The Smiley Smile Message Board

(https://i.ibb.co/zJHQkBL/E33j-GSp-XIAQDdl0.jpg) (https://ibb.co/2NYWbCL)

Egh. That ain't The Beach Boys.

But in sadder news, is Foskett no longer touring with them at all? I assume he's been at home dealing with the cancer? Does anybody know how he's doin'?

You're right Jim, this ain't the Beach Boys in any way, shape or form. The Beach Boys were over with after Dennis and Carl were no longer with us and when Mike Love in his infinite wisdom fired Al Jardine after that. The collection of mostly unknown sidemen in that picture are not and will never be The Beach Boys and goes to prove that having a license to call yourself that name means absolutely nothing. Thanks to that douchebag Mike Love, there's little left of the legacy that was and by the time he's done, who knows what will be left.  ::)

Who granted Mike the license to tour under the Beach Boys name? If what Mike does is so terrible, why doesn't the same entity revoke the license? After all, Brian Wilson IS the Beach Boys, right? And Dennis Wilson was THE Beach Boy.
This debate/discussion is about as old and worn out as those relentless "Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame" threads that come up in all the baseball groups.
Hey, now that gives me an idea - let's have Mike Love banned from the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Ban him for that terrible acceptance speech back in 1988. I'm sure there must be some rules against bashing other performers in your speech.
And you can't speak in favor of Republican leaders or candidates. That goes against everything rock and roll stands for - corporate greed, selling out to the highest bidder...oh, maybe it doesn't.

“Lean” Mike has a big band now…. ::)

Those outfits  :lol

Zoom in on Mikes eyes. WTF? 😳😱😮

I’m sure I had to have thought of that before, but I guess I’d never said it out loud. So that’s a great point SMiLE Brian. Size of the band was supposedly a huge sticking point for Mike as far as his pulling the plug on C50, yet he has how many sidemen in his band now? Sure is odd.

However, let’s be real. It was never about band size or this or that. I think whatever it is, I’m not sure Mike has ever told the truth about it.

Shady, what is this image? Is it fan art or something official?

Sadly it's an official image bring used to promote up and coming shows

Also it has gone pretty viral on twitter... in a negative way

I know Mike bashing is de rigueur here and all places Beach Boys, but I saw the Mike and Bruce show a few years ago and it was fantastic.  Lots of deep cuts and superbly performed.  We can dicker on the appropriateness of him licensing the Beach Boys' names but he did so legally and all full members or their families benefit.  As far as I know the touring Glen Miller Orchestra has zero original members.

Yeah Mike comes across like a douche but the scramble for the moral high ground as it relates to his endeavors appears reactionary and often insipid to me.

Yeah, Mike was a trending topic for a period of time last night as the photo was making the rounds. Originally from https://twitter.com/aldotcom/status/1404528358118023175, I believe.

Not quite in ALL places Beach Boys...it seems that this thread is SS's "response" to a sequence of recent comments bashing "Brianistas" over at the nearest faraway place, with "according to someone who (should know better)" leading the way.

I think if Mike is going to have ads like this, he would do everyone right by identifying the members of his touring band. As Big Daddy notes, they are by no means a disgrace to the musical legacy of the Beach Boys and he would be honoring their efforts by putting their names out there. This ad might be seen as less offensive if it were to take such an approach.

Er, guess I should put that word "might" in quotes, yes?  :hat

I'm not saying this discussion isn't worth having, but it's pretty much all been said.

Even most of the hardened, cynical fans who were aghast back in 1998 when Al and Carl were no longer in the band have mostly moved on and accepted Mike's deal even if they aren't actively and effusively endorsing it.

Pointing out that for 20+ years Mike's touring band has had the look of a cover band isn't to engage in some epic, frothing-at-the-mouth rant about it.

I will say that it *is* interesting to look back at how publicity photos of the "touring band" have been handled. Backing members did occasionally appear in publicity photos. I'm thinking mainly of one photo circa 1992 in the era where Matt Jardine had joined and Adrian Baker and Richie Cannata were in. But they actually got their own "The Touring Band" photo separate from the core four BBs.

But by and large, through 1999 BB publicity photos (which were mainly used for touring, as they weren't doing much otherwise) usually only featured core members.

Some of the standard late 80s-early-mid 90s photos:

(https://64.media.tumblr.com/5e39cbd9014defdd0998fac049e9c806/tumblr_p7axqyQnHZ1qcqs6eo1_r1_1280.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrbB95XWoAAexNw.jpg)

(https://images.wolfgangsvault.com/m/large/ZZZ003872-PP/the-beach-boys-promo-print-.webp)

Then, when Al and Carl were gone and Dave joined, they used this photo shoot in 1998 and into 99:

(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/KDAAAOSwC0heT1FU/s-l300.jpg)

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/HMmVvvTafJ7F-ddE0Cp_lUdd3LgfeD1oHT0yJPxmBkYBQdR8kZoyUljISmLi-gDGusnREg-xayF89TjgABknYIfckyY2Vs-S9iEbj1mJ3z7xk8jhLg)

Then, once Dave was gone, all of a sudden the publicity photos started to include the entire touring band. Why? I'd wager it was decided that they had to show something larger once the "core" members were reduced to two (although I vaguely recall some Mike/Bruce publicity photos were also done up from time to time):

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4LSzGWgdtQg/UOpSK9xbQlI/AAAAAAAABNo/5GU-LSrRyE4/s1600/newbeachboys.jpeg)

(https://keenemusic.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/beachboys2.jpg?w=640)

(https://www.showticksecure.com/mission2013/VenueNet/_uploads/artist_images/22_lrg_20081012110604_img.jpg)

(https://www.bapresley.com/silverthreads/beachboys/promos/bb2009.jpg)

So Mike has been, for better or worse, doing publicity photos surrounded by anonymous (to the masses of course) backing members since around 2000 or so, all the way back in the Mike Meros/Mike Kowalski days.

That all being said, and I'm no photo expert, I wonder if some additional attention is coming to this newest publicity shot because it's extra aggressively altered/photoshopped/processed.

The de-saturated look, the shirts looking like they were drawn on after the fact, the spacing/staging, etc. are all extra difficult on the eyes.

But I guess one positive is that it is, unto itself, truth in advertising.

+1

Looks to me like it's a bunch of individual shots that have been comped together hence the awkwardness.

Really poor graphic design from a company that can certainly afford better. I do feel a bit bad for Mike insofar as he doesn't realise how tone deaf he is with his self presentation these days.

These days? He still pushed the band to wear their early surfing days striped shirts on tour in 1967, well after the release of "Pet Sounds" etc... and has routinely been out of touch with self-presentation for the near 55 years since!

There's a limited palette of color in use on the photo in question. There are different ways to do that in Photoshop, but the results look like a colorized b&w image that makes heavy use of hue and saturation adjustments.

After Shady's post explaining what this image was and where it came from, the bigger issue seems to be the reaction on Twitter, and it wasn't a reaction to the photo/image but rather the notion of the "Beach Boys" playing shows. It trended on Twitter because the original concert announcement started getting re-tweeted with negative comments about what/who is and what isn't the Beach Boys, and eventually some high-profile musicians and actors rewteeted it and commented with similar sentiments to and from their followers.

So there were hundreds of tweets circulating to thousands of followers which were negative reactions and comments, and that's not good PR. It was hard to find one positive comment among however many hundreds were commenting, and there was a lot of negativity directed at Mike.

I could say more but I won't for now. It's all on Twitter. 

It's kind of interesting, one can look at this from either extreme.

On the one hand, I'm sure someone could point out that the band has looked like this for over 20 years now, so why all of a sudden make a big deal about it?

Or, one could point out that maybe Mike has been pretty lucky overall for over 20 years that the branding issue as it pertains specifically to "authenticity" hasn't really hindered him much in terms of booking shows and selling tickets. It has capped or maxed out how big of a tour he can operate (C50 booked more large venues obviously), but Mike has had no problem with finding promoters or ticket buyers.

A lot of people like to try to draw parallels to other bands with few "original" members, but it's kind of hard to find an exact comparison. The Beach Boys have a couple of deceased members, but they also have five core members alive while only two are in the band that tours under the name. And, it's difficult to invoke the contention made for other aging bands with one or no original members that the band is just "keeping the music alive" and is doing as good as they can with as many original members as possible, because Brian, Al, and Dave's position vis-a-vis wanting or not wanting to be in the touring BBs has waxed and waned over the years, and in some cases (particularly Al in relation to rejoining Mike's band) has often seemed kind of murky and unclear. But you certainly can't say that Brian, Al, and Dave have never shown any interest in being in the band or reconstituting a fuller band.

Some sort of closer analogies would be people like Dennis DeYoung with Styx or Felder with the Eagles, where other members are actively excluding original/key members who are willing and able to participate.

Could it also be because...Twitter?  :thud haha

Not to defend that tour promotional image, but this is certainly a case of the 20-plus-years status quo all of a sudden randomly causing a stir. As mentioned in my previous post, one can view this as much ado about nothing, or can view this as Mike being lucky for a couple decades and now having it come back to justifiably bite him (although, not really, because I'm sure the bookings and ticket sales will continue just fine).

Sometimes these random cases of singling this type of thing out can be deserved.

But BB fans should keep in mind that this type of dog pile on social media could easily go south on *all* of the members or on the name in general in other theoretical scenarios. I've said it before: I'm still amazed someone on social media frothing at the mouth to cancel *something* hasn't discovered, say "Hey Little Tomboy" or "Lazy Lizzie" or something like that.

Yes, of course. But as is always the case, this type of dog pile can sometimes be a case of people previously ignoring something worth complaining about for years, only to finally justifiably single it out, or it can be a case of trying to seek out something to complain about that should have left alone years ago.

As is also often the case, this recent thing with Mike is probably somewhere in between, for the reasons I've mentioned in the previous few posts. It's kind of laughable that only *now* 23 years later are people realizing that Mike's band is pretty light on "original" members, but I also don't really feel bad for Mike, because he's gone relatively unscathed over all these years when it comes to that aspect of his tour/band.

I turned 4 in 1999 when David left the group again and it was reduced to two actual Beach Boys, so I've been seeing publicity photos like this (featuring both actual Beach Boys and sidemen) for as long as I can recall. If anything, I appreciate when stuff like this is used. Depending on which Facebook show page you find, some gigs there are being promoted with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra album cover art. That's obviously misleading, to say the least.

This is a photo of exactly who you're going to see on stage at these gigs. It's honest. An argument could be made to only advertise with Mike/Bruce photos, but I understand why Mike uses these.

I've said this before, but The Beach Boys have obviously been in a weird position for a long time, in contrast to other oldies acts.

Kiss tours with founders/owners Paul and Gene, and two other guys. Those two guys are not mere sidemen. They are front and center and help out with lead vocals. They are promoted as Members of Kiss. They don't co-own the brand or anything like that, but they are presented to the public as more than just backup players. The same holds true for Lawrence Gowan (who sings DeYoung's songs for Styx), Arnel Pineda (Journey's singer), and many others. It's also worth noting that, in all three of these examples, the original members that these guys replaced are still alive.

On a slightly different note, you have the current touring Eagles. They have three actual Eagles and some backup players, but they also bring along two others to help sing lead vocals. Those two aren't always promoted as Eagles Members, but are instead billed separately (The Eagles with Deacon Frey and Vince Gill).

For a long time, and particularly since Al left, The Touring Beach Boys have had many musicians beyond Mike and Bruce acting in prominent roles onstage, getting their own "spotlight" moments, and helping out (to put it mildly) with lead vocals. Yet these musicians are never referred to as Members of the Beach Boys. It's an oddity that was probably mostly unavoidable once Mike got the right to use the band's name for tours, but not new recordings. Even if Mike wanted to start calling Tim Bonhomme a Beach Boy, he would probably get in trouble with the Company at that point.

The closest comparison to Mike's Beach Boys might be the Monkees. They tour with a large band, but only two people in that band (Dolenz and Nesmith) are referred to as Members of the Monkees. Of course, they're also the only two who sing leads at the shows.

This is yet another reason why it's going to be weird if Bruce retires before Mike. You'd wind up with a "Beach Boys" touring operation with only one person who can legally call himself a Beach Boy. Even Mario Corbino can legally call himself a Temptation, and he's only been with that group since last year.

I think it's really just an indication of how "faceless" the Beach Boys are compared to say, the Beatles or Stones etc. Photoshop in Paul and Ringo to this picture and tour as "The Beatles". The public would simply not accept that, it would be an outrage.

They could certainly do these pictures better ha. I would say simply having Al there would add such tremendous authenticity and credibility. They could have Mike, Al & Bruce kind of forefront- then the backing band sort of in the shadows in striped shirts or something ... and with a higher degree of style in the image itself.  Not saying that's a great idea but ... the way they do it now is really tacky.

But my personal opinion is I just fundamentally disagree with this group being called The Beach Boys. But I've had 23 years to get used to it at this point. I saw the Beach Boys in 1992, 1993, 1996, and 2012. I don't see the BW solo shows and I don't see "The Beach Boys". The real deal, when they are together- is magic.

In 1993, when I was 14- I sent all of the Beach Boys fan letters, and Carl was the only one to respond. He sent me this:

Very cool.

It was surprising to see this issue trending outside the usual fan base, which has been debating and discussing this since the late 90's. Add to it the recognizable names who also retweeted it and commented on it, and it was an issue debated among a group of fans for years getting into the more mainstream circles via people who have tens of thousands of followers and this thing randomly popping up on feeds I guess. And from what I've seen, the overwhelming majority of comments were negative on both the photo and toward Mike Love, which isn't good publicity. Maybe Mike's constant touring existed outside the mainstream for so long, when people actually saw this ad/photo trend pop up on Twitter, they were surprised to see it and thought "that's not the Beach Boys" or something. At least the comments suggest that, but who knows why it trended this way in June 2021.

Goes to show it's not just people on "this board" expressing those opinions, whatever that means, but anyone with half a brain and an internet connection already knew that since 2006.

As far as the photo itself, it's kind of ridiculous in my opinion. Why are Mike's eyes photo-shopped as bright blue dots? And the background...I see a little hagiography on display. It's like those fan-art paintings of Elvis or another deceased rock star floating in the clouds or something, existing and drifting up in the heavens and clouds. I don't get it at all. It's still a live rock and roll show being advertised, not a worship service.

It's just a testament to the incredible music this band released for many years that even with the current Beach Boys being presented in fairgrounds throughout the United States they are still held in such high regard to this day. A timeless band.

That said I love Mike and he has earned the right to do and say whatever he wants

Yeah, that irresponsible comment said, it appears that Mike Love has been doing that for at least 2 decades now and that is why we have the negative comments we do here, Twitter, the Hoffman Board, Youtube, and all the rest of the sites on the internet. There's never beena more hated individual as Mike Love is. He's all mouth against Brian and Dennis until he's interviewed and even then, he downgrades their relevance just to make himself look good but it backfires in his ugly, botox ridden fake face. The music may be timeless but Mike love stopped being looked on as necessary 3 decades ago. What a drip.

A sad side note. Mike & Bruce have been doing their impersonation of the band longer than Dennis was a real life Beach Boy. 🥺

Yes, a man who comes out in support of hunting canned African animals and Donald Trump fascism would not suggest a man too concerned with his self presentation.

And a lot of the comments, understandably, have to do with that. I think we have a mix of several things brewing here: the  Mike and Bruce operation being light on official members, Mike’s actions in the last year or so, maybe some desire for a reunion because of all the RS coverage (maybe some who were unaware of C50 and the split learned over the last couple years because of the extra time created by the pandemic), etc. I think it is interesting (and good) that several people on Twitter knew who Al Jardine is.

I'm guessing none of you ever saw this group. Only one original member - Paul Revere - even though the other guys were all in the band for 20+ years - some right up to Paul's death in 2014.
I constantly see complaining on facebook about "that's not the original group". The funny thing about that is, the people who they think of as the original Raiders were not, they just happened to be the guys who were in the band when they made it big in the mid 60's. The original guys were from Caldwell, Idaho, and started in 1958. Paul was drafted in 1961, the group broke up, then he put together a new band in 1962.
Aw, but who cares about details like that, it's more fun just to complain a lot on social media.

Well you said it though- it’s about who the public knows. That group did not include the guy who sang the hits.

Reminds me of the Grass Roots ... the original “band” was basically PF Sloan, then they hired an SF group to be the band, then fired them and hired a new group of guys- who became famous. I think there have been like 50 guys in that “band” since, and somehow “they’re” still touring- with no one who has any affiliation to anyone resembling an original member or original recording.

I've seen Brian twice, but haven't seen Mike and Bruce yet. Hoping to see that at the August show in CT. Wonder if they'll play any Sunflower/Surf's Up stuff or deep cuts.

Also Blood, Sweat and Tears
Foreigner
Lynyrd Skynyrd

Well, that is true now that Rob Grill is gone.

So cheezy and embarrassing. But then again we are talking Mike Love here.

With all respect to the other artists mentioned in the posts above, none of them are in the same upper echelon of rock history and recognition as The Beach Boys. The closest would probably be Skynyrd, and even they had issues in the last 15 years where they started being overtly political until they actually announced they were ditching the politics and getting back to playing music.

My opinion is these bands trying to appeal to all audiences should avoid politics and politicians at all costs, unless your brand is that you're known as a political act and people expect that kind of content and message from your music. Especially in 2021. Just play the music, because all the politicians want is to use people for their own gains and then throw them aside when they're no longer useful.

I say this now because there were politically-charged messages among all the recent comments directed at Mike and that promo photo. Of course it's Mike's choice to speak out or support who or what he wants, but I'd add if he is calling himself the face of the Beach Boys and representing the *brand*, he's opening the doors to people reacting against what he's saying or supporting and potentially hurting the brand by association.

As someone who has spent decades as a fan loving this music and getting more enjoyment from it than I could calculate, it's sad to see in the last few years how the band name gets as much negative trending topics on social media as it does positive. When a legacy band trends on social media, you want it to be for something positive, not people hammering away at the band or whatever else the issue is.

I guess I'm saying perhaps the best tact is to not give people a reason to hit social media with the negatives, and stick to doing things right, and doing them with class and style. It's fine to thump one's chest and say "I have a right to say what I want to say!" but when you're representing a brand and a name that means a lot to a lot of people, one should consider the consequences too. And for reasons listed above in other posts, I don't think Mike has ever grasped that, and in the past 20 years or so, I have to think he just doesn't care or see how social media reaction and perception carries over onto the name itself.

And again as much as I enjoy the music of the bands listed above who are still touring despite losing key members or all members entirely in a few cases, none of them is in the same upper echelon as The Beach Boys, so I don't see the comparisons between them.

(https://i.imgur.com/3FI7Yd4.png)

Those eyes immediately reminded me of Sideous from Star Wars.

The only ones I even recognize besides Mike and Bruce are Totten, Cowsill, and Christian Love. I'm assuming one of those guys is Eichenberger, and maybe Tim Bonhomme and Randell Kirsch are in there as well???

You're one step ahead of me. I don't even know their names, although I recognize the face of the lead  guitarist.

Thank you so much for that, LS. The incessant badmouthing of Mike Love is what has driven so many Beach Boys fans away from an otherwise great board. I'm no ML apologist, but anyone with a modicum of knowledge of – and love for – the Beach Boys understands Love's importance to the Greatest American Band. Oh, well, I found my way back for a brief visit, which was most likely my last for at least a few months.