The Smiley Smile Message Board

Here we go....discuss


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2017/01/17/the-beach-boys-will-headline-the-black-tie-and-boots-inaugural-ball/?utm_term=.7801c23c14dd

Is this a different event than the inaugural ball? I'm confused.

Oh, it's BALLS, alright... ::)

It's not THE inaugural ball - it's the night before I believe....

If that's the case, I think that this was an acceptable compromise. Hopefully it's not publicized too much. The way the article phrased it is very confusing.

It absolutely smacks of a compromise. I wonder if Mike will come clean about the compromise aspect of it.

It's a compromise I can live with....

[incorrect info on my part]

Knowing the likes of the Trumpster and myKe luHv, I'm leaning toward the idea of some kind of witchy, backroom insidious deal that was brewed to give the luHvster some sort of benefit besides money. The bottom line is that it's a Trump based show connected to the Inauguration.  ::)

It's still a gross association, but marginally better than the alternative.

Hopefully, it's one of those balls where at midnight, Bruce will change back into a pumpkin.

Disney girls ride in pumpkins...

And they're playing for someone who is the same color as a pumpkin!

 :lol

I will no longer be financially supporting them in anyway. Archival releases or otherwise. I hope that Brian & Al, as I believe they are entitled to a cut of the earnings from it, will distance themselves and donate the proceeds to charities that support the people who the incoming president most threatens.

And see, by doing it like this, he's supporting Trump but less overtly. Clever.

I think they will actually play the main event too  :(

Yeah, it's either that, or face explaining how he was emasculated by BRI, and/or that the once great BBs are now demoted below 3 F*cking Doors Down.

It's an embarrassment in every way. I guess it's a little less overt, but it's a thinly-veiled omnipresent-baseball-cap diversion maneuver.

I wouldn't say this is particularly an acceptable compromise based on the fears/concerns/outrage we've been discussing in recent weeks.

This is more of a "not quite as bad" sort of scenario. I'm certainly not going to give Mike any props for this. I suppose it's best to hope the media ignores it, but with even a Springsteen *tribute* band dropping out of the (apparently) main inauguration concert, the media might still latch onto it.

Especially since the Bruce Springsteen cover band that was set to perform backed out.

presidential medal of freedom.... :-\

Good, I think it is wonderful that he is "kind of playing the inauguration".  Sort of like how Obama kind of played being the president.....but mostly just played around and vacationed on our tax dollars.

I hope no one commits suicide over this news.

This has nothing to do with Trump.  It's for people from Texas living in DC and it happens every four years.  But continue on with your misplaced outrage.

I'm a little lost as to how an event that celebrates the inauguration has nothing to do with the person being inaugurated.  It's not like this is a party that's thrown every four years that just happens to line up with the Presidential inauguration. It's an inaugural ball for President Trump.

They have this ball every four years regardless of who is president. 

Right. The issue isn't that a group that throws inauguration balls is throwing an inauguration ball, though it would be great if they skipped this one, the issue is that "The Beach Boys" are playing the one that specifically celebrates the 2017 inauguration for Donald Trump. And I'm not outraged, I'm calmly boycotting my favorite band based on the choice they have made to celebrate Donald Trump's inauguration.

So Mike and the little touring band are doing a concert the night before the big day?

- Custom Machine

I could totally be mistaken, but I can't see Mike cancelling a concert in Fayetteville just because the night prior he is doing the Texas State Society’s “Black Tie and Boots” inaugural ball one state away.

He could definitely still use the "Beach Boys" to perform on inauguration day, perhaps he's just keeping it a secret until the last minute to keep controversy to a minimum.

edit: the ball is taking place in Texas, so I'm mistaken about it being one state away from NC.

Obama should resign tomorrow and let Joe Biden be President for a day just to mess up Trump's merchandise.

 

But the event is meant to coincide with the inauguration. To suggest the event has nothing to do with Trump is laughable. That the event exists is not due to Trump. But it certainly has to do with Trump, and indeed the article in the top post describes how the event's attendance spikes when Republicans are being inaugurated. It's Texas, so duh, of course that would be the case.

I would never argue that a 2012 inaugural event in California had "nothing to do" with Obama.

It's a shame that Mike didn't really make any headway on his own. Whereas if he had had a couple more (or rather: ANY) solo hits people could just boycott that music in protest of Mike's inauguration decision instead of lugging together Al, Brian, Carl, Dennis, Blondie, and Ricky together in that boycott. Not saying you are, doinnothing, but others have talked about boycotting the entire catalog if this goes through.

I don't see the point in punishing Brian's musical output solely because Mike wants to wow the President Elect with how long he can weeze "wheeeeeeen" into a microphone.

Wow, I've never heard such a complaint about a president before.....

Sorry, but I don't see it that way.  It's especially a shame that you are boycotting Brian and Al.  You don't know that they had any power to stop this.

If Mike had gone out on his own and recorded and toured exclusively in a solo format, I think a lot of things would be easier from the fan perspective.

You pretty much made my point for me.  It would be one thing if the ball existed solely for Trump, but it doesn't.  That's where I see the difference.

Does Mike get money when Brian tours and performs songs Mike cowrote?  Or no just because it's not under the brand name?

Sandbox.

Why didn't Mike and Bruce play the Texas ball in 2008 or 2012 if it is "non-partisan"? ::)

 :thumbsup :thumbsup

  They weren't invited maybe? Remember, Bruce publicly called Obama an a$$hole in 2012.

Are you referring to that the TMZ video where he said that to a fan? I also heard him randomly start talking similar stuff about Obama backstage before a show in 2012 myself; seemingly unprompted, he *really* seemed into the idea of turning random everyday conversation into anti-Obama tirades. Not that I don't have my own issues with Obama (probably different issues than Bruce), but not really surprised considering the mega billionaire company that he and his family keeps (his son as I recall was almost engaged to the daughter of one of the richest tycoons in the world).

I imagine Mike and Bruce get along well due to their seemingly similar political views. Rich old white man bubble much? I want to know where Bruce's musical creativity went since then.  

He would get the standard live performance royalty that everyone is supposed to get. But Mike is not taking an actual cut of Brian's touring income, as Brian indeed tours under his own name.

Ironically, Bruce is probably more hardcore conservative than even Mike.

He's also maybe the weirdest out of all of these guys, and that's saying something

What kind of comment was that?

I agree. Like I said, it was a really odd context that I witnessed Bruce start going off on Obama. It was like he was waiting for the first moment he could to start talking about how much Obama sucks, seemingly out of context. He probably randomly turns conversations into anti-liberal tirades as quickly as I turn everyday conversations with non-hardcore-BB fans into Beach Boys-related topics. I'm guessing he does that more than Mike does, or at least is more open about it when there are people other than his rich golf buddies around.

I am boycotting "The Beach Boys" and the catalog as they are the entity that is playing the inauguration ball. More than ever, I wish they hadn't setup the touring license to allow something like this, but they did, and I'm very bummed about it. There is no way for me to financially support "The Beach Boys" without some of that money going to Mike, and since Brian benefits from whatever fee "The Beach Boys" receive for playing at this celebration for Donald Trump's inauguration based on the license agreement he made, I have no real reason to try to twist my logic to do so. I hope the others come out and get vocal that they have tried to stop it to the best of their ability and that they will not keep any gains from it.

I guess the difference is that I don't give celebrations, offices, and titles any automatic respect. They're just things to me. My respect is instead contingent on the person who receives them. If Bill Cosby was being given the lifetime achievement award at the Oscars this year, I would support a boycott of the Oscars as well as whoever chose to host it. The fact that they give the award out every year doesn't change that each recipient has to earn our respect on their own, they don't simply inherit the respect that previous recipients were held in.

The same with this ball. Just because it's been a celebration of respectable people in inauguration's past it doesn't mean it always will be. To me, this time it is not, and to the best of my ability, I won't support those who participate in that honoring as a means of peaceful protest.

It's an attempt at some levity.  I think the whole situation has gotten way too overblown.

  ;D

Ok...no problem. I took it the wrong way initially...my apologies!

From what I have read on this article is that the event has more to do with Texas than it has to so specifically with Trump.

I dont see this as a big deal. It definitely is different than if they were playing the inauguration........which I wouldn't have an issue with since the inauguration is more about the process of the peaceful transfer of power than the person.

Unfortunately the process has gotten very politicized, but we are at where we are at.   

So a Springsteen cover band backs out, and a Beach Boys cover band steps in.....

:lol

Maybe they can get the Rutles to play.

Maybe somebody from Ted Nugent's harem.

Those named Wilson or Jardine had nothing to do with this - It's the backlash against their music and legacy that concerned me from day 1, and I hate to see boycotts affecting people who had f***-all to do with this decision.

I'm surprised Ted isn't playing, actually.

Post of the year :lol

I guess the gala ball attendees won't be hearing "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang" unless they get a Nugent tribute band to do it.

Ted Nugent and "gala ball" in the same sentence makes me giggle. Just sounds wrong.

this ball does take place in DC and will most definitely be a pro-Trump affair, unfortunately.

why on earth the Beach Boys would headline a ball celebrating "all things Texas" makes little sense but wtf ever 
we all knew Mike couldn't stay away from this


still, how utterly disappointing.

Maybe we'll get a live Beach Boys cover of the Poontang song out of the deal if Nugent isn't going to play it.

Or Bruce and Mike will be trying to get poontang after the show. Should be plenty of blue hairs in attendance.

Mike is probably already having his ten-gallon hat steamed, blocked, and the "Beach Boys 50th" logo applied to the front for the event.

Sounds more like you just have an arbitrary definition of something having "nothing to do" with something else.

Not sure how my point about Obama/California makes *your* point.

Further, we've established Mike and Bruce tend to be buddies with conservatives, and Mike is buddies with Trump. It's not some crazy conspiracy to associate this gig with Trump. Those connections are surely part of why Mike would take the gig.

I see a "Grab Them By the P*ssy" tattoo in The BBs logo font on some Trump supporters arms in the near future.

This is sick and extraordinarily regrettable.

I imagine this will put all sorts of other ugly things like the crass South Africa '81 comment under the microscope via major media in the near future. All just more damage to Mike and the brand.

I got accused of being a racist since I'm a BB fan. f*** this sh*t.

Awesome glad Mike/The Beach Boys could get associated with the inauguration somehow! Will want to see that for sure!

They weren't playing the actual inauguration concert, just a New Jersey run gala in DC.

This has just happened?

I am not even American and up to now have kept put on this matter, but this is too much. Whom do you believe you are kidding? This is treating us as idiots.

  Then that is ignorance on the part of the accuser.  I wouldn't play a Trump event either, but some people are becoming hysterical.

I've been called racist because I don't like rap.  People say dumb things. 

They sure do.

The announcement to play a gig can't even be a straightforward one. Everything surrounding this band anymore has to read like a legal document, parsing words, asterisks, "yeah...but" rebuttals. Even this, it's an inaugural celebratory event. It's politically loaded. That's how these things are. Yet the decision to play, now we have "yeah, but it's not this or that, it's independent this or that, it's not the REAL inauguration ball..." Oh, please. Keep it in the conference room, just be straight up about something for once.

Yeah, even the decision to play this week gets run through the usual ringer of parsing words, asterisks, and any attempt to avoid giving a straightforward, honest, basic answer. The band is playing the inauguration. That's it. Now they have to deal with whatever happens.

Geez, at least other troll posts tend to do a better job hiding the trolling. This is literally like "You know that thing most people here are concerned about? I *so* hope that happens!"

You can agree or disagree with fans having concern over the BB brand/image, you can try to misdirect by comically overstating or misstating the level of concern (e.g. the ridiculous "hope people don't commit suicide over this" post), or whatever else, but at least people concerned about the BBs brand being harmed are speaking out of concern for the band, whether you think the concern is misplaced or not.

One-liner posts like the post above are just antagonistic. If you truly think it's a good idea to do these gigs, then perhaps explain why. At least a few others have sort of done that, though I'd say I haven't really seen a convincing reason to actually do the gig so much as attempts to explain why it's kind of a passive "meh, I don't think it'll do much harm" kind of situation. Not compelling, but there are at least one or two people here who genuinely don't mind Mike doing this gig who I feel aren't just literally out to troll.

When there are attempts to explain away the impact of a decision that border on trying to distance the decision from any sense of reality, you know it's a big issue. Generally I don't care to see filibustering, apologizing, and parsing of words in advance in order to duck the actual decision made - signs of bullshitting and excuse making. Not unexpected in these circles, though.

For those genuinely incredulous (or faking incredulity) over the idea that *this* inauguration is different, and it isn't just an "out of respect for the office" sort of situation, here's an interesting article with some input from industry folks:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/inauguration-performance-political-statement-230623551.html

This is particularly germane because my main point has always been that objectively this would *always* be a bad PR decision under this particular set of circumstances. The article correctly points out how ignorant of the realities of the situation you'd have to be to think this inauguration is not a politicized event/situation. And indeed, here's a PR guy saying *exactly* almost to the word what I mentioned in previous posts I would have imagined a PR person saying:


"In the past, one could say: 'He’s the president.' But I'd tell a client who was asked that this one is different," Howard Bragman, chairman of Fifteen Minutes, a Los Angeles public relations firm, told The Guardian. "In our politically charged world, performing for Trump is a political statement, and if one chooses to perform they should go in with their eyes wide open."  

Isn't it already obvious when the decision to play an inaugural event is being spun and bullshitted into arguing that the event where they're playing isn't an inaugural event, and it isn't political in nature?

Common sense, logic...out the window.

This is just an extension of the weird semantic pretzel logic used however many months ago when a few tried to assert that there was *zero* political context or implication for Mike posing for a s**t-eating grinning photo with Trump.

After it has been established that they've been buddies for decades, pose for photos, Mike refuses to really condemn anything about him or anything he says, Mike (and Bruce) skew conservative politically, and so on, it's really insulting to everyone's intelligence at this stage to still claim that Mike playing an event tied to Trump's inauguration is *not* political.

While it would be even worse I suppose for PR in the BB world for Mike to strongly come out in support of Trump, I'd probably actually in a weird way respect the guy a little more for sticking to his guns. It's PAINFULLY obvious he's trying to have it both ways here; do the gig in support of his good buddy Trump but not actually have to answer for his clear political positioning.

I guess we'll have to get Bruce drunk in some bar and have TMZ outside at the ready to get the honest truth about what this is all about.....

This is good advice when you run home and tell your Mom somebody called you a name.

But this is horrible advice from a PR/image/branding perspective, which is the main concern being expressed in all of this.

There would not be the attempts to spin anything about playing this gig if it were not a big deal PR-wise, as some are trying to say. And I agree, it feels like trying to have it both ways. They are playing, BUT they're not playing the inauguration because this is a Texas event, etc etc etc...again, oh please. Be straight up about it, leave the legal parsing to the lawsuits and lawyers and don't insult people's intelligence by trying to say you're not really going to the beach if you don't actually swim in the water. You're on the beach, period.

I also find it quite telling that Mike on Facebook, where in the past he's been happy to go into *excruciating* braggadocio about his family vacations and writes essays about his own birthday parties ("unfortunately cousin Brian didn't attend") and of course promote shows and merchandise and all of that, has not said one peep about this show.

Of course he hasn't, yet I guess fans are supposed to not notice the complete lack of an official comment or word about this since one of Mike's PR guys leaked the original "considering" comment?

Pathetic.

Maybe they're still trying to work up a good spin and line of bullshit to explain how Mike is playing an inauguration event in DC while not playing an inauguration event in DC. I'll have to dust off my Legalese To English translator to decipher the rationale.

Does filleplage take credit or debit card online? ;)

It defies logic. Like arguing you're not really going to the beach if you're on the beach in the sand but you don't swim in the water. Defies logic and insults intelligence. Par for the course with that crowd.

Then a fluff piece shows up on ABC yesterday about Mike being "open" to working with Brian again. WTF???

Note the timing. Note the lack of any mention of playing this event, I guess some say it isn't REALLY an inaugural event but anyway...note the timing. And the total lack of mentioning Mike would be playing ***two days later*** at a DC inaugural event, but the piece still manages to plug the kick-off show of his tour this weekend in Virginia or something.

Welcome to Bizarro World.

Thanks for pointing to the ABC interview piece. I started a separate thread on it, as I find it intriguing even in its brevity.

And yeah, it's obvious Mike doesn't want to publicize these political gigs.

It's unreal. Just unreal - Bizarro World is what we're existing in when this stuff comes out on major news networks.

Every show w/o fail that 'love' guy works for a complete ass.  On the 19th he'll be working for 2 of 'em.

Love is the mayor of Bizarro World

(https://i2.wp.com/i.imgflip.com/1hv33w.jpg?w=825&ssl=1)

That SS message board show! :lol

:lol

LMFAO.

Maybe mentioned already but they played last night at Florida Sunshine Ball - http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/sunshine-ball-look-inside-rick-scott-party-ahead-the-inauguration/WKbeglCi9G3Fgu8PKjdrNM/

Video - https://www.facebook.com/FloridaForDonaldJTrump/videos/1866576780284876/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED#

True.  Here's the set-list

Money-That's What I Want
Money For Nothing
Money Honey
Easy Money
Take the Money and Run
Your Cash Ain't Nothin' But Trash
Greenback Dollar
Blue Money
Money Talks
It's All About the Benjamins
Money Money Money
Got Money
Money
Money Changes Everything
Gold Digger

-------------------------------------------

p.s. " 'Love'...you're fired. "

I agree 1000%, Craig. In the BB world, "legaltalk" at his worst (i.e., trying to hide the truth, defy common sense and logic, and generally treat people like idiots) has run out of control, thanks to our friend ML and his fans.

Watch that video. Both of them.

Then tell us Mike isn't playing the inauguration.

Seriously, it's come to this point. It's an outright joke.

Mike and his band seem *so* into it that I'm now actually wondering if Mike really *did* unabashedly want to do the Trump gig too and wasn't able to get in there.

Mike should probably just go ahead and re-write "Summer in Paradise" to discuss how everything about global warming is a "hoax."

I've actually heard that in conjunction with these inauguration events, Mike is reissuing the "Summer in Paradise" album with new cover art:

(https://cleantechnica.com/files/2012/03/coal-power-plant-us.jpg)

Just a bump of the actual video(s) if anyone wants to see this.

Good points HeyJude, and I think there is another element to this which is almost absurd: Why was there no so-called "official" announcement or word or even a listing of this Florida inaugural ball gig from Mike? Why hide the fact that they were playing this Florida gig, after the word according to the Washington Post among others, a similar Texas inaugural ball event tonight? Two inaugural shows, no word until the Palm Beach Post reports it and videos get posted of the gig?

Why hide it? Was there any word at all on Mike's various websites or even the Beach Boys websites? More from Bizarro World. The shows that are inaugural events but really aren't according to the spin, and the top secret unannounced inaugural ball event that no one knew about publicly until the day after.

Can anyone make out what Mike says after the surf medley, before introducing Surfer Girl around 11:30 into the video? I got this but there is one word that's garbled:

"oh wow, really nice to see you, we're so happy to be invited to celebrate. It's wild ( ? ) being able to perform for you basket of deplorables" Then he intros Surfer Girl.

Another article on the event:
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/gov-scott-throws-a-bash-in-washington/2310096 (http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/gov-scott-throws-a-bash-in-washington/2310096)

WASHINGTON - Hundreds of guests packed Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium tonight for Gov. Rick Scott's Florida Sunshine Ball, which featured a Beach Boys performance and kicked off a days long celebration for incoming President Donald Trump.
RELATED NEWS/ARCHIVE

"When Florida throws a party you have to show," said former U.S. Senate candidate Carlos Beruff.

Among those we saw in the crowd: U.S. Reps. Tom Rooney and Matt Gaetz, former Rep. Allen Boyd,  Blaise Ingoglia, Al Cardenas, Lew Oliver, Nick Diceglie, J.J. Beyrouti, Christian Ziegler, and Brian Ballard, who arrived in a Cadillac SUV with Joe Negron. Sen. Marco Rubio was apparently inside the room, which was lit up in neon.

The event was sponsored by Scott's political committee, Let's Get To Work.


So this ball was sponsored by Florida Gov. Rick Scott's "Let's Get To Work" political committee.

Sounds to me like "It's lovely being able" etc...   

Hilariously, Mike not only has NOT mentioned this gig on his Facebook page, but today he posted a "Throwback Thursday" bit about the 1977 CBS Convention gig.

And for the record, and there may even be some people disgusted by Mike's association here who won't agree with me on this point, I'd like to say from my perspective that all of the other guys in Mike's band come off poorly doing this sort of stuff too.

I don't know how feasible it is for any of these guys to have demurred on a gig like this. I get it, you gotta make a living and you gotta go where your boss tells you to go.

But just as I'm not willing to buy the lame argument that there is no connection between Mike and the politics of these events (and more specifically Trump), I'm not willing to completely set aside the backing guys being involved.

Some of these guys post online, and I would tend to think their contracts with Mike are not so draconian that they wouldn't be able to say "Hey, it's not my thing and I'd rather not be associated with it, but I'm part of the backing band so I'm always there", or something like that.

That goes back to my point about not getting a straight answer regarding any of this or much that is surrounding Mike in general: It only begs the questions why not get an honest and straight answer, and what are they trying to duck or avoid? It's one thing to have a group of historians, writers, online commentators and gadflies, self-ordained experts, and various pockets of fans carrying the torch and arguing against what is right in front of everyone's face (aka the facts)...but if these inaugural gigs were not a big deal, if they were not inaugural events as is being hilariously proposed among some in that cadre listed above, why the blackout on official word or even a single post about it via social media? If it truly is what is being argued, then why bring up a 1977 TBT gig instead of what's currently happening?

Bizarro World. With some willing accomplices it would seem.

In the past few months or so alone, tally up some of what has been offered. Just a few examples of this Bizarro World stuff.

Mike playing an inaugural event that is argued by some isn't really an inaugural event, even though it is reported as an inaugural event...and actually playing two of them before confirming even one of them.

A comment made on a radio/web interview suggesting Mike has nothing but kind words for his cousin, in the same year when multiple comments about "being controlled" and a suggestion Brian is kept drugged appeared in published interviews with Mike.

Another radio/web interview comment suggesting Brian is being kept away from his cousins such as Maureen Love, not a few weeks after a photo was published of Brian and Maureen meeting backstage at one of Brian's concerts. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

A Hollywood Christmas Parade TV broadcast featuring "The Beach Boys" performing "live", when it was really unaired/unused footage from the 2015 parade which they edited with host Dean Cain in front of a green-screen holding up Mike's book in 2016.

When the rumors began about playing the DC inaugural events, various insiders were originally saying Mike had other shows booked that week which would make playing an inaugural event in DC an impossibility. So much for "it's all about the facts", unless the inside info was as flawed as previous examples of such inside info turned out to be.

The white whale of a suggestion - published and put on TV news Jan 17th this week - that Mike is "open" to working with Brian again, if only conditions were right, if only the various external forces would be removed and that room with a piano would appear for songwriting...etc. Why this week, of all weeks, with that?

Promotional material from C50 in 2012 shows up to advertise tickets for a concert in 2017...

Anyway...that's some of Bizarro World for 'ya.

It just figures that the Facebook video was filmed vertically too.  The unfortunate ignorance of both the audience members and the people onstage just reveals itself in so many ways.

Hopefully the Texas gig will be the end of the  "deplorable tour" of Trump related events. 

Don't Go Near the Watered-Down Version of a Once Great Band

whoever's running Mike's fb page has also censored comments/visitor posts asking about the Texas inauguration ball & sharing the news link. :angry

eta: don't know if it's a facebook glitch (other pages seem ok) but I now seem to be blocked from liking or posting on his page.

(http://i64.tinypic.com/20729p3.jpg)

CABINESSENCENSORSHIP

^ yeah that basically  :lol

Back to my comments above: The questions now include why they did that. Censoring fan posts about a gig or gigs that according to various people talking about them were "no big deal", unless it was a glitch on FB including blocking posters who were sharing articles or discussing them...all I can say is "well, there 'ya have it."

I can also say had certain parties gotten their way and succeeded about a year or so ago, this forum would have turned into the same kind of deal. Thank f*** it didn't.

+10

The term "Gaslighting" keeps reappearing these days. ;-)  I have a plan for tomorrow's Bizarro World 1-20-17:  Matt Taibbi's Official Donald Trump Inauguration Drinking Game https://t.co/2rHPUPkDsw via @RollingStone  I read a NYT article about a woman driving from MA to DC with a life-size cut-out of Trump.  I'll bet she knows where the Lovester's band will appear.

Maybe the footage of the group performing at an inaugural ball was just unused footage from Obama’s last inauguration.

The latest news regarding why some artists *did* and some artists *didn't* get picked... Kanye West (who I'm certainly no fan of, but that fact is irrelevant) was "Not Invited to Perform at Trump Inauguration Because It's a 'Typically and Traditionally American' Event", per a spokesperson for president-elect Donald Trump's inauguration committee.

www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/7661885/kanye-west-not-invited-to-perform-at-trump-inauguration-because-traditionally-american-event

This, despite this inconvenient other tidbit:

"Among the latest bookings for the "traditionally American event" is Irish dancer Michael Flatley, who will reportedly hoof it at Friday night's Liberty Ball."

So yeah, the totally-not-racist-at-all Trump administration and the people they surround themselves with made the the totally-not-racist-at-all decision to NOT even ask one of the biggest potential musical names that could - and most likely would - potentially have performed.

Ladies and gentlemen, yet another embarrassingly totally-not-racist-at-all thing that The Beach Boys brand name is now unfortunately associated with. How someone is supposed to look at this and *not* make any racist associations with this administration (or at least not say that this administration is coddling/placating the many - though certainly not all - racists who are supporters and will be inauguration attendees) is mighty difficult. To think that Mike wants to be known as a rare fringe musician who agreed to be associated with this garbage is most unfortunate.

Are rappers, who tend to most commonly persons of color, supposed to now feel *anything else* other than "this administration believes rap music, which now has been part of American culture for decades, is not 'Traditionally American'", while an Irish dancer gets the thumbs up? Is it some giant leap for them to feel like they, or the music they hold dear, now hold second-class status? Particularly in an event like this, where Trump looked FAR AND WIDE to find big names, and Kanye happened to be perhaps the biggest name musician to publicly support him.

I guess this means no Wipeout with The Fat Boys in the set for Mike tonight. Too black.

It's all so pathetic to think that people will bend themselves into pretzels to defend this, or at minimum downplay the toxicity of how this decision might make people of color feel. I would love to know how someone who defends this garbage would say a black person *should* feel about this.

Since it's a "traditionally American event", no chance of the future First "Lady" appearing, right? Oh wait, she's the "correct" skin color, so that will be overlooked.

And THIS is what the brand is being associated with. THIS is why I was called a racist the other day on another forum when I mentioned I was a Beach Boys fan.

Cue typical right-wing excuses in 3...2...1...

About the same as a Latino who sees that for the first time in over 3 decades there is not even one person in trump's 'cabinet' to represent their sizeable community.  Not a one.  But heh!!!

At least with the change in global weather...we don't have to worry about Hell freezing over.  What change?  Ask Houston.  Tomorrow freedom, as we knew it, will really begin to erode and disappear.  It was great while it lasted.

Then that was a CGI image of Foskett.  ;D

Point by point, that is just a surface level view of Bizarro World above, sadly relative only to the state of the "Beach Boys" in 2017. The concept of a straightforward, honest answer just isn't even in the same stratosphere as some of the people living in and supporting Bizarro World. Lies, distortions, denials, outright whitewashing of the "facts" that so many frauds seem to try claiming authority over. When an inaugural event, listed as and reported as an inaugural event, is argued by some that it really isn't an inaugural event, I'd say that's a pretty sad state of affairs but it falls in line with a lot these days surrounding the band and their torch bearers.

Sad. If I had to drink every time a straightforward answer were given in these situations, my glass would be bone dry.

Why wouldn't Mike continue his weird set of mind games? I mean, really now. It's just like any other form of disinformation.

What we would need is confirmation from Brian that he, in fact, made any kind of overture corresponding to what was announced.

That's something we haven't seen as yet. And if we don't get it, then we know that it was another Lovester ploy.

I ain't holding my breath.

What we know about the USA right now is that the gloves are coming off. We are lucky to have removed from our bandwidth some folks who recently have demonstrated their true colors--and reading what they write over at that pale imitation of SS would be downright sickening if there weren't far more important things to do...such as stick up for multi-racial cooperation and social integration a la the example set by Carl Wilson in 1972 when he added two black South Africans to the Beach Boys.

Well said

  :bw

Is that referencing the inauguration events or Mike saying he's "open" to working with Brian again? I'm not sure, Don, which one you're referring to...but if it's the inauguration events, a statement was already made about that. If not, why would Brian or anyone be compelled to reply to someone who says they're open to working with them after bashing them, their wife, and friends/family repeatedly and publicly in the recent past?

As far as the inauguration events, maybe someone can help explain the decision not to announce the gig, then censor and shut down anyone on their fan page who tried to mention it.

Wow.  Sounds like they are just censoring anyone who posts anything inconvenient...

Nice performance by the Beach Boys at the inauguration! Wish I could have made it there but a 24 hour drive is a little to long.

...Did I miss something?

Way to (sorry, I meant "too") ignore all the previous posts completely! Congratulations! Amazing triumph of cognitive dissonance!  Vertical iPhone filming is the best!

Ridiculous way to run social media accounts. Cam and Fill need to be fired  :lol :lol :lol

lol

Nearly threw up from motion sickness after reading all the spin on the "pet sounds forum" about these gigs.

Nah, I think it's just a troll post, a "I'm happy about whatever it is most of the fans here are concerned about because I support Trump" sort of post.

That, or you're seeing a post about the 1977 Carter inauguration that just took 40 years to appear on the board.

I'll pose the question again: What would be the logic on censoring fans on Mike's social media from even mentioning these inauguration event gigs?

The censorship of Mike's fans, even those who might want to post praise/support/etc for Mike or get news about the gigs from Mike's official pages, makes no sense on the surface.

I don't think there's any way you're not going to get that from some of those folks; at least one of them uses the pic of Mike with Trump from several months back as their avatar, and not in an ironic way. I'd say it's a more antagonist use of an avatar, though that's still a better explanation than the alternative; that someone, even a Trump supporter, actually just viscerally *likes* the pic of Trump and Mike. I dunno, maybe they have a big 24x36 poster of that pic hanging right above their bed or something.

To bring it more back to this board, and why I think despite some (understandably) contentious election/politics-related BB events, this board is doing much better, I think it's worth pointing out that the same couple of people who *used* to be on this board posting circular, obfuscating, apologist junk just to support Mike are the same people on another board heavily posting about why Mike's connection to inauguration activities is A-Okay, not even willing to acknowledge why objectively such a connection even *might* be a bad thing.

What's even weirder is that the censorship seems to not be consistent. I don't regularly read all the comments every day on every one of Mike's FB posts, but I'm pretty sure I've seen some generically critical comments in the past made towards Mike on his FB posts that just go ignored.

The fact that Mike's "people" floated the concept that Mike was "considering" the gig several weeks back certainly indicates they're not total idiots; they're *well aware* that this is a PR issue. So I wouldn't be surprised if someone has to take to Facebook and make an extra specific concerted effort to erase as much of anything to do with the inauguration stuff as they possibly can.

Make not mistake, there are certainly (lame) excuses one could make. For instance, Mike often (though not always) doesn't go out of his way to mention private/corporate gigs. These inauguration-related dinners/balls/galas could, in their mind, fall into this category. But if they did the main deal on the day in Washington DC and didn't mention it, it would be even more painfully obvious they're weirdly avoiding discussing it.

I think this is just an outgrowth of Mike not wanting to just explicitly, honestly explain how he feels about Trump. That interview he gave numerous months ago was exactly what I would expect, a kind of limp, passive implied non-endorsement endorsement:

One certain truth is Love’s allegiance to the Republican Party. The Beach Boys, who are set to perform in Central Park on Wednesday (sans Brian Wilson and Jardine), played inaugural balls for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Although Love stops short of a full endorsement, it’s clear that he feels love for Donald Trump.

“He’s been a friend for a long time,” says Love. “Does that mean I agree with everything he says? No. But . . . if we were asked [to play his inauguration], I’m sure that we would.”

If you look back, Mike has rarely explicitly, directly talked about hard politics. He has made one-off a-hole comments (e.g. saying the UN could go screw themselves when he played Sun City in 1981) and has said blandly generically (and sometimes hyperbolically) nice things about some people like the Reagans.

Ironically, one could argue that the two events Mike is playing are more undeniably "political" events, sponsored by Republican officials/organizations. While I don't buy that an actual DC inauguration day gig is not political, one could at least lamely attempt to make the argument that it's about the "office", blah blah blah. But in avoiding (for whatever reason) the actual day-of event in DC, Mike has played even more blatantly partisan events that serve little purpose outside of celebrating Trump, whereas he could have tried to lamely assert he was celebrating the "office" at the actual DC event.

It's even beyond the censoring of comments and censorship in general, there is almost a total blackout of information coming from those shows  from Mike's "official" outlets online. There are scattered social media posts here and there, newspaper articles that covered it, but it's like the curtain has been pulled shut, "nothing to see here, keep moving".

Meanwhile the 2012 C50 promotion was still up and running advertising Mike's upcoming gig in 2017. So it's not a case of being asleep at the wheel regarding online activities and social media, or sloppiness if posts to Mike's fan page are being that closely monitored and blocked.

In terms of arguments and defenses of anything related, it's not only the subject matter, but also when someone or anyone tries to whitewash or completely ignore what can be seen right in front of our eyes, if not outright lying and distorting the issues. Sure, some fans are liars with a proven history, we know that - But when it starts infecting "official" circles, as in those who charge themselves with an ownership of the facts and reporting them to the masses...that's not good. Not good at all. Yet it has been happening more publicly in recent times surrounding parts of this band.

Yeah, for all the deserved criticism "3 Doors Down" has received, at least they *owned* the fact that they were doing the gig and prominently advertised it. No unmentioned galas with jokes about Hillary Clinton fed to an audience of tuxedo-clad Republicans.

And to try to get into the psychology of it, I would imagine because guys like Mike and Bruce due to their privilege are already insulated from the vast majority of negative things that could come of any given political figure or administration, they already are predisposed to not see a divisive, controversial guy lacking temperament as *that big* of a deal.

When you add to that the fact that Mike has said he's been friends with Trump for a long time, it makes sense he'd not see any of this as a big deal.

What I'm curious about is the *obvious* tactic of avoiding mentioning these recent political gigs and *who* is making that decision. I'm curious if Mike actually does have someone working for him who is at least trying to put as much of a Band-Aid on this PR issue as they can, trying to placate Mike by finding ways to support Trump (which I personally believe Mike wants to do) without getting the full PR wrath that some other acts have deservedly received. So I could picture some sort of weird compromise. Don't play the main DC gig (which gets actual media coverage) and instead do a gala/ball or two (note that the Florida gig Mike already did *specifically* was closed off to the media), and not even mention that he's doing those gigs. That way, Mike gets his fix supporting Republicans and Trump, and it's at least not blasted literally on the front page of every huge media outlet.

Nailed it - I was just going to use the word "owned" in a post too. I see no indications that Mike is either owning this decision to play, or that he/they want to own it. The decision was made, now it's time to own it, the good and the bad consequences whatever they may be. It's expected that pockets of fans and Mike's supporters will spin it anyway they need to, but when there is what looks like an official blackout of information from or about the events themselves, that's another level.

What about fans who would want to see some photos from the events, who just might want to see Mike and Bruce or whatever playing these shows on DC? The blackout makes no sense in that regard, and it does look like a case of Mike making the call but running as far away from owning it as he can.

I think this is EXACTLY what's happening. On the nose.

Talk. About. Chickenshit.

I feel like I just read a serial killer's manifesto.

(http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24775.0;attach=4481;image)

Yeah, I threw up in my mouth a bit when I read that.

Note:the Democratic party is NOT the far left...more like centrists. As a true leftist, I shook my head in anger and annoyance after reading that.

Yeah TRBB needs to relax a bit.... ::)

Rails against people pigeonholing. ..while pigeonholing.

Filleplage is going haywire! ;D

How can you tell?

"websites" Billy. :p

I guess what  I mean is...what's different?  ;)

Basking in M&B + Trump in one day crazy! :hat

One of my friends (who used to post herebut posts there) said on Facebook that M and B WERE invited to play the inaugural ball but declined - he said (and this was news to me) Mike's tours share either management or agents with Garth Brooks who, famously, also declined a Trump invite. I went to the other board looking for any mention of this, but Jason's disgusting and (yes) deplorable comments about the left made me pissed off and dirty. He wasn't the only one, but geez.

This is the Garth Brooks reason for declining the invite in his own words, it was because he had two shows already booked and committed. Mike, on the other hand, had a show booked for the 20th but postponed it to open the date(s):

http://ew.com/music/2017/01/16/garth-brooks-donald-trump-inauguration/ (http://ew.com/music/2017/01/16/garth-brooks-donald-trump-inauguration/)

>>>Country star Garth Brooks has shed some light on why he won’t be performing at Donald Trump’s inauguration this week after previously indicating he was open to the idea.

The singer-songwriter explained in a Facebook video Monday that the popularity of his current tour will preclude him from participating in the swearing-in ceremony.

Responding to a slew of fan questions as part of his Inside Studio G series, Brooks confirmed that he was approached by casino mogul and inauguration organizer Steve Wynn about taking part in the event, and “left it up to karma.” When Brooks’ ticket sales dictated that three additional Cincinnati concerts would be added to the two already on the calendar, he found himself unavailable for Trump’s welcome party.

Brooks — who was previously asked by TMZ about his inauguration interest and said, “It’s always about serving” — also struck a conciliatory tone at a time when many high-profile artists have either publicly declined to perform at Trump’s inauguration or committed and then backed out.

In his Facebook video, Brooks said, “I’m going to tell you, with this whole presidential thing: We’ve got one going out, pray for him and his family. And for the president going in, pray for him and his family to guide this nation. Let’s stay together. Love, unity, that’s what it’s all about.”

He added, “In the immortal words of Martin Luther King, the most durable thing that we’ve known is love. It will always be that way. Again, can’t thank the Obamas enough for serving this country, and may God hold Trump’s hand in the decisions that he makes in this country’s name as well.”<<<

So is Garth bullshitting or is there more to it?

I don't believe for one moment that "scheduling conflicts" of any kind or any sort of legitimate excuse for an artist missing a show of this nature.  It's as ridiculous an excuse as Mike gave for missing the dedication ceremony in 2005 in the city of Hawthorne. 

The bottom line is, people will prioritize something that's really important to them. If they really give a sh*t in a very deep way, they will find a way to pull strings to make something happen. If there is some other reason, like fear of backlash, it's obvious that such a fear would play into a decision to not be there, and some nonsense excuse can be whipped up to avoid addressing the real reasons.

The mild pseudo controversy of We Shall Be Free aside, Garth avoids controversy like celiacs avoid gluten. I wouldn't put it past him to say "f*** it, book me some tour dates so I can bow out gracefully."

Right, so how does that tie someone who previously did work for Garth and now works with Mike into the decision not to play, but in Mike's case to "kind of" play surrounding events but not the main one? Is that the official, "semi official" version that's going around? It's almost hilariously absurd how there were and still are defenses of playing the gig, a total blackout has been issued on Mike's social media about the events, Mike plays *two* state-centric inauguration events of the type the "B Street Band" balked on playing, still nothing official in terms of comments, etc...now this about Garth Brooks pulling out being related to Mike via an agent or rep in common gets floated?

If I go to a pool party, eat the burgers n' chips, drink the booze, put on my trunks, jump in the pool, but don't actually swim...I guess I could say I didn't really go to the party because I was in the water but didn't swim? As Jon Lovitz used to say "Yeahhhhh...that's the ticket."

Well, for one thing, the shows Mike did can be billed "non-partisan" all they want, but if the Texas ball had Trump's cabinet guys, then I would call that highly partisan. Hell, these are victory parties! I only mention the story about turning down the main ball because I didn't see it anywhere else.

I'm glad you posted it, for one it shows some of what info is being passed around in light of a blackout of anything close to an official explanation, comment, or even one word concerning Mike playing these inauguration shows. It's bizarre, but not unexpected. Even fans supportive of the whole thing had to wait until two regional Florida newspapers reported on the first event Mike played this week.

The arguing and parsing words trying to "explain" the event - It's also not unexpected. But arguing that these events are not only non-partisan but also not inaugural events in an attempt I guess to distance Mike from the whole thing is an insult to readers' intelligence. Of course they're partisan, of course they're victory celebrations, even Mike in his stage banter mentioned the celebration. The Florida event was full of high level GOP politicians, cabinet position nominees, lobbyists, and power brokers, and was paid for by Gov Rick Scott's PAC. Anyone who thinks a politician's PAC isn't partisan political in nature is either naive or an idiot. The Texas event, same deal. It was a room full of GOP power brokers, politicians, cabinet nominees, etc. And ultimately both events were inaugural events.

The video of the Florida gig came from a group calling itself "Florida For Trump". I guess that's a non-partisan group?

As far as the "insider" information, I think anyone with common sense and a low tolerance for bullshit has learned to take all this stuff with a grain of salt considering the sources. When all of the hub-bub around the Beach Boys considering playing the inauguration initially broke in the entertainment press, someone who had in the past claimed to be a direct phone call away from Mike told fans the gig wouldn't be possible since Mike had another show already booked for the date. That insider info came after the band's touring schedule had already been revised to free up the date(s) of the inaugural events and postponed the show in question to another night. So, once again, a mix of caveat emptor and taking things with a grain of salt is in order.

The silence via the social media and online blackout and lack of any official word or comment speaks volumes. It's just amazing how much legalese and parsing is going on in fan circles to try to tell what I can only assume are gullible fans that 2+2 does not equal 4 regarding this whole affair.

It is also amazing that a mostly heretofore unknown Bruce Springsteen cover/tribute band generated more press than The Beach Boys, not just that but a cover band who pulled out of the New Jersey version of the inaugural events Mike played for Florida and Texas in part because it was seen as a partisan event.

While I never look at that other MB, I appreciate this summary of the nonsense.  Thanks so much.  Spinning like Trump didn't win more than half of the American electorate - the ones who were intelligent and actually paying attention.  Why M&B are trying to pretend that they aren't supporting this "celebration" is strange.  What weird position are they trying to straddle?  They took the money.  They made their choice, looking more pathetic than a Springsteen tribute band.  As Trump would tweet, "Sad."

Umm...wow. I recently deleted my account from the Pet Sounds Forum because it seems like hate and racism are, at the very least, being tolerated over there. The Real Beach Boy/Jason/whoever is just seems to be a hateful guy with a real thing against "social justice warriors" and the left generally. I'd spoken to him privately a few times and seemed to realize that sometimes he went a bit overboard but lately with the Pepe the frog nonsense and the basic alt-right stance, yuck. I'm honestly surprised that he was allowed to be a Mod on this site as he is such a hatemonger.

So yeah, it's not looking like I will rejoin the alt-right Beach Boys fan site any time soon. I wanted to be part of both Smiley Smile and Pet Sounds boards, but....I don't dig racism or hate.

TRBB seems like a character in public posts since JASON is way more relaxed and normal in PMs.

So now that THE day has passed, I have a few questions for the forum.  All of these questions will get me back to BRI and were they involved at all in this weeks take on the MB shows.

1. When Mike plays a regular Beach Boys show, we all know these fall under the auspices of Mikes license with BRI and each principal gets their cut.  So...

2. I believe I have read here numerous times here that when Mike plays a private gig, he keeps "all" the revenue above his cost.  Thus BRI is not involved in these shows at all.  So...

3. Were both the FLA and TEXAS shows both private gigs where Mike didn't need BRI approval ??  Just a question because if Mike is out for #1 meaning $$$'s to the bottom line.  He does both these under the radar shows and quite possibly made ALOT more money than if it was a regular MB show  right ?  So...

4. He adroitly chooses not to play the inauguration due to public backlash or maybe he did have a concern about legacy (not sure about this) or maybe there actually was a BRI vote because it possibly would have been a violation of the licensing agreement.  Would this show also have been a private gig outside of BRI's normal channel ?

Looking for additional clarification on my comments and wondering if others feel the same way as I do that BRI was involved ?  I truly think Mike feels he is commander of the ship as much as it seemed he wanted to play for Trump.  Why didn't it happen?  I think Mike had these other shows lined up with or without BRI and BRI principals knowing.  I'm thinking Mike knew that 1/20 was going to be an issue on many levels, knowing this could cause issues with his BRI license, or that he actually lost the BRI vote, or he chose to go rogue and do these other quasi "non-Trump" shows.....and make more money...   Thoughts ?

Ahh yes. The often heard of but never seen BRI license. It's come up for discussion so many times over multiple threads. Is it 100 pages or a few lines? Who knows aside from the principles and their lawyers?

Was a lot of time spent drafting the thing around 1998? Did the idea of who the shows could be for even get a thought?

Speaking hypothetically here but could the idea that say M&B playing for a liquor company was ok but a cigarette company was not, ever discussed?

I've often assumed it was a rush job myself.

Clearly we need one of Putin's hackers to go to work on the BRI server (assuming they HAVE a server, that is...)

The most important thing is that a terrible day in American history has been followed up by a huge wave of protest and response from people all across the USA, including a ton of "California girls." Though I am away from home this weekend, I received a report from Santa Barbara (my current home town and Mike's former home town, where he cut enough of a swath to be QUITE well-remembered...) that women were out in force today, with  one of them carrying a sign that read: "MIKE LOVE...SHAME ON YOU!!"

Pictures please! :lol

 :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot  Not surprised in the least and would luHv to see this made even more public so the truth gets out there on a much larger scale. Excellent reporting and you can look forward to getting your own office on Monday.

And in doing so...that 'love' guy officially lost the battle of the cover bands to an unknown group of musicians equipped mainly with a sense of decency and the apparently unique knowledge of that which spells the simple difference between basic right and wrong.  Oh sh!t!!!  Given that... ... ...'love' never had a chance. :'(

+1   :)

+10000000000000000000000000 please

(http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/jpg/d7d26c9085744066a13e32d8e5cb24ae.jpg)

(http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/jpg/2f007903bf864d3cbb9faf4c7cea2c71.jpg)


CLICK HERE (https://www.facebook.com/rscott.murray.7/videos/10154985966833928/)

Now there's some sleuthing....

 :lol   :o


The new reboot of the "Where's Waldo" books...

HOLY sh*t! Lovegate begins!

My interpretation is that Mike *was* going to play in DC on the day of the inauguration, but the rest of his band ditched him in the crowd and went back to the hotel.

Except for Foskett; he's in one of those green portable toilets on the left.....

I really actually thought this pic was a joke at first, sort of the like the universe opposite of this:

(https://i.imgur.com/xFcsFQv.jpg)

Well he could have read his TM poem like he did in Carnegie Hall... :hat

 :lol :lol :lol   myKe luHv, looking like he sneezed luHvsnot all over the coat of the guy in front of him, lost in the crowd just where he should be, far, far away from the stage. 

(http://www.alcoholprofessor.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Bob-Uecher-front-row.jpg)


"I must be in the front row!"

The pic with his hand over his nose is a perfect candidate for the "weirdest photos" thread.  ::)

I remember making this way back when but I can't remember the context.

The Mike Love watching a BW show in a doorway theory! ;D

Yep, I just linked it from your pic in that old thread.  ;D

I think it was a thread about Beach Boys being in the audience at each other's solo shows (or in Mike's case his "Beach Boys" shows), and one person seemed adamant they had read somewhere that Mike was at Brian's 2000 Roxy shows (the shows recorded for his live album). I think it eventually devolved into pretty laughable theories to explain how Mike could have been in the audience of a high profile Brian gig without anybody noticing, like maybe he was hanging out by the front door.

That's right! :lol

That is Mike's wife Jackie next to him....to our right looking at the photo

Well, there you go.  Trump wins the "crowd size" argument...Since massive egos, self-promoting hats and self-aggrandizement fill a massive space in a BLOTUS sort of way.

No, what this picture clearly shows is that Mike, like an evil puppet master, is feeding Trump his lines through a little microphone.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeere's Waldork?

Hehe! :lol

Oh geez he's wearing the band logo hat when in private as well...

Do you think after blowing his nose on his hand  he wiped the snot on the guy in front's suit?

And do you think he's told Jackie what he's planning which is why she's smirking and looking away?

Maybe Mike went there with the sole intention of secretly wiping snot on Trump supporters.

Maybe the spirit of the 60s lives on.

His nose is on the critical list!

And after standing there in the cold for awhile, he'll be like Mickey Mouse with a sore throat.

 :lol

Wow she's hot. Mike stays winning!