The Smiley Smile Message Board

I actually feel that this is a legitimate question we know Trump likes the Beach Boys and the Beach Boys have played for him before at a private party. Everyone knows Mike and Bruce definitely lean Republican and would be more than happy to play if asked but would the other BRI members be so willing to let them do so given Trump's recent behavior? On the one hand playing at the presidential  inauguration would be a huge honor which would also gain them a lot of exposure if they were asked to do so. However given that Donald Trump is already likely the most divisive president in American history, should they risk alienating a very large existing set of fans and potential new fans by doing so? I know they've previously played for Reagan but this is a different kettle of fish in which I could see the other BRI members potentially vetoing playing the inauguration. Would they be likely to and do they have the power to do so by potentially threatening to withhold naming rights if they went ahead with playing the inauguration? Maybe I'm being naive but I don't want this to turn into a Pro Trump or Trump bashing thread I just want to know what people think makes the most business sense to do if they were asked to play.

No, no, no, no. And no.  They should never play that inauguration. I dearly hope that the other shareholders of the band do *everything* possible to stop it from happening if it were to be a possibility.   Frankly, I think they would indeed try to stop it from happening.

And even for BB fans who like the orange moron who was elected, it should be an agreed-upon notion ( regardless of what candidate/ party you like)  that this would bring harm to the brand name, and is a bad idea.  "Fair" or not, it's a fact.

I agree but lets try and avoid insulting people's voting choices we don't want the thread locked. To play devil's advocate what I would say is that the majority of Beach Boys fans are the elder white population the majority of which did vote for Trump so there is a business argument that playing would help them generate more sales than they'd lose from a younger generation.

Maybe the majority of people who attend Mike and Bruce shows are. I wouldn't say that the vast majority of young people and hipsters who are geeks of the recordings would fit that demographic. There are MANY people who would be deeply, deeply, deeply put off.  

It's really not worth it for the brand name to be anything but apolitical on this. 

Yes.  I'm old, white - I don't go to M&B shows - and I would still be horrified if they had anything to do with Trump.  But that's just me, and as I said, I don't attend their shows, anyway - no big loss to them.  I think it's up to BRI if the offer even happens.

  :lol   What a blinkin' joke.   :lol

It'll never happen. " Donald Trump Brings in Half/Baked Leftovers to Headline Inauguration Gala."

I can see it now.  Lets make America GREAT again by turning the clocks back 50 years.  At least Brian's ol' pal Elton had the class and decency to say "Donald...Pray for wind and invest in a kite." ;)

 I sadly don't think it's impossible for this to actually happen. And we have to remember, Donald isn't going to be able to get a lot of top-tier people to agree to do this. I feel certain Mike would love with all his heart to perform at this show.  In my opinion, the only thing that would stop him from doing it is if people talk him into not doing it out of fear of negative press beyond anything he has ever experienced before, or if the other shareholders of the band name would somehow intervene.

  Outside of those roadblocks, I could see him doing it in a heartbeat if asked. And I don't think it's far-fetched that he might get asked.  Trump is not going to be getting A- listers who are willing to do it. I just think Love will be blocked one way or another from actually doing it. Hopefully.

Here's a question… If Mike were to get asked, and somehow actually wind up playing it, can anyone see Stamos  joining in? I don't know anything about his own politics, but I think that regardless, he would not want to deal with potential fallout.

I find Trump disgusting but this does make sense for him and for Mike and Bruce. He is going to have few choices in musical acts for his...ugh, thing. Figure he'll get Nugent and maybe Alice Cooper, maybe someone like Toby Keith. Any young hipster fans wouldn't be caught dead at a M&B show, anyway. And the real Beach Boys did play at Reagan's inauguration, of course although I didn't agree with Reagan's politics, he himself was not a sickening pig of a human being and pure evil like Trump is.

I still hope they don't play for him. It would sully their good name and connect them to a highly polarizing figure, not to mention a person who was easily beaten and largely despised in their native California.

It would be a significant gamble in terms of the band's legacy. I don't think appearing at the convention did Chachi's reputation or career any favors. It's probably not a good idea.

I would be thoroughly disappointed to see this happen, but not surprised. I also have a hard time believing that the backing band would join them as almost all of them are incredibly liberal, at least according to Facebook. I also don't see Brian and Alan approving of this.

I think the best solution (if this is even on the table!) for everyone, would be to have "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of The Beach Boys" appear and sing with a set band hired for the event to back other artists.

People might want to remember that there are likely some awfully, awfully popular American country music superstars that would probably jump at the opportunity to round out Trump's inauguration, and it would be fitting, given the general demographics that really swept him into office.

Good god, so many of us would have a deep existential crisis on our hands if the "Beach Boys" played Trump's inauguration.

Dear God, no. If they did I think I'd completely lose any and all respect for them.  But then again, this is the group that recorded a Charles Manson session.

+1

I've always said, if they can survive Full House, they can survive anything.

 :lol

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+mike+love+rolling+rally&rlz=1CALOEI_enUS699US699&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=631&tbm=isch&imgil=uBoTus0gXhc5lM%253A%253B7OsIh_yJscuoLM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Ftwitter.com%25252Falways_trump%25252Fstatus%25252F737467360475418624&source=iu&pf=m&fir=uBoTus0gXhc5lM%253A%252C7OsIh_yJscuoLM%252C_&usg=__Kg-4VBjGr2g3EUr5NIkhDhwbKgQ%3D&ved=0ahUKEwig16j2yMbQAhUETCYKHYfKBYgQyjcILQ&ei=wJM5WKD3NoSYmQGHlZfACA#imgrc=uBoTus0gXhc5lM%3A

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN !! 

Really? Then I think a lot of people here need professional help, or at least some relaxation with loved ones, with nature, with music. It really doesn't matter in the slightest whether this hypothetical show occurs. Just because I think he's by far the worst candidate ever elected, that has nothing to do with the sound of the band's music, even if some of the band almost certainly likes him. If something helps or hurts their reputation, that also has no effect on the sound of their music. They've been popular and unpopular dozens of times before. In the long run, this would be irrelevant. (Hell, in the short run, this would be irrelevant.)

Who should we have elected... Crooked Hillary ?  :smokin
Worst President Ever = Jimmy Carter the peanut farmer !!

Yes--nice to see you remembered the Donald's catch phrases, though! If nothing else, he makes up childish names people could recall...perfect president for 4th graders--and not even close, respectively. (See: Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and even Richard Nixon) But you're working on moving this to the Sandbox with stuff like that.

Add Bill Clinton to Worst President List

LOL. Now you're living up to my expectations.

I didn't vote in this poll? That's because I don't care. There wasn't a choice for "I don't care."

Ha Ha Ha - Obvious Your Don't Care !!  Bye Bye !

Bye bye? Are you leaving? That's sad. I'm going to miss you. We were having such a nice chat, it's sad to see it end. I was going to explain that there's a difference between not caring whether the Beach Boys performed a gig (which is obviously what my statement of not caring referred to) and not caring about the topic in general to the point of commenting (which obviously, by my commenting, wasn't the case). I was also going to ask your opinions on potential Sec. of Education nominee Betsy DeVos because I can tell that, like me, you care deeply about literacy in America. Maybe you will reconsider leaving.

Yes. Because even though she was not a good candidate, she was a much better one than Trump.

You're probably right, but there are some scenarios in which it's not irrelevant. In the short run, it could just not really be remarked upon significantly, but there's potential for a lot of press and a garnering of both new fans and some energized detractors. In the long run it would most likely be irrelevant. If Trump's presidency is considered in the range of normal (from successful to really quite bad but not freakishly so) who played at his inauguration would not really be remembered. But if his presidency turns out to be regarded as freakishly bad, historically bad, and the interpretation of the badness is that Trump himself was a singularly destructive leader and the BBs got significant press for playing at his inauguration, it could be a long-term taint.
That latter is very unlikely, but given that there's really no particularly positive outcome and there is some small potential for a negative outcome, it seems to me that it wouldn't be wise.
One could argue that the same would apply to any inauguration, but I think the controversy surrounding this one will be greater than usual and the potential for a significantly bad presidency is a bit more than usual, so it's a worse bet than usual.

What does surf patrol think about Fleetwood Mac or Bob Dylan, and has that perception changed since '93? I can honestly say my perception of Ricky Martin and Jessica Simpson hasn't changed since Bush's first inauguration...

But when I say it doesn't matter, I mean in a bigger sense. Barely anyone will notice, and even if some do, it doesn't matter. So what if some people like the Beach Boys more or less? We're not their publicists. They should do whatever they want to do.

A Trump inauguration concert would be a lasting mark on the band name and legacy. All artists know that association with Trump is a toxic gamble, so they'll most likely have to go with some southern rock or country act to take it on.


If it happened I would be deeply sad on behalf of Brian, Carl, Dennis and Al whose music and image will be disrespectfully tainted by something like this, not least because its overwhelmingly unlikely that any of them would express any support for this 'movement' and their winning candidate.

Americas band doesnt bother me whatsoever.  I dont judge people by their political affiliations or else i woulda threw away my jan & dean cds for dean endorsing hilary

Of course they should! M&B love the guy, Mike could engage Trump in discussion about TM and staying positive, they could prowl the crowd for young babes, and Bruce.....Bruce? Bruce could tag along.

The reason we love the band is because of what Brian made them. He would never be there. No one cares what Mr. Wheeeeeeeeen and I Wrote the Song do.

That said, I couldn't see Scott Totten showing up.

I have to agree in the sense that it really would be a poor message for the future by bringing out has-beens or any act just for the appearance of putting on a show. Speaking as a non US citizen, the message I would pick up was "We're f***ed!"

Id say yes if this year was a normal election year. We know this has been the most nasty campaign in our llifetimes.

They'd be better off not considering how divisive this election has been. 

It's too risky. I don't care if you support either Trump or Clinton (I've not supported either candidate, because I'm a Canadian) but since America is so divided as a country because of all of its differing political-views, that I suppose that The Beach Boys, or their management/whomsoever that may be involved with the group, shouldn't even consider having the group perform at a Trump inauguration, unless they wish to alienate a large portion of their currently loyal fan-base... But that's just my own opinion on an otherwise dicey and toxic subject.

In the long run, it would be a dirty stain on their legacy.

In the short, many of the casino crowd/M&B show attendees who don't know who Carl or Al are, are the poorly educated types who just want to hear the oldies. They would still come out for their shows.

I would hope BRI would step in and vote down such an appearance.

‍

Yes they should. it will be highly watched and by far more watched then any other the other inaugurations given all of the circumstances! Any why to get there name out is good!

I don't really care what myKe and br00th do. They've already stained the legacy many times over, so I don't think that playing for Trump would make any difference one way or the other because by now, it's fairly well known that Brian has nothing whatsoever to do with myKe luHv. If anything, it would hopefully tarnish the M&B brand even more than it is now.

Why? Trump has to have had the least amount of votes of any president elect in recent history. Not sure why his inauguration would be highly watched.

I sure as hell won't be watching.  It will be a shameful day for this country.

They should if they're asked (no reason to think they will be though) and want to. The true rock n' roll spirit is doing what you want even when all the pearl-clutchers tell you it would be very naughty to do so. Nothing lamer than supposed rockers like Springsteen who shill for establishment candidates.

So it's lame when Springsteen does it but the Beach Boys should do it???

If we are going to compare the two, Springsteen's music has always been very politically charged so it makes sense for him to play events for Presidential candidates.

This MUST be a test.  Otherwise...it doesn't get more dick-headed than THAT.  I laughed so hard I pooped my pants.  'Imbisenility' lives.

Trump may be a lot of things, but he's not the establishment candidate. He's the punk rock candidate. If rock is supposed to be about walking on the wild side, then the Trump inauguration is the place to be for real rockers!

Well Lou Reed wrote "Walk On the Wild Side" and there's no friggin way he ever would have played for Donald Trump.

Also nearly every time Trump attempted to use a well-known rock song during his campaign, he was denounced by the artist.

If they play, I would not be surprised if BB collectible merchandise lowers in value.  Especially items signed by the BB members who play.  Take a gander at eBay prices for Bill Cosby merchandise these days.

lol. yeah. The billionaire staffing his cabinet and the White House with billionaires, retired generals and the chair of the RNC while planning to cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations is so punk rock.

Only if those "rockers" were bands like Creed and Nickleback...

After reading the above two pages of posts... a general thought for the masses.....with Mike having the license to tour, can BRI actually step in and  STOP a tour stop (whether it be in Las Cruces, New Mexico or a Trump inauguration stop).  I truly don't think any of us know if BRI can stop a show.  Whether it be a New Mexico promoter for a New Mexico show, or the Trump inauguration show in DC. 

So, for me, no I'm not a Trump fan.  In fact the thought galls me.  However, I'm not sure with the Beach Boys current structural apparatus, meaning BRI, can stop a DC show in January....  Unless there's fine print that none of us are aware of.   Just my thoughts

I think it's feasible that various kinds of ultimatums could be made by the other BRI members in a situation like this, if it were to be desired. If multiple members deeply objected, I could see them finding a way to intervene, and if simply asking nicely wouldn't put a stop to the show, then perhaps things might escalate in other ways, even if there weren't a pre-existing clause to directly stop this one show. I just think things behind the scenes with various factions could get unpleasant, and that threats of reprisals could potentially happen; hopefully it would never get to that point.  If any shenanigans have ever been allowed to happen because of a "let the baby have his bottle" mentality, that could end here.

I cannot imagine there could be a potentially more widely-objectionable (and extraordinarily highly publicized) usage of the brand name in the amount of years that are left with members using it, which is why I could imagine members who would object might pull out all the stops if they had to.  This would make the 1981 South Africa apartheid-era shows, and Mike's crass media comments about them, seem like child's play by comparison. Not worth it for the brand. Even if I myself were a Trump voter (perish the thought), I would feel the same way.

As someone with punk subculture deeply rooted in their DNA..... you either know nothing about Donald Trump or you know nothing about punk rock.  You should take this misinformed statement back. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1uCVrMTMs

Obama Worst President of All Time

Don't feed the troll. ::)

Yesterday you said Carter was the worst president of all time (with a special nod to Clinton). Also, I thought you were leaving--remember bye bye?--but it's lovely to see you again. Perhaps you've been binging on presidential history in your absence? Fun! Let's talk Franklin Pierce. Or maybe Chester Arthur. I liked his facial hair. Did you?

You don't remember Sid Vicious advocating for lowering the top tier tax rate to 20%?

I don't think you realize though that you are talking with people who mostly don't consider Obama to be a great president or even a good one. Just because we haven't been swindled by a professional con man doesn't mean that we are going to get bothered by a video designed to irritate Democrats.

You've just set yourself up for one of those classic surf patrol comebacks. "Shut Up," maybe? Or maybe even "Your Probaly Like Crooked Hillary LOL!" With his extensive repertoire and razor-sharp wit, who knows what it will be? I'm just going to make some popcorn and enjoy the show.

It's either that or "logic" from Filleplage in a thousand word essay about god knows what.

I believe if the other members felt so strongly about stopping Mike and Bruce playing they could take the nuclear option and threaten to remove Mike and Bruce's licence to tour. Without knowing what exactly is in the contract which gives Mike and Bruce the right to tour under the Beach Boys this is just speculation but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a clause which forbids Mike and Bruce from playing a concert which could bring the Beach Boys name into disrepute for example if they were to play a gig for the KKK. There's probably a further clause which would render the contact null and void if they were to do so. Obviously playing for Trump is not the same as playing for KKK but it is something that could bring the Beach Boys brand into disrepute. It could ultimately be a battle for the lawyers if the other members felt strongly against it and Mike and Bruce were for it. Would they risk a lawsuit and potential loss of the touring name just to play one gig no matter how prestigious from their point of view?

Great day for america I will be watching. It has not hurt Ted Nugent with his support for Trump.

I just remembered that the beach boys played for trump at a private birthday party back in the 90's, so I wouldn't be totally surprised if they were asked to do his inauguration.

Lol Ted Nugent.  Great argument, awesome train of thought. 

I must say that I'm much more interested in the financial details of M&B's private gig. Anyone know what the price tag was? And do we know if they actually got paid (given the well-earned rep that DT--hey, America has the DT's!!!---has as a "stiffmeister")...

Apples and oranges, that was a lifetime ago, and he was not a politician, nor was he a massively polarizing figure like today.  Like literally the single most divisive politician in the modern history of the United States, endorsed by the KKK. It has zero to do with the current situation.

Can you explain why a man without a coherent platform and a distorted understanding of reality being president is a "great day for America"?

If Nugent had hordes of young, liberal-minded fans of his studio work, you can be sure they would have largely (maybe not entirely, but largely) evaporated as a result of his extremist views.  So you are completely incorrect.   He is literally considered a deeply toxic poison to a significant amount of the population... who will now literally, never in a million years, come near his music.  

And yeah, it will be a "great" day for lowercase, punctuation–free america.

Further, there has been controversy following Ted Nugent because of his rhetoric and support for Trump. In my home state, there was quite a stir when a small, rural county engaged him to play its county fair.

But it's also not a great analogy because Nugent has for years been an outspoken, controversial/extreme conservative speaker, meaning the fallout has already settled over him. His fans are already long-since used to the idea of him being who he is and saying what he says. It would be akin to Tom Morello supporting some far-left candidate.

The Beach Boys haven't made a career of getting especially involved in politics, Bruce's occasional asshole-ish remark notwithstanding, so it could affect them more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahkMA6JPOHU

Thanks for the "kind words"  Captain -  America First !   ;D

You're welcome. You'll forgive me for not watching your video link: see, I've got a streak going of not watching any of them, and I'd hate to break it now. Besides, most political videos of all stripe meant to mock this or that candidate, party, etc., are made to rile up morons, so it's not really my thing. But I'm sure it's quite clever, having obviously lived up to your own high standards.

I thought you were a Trump fan! In which case, what you really mean is the small minority of extremely wealthy elites at the expense of the vast majority of the population First!

I forsee this thread devolving into arguments over opposing political points of view. Trying hard not to dive in !

Is that foresight coming to you from the rear-view mirror?  ;D

THIS

This is starting to turn into a sandbox conversation! Lets keep on pace that this is about the beach boys preforming at Donald Trumps inaugurations. Lets not cry if your person lost.  :bw

With very few detours, I don't think people are crying that their respective people lost. They're discussing their opinions as to what would be the effect on the Beach Boys' popularity in the hypothetical event that the band performed at a Trump inauguration. That about half of the responders would think it's a bad idea shouldn't be too surprising, considering the closeness of the election results and the divisiveness of the president-elect.

I don't think they are popular enough to perform at the inauguration.  How about the Stones?

There comes a point when an act is passed it for politics be it campaign songs or inaugurations. The Beach Boys, Stones etc are long over that line IMO. They hardly send a 'hope for the future' message do they?

If it was the real Beach Boys - Carl, Dennis, Brian, Al and Mike - I'd say no, but it's the freaking Mike and Bruce show. I'm sure Mike wants to leer at Ivanka. Let her come out in a bikini while Mike sings "California Girls" and "Surfer Girl". And Bruce can show her how to wear a pair of shorts.

Yeah, and both Mike's Beach Boys and Trump are
fake, so it would be a good fit for both. PLUS they both have hair issues

If they played the Trump inauguration, that would be a bigger screw-up than Summer Of Love.

3/4 to 4/5

At least, I'd hope they'd perform "Endless Summer"-material!  :lol

I don't really understand this sentiment - the need to "get their name out there".  We're talking about the Beach Boys, for goodness' sake.  They're literally one of the most famous bands in the entire world (along with the Beatles and a few other groups).  EVERYONE and their dog knows of the Beach Boys!  Of course, probably 99% of people only know a couple of songs, but that's probably also the case with many other bands (I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people couldn't go beyond Satisfaction if asked to name Rolling Stones songs).

If Mike and Bruce played at the inauguration, they would undoubtedly play the biggest hits - California Girls, etc...  They'd hardly be up there playing Vegetables or any other obscure track.  In other words, if they play the inauguration it's unlikely to win them any new fans because everyone knows those songs already.  I just can't see anyone turning on the TV, watching Mike mime his way through Kokomo and going "wow, I really need to check these "Beach Boys" out!" and running out to buy a copy of Holland. 

Their name is already "out there" and playing the Trump inauguration is not going to increase the general public's awareness of the band.  What it might do, as others have pointed out, is tarnish their reputation among existing fans.   

Set List for Trump thingy...

1.  10 Little Indians
2.  Heads You Win...Tails I Lose
3.  Cuckoo Clock
4.  The Shift
5.  Shut Down
6.  Let's Go Trippin'
7.  No-Go Showboat
8.  We'll Run Away
9.  Don't Hurt My Little Sister
10.  Let Him Run Wild
11.  I Should Have Known Better
12.  That's Not Me
13.  Let's Go Away For Awhile
14.  I Just Wasn't Made For These Times
15.  Be Still

intermission

16.  Busy Doin' Nothing
17.  The Nearest Faraway Place
18.  Time to Get Alone
19.  Student Demonstration Time
20.  Lookin' At Tomorrow...A Welfare Song
21.  Leaving This Town
22.  Goin' South
23.  Livin' With a Heartache
24.  Maybe I Don't Know
25.  Wipeout
26.  Strange Things Happen
27.  Caroline No
28.  Shelter
29.  Strange World
30.  Summer's Gone.

You forgot the ultimate encore: Back in the USSR

Will addsome MC this show? >:D

Also: 

Better Get Back in Bed
California Dreamin
Hang on to Your Ego

Forgot to add:

A Thing Orange Idiot Two
David Duke of Earl
Internment Camp California
  
Paging "Mr. Positivity": please don't play the show, Mike... please. Playing a show for a candidate endorsed by the KKK, for a band that has historically had persons of color as members, and LGBT people as managers and songwriting collaborators, is just not cool in the slightest.

David Duke of earl! :lol :lol :lol

If only it weren't so on the nose.

Crazy thing a few months ago i was talking to a 24 year old and brought up the song Help Me Rhonda and he never heard of it. I asked what he knew about them and said he only knows they sang about surfing but couldnt name any of their songs. Never heard of Pet Sounds before. Sadly I think that is a majority of people under 30. Only a few like me under 30 knows at least a little something about the Boys and know some of there songs.

Honest question, besides Mike getting his photo taken with Donald Trump at a Rolling Thunder Rally, did any of the Beach Boys publicly endorse Trump or Clinton? I went on www.opensecrets.org and couldn't find any contributions from Mike, Brian, Al or Bruce. It wasn't exactly unpopular to back Hillary Clinton if you are in the entertainment industry.

I haven't heard anything from either of their Facebook pages about which candidate they preferred.  But, at the end of the day, that's their choice. 

This election has been ugly on both sides.  I've never seen so many people attacked (verbally and physically) for a candidate they support.  I voted for Trump, and I've been called all kinds of names.   I even lost a Facebook "friend" after I posted a picture on November 9th with the caption "President Trump."  But, that's their problem, not mine. 

Whichever candidate one supports is their own business, and nobody should be attacked for it. 

Bruce Springsteen, Paul McCartney, and Jimmy Buffett were pro Hillary, but I'm still listening to their music. 

For those on here who voted Hillary, who still support the touring version of The Beach Boys, would their appearance at Trump's inauguration sway you to not buy tickets for a BB concert in 2017? 

I totally understand what you mean.  But this 24-year-old at least knew of the BBs and surf music.  It's a very shallow knowledge of the band, but at the end of the day it's still knowledge and awareness of the band's existence.  I don't think it's just an age thing.  I'm in my 40s and when I tell people I'm going to see Brian they assume it's going to be about the surfing songs - absolutely no awareness of the late 60s stuff and beyond.  My mom, who is of the same age as the BBs, says that she likes them.  But she only really knows their earlier stuff. 

It's just the way it goes.  The vast majority of people tend to be casual listeners/fans - regardless of the band.  Few people feel compelled to really dig in the way those of us here do.  It doesn't bother me in the slightest. 

If Mike had posed with a pic of KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke when Duke ran for president (and took the additional step of proudly posting the pic on social media, had it existed back then), would this be an exception to the rule? You'd take issue with a person of color attacking Mike for posing with Duke? What if that person was Blondie?

Not trying to veer into sandbox territory, but just pointing out that some candidates are THAT divisive, and there's a reason why there's so much opposition to the very idea of the band playing for Trump. There's a reason why it's BAD for the brand. I'm not equating Duke and Trump, but I still would like to know your answer to the question.

In the hypothetical situation that Mike would've been photographed next to D. Duke, it's one thing to criticize his choice of candidate.  I wouldn't have a problem with that.  But, if one attacked Mike as a person, I would have a problem with it.  And that's because you don't know why somebody chooses their candidate.  Say, Duke had a specific policy that Mike agreed with that had nothing to do with his associate with the KKK. 

Because Trump is a divisive candidate, I do think it would be a bad business decision to play his inauguration.  Just as I think supporting Hillary is a bad business decision for other celebrities.  More than any other election, this has easily been the most divisive and ugly.  Why risk pi$$ing off half your fanbase?

Alice Cooper did it right.  He performed "Elected" on Jimmy Kimmel on Halloween night, and skewed both candidates. 

If a person of color was DEEPLY offended by the association with Duke, let's just say because of the fact that they might have had to use colored bathrooms earlier in life, or continue to deal with many other horrors of discrimination, I think it's fair to say that the offended person has no such obligation to avoid attacking a celeb personally for associating with Duke.

An unapologetic KKK Imperial Wizard who might hypothetically "happen" to have some policy view on a random subject which was agreeable would not just garner a free pass for gaining celeb soft endorsements. Their ugly views would trump (pun not intended) all else, and for good reason. Racist douche nozzle Strom Thurmond might have had a good policy on noise ordinances by senior centers past 10pm; that doesn't mean that a celeb who posed with him wouldn't rightfully be shamed.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. 

And you're kinda getting away from the initial point of people getting attacked for supporting Trump. 

Really, the point of the convo is if a celeb soft endorsement of a politician, who appoints folks like Bannon (who casually + proudly called lesbians "dykes" in radio interviews - not secretly-recorded decades-earlier tapes, mind you), would rightfully cause the celeb to be shamed and attacked... and why that association would unquestionably be bad for the brand name.

I'm glad we can agree on the latter.

If they want to perform for his inauguration then they should, it's their choice and they have the right to do so, however I think the whole "Trump will ruin your rep if you perform for him and everyone will hate you" is blown WAY out of proportion, in fact the whole reaction to him getting elected is blown WAY out of proportion.. people are just being way TOO overemotional over it ,, if they perform for him I think that people who watch it will enjoy the songs, those who don't watch it won't care or may not even know they are performing, it's not going to ruin their image or anything, it's not like they are performing a concert for the leader of Iran or North Korea or are singing at Castro's funeral...people will hink about it the same way they think of an awards show or something..

I went to the show on January 19, 1981 at Constitution Hall when the group played at Ronald Reagan's inauguration.  Carl, Bruce, Alan and Mike, don't remember if Dennis was there, but Mike played a wailing saxophone.  It was one of the best BBs shows I ever went to.  If they feel like they want to be involved, go.  

LGBT, Muslim, and other minority folks might understandably not share that same opinion (nor the opinion of being anything but outraged with any artist playing the inauguration).

Basically, I think people have to turn off the empathy part of their brain to not fully understand that, or to claim those folks are being overly-emotional about it.  Would love to know what your thoughts might be on that?

i voted 'no'

Karma would be if Mike said 'No...Call Wayne Newton!'.  ;D

There are too many losers to be left strewn along the path Trump claims will make America "great" again.   Damaging links in the chain will only make America [and the 'west'] weak again.  History.  We've been there/done that.  We're only one goose step short of the most ardent Trump supporters wearing brown friggin' shirts.

Economic realities are the result of the last go-round for the republicans...and the subsequent spill-over.  To recover completely from Bush's virtual depression in 6 1/2 years is asking WAY too much.  And to expect it to be instantly fixable was pure folly.  The hole dug now to accommodate this blustering buffoon will be hard to fill-in.  It would be just like Mike to get more 'revenge' by performing at an official event for the rotting tangerine from Hades.

This would be such a disaster for the BB brand, I somehow feel certain it will happen.   :(

The vast majority of people consider The Beach Boys as white bread, conservative,  and out-of-touch with modern-day standards of political correctness as any band can be. As much as I loathe the idea of a President Tic-Tac administration, I believe the Beach Boys participation in a dance held in his honor would mean nothing and change nothing. I would even daresay that the large majority of people in a typical Beach Boys audience nowadays are Trump supporters.

I seriously doubt that playing Trumps inauguration would have much effect on the band. I mean, I  doubt it would stop them from selling out 1500 seat performing arts centers like they have been for the last 20 years. Its not like they are super hip these days and could be ruined by something like this anymore...Maybe if it were 1964. They're not Taylor Swift/Katy Perry. Brian still has somewhat of a "cool" factor that i could see being effected by playing for Trump, but cant see him playing...It's not like he's going to get back together with Mike for Trump  like Fleetwood Mac did for Clinton.

Btw, Everyone says Mike is a Republican, but did anyone read in his book how he mentions that people think he's a Republican but he's into environmental causes and he's anti-war and some other stuff which is the opposite of Republican views and he says something like "no one really knows where I'm at politically"? Does anyone think he actually might be a liberal/centrist? Or just saying that to not alienate people on the left?

I don't think Mike is a liberal, but from reading his book, and listening to some of the songs he wrote about the environment, I'd say he's more of a moderate conservative. 

The fact is that there is plenty of room to take what are considered liberal or conservative positions on a host of issues because they are far more partisan than ideological. To consolidate them and assume you're on one side or the other up and down the platform isn't real life unless you're too easily swayed by the parties and their media.

This is true.  I tend to vote Republican more times than not, but quite a few of my beliefs (wait for the big surprise) tend to be a lean a little more to the liberal side. 

Last relevant comment so we don't get Sandboxed, but it's also key to note that beliefs or positions themselves often aren't the politically ideology part, but rather whether, how, or how much government should be involved.

Getting us back on topic.  I do have a question. 

This is for anybody on here who supports and buys tickets for the Mike and Bruce Beach Boys. 

If they do decide to play Donald Trump's inauguration next month, would that affect whether or not you buy tickets for one of their shows in 2017?

No.

Have the BB been asked to perform? Or is this yet another contrived and idiotic thread designed to smear either ML or the American President elect?

Sandbox please.

Probably both. 

Seriously?

It has been generally on topic and the topic, even if hypothetical (which I believe it is), is legitimate. From what I've noticed it's mostly polite (excluding some of mine), despite a currently hot, divisive topic. I say leave it alone and those not interested can quite easily skip the thread.

I actually had a similar thought this morning and wondered if they would even be available around January 20 (and the days leading up to the inauguration). I checked the tour page and it appears they don't have any January dates until January 21, when they will be a mere 3 hours away in Emporia, VA. I remember they were similarly close to Cleveland around the time of the RNC convention, but didn't play at the convention despite some media reports.

So, let the speculation continue.

Ugh. That might mean at the very least, they'll be playing some sort of "celebration" gig in the vicinity, even if not under an official Trump-sponsored capacity. Barf barf barf.

There shouldn't even be an inauguration. More of a public mourning.

^ Agreed

Does Mike really want to get asked what he thinks of LGBT and other minority folks who are going to get their rights stripped away? Like if he gives two sh*ts about it?

Seriously, Mike would in all likelihood - at some point - rightfully get asked that by an interviewer, or by a fan with a recording device, at some point, if he performs for Trump. That performance will not go unnoticed. It will stick with him. And he will either duck the question (much like Trump supporters in this thread do), or give an excruciatingly ridiculous response that might just go viral, because there's no way to answer that question without saying that those rights don't matter to him. Do we want The BBs to be associated with friggin' Pence?? It's a bad, bad idea for Mike to even consider.

Just for starters... Pence's record of opposition to gay rights as a member of Congress, is sure to be a threat to any member of the LGBT community. That should outrage anyone, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Trump appointing Bannon, who freely publicly refers to lesbians as "dykes"? I could give many, many more examples...

Care to defend those I just mentioned?

Mike Love should not rope the brand name in to be associated with that garbage.

Don't forget the hideous creature Sessions's own comments, either.

Greetings from Great Britain. We don't need to be great again, hence the name !(despite going to hell in a hand kart at the moment...). Surely the BBs playing this inauguration would be in keeping with their history of piss-poor terrible touring decisions?  Stage suits in the late 60s, Raegan concert, playing apartheid South Africa etc.
I do not support any decision to play this by any means, but it would be perversely understandable.
PS. Punk rock was never about endorsing sexist or racist views apart from some quickly discredited bands with subhuman followings.

:lol Love the wording 8)

Yeah, Mike's Favorite Recording Sessions.

:lol

Plus... Does the public really need to speculate on why a guy who (hopefully won't) might play an inauguration for an anti-gay Vice President conspicuously did NOT eulogize (in even just a brief social media mention) the passing of a prominent LGBT band manager of his band, in contrast to his bandmate Brian, who went out of his way to eulogize said manager on Facebook? People don't need more reasons to hate Mike or to speculate as to his motives. People (who aren't even fans of this band) will want to tear apart any celeb associating with hateful bigots. Not worth it. Not worth it. I happen to care about the legacy of this band and don't want to see it tarnished any further.

Century Deprived - I empathise. And I hope to Dawkins that it doesn't happen, however, it's hardly going to be a major shock in terms of a band with all the spiritual and elemental members suddenly making a bad decision? Cos it wouldn't ever be. Playing a Trump inauguration would only ever be a franchise of lesser elements agreeing to a celebration of populist misguided hysteria. History should record it thus.

I get what you are saying, FFS, but I contend it would certainly be the biggest and most highly-publicized stupid decision that they could possibly do in the modern social media age. Mike got relatively little heat for the "screw the UN" comment (and likewise the band) about playing South Africa during apartheid because it happened in the dark ages of the pre-internet '80s. These are different times.  

Ferris Bueller's comment "you don't want this much heat" directed to Cameron comes to mind. Mike needs a Ferris to give him a reality check if he'd even consider doing it.

 
What band manager is this and what is the source that  he was gay?  I have nothing against gay people, but this is new information for me.

Jack Rieley. While I'll try to give Mike the benefit of the doubt and assume Mike's omission had more to do with him simply not liking the guy, the point is, publicly supporting (and not merely supporting, but actively playing the inauguration of) known anti-gay, pro-conversion therapy bigots like Pence could potentially make people draw all sorts of conclusions about said bigot's celebrity supporters, right or wrong. If Mike is gonna support an anti-gay bigot, then Mike's own slights against a gay man will come under the microscope, as will his UN comment, etc. Not a commentary about whether that's "fair" or not, point is, that's a type of thing that will happen, and the only inarguable fact is that nobody, let alone Mike, needs that kind of baggage by associating with a bigot.

I love how there have been tumbleweeds as a response to this.

And while we're at it:  http://www.politifact.com/new-york/statements/2016/aug/14/sean-patrick-maloney/donald-trump-against-same-sex-marriage/

A fact-checked collection of quotes saying that Trump opposes the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage and wants to leave it up to the individual states.

He may of course completely flip-flop on this, but he's repeatedly opposed gay marriage across fifteen years.

Of course, in a Beach Boys context, this wouldn't necessarily be a dealbreaker for Mike supporting Trump or not; after years of their own various contradictory interview comments, I figure none of the boys expect there to be any connection between what someone says and what they actually end up doing.  :-)

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I think Trump was the better choice. I guess what I said has offended many.

Trump said after the election that same sex marriage is settled and he's fine with that.  I don't think he would say something like that *after* the election if he felt otherwise. 

All that may be true, but trying to tell an LGBT person that they are being "over-emotional" (as claimed by others earlier in this thread) after the ilk of Pence and Bannon are in da house is a bit rich, don't you think? And to keep it on topic, telling one of those folks to not have BIG issue with any celeb playing the inauguration is inane to the max.

Trump will say whatever whim strikes him at any given moment.  After the election, he said he wasn't going to try to prosecute Hillary Clinton after all; then he threatened to prosecute her again when she supported the Michigan recount.  You might as well expect consistency from Brian Wilson over whether he burned the Smile tapes!

Cheers,
Jon Blum

All I wonder is the percentage of Myke Luvers (and Bruce Johnston, if there is such a thing) who backed Trump  ;D

Something tells me it would be significantly higher than for those who appreciate the Wilsons  ;)

Unleash the firestorm.

Regardless of Trump's position on anything, which except for cutting taxes on the wealthy are as free as the wind, he's made a gazillion promises to nominate right-wing justices and the Republicans and his voters are going to hold him to that above all else. That's the main arena in which gay rights are affected.

Hell f*cking no. No, no, no, no.

Mind you, if Mike and Bruce want to play for him under their own names than they can go right ahead. ;)

Has there ever been a band with a greater disparity than the one between the largely conservative audience who discovered the BB's through Full House and Kokomo and the typically more liberal, indie-esque fan base who came to know the band through the legend of Brian Wilson and Pet Sounds/Smile?

actually i never brought up LGBT you did,, I said that PEOPLE (In general) are over being over emotional over this election, which is something you can't deny, and it is true on both sides...you can't deny that this whole election has caused people a lot of emotions, which only THEY can control...No one can make a person emotional that's their choice. If the LGBT (or some other group) doesn't want the Beach Boys to perform then they shouldn't watch it that is their right, and turn the channel to something else..what I said was that the Beach Boys have every right, if they choose to do so, to perform for trump.I never said anything homophobic about Gay people,,,I just stated a fact, and it is a fact just look at the media and facebook and how people are treating each other on both sides....

Good to know that LGBT folk aren't indicative of people in a general sense.  That's probably because they continue getting marginalized by the people like the VP-elect.  Are they chopped liver?  And how about Latinos and Muslims? I guess on the topic of being overly-emotional, that Mike is supremely overly-emotional about people not liking him. Everyone is just a big crybaby.

I never said they weren't people you are putting words in my mouth, of course they are people and I am not marginalizing them ,  just stated a fact that people ON ALL SIDES (I did state ALL SIDES)  are being over-emotional about this election (yes both republican and democrat) and if the Beach Boys want to play for Trump who are they to tell them not too...and when I mean "They" I mean ANYONE who may have a problem with them performing for him...if they want to perform for trump that's their choice and if they don't like it they can change the channel... like I said before it's not like they would be performing at Castro's funeral or performing for the  leader of North Korea or Iran, they would be performing for the president of the united states...if you read my first post I never said ANYTHING about gay people...

That's completely false. We are biologically emotional beings - we don't get to choose whether or not we are emotional.

yes we are emotional beings  but we can control how we react to people places and things,,,,, we don't have to project our emotions we can just keep them to ourselves if we choose,,,,no one can hurt you unless you let them (unless you are a child or someone else who is helpless).. no one can offend you unless you choose to be offended because of a world view,these are just concepts we create as a society ...but that's a whole other thing that will have us go back to thousands of years of teachings of various spiritually enlightened teachers and psychologist....

That's different from saying that "No one can make a person emotional." Here you are saying that "No one can make a person express their emotions." Completely different.


To be honest, I think this is mostly a fashionable point of view that is circulating on the internet right now. People who like railing against the so-called PC culture bring this up a lot. But like most things that circulate on the internet, there is absolutely no evidence to support it.

double post

Read the writings of the Buddha,,this is where I read it not the internet,,,, yes it has been experimented by thousands of monks and spiritual teachers for the bast 2,000 years and it works,,,,so there IS evidence to support it,,

 I'm done talking about it, yes I mean how people react to things and wrote it the wrong way,,,,, now back to topic If people don't want the Beach Boys to play for trump then fine don't watch it..if you do then great, watch it.....it shouldn't be a big deal either way....

Sorry. The monks and spiritual teachers are experimenting with what, exactly?

Meditation and experience...

But what does that have to do with your point that no one can hurt you unless you let them, and that no one can offend you unless you choose to be offended?

if they claim they can shut off emotions then who am I to argue with thousands of monks and spiritual teachers who have claimed these things for thousands of years,,,just because we haven't experienced it doesn't mean they didn't...but now I want to stop talking about this,,it's an interesting (fascinating) subject I suggest reading up on it..

Because they made it so for themselves ,,they shut off their emotions and didn't allow people to hurt them or offend them,,,,it's called Equanimity,,,okay now I'm done talking about it....read up on it,,,it is really cool stuff... let's go back to the subject..

OK. I probably won't not because I'm uninterested but because I have a really, really long reading list and, on top of that, reading is my job. Furthermore, what you are describing sounds like so much work that it sounds like being hurt and offended is an incredibly natural human characteristic. Maybe we can work really hard to overcome it but it certainly doesn't follow that we choose our emotions. I also find "offended" to be a subjective term. These days, I see more people being offended by so-called PC behaviour than just about anything else.

That's cool that reading is your job..I love to read and would LOVE  a job that involved reading...lol...but yeah I see what you are saying....

They might well be asked, seeing as the inauguration won't have many more current options:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/38298215?client=safari

Perhaps Kanye.

Yep. It would be a mentally ill narcissist (literally *just* released from a mental facility, in fact) showing solidarity with someone just like him, another mentally ill narcissist. I hope Kanye plays it so that he finally sinks his career once and for all.

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-38298215 (http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-38298215)

So the beeb makes a point that basically nobody wants to do it, even if offered money to do so. Trump's inauguration entertainment will be a couple of forgettable B-acts most likely. Mall might be awkwardly sparse in terms of turnout for the inauguration as well.

http://pagesix.com/2016/12/22/beach-boys-could-perform-at-trumps-inauguration/

Beach Boys could perform at Trump’s inauguration

Do the Beach Boys have bigger balls than Garth Brooks and Andrea Bocelli?

The icons of California surf rock have been asked to bring some good vibrations to Donald Trump’s inauguration — and they’ve yet to decline.

“They have not made a decision,” said a source close to the band, which is currently headed by original member Mike Love and operating sans co-founder Brian Wilson."........

Consider the source of that speculation -- it's the New York Post. In any case, Mike and Bruce already have a gig in North Carolina on the 20th.

If they got the invite and agreed to play, you don't think they'd postpone or cancel the NC gig to play the DC ball?

What a giant shock that they are playing a pro-Trump state on inauguration day. They can be surrounded by a bunch of people who can give each other high-fives and tear up with joy.  It occurs to me that if they actually wind up not performing for the inauguration (perhaps due to behind the scenes blocking by BRI), Mike can now just use the lame face-saving "sorry but I have a gig booked that day" excuse that he always uses, such as at the Hawthorne monument dedication in 2005 (because of course, being on tour playing parking lots in bowling alleys was more important).

Was it ever revealed what the actual excuse was for Mike and Bruce not attending the end of C50 dinner hosted by the Wilsons in the UK for the band and crew? "Other commitments" ?

i voted yes and i am still going to see them in june 2017 !

Just a "wild" guess that you aren't an LGBT person, woman, or a person of color.

https://www.thebeachboys.com/tour

Not according to their tour page. Jan 22 only.

Stop beating around the bush & just call him a deplorable !

 

Tickets never went on sale for that concert, and it was subsequently cancelled.

nope i am a proud Dutchie and a big BB fan. I dont let politics intervere. It says more about you..........get a life i would sugest and if you cant handle other people's opinion than thats your problem....see ya !

That's right. He said he was Dutch before. Didn't you read it?

Like the anti drug slogan.......Just say no !

Donald & Mike are friends !  You can count on Good Vibrations at Trumps Party  January 20th ~~~

Trump has already made some setlist suggestions:

Trump Only Knows

Barbara Klan

David Duke Of Earl

OBAMA YOUR FIRED !!  :smokin

Sigh....

Spoken with the predictable grammar of a Trump supporter.

Perfect example in every way

He has own "fired"? I want one of my own...is it easier to find than an NES Classic or a hatchimal?