response to this?

I just read it.  "Why did we choose to hurt the Beach Boys?"

The writer's conclusion is that the fans are to blame for hurting the Beach Boys rather than Mike Love's poor decision.

How about "Why did the holder of the Beach Boys license choose to hurt the Beach Boys?"

Sounds like stockholm syndrome.

That's a FANTASTIC title for Beard's pathetic article, Super Sally!! Kudos indeed!! And I'm sorry I wasted my time reading such drivel. 

[Ang Jones]

A lady called Deb has written a brilliant rebuttal of David Beard's article on brianwilson.com.

Amongst other things she points out 'REO Speedwagon who had originally been booked succeeded in withdrawing from the performance.' Well worth a read.

[Mr. Tiger]

Beard seems like a nice guy, and I hold nothing against him personally, but clearly he depends on band access to do what he does, hence this drivel. Sad really, what people are expected to stoop to to stay in Mike's orbit.

No more ESQ for me!

[harrisonjon]

Hopefully Trump Junior's incredible callousness will lose his dad more votes among Brian fans in November than this gains him. I assume that any Brian fans who are pro-trophy-hunting are already Trump voters, so it's really independents whose votes might swing here.

The damage to the Beach Boys brand is potentially huge, but the brand itself does not really reflect the ability to remember its members names, given that the NYT got Bruce's name wrong. Those who truly know and love the music will stay on board.

[HeyJude]

David Beard's article is a load of horse sh*t (no pun intended).

As usual, there is PLENTTTYYYYY to write about this subject, both the trophy hunting subject, and how this sh*t show went down in Beach Boys land. As usual, this article is NOT that. An article delving into whether it was worth ultimately dragging the whole brand down and stirring sh*t up at BRI in order to further this story, now *that* would be an interesting and complicated article to write. So complicated that this article doesn't do that at all.

It's the equivalent of when one kid in a group does something bad, but the parent yells at everyone to avoid having to single the one true bad actor out.

You'd think after the guy that publishes the only BB fanzine had written *numerous* Mike Love apology pieces in the last decade to resounding criticism (in some cases eventually editing and/or pulling the article, remember the article about Brian Wilson he wrote, the infamous "Is he brain damaged? Yes." article?), he'd learn his lesson that he simply doesn't have the skill to write these types of editorial pieces.

This Beard article may masquerade as a "defense" of "all" of the Beach Boys. But it's actually a way to shunt all blame for this PR disaster on fans.

It perplexingly attempts to absolve Mike of responsibility for booking the gig, turning back to the post-reunion levels of logic, going back to the "it was out his hands" logic, as if some other being or entity books Mike's shows and forces him to do them. No, I think Mike knew about this booking long ago, and if he didn't, he should have. The article also ignores how EASY it would have been for Mike to cancel the gig.

The article posits essentially that *surely* Mike is against EVERYTHING the organization he was "entertaining" stands for, but doesn't address how when you VOLUNTARILY play a paid corporate/private gig for such an organization, you tend to indicate in doing so that you aren't opposed to what they stand for.

The evocation of DENNIS WILSON was LAAAAMMME, and reeks of trying to change the subject. If you're *so sure* that Dennis wouldn't have ever supported trophy hunting, why bring it up? Did David Beard attempt to contact known Dennis friends and associates to even determine how big of a "hunter" he was?

The article also treats Brian Wilson and Al Jardine (and David Marks for that matter) like they aren't adults and can't knowingly and with purpose enter the discussion that this boycott/petition raised.

The article ends with David Beard positing that WE owe the band (including Mike Love) an apology. No, Mr. Beard, no we don't. (I deleted a much less calm, measured response to Beard's *multiple* calls in the article for ALL OF US to apologize to MIKE LOVE. It started with F**K and ended with YOU.)

Mike Love owes his band mates an apology, his fellow shareholders an apology. He owes his COUSIN an apology for not standing up for him when the president's son insulted Brian. He owes the fans an apology for standing with an awful organization.

And if the whole idea here is that everybody made this sh*t show gain momentum and get worse, Beard's article only makes it worse by, instead of offering even a gentle condemnation of Mike Love (don't want to give up those backstage passes and photo ops!), flipping this whole thing into BLAMING THE FANS?

*I* didn't book a show for a trophy hunting organization! I wasn't then also given TEN MILLION opportunities to turn an awful PR situation into a GREAT PR situation by canceling the gig.

[HeyJude]

I should also point out that Beard initially posted via ESQ with incredulity that Mike was *surely* against trophy hunting, and said he hoped it would all get worked out.

But apparently, when Mike Love almost literally said "F** all of you, I'm doing the gig", then the entire deal turned into it being the FANS' fault for raising a stink about this in the first place.

Beard couldn't even muster a limp "Meh, well, bummer Mike's doing the gig, but what can you do?"

I'm amazed how I can possibly continue to be disappointed. What a bummer.

[HeyJude]

Also, and we'll see how quickly this might get edited in the article, Beard refers to the gig in question as having taken place in "Vegas", when it actually took place in Reno, which is nowhere near Las Vegas. Excellent research.

While I'm at it, I'd like David Beard or anybody to produce a 2020 quote from Mike Love that actually indicates he opposes trophy hunting and/or this organization that he played for. "He's a pescetarian" doesn't count. I think it's absolutely fair to put the onus on Mike on this particular issue. I'm tired of the "he probably opposes trophy hunting, but...." reasoning. No. Until Mike chooses to come out and explain that he is 100% opposed to trophy hunting and 100% opposed to the organization he ELECTED to play a gig for, I'm going to assume he absolutely *does* support trophy hunting and *does* support the organization.

This is a bit like the 2012 reunion. After the debacle ended, a lot of us were all "Mike surely loved everything about the reunion and was enthusiastic about doing it, but then....". No, I think it actually is worth asking if Mike *never* wanted to do the reunion in the first place (in the form it ended up being anyway), but then a huge cash advance may have made it an offer impossible to refuse. I think that's something worth thinking about and considering.

[guitarfool2002]

A publication that calls itself "The Beach Boys Publication of Record" goes on the record and blames the fans for the controversy surrounding Mike Love and the SCI convention.

Shameful.

What you're seeing is another layer peeled back and visible to all in the ongoing attempts to control the opinions surrounding this band, and to either blatantly ignore criticism from fans leveled at the actions and words of Mike Love when they disagree, or whitewash mistakes and bad deeds from the record entirely, as was done repeatedly, especially over the last decade.

I don't need a finger-wagging lecture delivered by the self-named "publication of record" when the blame rests solely on Mike Love for choosing to accept and play a gig which tens of thousands objected to and which brought negative and damaging attention to the band name itself. Mike licenses the name "Beach Boys", he does not own it for his personal use.

If anyone wants to see what has been going on behind the scenes specifically since 2013 and in the wake of the C50 situation, start by reading this editorial-slash-lecture.

Perhaps consider why having open forums for fans to freely exchange thoughts and opinions is important and valuable. And also consider the sources of those who have been trying to shut down such outlets through actions such as locking social media pages to comments, trying to bully and control opinions of fans on multiple outlets, and now trying to shame fans into thinking they are responsible for causing problems for the brand when that blame ultimately rests in one specific place.

It isn't hard to figure out. But it is sad to see a band full of such joy and such a great legacy being reduced to this kind of behind-the-scenes nonsense and attempts to control and shift the narrative.

"It's all about the music!" "We love all the guys!"

Yeah, right. The line drawn in the sand seems to be more visible now than it ever was, if defending or protecting Mike's interests and image leads to blaming fans who are the main reason this band has continued to be relevant and newsworthy after close to 60 years.

[CenturyDeprived]

A publication that calls itself "The Beach Boys Publication of Record" goes on the record and blames the fans for the controversy surrounding Mike Love and the SCI convention.

Shameful.

What you're seeing is another layer peeled back and visible to all in the ongoing attempts to control the opinions surrounding this band, and to either blatantly ignore criticism from fans leveled at the actions and words of Mike Love when they disagree, or whitewash mistakes and bad deeds from the record entirely, as was done repeatedly, especially over the last decade.

I don't need a finger-wagging lecture delivered by the self-named "publication of record" when the blame rests solely on Mike Love for choosing to accept and play a gig which tens of thousands objected to and which brought negative and damaging attention to the band name itself. Mike licenses the name "Beach Boys", he does not own it for his personal use.

If anyone wants to see what has been going on behind the scenes specifically since 2013 and in the wake of the C50 situation, start by reading this editorial-slash-lecture.

Perhaps consider why having open forums for fans to freely exchange thoughts and opinions is important and valuable. And also consider the sources of those who have been trying to shut down such outlets through actions such as locking social media pages to comments, trying to bully and control opinions of fans on multiple outlets, and now trying to shame fans into thinking they are responsible for causing problems for the brand when that blame ultimately rests in one specific place.

It isn't hard to figure out. But it is sad to see a band full of such joy and such a great legacy being reduced to this kind of behind-the-scenes nonsense and attempts to control and shift the narrative.

"It's all about the music!" "We love all the guys!"

Yeah, right. The line drawn in the sand seems to be more visible now than it ever was, if defending or protecting Mike's interests and image leads to blaming fans who are the main reason this band has continued to be relevant and newsworthy after close to 60 years.

Yep, as well-intended as their ultimate result seems to be (smoothing things over, trying to "move forward"), it's very sadly textbook gaslighting.  I don't believe the author truly even believes it. It's pretzel-bending logic.

[Mooger Fooger]

I am questioning whether I buy another BB release. I have been a HARD CORE fan since 1981, but if Mike will not stand up and defend Brian, the I have nothing left to celebrate this peice of sh*t band.

[guitarfool2002]

If an author writes and publishes something they do not believe, then the issues of integrity and honesty come into play and they owe the readers and fans an apology.

[HeyJude]

I am questioning whether I buy another BB release. I have been a HARD CORE fan since 1981, but if Mike will not stand up and defend Brian, the I have nothing left to celebrate this peice of sh*t band.

Mike isn't *the band*. He's a solo act that licenses the BB name for touring.

Also, I'd say at this stage, the Mike Love of 2020 isn't even the same guy as the guy of the 60s, or even the 80s frankly, in my mind.

Don't let this stuff ruin everything that isn't the current iteration of touring and recording that Mike does.

[Ang Jones]

I am questioning whether I buy another BB release. I have been a HARD CORE fan since 1981, but if Mike will not stand up and defend Brian, the I have nothing left to celebrate this peice of sh*t band.

Mike isn't *the band*. He's a solo act that licenses the BB name for touring.

Also, I'd say at this stage, the Mike Love of 2020 isn't even the same guy as the guy of the 60s, or even the 80s frankly, in my mind.

Don't let this stuff ruin everything that isn't the current iteration of touring and recording that Mike does.

Mike should not be allowed to ruin our enjoyment of music that was written and recorded years before the current version of the Beach Boys existed, nor of Brian's tours with his own band.  That gives him a power he does not deserve and punishes wholly innocent members of the original Beach Boys and those who have worked on the recordings.

Let fans who disagree with Mike's damage to the legacy stop attending his concerts by all means. I'm sorry that this will hurt his band but even if it were to be done on a temporary basis perhaps it would make him at least avoid further such actions in future. It is a very fragile hope. If Mike took notice of the fans or of the bad Press he gets, surely he would have tried to redress the problems years ago. Mike just refuses to accept anything is his own fault.

[luckyoldsmile]

** EDITED ** because I realize my venting really doesn't add anything constructive or productive ...

but hey, you're all groovy.

I remind myself one key fact: The music will outlast the rough waters. The music is what matters.

I'll let karma land where it may. Those who want to make the world a better place should reap the happiness they are due.

But boy, that ESQ "editorial" definitely rubbed me the wrong way ...

(Shakes his head and puts on some tunes to ease his mind.)

[CenturyDeprived]

I am questioning whether I buy another BB release. I have been a HARD CORE fan since 1981, but if Mike will not stand up and defend Brian, the I have nothing left to celebrate this peice of sh*t band.

Mike isn't *the band*. He's a solo act that licenses the BB name for touring.

Also, I'd say at this stage, the Mike Love of 2020 isn't even the same guy as the guy of the 60s, or even the 80s frankly, in my mind.

Don't let this stuff ruin everything that isn't the current iteration of touring and recording that Mike does.

Mike should not be allowed to ruin our enjoyment of music that was written and recorded years before the current version of the Beach Boys existed, nor of Brian's tours with his own band.  That gives him a power he does not deserve and punishes wholly innocent members of the original Beach Boys and those who have worked on the recordings.

Let fans who disagree with Mike's damage to the legacy stop attending his concerts by all means. I'm sorry that this will hurt his band but even if it were to be done on a temporary basis perhaps it would make him at least avoid further such actions in future. It is a very fragile hope. If Mike took notice of the fans or of the bad Press he gets, surely he would have tried to redress the problems years ago. Mike just refuses to accept anything is his own fault.

+1

Mike is so, so, so lucky that there are still so many people - people who find his actions reprehensible - but are still willing to listen to music he co-created even though they deeply can't stomach his actions on a humanistic level.  

Actions that are the very *antihesis* of what this band is about, and ironically are also the complete anthesis of his last name. Defending his latest series of actions is not something that'll be on the right side of history, even if the defense is well-intended.

Primarily, the immense genius and heartfelt human decency that the Wilsons brought to the band are chiefly the reason that we're willing to not shun that old music, because Love - regardless of any good contributions he brought for the first several years of the band - has most certainly given us many reasons to want to simply turn away.   It's only largely because Brian's music is that good that we're willing to put up with this, and the jealous, petty Mike Love is able to hang on to the BBs train and not be fully kicked to the curb.

Never would this have happened with Carl alive. Never.  

[guitarfool2002]

But boy, that ESQ "editorial" definitely rubbed me the wrong way ...

You and many others feel exactly the same way.

Trying not to be as upset discussing it as I was reading it, I still cannot believe how the crux of the article was blaming the fans - whose support is the lifeline for this and ANY band or artist - for something that was 100% the responsibility of one member Mike Love, while the other three surviving original members Brian, Al, and David each either acted toward or spoke out in their objection to the band they formed playing for this event.

Three out of four original members opposed it, publicly, and it's the fault of the fans?

It absolutely boggles the mind.

[marcella27]

But boy, that ESQ "editorial" definitely rubbed me the wrong way ...

You and many others feel exactly the same way.

Trying not to be as upset discussing it as I was reading it, I still cannot believe how the crux of the article was blaming the fans - whose support is the lifeline for this and ANY band or artist - for something that was 100% the responsibility of one member Mike Love, while the other three surviving original members Brian, Al, and David each either acted toward or spoke out in their objection to the band they formed playing for this event.

Three out of four original members opposed it, publicly, and it's the fault of the fans?

It absolutely boggles the mind.

I read the article, started to post, and was so livid I had to stop.  The whole premise of the article is ridiculous and the arguments are just not well thought-out.  Mind- boggling is a very polite way to put it!

[Pretty Funky]

It is just a sign of the times. Deflect and blaming others is now ok apparently. Thankfully most here can differentiate between ‘The Beach Boys’ and the touring group, and will continue to support historical releases. Why would we cut of our nose to spite our face?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I said I was going to do a change.org petition to take the license away from Mike, but it was mostly sarcasm. The more time passes, the more I think there’s not a single reason I shouldn’t.   Now reading the rest of this...getting more pissed by the day. This better not affect any archival releases

[Ang Jones]

I said I was going to do a change.org petition to take the license away from Mike, but it was mostly sarcasm. The more time passes, the more I think there’s not a single reason I shouldn’t.   Now reading the rest of this...getting more pissed by the day. This better not affect any archival releases

The way that the petition was handled was unfortunate and might make future petitions regarding the Beach Boys unwelcome to fans. But it will annoy me intensely if Mike just gets away with this. At the very least, there should be an apology.

I also hope it doesn't affect any archival releases. The music is the message - and when the music is sounded out by this disgraceful kind of mess it does (most of) the original band, the fans and all those involved in trying to promote this music no favours.

[HeyJude]

We're not going to see an apology from Mike.

From everything I've discerned from discussions with various folks, it's more likely that Mike doubled down on *doing* the gig once Brian and Al publicly called him out.

The absolute best case scenario at this stage for the BB organization/brand/fan base is that, either due to direction from fellow shareholders, or simply an aversion to another sh*t show, Mike may not book gigs like this in the future. And that's best case scenario. A very big *maybe* at best. Given the zeal with which he issued that quick statement saying he was going to do the gig, I could also absolutely see him doing additional politically-charged gigs. Maybe at this point the villainy situation can't get a lot worse, so the thinking might be "Fine, I'll just go ahead and play a Trump rally every week." I have little doubt he'd *love* to be doing more gigs for Trump. A mixture of avoiding PR headaches and simply the breadth of his regular touring schedule has perhaps prevented it thus far.

We're not going to see a retroactive apology. *Maybe* at some point in some random future interview, Mike may limply say he's not into trophy hunting. Again, big maybe.

We're also not going to see a change to the licensing situation. I'm not going to tell someone not to start any petition they want to. But Mike canceling one gig is *far, far* easier a proposition than calling on the other BRI shareholders to vote Mike out of the license (which is the only way his losing the name for touring could happen, short of I guess doing a petition asking Mike to voluntarily stop using it, which is obviously about the *least* likely thing imaginable).

The only way we'll see a change to the license is if Mike is deceased, or suffers some infirmity such that he can't tour, or I guess if he's accused and/or charged with and/or convicted of a serious crime. And even in the latter scenarios, I'd guess BRI wouldn't easily make a change to the license unless Mike was actually convicted of a serious crime. I don't wish any of these things on Mike, and I don't see any of them as an obvious outcome any time soon, so a change to the license seems unlikely.

[MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm]

Given the zeal with which he issued that quick statement saying he was going to do the gig, I could also absolutely see him doing additional politically-charged gigs. Maybe at this point the villainy situation can't get a lot worse, so the thinking might be "Fine, I'll just go ahead and play a Trump rally every week." I have little doubt he'd *love* to be doing more gigs for Trump. A mixture of avoiding PR headaches and simply the breadth of his regular touring schedule has perhaps prevented it thus far.

I've wondered about that... scary thought. I don't think it's a given by any means, but it certainly could happen if Mike is asked personally to do similar gigs. If he was ever going to go full Roseanne this would probably be the year for it.

[HeyJude]

Look up James Woods. As I've mentioned before, I think Mike's path is starting to smell like what has happened to James Woods. Short version: He became more and more marginalized and saw less drawbacks to being more inflammatory and gross and mean and cruel.

The only difference is that James Woods can't get much work anymore, whereas Mike still has his lucrative touring gig. That may well be the only thing keeping him tethered in any way.

[Mr. Tiger]

I don't expect Mike to go that route, frankly. That's not to say I'm not done with him. I am. But I imagine he'll be a little more careful with future bookings. The almighty dollar means more to him than anything else, after all. This has been evident since at least 1966.

[Pretty Funky]

TBH I think the only protest I would suggest is a boycott of M&B shows for this year amongst the various online fan communities. While I feel sorry for his touring musicians, you are who you associate with.