The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7633091/beach-boys-considering-invitation-to-perform-at-trump-inauguration

In my opinion, BRI needs to step in and tell Mike no. *Immensely* harmful to the brand and trademark in a way no other political affiliation concerning the band ever has been.

Brian, Al, and Carl's estate: NOW is the time you need to stop being "hands-off" and call an emergency board meeting and tell Mike "NO." Just for this one gig. Because people are going to associate ALL OF YOU with this. The Billboard article even uses C50 pics that include Brian, Al, and Dave.

Completely agreed. I've been texting fan friends for the past hour about this. Trump has been ridiculed for being unable to book any big names. If they agreed to play, this would be big news, a big score for trump, it would make headlines, and the Beach Boys name would be forever changed. They would become a sort of trophy and a musical mascot for trump and his followers. This would tarnish their legacy more than ANYTHING they've ever done.

YEP. It already has harmful future implications to the brand name that this article has even been published stating that it is even a *consideration* for them to play. Cannot believe that it has even gotten to this point.

1000% agreed.

I'd rather them pop up on fuller house dressed up as clowns while getting BJ'S from John Stamos..THAT is how sickening this is.

If Mike plays the gig, the Man Vs Clown website will probably trend on Facebook and Twitter.

i dont see the problem. Maybe because i am european but they did more presidents. Remember Ronald Reagan the actor who became president? Just do it Boys i dont care. I booked my tickets for their european tour already. no sweat.

If they do, they do.  If they don't, they don't.  It's their choice. 

At this point, I really don't see it having an effect on the legacy. 

This could be the end of the BBs... :-\

Oh, this will be the end of the band for many people if it happens.

There's a BIG difference between Ronald Reagan and Führer-elect Trump.

myKe luHv's reputation already stinks up the place so to him it's unfortunately no big deal to someone who assuredly thinks it's all about him. ::)

THIS more than anything.

The Beach Boys should no way be affiliated with politics*. If I thought Mike was capable of thinking this far ahead I'd say he is wanting to make some headlines to boost the name-recognition of the current touring lineup to boost his own ticket sales (and would ultimately turn down performing the inauguration). But I'm sure he's actually considering such a concert.

Regardless of what political affiliation you have I would hope that anyone would see what a stupid move this is. I would be as equally pissed if Hillary won and Brian sang at her inauguration. This music transcends the pettiness and corruption of politics on both sides of the aisle...it's a huge disservice to possibly tarnish this music by even considering such a move.

*Beach Boys and politics should be separate. I know of at least one person who has stopped posting here for the most part because of the constant anti-Trump circlejerk in the sandbox that clogs up the homepage every other day. This person doesn't even support Trump yet they're tired of seeing his name constantly on the homepage. We get it, Trump is a jackass who shouldn't be president. Probably 95% of this forum agrees with you. But as Trump's presidency unfolds I really hope this avenue of discussion finds a separate place to reside.

I come here to mostly get away from the stupidity and corruption of politics. Yeah, I don't have to read the Sandbox (and I most usually don't) but I still have to see what a waste of space those threads take up on the homepage where actual on-topic discussion could be shown. Trump will be doing something new everyday that people will consider stupid or reckless...I'd rather discussions of such behavior find a place on a different forum, or Billy/Guitarfool find a way to allow us to filter the Sandbox from our homepage. Anywho, my rant is over.

PS, it's probably time to start the hashtag #notmybeachboys** if this inauguration concert comes even close to fruition.

**Granted this could've been done when someone had the bright idea to play the Lucky Strike's Lanes and Lounge parking lot gig.

As the end of C50 and countless other instances have proved, the media and most casual fans or observers have NO IDEA HOW THE LICENSE WORKS. They won't differentiate between Mike's band and *THE* band, including Brian and Al.

Long story short, this is going to hurt BRIAN and AL as much as anyone else, and it's going to hurt the pocketbook of Carl's estate when people, whether you agree with their methods or not, start calling to BOYCOTT *all* Beach Boys music because one guy who licenses the use of the name decided to play a gig for someone so awful.

Again, Brian, Al, and Carl's estate need to ACT NOW.

I'm guessing (and hoping) that the fact it's still apparently just "being considered" by Mike is evidence of actions behind the scenes where Brian, Al, and Carl's estate are figuring out their options in how they could block Mike.

Again - that it's even public knowledge in articles that it's "being considered" is already harmful.

As of a couple minutes ago they changed the picture in the article to Mike and Bruce (as it was a picture of the C50 band). Not even Billboard knows who the hell is in this band anymore!

Maybe that means that Brian/Al/David (hopefully collectively) are against any association with Trump, and someone made a call to correct it. The correction happened quickly enough that it makes me think somebody who could pull strings was steadfastly against their association, as opposed to a mere innocuous update to reflect the current lineup. Here's to this correction being a glimmer of hope that Mike is going to eventually be isolated and frozen out of being able to drag the band name down with this.

I hope they do it. They have played for other political events before, so why not? Had it been Hilary though, I would say no! But I guess the left might find having an opinion hurtful.

Not anymore than the right finding others not agreeing with them hurtful.

Well, I don't know. In this case it goes beyond that. It's about doing the right thing (or not doing). It has to do with responsibility not only of what the Beach Boys' name and brand means to people but also responsibility of all the members' of the Beach Boys personal legacy as such an appearance (in contrast to a touring show) would be a representation of all it's individuals - that includes not only Brian and Al but also Dennis and Carl. This is a political statement. It's not like they would be playing for just another candidate of the republican party (it's not about the democratic or republican side) but in this case it means getting into the coattail of a racist and homophobic. This sends out a message - and the message is that the Beach Boys are supporting what this person stands for..... and/or don't care a sh!t about ethics as long as they get some money (and we know that there's some truth in that when it comes to the Beach Boys)

And I wonder how authentic Mike and Bruce's care for the environment would come across after kissing a climate change denier's a$$.

I know Mike and Trump have a kinda similar personality in that they are both a.o. narcissistic p*ssy-grabers. But still, Mike should be way above of a Donald Trump; way above. Where's the harmony man...?

I can already see computer programmers developing algorithms to extract and remove Mike Love's voice from all BB recordings. That's the endgame of where this is headed. Fights will break out at ballgames if BB songs with Mike Love lead vocals are played. It's incalculable how far the divisiveness will go if this happens.

With all the negative press ( bullying ) they'd get from our "fair and impartial media" , they probably should not play.

Playing at the inaugural shouldn't imply you support all his proposed policies or the offensive things Trump said on the access Hollywood tape. ( or other misguided statements during the campaign)



 

I voted 'No' in the other thread about this, but I didn't explain why. I simply don't like when musicians (or other celebrities) become overtly political nor do I think it is (generally) in their best interest. It's one thing to answer a direct question or write a politically charged song, but it's another to actively support or campaign for an individual. Sure, they've got the right to, but I don't have to like it. That's not why I love music.

With that said, I can separate an individual from their art. The BBs created timeless music. Any negative effect on the BBs brand will most likely disappear by the time Trump leaves office. Does anyone really think that 25 years from now someone will hear God Only Knows and think "ugh too bad they played that inauguration, it would be a beautiful song otherwise" ? Chances are they wouldn't even be able to name anyone who performed (at Trump's inauguration or any other past inauguration).


Agreed. Has there ever been a free thinking person who agreed with anyone else entirely? Some people respect the office and would have a difficult time turning down the White House. Still, if it were me, I'd decline quietly and respectfully.

If they have been invited, I don't think in a refusal will be in the offing.

I just can't see Mike turning it down.

Considering everything that’s happened in the past year, feel like this could really go either way, which is scary. I don’t see this at all as good for the BBs’ brand—even just the news of the invite. They could easily become a punching bag on social media like Scott Baio. Plus, it really doesn’t help the bad rap Mike gets from people guessing his politics.

If Mike was they only guy who would get the heat for doing this then I wouldn't have much of a problem. But the brand and Brian and Al will be impacted too, as will the band's legacy.

Again, the same media and observers who thought that Mike fired Brian in 2012 will also think that Brian and Al and the real Beach Boys are attached to this thing.

I certainly hope The Beach Boys don't play - I think it'll be disastrous for their legacy.

What does surprise me though is that Ted Nugent hasn't been offered yet. Given that he's politically to the far right and is a enthusiastic Trump supporter, I don't see him turning down such an offer at all.

I believe they should play the inauguration.  It may help to unite the American people.  As for all the little snowflakes on here, grow up.  You don't have to worry about the BB's musical legacy, that is set in stone...you also don't have to worry about the BBs "brand".  (worrying about a bunch of multi-millionaires' "brand"....who the hell thinks this way??).

A move that will make large amounts of people think he's an asshole? There's no way he can resist, Mke Love has a genetic imperative to play the inauguration. It's all that tainted Wilson blood!

They can sweeten the pot by mentioning free leftover hats.

(https://e.snmc.io/lk/l/s/e3b9e0a0ea44e894794f3eafdf406c75/6254088.jpg)

If Mike plays, the amount of flak he will receive will be nuclear, and I cannot wait to hear the "Wilson-based negativity" being fingered as the culprit once again.

I LOVE The Beach Boys. Have bought 100s, maybe 1000s of dollars worth of albums, concert tickets, and merchandise.

Two days ago I was taking solace from the daily pain I feel from Trump's election by arranging all the song on every Beach Boys album in order of my love for it. The Beach Boys were the only thing that could ease my anxiety.

If they perform at the inauguration, I will never give them a dime ever again. I don't care if they find a vintage completed SMiLE, a 6 disc set of demos from the Bellagio studio, or if they reunite again to play a show at Paradise Cove, they will never get a cent out of me. Not even if they pass and it becomes simply their estate and just benefits their children.

They do this, and I'm through with them.

Having genuine concerns about how the Beach Boys are perceived in culture does not make anyone a snowflake and I think discussing these concerns on a Beach Boys message board is valid. If you don’t know why some people are concerned about the Beach Boys’ brand, perhaps view it like an asset: a lot of people have hundreds or thousands of dollars as well as time and a sense of personal identity invested in the Beach Boys’ brand, which stands to be potentially devalued.

Surely this doesn't include solo Brian Wilson and all that?

Brian, the highest profile Beach Boy, should make a statement (if he is against it) just for separation.

I wonder if it would be enough for Brian to post a public announcement stating he doesn't support Mike etc. playing the inauguration under the Beach Boys name? That's assuming he doesn't support it.

I honestly don't think Mike could spot a bad idea if it limped up to him covered in cockroaches and globs of flaming dog sh*t. (I also don't think he could spot a good idea if it floated down to him covered in kitten fur, baby giggles and bathed in the light from heaven itself, but that's another matter). He's the king of horrible judgement. Gosh I hope this doesn't happen.

@PrettyFunky - you beat me to it, what you said.

If he stands up against it, I will continue to support his solo work. If he doesn't, then that's it for him too in my book. That's not something I say lightly. I went to his most recent Hollywood Bowl show, went to a screening of Love & Mercy where he spoke, got to ask him a question in the Q&A here, but if Mike goes through with it and Brian doesn't issue a statement saying he disagrees, I'll have to boycott him as well. In times like this, silence might not be approval, but it's the closest thing to it.

Flakey. Just flakey, but then look at the screen name.

A few weeks ago TheBeachBoys.com listed the band as performing at the Fayettville, North Carolina Crown Theatre on January 20. But tickets never went on sale and the concert was cancelled, leaving the evening wide open for a performance at the inauguration.

Considering that this is easily the most divisive election in modern US history, Dixie Chicks manager Simon Renshaw summed up the huge downside of performing at the inauguration thusly: “If anyone does do it, I hope that the check that they get is in the nine figures. Because it’s probably the last check they’re ever going to get…No one is prepared to normalize what is going on in the country right now.”

While exaggerated, the remark is clearly indicative of the negative reaction the BBs would receive from a huge part of their fan base, both hard-core and casual.

The BB will get made fun of for sure and criticized, but their legacy isn't exactly spotless anyway.  They've always made bad decisions, it's really nothing new. They get made fun of for Kokomo, Full House, being willing to do whatever it takes for a few extra bucks, cheesy outfits. This just fits right in. In fact, I would bet it wouldn't surprise most of the John Q. Publics anyway. They expect this stuff from Mike and the BB.

I hope, hope, hope that happens.

Yeah, this fits right in. Because appearing on Full House is tantamount to supporting a candidate who - and whose cabinet - are a bigoted, unapologetic homophobic bunch of creeps. Yep, same difference. Riiiight.

Anyone who says "no big deal" is ignoring the fact that nobody wants to perform for Trump because Trump is uniquely terrible. There weren't any boycotts of the Reagan or Bush inaugurations. Nobody would be making a big deal if a more normal Republican had won the Electoral College. But Trump isn't even a Republican. He is a cancer unto himself. The fact that he is in office due to the weirdness of our Constitution and help from the FBI doesn't hide the fact that he stands alone in American history.

The band should stick to their schedule and simply say they're otherwise engaged. 

Reading this thread has literally made me physically ill.

Just because people expect it doesn't mean it needs to happen. It's like we're all not surprised when Mike acts like a child and throws a lawsuit at the Wilson's but we still think he's an even bigger jackass after every time he does it.

These are the Beach Boys that I defend when people do mention the embarrassing Full House visits (has happened numerous times with me, can imagine countless more with other fans), when people see pictures of Mike in his ridiculous get-ups from the 70s. When Kokomo gets mentioned sometimes with a laugh. And now I'll be having to defend who the REAL Beach Boys are if Mike decides to go through with this nonsense.

Leave the Beach Boys out of the poltical arena. Hey Mike, I have an idea: how about you go do an inauguration concert under your own name?

Brian Wilson is the guy that loves everybody and it has shown through his actions as a person and as a songwriter. To completely disown the guy if he doesn't give a statement is overlooking not only Brian's beautiful contributions to the world, but his own personal struggles with speaking out and facing conflict.

Brian didn't cause this. I'm sure if Mike is actually serious about going on with this charade that the powers that be will put a rightful stop to it.

Boycotting the Beach Boys and Brian Wilson's MUSIC does a disservice to not only Brian but to future generations who could love that music. Imagine a world where everyone boycotted this beautiful music. Boycott the man responsible for this nonsense, not the people who have struggled since day one dealing with the man himself.

The music doesn't deserve that. All the work Brian has done to bring a ray of light into the world doesn't deserve that.

 :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow :bow

But then, what would one expect from a jackass who relished showing off his manhood on stage? His ego knows no bounds. ::) ::)

No it doesn't. And the more I think about the more I think Trump would love to have AMERICA'S BAND play the inauguration. Fits perfectly with his slogan.

I wonder what the folks on the Mike Love coddled Pet Sounds Forum have to say about this one...

America's Band?  It will be more like Murikkka's Prostate Gland.

And people wonder why there was always such a distaste for Mike's side of things....I mean if the lawsuits, the snide comments in the media, refusal to really acknowledge his cousin's current music, etc didn't make it obvious....this inauguration fiasco certainly should!

No matter what your political affiliation you can see what a colossal screwup this is. Given all the ins and outs of BRI, all the potential hazards, the estates, it would be obvious to a person with an IQ of 20 to say "NO" from the very start.

I'm getting the feeling that many people in this thread are liberals which is just a shorthand of saying hysterical people with no political understanding very little formal education and who read a couple of selected websites like moveon.org or read the guardian rag magazine and have hatred for Trump who is already doing an outstanding job in leading this country and will do more for women and more for minorities and more for the gay community than all the brain-dead Liberals combined that have tried to lead this country of late .  I don't like to get angry or unkind here but I'm so frustrated with the moral self-righteousness of snarky liberals who pay no attention to the real actions and accomplishments of the president-elect and just go with the crowd from things they have heard from other uninformed and barely educated people who live only for hate and snark. I would be thrilled if the Patriotic Beach Boys would put country first and would perform which is not a political act but an act of patriotism and unity. I thought the motto on the left was stronger together wasn't it? There is nothing more intolerant and hate-filled than a leftist American liberal.

American Liberals are an elite academic cast who are capable only in performing in a snarky way what they call social justice and I am very disappointed that the level of intellectual depth in this thread, which is equivalent to that of someone like Samantha Bee on television. I am one of the intellectuals for Trump and like him I have liberal social policies and I believe in protection and prosperity and have seen nothing but failure in the Obama years.

The amount of people who have been willing to defend Mike Love to naysayers will shrivel greatly.

It be a disaster for the band's legacy.

Sadly, Mike's craving for attention and publicity will pull him to do it.

I hope BRI intervenes as it will kill revenue. For example, film makers will stop licensing their songs.

All due respect, go f*** yourself.

I have to agree with RR here Professor!

First you say liberals have "very little formal education" in para 1 and and in para 2 American liberals "are an elite academic cast". You sound as buffoonish as our President-Elect IMO.

Go f*** yourself with that attitude. You're done here, you intolerant prick. If you're an intellectual,  then I'm Jennifer Aniston.  

These are good points, and I really appreciate you taking the time to post them.

For me, while I truly agree with you in so many ways, I think we have to expect that everyone who knows there's something wrong stand up a little taller than feels comfortable. At Brian's last Hollywood Bowl show, after multiple recent police shootings, I remember him closing with a Love & Mercy that featured the altered lyrics: "A lot of people out there gettin' shot and it really scares me". That was, by far, one of the most powerful moments I've ever heard him in concert. It wasn't overtly political in it's stance, but rather politically emotional, connecting to the feeling.

I don't need him to launch some crusade against Donald Trump, but if he can't weigh in on his legacy being used to normalize someone who talks about a Muslim registry becoming our leader, well that really scares me.

I don't begrudge others for not sharing that feeling, but that's how I feel.

They should show up and intentionally play the worst set they could possibly play (several songs from "Summer in Paradise", Brian can rap "Smart Girls" and do some of his weirdest stuff).

Then they should blame the Democrats for sabotaging their performance and the media for a day or two before revealing it was all a setup.

I'm sorry you feel hated. I don't hate you. We disagree politically. It sounds like we both think the stakes are very high, but it doesn't mean I'm willing to engage in anything bordering on hate.

Let's talk about Trump University, Pepe memes, sherriff's stars, a retweet with false statistics that 85% of whites are murdered by blacks (it's really 15%), Steve Bannon, the alt-right conference in Washington, "blood coming out of her wherever" and "you have to treat (women) like sh*t", an utterly inexperienced and homophobic cabinet, and Hair Furor's promise to overturn marriage equality on day one, "Professor."

He's gone so it's a moot point now. Talk about hate filled...sheesh.

It's okay to tell other members to die?

No..I edited that out. I let my anger overrule my judgement on that wording. Shouldn't have happened.  That said, that's not a literal wish of death but rather just a go to hell type thing.

Wow, this guy really is brainwashed by his own agenda. I think this might be the most cynical, condescending, insulting piece of sh*t statements I've ever read on a public forum. The way he describes himself as an intellectual and his writing style makes me think he must be one of the biggest f*ckwits around.

I thought he was one of the more well liked guys too, when he was Luther.

Noooooooo....Jay, Luther is Captain. Professor was just some Johnny-Came-Lately who was condescending as hell and acted like he knew everything. Two completely different people. sh*t, I like Luther

why is Trump a Fuhrer??? The american people  choose him. Stop wyning and get on with your life. in 4 years there is another democratic election...

If the American people chose Trump, then he wouldn't have lost the popular vote.... by nearly three million votes

I'm so confused. In the other thread they told me we don't have democratic elections. We have a collage.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/dec/23/beach-boys-donald-trump-inauguration?CMP=share_btn_tw


Being picked up in the mainstream. Saw references on twitter.  Damage will be done soon even if they decline eventually

Comments are entertaining

"Not really bothered. They've done nothing of interest or relevance in well over 40 years. Idealistic, creative young world-changers all too often become bitter, money-obsessed right-wing cranks (apart from Mike Love, of course, who was always a wanker...)"


I was told it was just this board who had issues with Mike.  Not quite !!!

Can we stop with this moronic popular vote argument? If we went by popularity then Hillary won the 2008 primary and Barack Obama never became president - but that isn't the way that system works. Hillary knew about the electoral college going into the race yet she completely disregarded Wisconsin, made far less stops than Trump in key states. Blaming Trump for playing by the rules of the game (regarding the EC) isn't going to get the democrats into the White House in 2020. I implore everyone here to listen to Sam Harris's podcast 'Most Powerful Clown' (https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-most-powerful-clown) where he gives factual criticism about Trump (and it is scathing criticism) and calls out democrats for exactly why they lost. It should be heard by every democrat who actually wants a shot at winning another election in this country. Because the name calling, whining about the electoral college, blaming the media, telling people to go f*** themselves sure as hell isn't going to do the democrats any favors in the coming years.


Well this is wonderful. If this concert actually happens the best case scenario is that people forget about it as soon as possible. This is one of Mike's most delusional ideas yet. I really wonder why he doesn't just perform under his own name? Oh, because no one would know who the hell he was if he didn't name-flash the Beach Boys name...

sh*t. Sorry Luther/captain!  ;D I knew he changed his name and avi. I thought he changed to the professor and took on a "persona". Oops.  ;D

Where does that quote "blame Trump for playing by the rules of the game"? It corrects the inaccuracy that the "American people chose Trump" and may imply a criticism of the rules. I don't see Trump being blamed.
And the analogy to the 2008 primaries is inapt. Primaries are a process by which parties choose a candidate - it is not a government election. The general election is a collage.

How is what he said hate filled?

This thread is just the beginning of the ugliness that will happen if mike plays this show. This is far worse than the c50 blow up on here.

This right here, and this chaos should be obvious to all why this concert is a terribly bad idea.

@Emily, regardless of how I worded a sentence or made a supposedly inapt comparison (even though I still stand by the comparison), my main point still stands and I'll leave it at that.

Exactly, the BBs have chance to live on with a new generation of indie listeners and Mike could turn them away with this show. The brand would be tarnished beyond belief yet again for Mike's ego.

The one is meant to be the choice of a public office holder by its constituents. The other is a non-governmental organization choosing whom they would like to put forth for the position. The latter is akin to a club. While there may be regulations regarding discrimination, etc. they are not bound by any law or legal philosophy that I'm aware of to hold open elections at all.
is your point that one ought not criticize the electoral college system? Or that one ought not correct people  when they make an incorrect statement?

Seriously?  

If these indie listeners are going to form their musical opinions based on what candidate an artist supports / doesn't support, that's their problem.  

I am dead serious, this gig would cement the legacy of the BBs as a political group favoring the older PBS crowds at shows. The art is being lost under the commerce and egos again.

This coming from a poster who, over and over again, refuses to acknowledge the current touring band as "The Beach Boys." 

I think The Beach Boys, and their legacy will be fine. 

Music fans aren't going to dismiss the entire legacy of one of America's great bands just because the touring version of the band plays at the inauguration of Donald Trump.  And if fans do chose to dismiss a legacy that's over half a century long over this, then shame on them. 

Pink Floyd is my favorite band of all time, but I 100% do not agree with Roger Waters's political views, but you bet as soon as his new album his shelves in 2017, I'll be at the record store to snag myself a copy. 

Neither of those are my point. I'll take this to PMs as I won't clog up yet another thread with this inane political talk that has dominated this forum in the past couple months.

Oh by all means I'm not defending/supporting Hillary - on the contrary I think she was an appalling candidate who was completely inappropriate for this sort of election. Nor do I support the Democrats (who I regard as too far to the right) at all. Also I'm completely in agreement with you on how Hillary f***ed up by disregarding crucial swing states - states that Bernie Sanders unquestionably would have either won or have stood a far better chance at - and how the denigration by much of the left was not only extremely counterproductive but also strengthened the right (though that said from my point of view both sides have been guilty of that - though the left did not take defeat gracefully at all). I think Jonathan Pie summed up what happened best - and I have a feeling you'll be in agreement with him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

But the fact of the matter is that although Trump won the election, by losing the popular vote quite significantly one cannot claim that the American people voted for him, when the majority did not.

lol I'd been ignoring this thread because as far as I'm concerned it's the equivalent of re-re-rehashing, say, "did Mike cause Smile to collapse?" Another BBs/Trump thing. But I check in, read a particularly overgeneralizing and nasty post from the annoying, third-person-speaking, alleged professor (whose typically illiterate posts have always been bullshit anyway ... and then find out I'm him. motherfucker, it's a bad morning!

Ignoring the insult in the first sentence, the BBs performing for Trump after most musical acts wouldn't doesn't bode well. It reinforces the image of M&B using the BBs name for nationalist purposes as "america's band" instead letting the music speak for itself.

My first sentence was not an insult, but a fact. 

This whole argument is just plain silly, and yet another excuse to bash Mike Love and Donald Trump. 

To the boring BS argument being put out by Trump supporters, i.e "He won, suck it up, they should play it".. He also happens to be the most divisive figure in western politics. It's much more controversial for the band to play for him than Reagan. Also, with the internet playing such a huge part in how the world works these days could completely ruin The Beach Boys reputation and legacy for the sake of Mike Love's political gain.

That would result in the alienation of the largest portion of BB fans, in the long run that would effectively damage future sales of CD's, concerts, merchandise ect. associated with the band.

To be more blunt, why sh*t on their 55 year musical legacy just to make Mike and Bruce happy?

I'll agree with this point to a certain degree in that it's a questionable business decision for any musician to have supported either candidate in the most divisive election in US History. 

But, I'm not 100% convinced that the vast majority of BB fans are anti Trump. 

And, like I said before, if you chose your music based on politics, that's on the fan, not the band. 

Last time I saw Paul McCartney in concert, he dedicated two songs to the Obamas.  Did I beat my fists on the floor, throw a fit, and declare I'd never buy anything Paul, Beatles, or Wings related again?  No!!!  I'm more angry about the fact that he's keeping the Let It Be move in the vaults. 

Knock it off with the passive-aggressive act, you support M&B playing for Trump and that's fine. But don't drag it out with others that don't agree with you.

I'd say several things.

One, your attitude (e.g. Pink Floyd) about having differing politics from artists you like is not the adult attitude that many others tend to take about that sort of stuff, especially casual fans and non-invested observers who will still get behind "boycotts" and the like. And *that's* going to be the problem. Not hardcore fans. But people who simply know who "The Beach Boys" are (to the degree they simply know it's a famous band), *those* are the people who are going to put this huge blight on the band's legacy. It won't require people to "dismiss a half century legacy", because it'll people with little or no vested interest in the band or being a fan who will make this a PR disaster.

And perhaps rightly so. I'd have to take every single case on an individual basis, but if some artist played for Trump that I only had a passing interest in, I certainly wouldn't be warming to them.

Two, your Pink Floyd analogy indicates you're a Pink Floyd/Waters fan. Certainly, true fans of a band or artists are far less likely to let something like a political affiliation or action spoil their love of the band/artist. Further, as a fan, you'll understand the context of things better. So in the BB case, I'm not worried about hardcore fans throwing their copy of "Pet Sounds" in the trash because Mike Love is an a**hole.

Third, I don't think anybody is suggesting anything will completely ruin the BB's legacy. Look at other artists who have weathered (to varying degrees) far worse issues. An obvious example would be Michael Jackson. He *never* lost the most basic, ground-level support for his music. Even people who were convinced he was guilty of everything he was accused of still often were happy to continue to enjoy "The Jackson Five" and "Thriller" and all of that. So the issue with the BBs is not that their catalog will fall into the ether like episodes of "The Cosby Show." Rather, it will be another blight, another stupid thing that will be attached to their name when it should just be attached to Mike Love.

This is really just the Stamos thing all over again. If you understand how the Stamos/Full House thing has, in many ways (not every way) hurt the band's legacy (not irreparably, just a nice little ding), then you can understand this Trump thing. Except, the Trump thing will be probably relatively worse. It will be worse now, and could well in retrospect look *really* bad far later on.

It's always hard to put one's objective hat on when it comes to anything even tangentially related to politics, but I'd argue that even a Trump supporter should understand why *this particular* instance (as opposed to any other inaugurations) is a bad idea for the band and the brand.

I really don't care either way.  If they play, that's fine.  If they don't that's fine. 

I just don't think it's the big deal everybody is making it out to be. 

Hillary was just as divisive as Trump, and many artists lined up to support her.  Did it affect their bottom line?  I doubt it. 

I guess we can argue over what constitutes "hate filled", but that was certain a diatribe filled with contempt for most everyone else on this board. That alone is grounds enough to question why someone should even be here.

I also found his "people with little formal education" comment particularly ironic, because *both* sides, both campaigns of this recent election agree and acknowledge that it's Trump supporters who are, statistically speaking, less educated.

You can call "liberals" a lot of things, but "uneducated" is, statistically speaking, one of the last things you'd want to call them, and if you call them that, I'm going to pretty much dismiss everything else you write on the topic because it indicates a complete lack of understanding of the topic.

Back to the BBs specifically, his post clearly had nothing to do with discussing the BBs legacy or how this would impact the BBs or their fandom, and was a political diatribe, one with particular contempt for a bunch of people on this board, one that insulted a bunch of people on this board.

If I went over to some other forum and said they're all conservative a-hole Mike Love fanboys, I'd expect to be booted.

I might agree with this decision being very bad for the band if The Beach Boys band were anything more than a touring entity.  

We're not talking about a band that's concerned with selling new product.  So, we know record sales won't be affected.  I doubt that Sounds of Summer won't make it into the top 100 again this year as a result of this decision.  

But, people can say whatever they want about Trump supporters?  OK. 

Hillary and Trump, objectively speaking from a PR standpoint, are NOT the same thing. Even Trump supporters should acknowledge this, and in many cases I think would, especially off the record.  

Go to ANY PR person in the industry, and they'll tell you why supporting Hillary, or playing at pretty much ANY other inauguration, would be FAR different from playing at Trump's.

This case is a VERY unique animal, unlike anything ever seen before. I really can't put any stock in someone's sense of history and politics and pop culture and whatnot if they really actually think the 2016 election was "just another election" and "no big deal." Again, whether you love or loathe Trump, there are many, many unique things about this election and the current political climate that render ANY other comparison moot.

Set the politics aside; I'm talking about objective PR. Make no mistake, I have a thousand moral/ethical reasons this is a bad idea too, but let's just look at the PR aspect. Any band manager or PR person would tell them this is a horrible, horrible idea.

Like I said before, it might be a PR mistake if The Beach Boys were a current band. 

If Brian Wilson were playing, I might say it's a mistake, because Brian Wilson still puts out new product. 

Can we get back to the issues!

Sorry, this is completely wrong, because it implies that the media/press and casual fans and non-fans interested in the story understand ANYTHING about the "Touring Band" and how it's not "THE BAND."

It's all one and the same to most people. As someone mentioned, even *Billboard* got it wrong initially and used a C50 photo for their story.

Most people WILL conflate the 1963 Beach Boys with the current band, insofar as boycotting some sort of product or general bad PR is concerned.

"Bad PR" is not measured by how much "new" product you plan to release in the future.

Look at how much "Good PR" the band got in 1983 due to the Watt controversy, when they had pretty much NOTHING going on other than touring.

The Beach Boys is a BRAND, an ongoing machine that sells music, merchandise, to say nothing of a legacy. *That's* what we're talking about.

If there are significantly fewer people dancing in the aisles to Surfin USA and Barbara Ann this summer, I'll be more inclined to believe you. 

That's a pretty specious argument; it basically amounts to "their music is popular." Same argument has been used for nearly 20 years now to explain away pretty much anything even potentially objectionable that Mike Love has ever done concerning the *legacy* of the band.

And again, the people who would create bad PR for the brand in this current case would NOT be the same people dancing to "Barbara Ann" at Mike's gigs.

Then, tell me, what horrible effect will this potential 20 minute performance have on the firmly cemented legacy of one of music's great bands? 

A wedge between fans far worse than Mike's killing of the C50 did. Mike doesn't give two shits about the fans.

People are going to hurl daggers at Mike no matter what.  So, this won't make things any different. 

This ran on Pollstar:
Trump May Get Beach Boys Love
By Deborah Speer
Posted Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 3:19 pm
The Beach Boys may join Jackie Evancho and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir as name entertainment for Donald Trump’s inauguration, but it will definitely not be the version that included founding members Brian Wilson or Al Jardine, reps tell Pollstar.



>>>>“Brian is in no way part of this whatsoever,” Wilson manager Jean Sievers told Pollstar. “This is for the Mike Love touring band who licenses The Beach Boys name.” She added that Jardine, who is currently touring with Wilson quite separately from The Beach Boys, is also not involved.<<<<

Again, this is like the Stamos/Full House thing. If you don't think that has harmed their legacy, then you're probably not likely to think much of anything, especially in terms of "associations", will hurt their legacy.

If you don't care that people associate sh*tty, cheesy TV shows and Hawaiian shirts with the band, then you probably won't care if people think of all of the awful stuff spewed by Trump when they think of the "Beach Boys" and their association with him.

Would you argue that Michael Jackson's legacy is fine because he still sells a s**t-ton of records? Even if you think he's completely innocent of everything he was ever accused, would you not agree that his odd persona and PR things that he *could have* changed if he had wanted to, would have left him with far less asterisks next to his name and legacy?

No. They can't, if they're decent people. The professor's post was rude and ignorant imo because it overgrneraluzed in an absurdly negative way an entire, large group of people. And I believe the inverse would be equally inappropriate.

But everyone, seriously: do any of you have new points to make or opinions to share on this? Or does it have to go on, back and forth, with repetition as nauseum? The controversy from a PR perspective is obvious (just based on this board). So there it is. Have your thoughts, share if you want, but it doesn't have to be tit for tat for tit for tat for tit for tat for tit for tat for tit for tat for tit for tat for...

Well, that's at least a good start. Might be the best Brian's people can do. Glad to at least see they're not 100% hand-off on this thing. They need to keep clarifying this as much as possible.

There have been plenty of rude and ignorant overgeneralizations about Trump supports that were not met with a ban. 

I think this vastly downplays the significance of objectionable things that Mike actually does that cause the "daggers."

Look at every time dust is kicked up about Mike. It's almost always because of some d**k interview he gave, or something like this latest story where his rep says Mike is considering the gig.

People don't hurl the daggers "no matter what." Mike gets s**t because of things he does and says. It doesn't mean criticisms have never crossed the line. But Mike's own criticisms of others cross the line often too, so he should know how that works.

im not a mod, I'm just sharing my opinion.

If you think that bringing younger fans into the fold of Beach Boys music is harming the legacy, that you can make an argument. 

I've said this before, the association with Full House and Stamos did the band much more good than harm.  I'd be willing to get there's a lot of people under 40 at both BB and BW concerts these days who first discovered the band via Full House.  I'm one of them. 

Damage is beginning, from the LAist:
http://laist.com/2016/12/22/mike_love_sucks.php

The Beach Boys Are Considering Performing At Trump's Inauguration Because Mike Love Sucks


Even if M&B decline to play an inaugural event, I suspect they will show up at a White House event sometime during the next 4 years.

And that's why it doesn't do any good to go around on the debate again. I disagree. I think, while certainly earning the band some casual fans, especially back in the late 80s, the whole Stamos thing has, to use our old friend Wirestone's term, been a *blight* on the band's legacy more than helped it.

And I'm not a big fan of the "what, you don't want the band to have more fans?" argument. This isn't Dad or Grandpa handing down a copy of "Pet Sounds." It's campy, cheesy renditions of "Kokomo" with the Olsen twin(s) you're talking about.

If some of the Rockettes refuse to perform, it looks like two replacements could be found:

(http://cdn.newsmax.com/Newsmax/files/09/096bfb6a-ed21-4156-8816-2aa3aa0d467f.jpg)

That may be your opinion of that Beach Boys era, and the opinion held my many in the "too cool for school crowd," but while we argue the validity of an appearance on Full House or "cheesy" songs like Kokomo, let's also remember that this is a band that cemented a huge legacy based on songs like Be True to Your School, Surfin USA, Dance Dance Dance, etc.  

Who could have guessed that that 2012 Bruce video from TMZ was actually a try-out for this 2016 gig?  :lol

For the sake of getting the facts out there, despite what is being said, the date of January 20th is open according to the tour schedule on the official BB website tour page:

Dec30 Denver, CO, USA Paramount Theatre

Jan21 Emporia, VA, USA Emporia Greensville Performing Arts Center

Jan22 Durham, NC, USA Durham Performing Arts Center

Jan24 Nashville, TN, USA Ryman Auditorium


If there was a gig scheduled for Durham NC on the 20th, the schedule now says it's on the 22nd. Which means the 20th is open.

Fresh and ready for Jan 20 in DC. :o

The Jan 20th date is wide open - Don't know how this fact is even being reported incorrectly when it's right there on the band's own website.

This story seems to have legs. Now i do think Mike can do whatever he wants. But dang I sure wish he wouldn't. I do notice how every article takes pains to mention that Brian (And Al) aren't involved in this. I guess that's something. Maybe it's time to retire the Beach Boys name. I really do like Mike's singing - he is a key member (I actually like  his singing second only to Brian - I know heresy) but man he just lives up to the asshole moniker like every chance he gets.

It won't hurt their legacy at all. The way I see things, they'll be playing for America, not for a political party - that's a huge honor and I don't see why Mike should turn down the offer. People need to seriously lighten up.

Thank you

The story has more than legs, it's blowing up on the web. Do a simple Google News search of the Beach Boys, go to any webpage running the story, and read some of the reader comments from people who are not even in the fan universe with message boards, FB groups, etc. It's not good.

Besides correcting the misinformation being posted about the band's schedule for Jan 20th (repeat, they are NOT booked in NC on the 20th if the official schedule is any indication), Mike cannot do whatever he wants as the license holder of the name. It's like a franchise, he pays to use the name but has to adhere to certain guidelines regarding how the name is used and represented. So whatever sources are saying he has free reign to do whatever he pleases with the name, they're as wrong as they are on the basic fact of a tour date in January.

If the reactions across the web are any indication, this is beyond a mess and is bordering on a PR disaster. If you have random people not as engaged as those of us who post on boards and groups saying they're going to boycott the band's music over a decision to play or not play a gig, that's beyond a disaster no matter which political "side" someone happens to fall.

Yep. This is shaping up to be the single worst decision in the entire history of the band, with Murry selling the catalog for pennies on the dollar being a close second.  

It will absolutely, unquestionably hurt album sales, as well as licensing.  Like it or not, Hollywood and music supervisors are by and large left wing liberals, and you better believe that songs by this band, especially ones sung by Mike, will be nowhere near many commercials and movies after this.

It breaks my heart to think that the Hawthorne dedication monument could suffer the same fate as Trump's repeatedly defaced star on the Hollywood walk of fame.  The possibilities for ugliness that may ensue what will happen are many, and all make me utterly and litery sick to my stomach.  I cannot believe that any people are so naïve to think these aren't things that we will have to worry about now.  

I am feeling ashamed to be a fan, and that is the case even if they don't wind up playing. The damage is already starting in earnest on social media. It's not going to go away. 

Exactly.

I think this completely misses the unique quality of this particular election and this particular guy. Perhaps you're not embroiled in the political and social climate in the US right now. It's not a normal divisive election, it's very unique and very specific this time.

The fact that you would imply it's the *party* affiliation that is the problem with Mike playing the gig indicates to me a lack of understanding what this is about.

The association that makes people want to puke or boycott or whatever is not the Republican party, it's specifically Trump.

The paucity of acts willing to play for Trump should indicate how much most of the industry realizes it's PR Poison. Clearly Mike doesn't care about PR. So I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he did it.

Would be pretty cool if some of the guys in Mike's backing band stood up and said no. I get it, you have to make a living and you usually don't have the luxury of telling your boss no. But it would be heartening to see even one of Mike's guys stand on principle on this one.

For one, I cannot conceive that John Stamos will perform. But I completely hope that others in the band won't either. If there was ever anything worth losing a gig over, this would be it. I'm sure  there would in fact be many job opportunities  and offers for band members who quit over this.

Also, this just occurred to me, this is just another instance of Mike giving no fucks about Brian's well-being and mental health. I can imagine the amount of stress that may trickle into Brian's consciousness and nervous system as a result of his brand name being dragged down like this will not be insignificant, and the repeated questions he is going to be asked about it will keep coming.  Brian doesn't seem to be a particularly political person, yet he is going to be forced to not be apolitical on this in some capacity, and that in that itself is a stressful position to be forced into.

Brian, of all people, certainly doesn't need to deal with this crap at this point in his life. And it's not for a brief moment, this will never go away; certainly not in any of the bandmembers' lifetimes.  Well hey, at least Mike's lyrics to California Girls can become the anthem for the grab them by the p*ssy crowd.  Thanks to Mike Salieri for finally ruining my favorite band. Don't know if I will ever wear a T-shirt with the BB logo again.  I am beyond glad I didn't give a red sent to this horse's ass for his crappy book.

If the #notmybeachboys do unfortunately do this gig, it could possibly equate to the genesis of the removal of the license. The only downside for that would be I'd have to tip my hat ever so slightly to Trump for a split second however painful it may be.

 The best thing that could happen is if Brian got added to a bill like this to counter the damage that Mike is going to do:

(http://i64.tinypic.com/5zqp0k.jpg)

 Apparently this is not a real bill, but I'm sure that a bill of similar nature could happen.

 

Oh my god, Bruce Springsteen is playing an anti Trump concert?

He'll never get a dime from me again!!!  I might chuck my copies of Born to Run and Darkness on the Edge of Town in the garbage. 

I hope he knows the damage he's doing to his great legacy. 

 ;D

Unfortunately, this is fake, though I do hope a concert like this happens. Very convincing-looking poster, though.

If you are a heterosexual man, and Bruce Springsteen supported a candidate who was down with conversion therapy to force you to be homosexual, I wonder how you would feel about him.  Or if members of your family might wind up in internment camps, I wonder how you'd feel at that point. The ilk of Trump and his moronic cabinet is miles below anything ever seen in modern US elections in terms of trying to strip people of their rights.

So yeah… It's completely, completely different than the sarcastic analogy you are attempting to make.

I'd like to get down to brass tacks on this, temporarily put aside all political feelings pro or con whoever or whatever. The Beach Boys as a name and as a legacy is not Mike Love. This current situation is ripping the fanbase apart internationally, and it definitely wasn't helped by news articles using photos of Beach Boys other than Mike and Bruce who have no involvement in this at all. I'm glad at least a statement was issued to help clarify that, but I'm distressed that the news outlets are not picking it up as they should be.

What will happen next is unfortunately still unknown, but the fact there are already people around the globe saying what they are saying about The Beach Boys - not Mike, but The Beach Boys and their musical heritage - is as disturbing as any recent event with this band I can think of. I hope the point gets across that there is a lot at stake beyond playing or not playing a show in January.

Not really.  

Trust me, January 20, 2017 is going to come and go, and all of these awful, scary things that people think that Donald Trump is going to do will NOT happen.  

I think that this thread should either be closed or moved to another section because I think that it's important for fans (in general) and newbies (who are checking out this forum for the first time) to be able scroll through the Beach Boys (General On Topic) section and not have to read vulgarity and arguing.. In fact maybe ALL threads involving Politics should have their own section away from the main "On Topic" section... So Please Mods consider this for this thread and other future threads that are political in nature... :afro

At minimum, racism and homophobia being legitimized is already happening. So, respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about.

12/28/83
2/6/98
1/20/17

The three worst days in the history of this band.

Unfortunately anyone who sees "The Beach Boys" today in a news feed or search will get worse commentary and reaction than is on this board.

I agree to a point, that the politics being posted and argued on this board in recent weeks had gotten tiresome and was reaching a point where it was just too much to check in here and see constant back-and-forth on politics instead of music content.

But this, I'd say, is news that has blown up internationally and which fans obviously want to discuss. Even if you remove everyone's political leanings from this, it is still an issue when talk of people boycotting the legacy records from 50 years ago is coming up around the web, and it's all because of a naming license. Actions have consequences, this is one of the worst so far.

My opinion.

To equate this with the untimely deaths of Dennis and Carl Wilson is an outright insult. 

Regardless of how you feel about it, those will be the three most infamous days in the history of the band.  Even with Trump's fans, find me anything else that will bring as much sorrow to legions of fans of this band.  I'll be sitting here waiting. I don't think you'll find any other than the tragic deaths of those two gentlemen.

Forgive my lack of actual dates:

How about the deaths of anybody else associated with the band (Murry, Jack Reiley, etc)?

When Beach Boy associate Charles Manson's "family" committed murder in Terry Melcher's house

Mike's RNR HOF speech

The whole dark Landy era

For all the talk of "protecting the brand", KDS, the only item on your list that comes close in terms of threatening the legacy that the band created with their records over 50 years ago would be Mike's HOF speech. Even then I wasn't aware of a backlash that included long-time fans threatening to boycott and dismiss the music over a single event. That is the tragedy of all this, and it could have been averted easily and diplomatically.

Alas, that didn't happen. And now we have photos from C50 being sent out with this news story when at least two of the people in the photo have no involvement in this decision or process whatsoever.

This is a self–inflicted wound ( even if  they don't even play, the damage is already happening) , and is basically the Hall of Fame speech on steroids. It's Mike using the brand name to tell the world that he (and the brand by association) give no fucks about homophobia, has no qualms with supporting a candidate who is beloved by the KKK,  and perhaps unsurprisingly doesn't blink an eye at the grab them by the p*ssy comment.  So in terms of single dates, this will be an especially infamous one for the brand to be associated with.  

Oh, and I don't think Mike would agree with you about Jack passing away being a very notable date, seeing as he didn't even make a social media mention about it, in contrast to his regular mentions of people passing away.

CD didn't ask for events that threatened the legacy of the band.  He asked for tragic events, such as the deaths of Dennis and Carl.  

I'm sorry that I don't agree with the hysteria on here, but I don't think the legacy of The Beach Boys will be tainted come January 21, 2017.  

I would agree that the deaths of Carl and Dennis were much more tragic.

The legacy of the band was already ruined long before this.

Keep on living in the world of hysteria, believing that Trump's presidency will be detrimental to woman, homosexuals, and minorities.  

All I know is, by summertime, this will have blown over.  Both Mike's and Brian's shows will be well attended.  Sounds of Summer and Pet Sounds will experience their usual bump in sales, and come December, Little Saint Nick's going to be all over the radio again.

Life goes on.  

KDS, the hysteria on here is only a grain of sand on the beach compared to what's happening around the web. If you don't believe that, then you haven't been reading the comments posted on the dozens of news articles that picked up this story. Remove the political opinions pro and con from this, and whether it agrees or not with one's political leanings, you have fans ready to bail out on the Beach Boys entire legacy of music over a single decision by Mike, whatever that decision will be. And ultimately it's not "The Beach Boys", but people outside the fan universe potentially are unaware of the inner workings and licensing except that they see a photo from C50 this morning attached to these stories.

I cannot recall a single event related to this band that created such division among the fans and now the public at large, and again I'll say there was an easy and diplomatic solution that wasn't done. Whether someone agrees with the reasoning and politics of the reactions, the fact remains it is a near-disaster from a PR standpoint when fans are this upset.

Oh believe me, I've seen it, and I agree with you that what's posted on here pales in comparison to the internet and social media. 

Once January comes and goes, and people realize that there was really nothing to be afraid of, it'll die down. 

In some ways this is a lot of the issues of the past decade or so coming to a head, only with this it's playing out internationally instead of being confined to fans talking on forums and social media groups. I'll repeat again, actions have consequences. And, stewardship over a brand identity and legacy dating back half a century should involve some responsibility over how the public views it, including trying to avoid anything that will create a negative perception of that brand and identity and instead focusing on things like optics and PR when it comes to the general public. That often involves biting one's tongue and checking personal feelings or desires at the door, and avoiding things that would divide the fan base in a negative way.

Not only that, but Mike bringing the band's name into this cesspool is so incredibly disrespectful to the other band members who would surely want nothing to do with it.  Both living and deceased. It is completely, ridiculously selfish.  It is Mike saying "I am the Beach Boys, the rest of you, go f*** yourself".

Hasn't Mike been saying that for 55 years now?

The only good thing is that over the last 15-20 years the band has become much less important and Brian Wilson much more important. So if the "brand" does get ruined - I won't be happy, I love the Beach Boys, but the legacy of Brian Wilson, one of the towering figures of 20th Century music will be fine.

^ Good point

Exactly, a selfish dipshit of a band mate.

 :woot

Been reading this thread, taking deep long breaths as I take it all in.  So what I've taken in so far...

1.  We have a poster telling us the 1/20 concert in No. Caroline has been cancelled.  Later poster says its been re-scheduled for 1/22.

2.  Media across the world is picking up the story.....Seems either the Guardian or Rolling Stone first reported it as the story seemed to swirl out of control  over the past 48 to 72 hours. 

3.  Mike's people say its being considered and Brian's people disavowing any involvement of Brian or Al.

4.  One or two (hundred) comments about the BB Brand and the effects of Mikes group showing up on the brand going forward.   I've always felt the threads that have talked about the license as some of the most informative, especially how its played out since 1998.   In this case, I feel the point being made about merchandise and merchandising has HUGE questions going forward.

5,  So what happens to the brand when people with bullhorns show up at each concert venue where Mike's playing.  People still may go to the show,  but just maybe won't lay out an extra 50 bucks for merchandise.  This could/will have a multiplier effect.  I'm not an expert, but merch at the show stays with Mike but merch off the BB's website stays with the 4 BRI principals ?  correct ??    please correct me if I'm incorrect. 

6.  Terms of the BRI license has been discussed forever here on the board.   Holder of license can NOT do anything in any shape or form to harm the brand.

&.  My gut thinks a special BRI board meeting is in order.  I don't know the mechanics of how this can happen (or maybe it has happened??)....and we'll see which way Carl's estate votes.  Hopefully the money made for a 1/20 inauguration show isn't enough to sway any negative votes.... yes sadly, capitalism at its finest.   Guessing a 2-2 vote...the show goes on....and if that's the case.....I want a bullhorn for XMAS

I think the fan base has been divided, quite possibly in a negative way, for decades.  You see it in action with posts like that of OSD or LSD or whatever his moniker is....

I thought with wry amusement that the above dummied up concert poster which stated something like "let's show them that love trumps hate" should have really stated, "Let's show them that we hate Trump".  And that my friends is not an expression of love.....really labelling a political opponent irresponsibly as a "hater" and hating them is not an expression of love either.

If this doesn't force a revote, nothing will

I had a thought earlier today when Brian's social media team posted the photo of him on the phone with the #BusyDoinNothin, that it was a cryptic reference to having to fix a lot of things this morning 'cause they were so scrambled... fingers crossed it was his way of saying he's dealing with this.

There have always been two different types of the Beach Boys, and this topic is adding to the evidence. Mind you this is pure speculation, but it's fun to generalise.

One one side you have the pro-progressive side of the band. They love Pet Sounds, Smile, early 70s live era, the great alternative albums of 1966-1973, PoB, Love You etc. They are big fans of the Wilsons and place them as the core of the Beach Boys, and that there can be no "Beach Boys" without a Wilson taking part. These people vote Obama and are more urban. Younger fans fall mostly in this grouping.

One the other side you have the pro Mike Love side, the ones who like the Beach Boys with a preference of the association with 60s carefree years (before the hippies ruined everything). They tend to love the earlier car and chick albums, rejoice at hearing Kokomo on the radio, prefer the 80s when the Beach Boys were a travelling jukebox of old hits and had no issue with cheerleaders dancing to the songs. They are more rural, have nostalgia for the old days when things were in their mind better and "America was still working" etc. They voted overwhelmingly for Trump, like Mike and Bruce most likely did.

Ouch!

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_585d37c7e4b0de3a08f4fe3b?

;-)

So sorry I'm late to see this, as I treasure every great laugh these days.  I did notice we liberals' horrible lack of education in the first paragraph, followed by our being elite academics in the 2nd.  I admit to being a bit confused... :hat by that - at least it was funny in a creepy sort of way...

Wow, what an ignorant statement.  Seems you bought into the smearing of Breitbart and the GOP.  This isn't a Ronald Reagan we're talking about here, this is Trump, a polarizing figure who decisively won a bitter election.  At least have the intellectual capacity to listen to the other side instead of trying to be the one who is right.

With Trump so desperate for acts to play his inauguration and playing so heavily on the whole nostalgia thing I guess we all know this was gonna happen. 

Thanks, GF.  I'm telling friends individually who are asking, but most people really don't know the BBs' story, or care - but they do have strong political beliefs.

I think what is being missed in the last page is how a lot, and I'd say even a majority, of the people who buy tickets to see Mike's shows are not people who frequent BB message forums, FB groups, and the like. I don't think they have any idea or very little idea what goes on with licensing, BRI, basically the whole ball of wax apart from knowing the name "The Beach Boys".

And as much as that *may* have been used (or even overused...) as an advantage in the past, it's this specific situation that blew up today which brings up the potentially negative consequences. Namely, "Beach Boys" as a brand to many observers not as engaged as the more dedicated fans carries no separation between the classic records/hits, the original lineup, and who they are buying tickets to see in 2016. If they see that the Beach Boys are doing this or that, it's the direct line to the 1960's and all the other things that helped build and shape that brand.

At the risk of repeating myself, that carries a lot of responsibility for whoever is charged with carrying and presenting the brand identity. If something like this is blowing up the internet, outside the core fan communities, when is the alarm bell going to sound and something be done to stop it?

There is a reason why you don't usually see overtly political signs displayed in or political events hosted by individual franchises, like fast food restaurants or chain hardware stores, and the like. Assume even a most generous 50/50 basic split of public opinion on any political topic, and you can't have a franchise owner in Iowa doing something publicly that risks losing half of the customer base and having other franchises who have no involvement in Iowa suffer a backlash because people start thinking "Brand X" publicly supports "Candidate X". Yes, the market decides, yes people can choose, yes people can express opinions, but if you're buying into a license to use a name and sell a brand identity, most corporate franchises who license the name will not allow a random franchisee to make headlines doing something to alienate customers and potentially harm the brand itself. If someone's business is independent, none of that applies. But when someone pays to license a franchise and a brand name, they are locked into specific rules of conduct and presentation. That's business. You cannot act in a way or present the brand in a way that could alienate a decent-size percentage of that brand's customers. Business 101.

What has been happening today goes beyond Mike's touring and merch. Repeating myself again, as soon as more than a small number of comments were suggesting a backlash against Beach Boys music in general, that has to be the damn alarm bell clanging loudly. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with the rationale or the issues driving this, there is no way in hell the music and musical legacy should have to suffer a backlash due to something done or not done by the member holding the license to use the name.

It boggles my mind to think that among some there is no concern or the attitude of "move on, nothing to see here, it will blow over..." when you have an internet full of people bashing the Beach Boys. Not just Mike, but the Beach Boys. "I'll never listen to Good Vibrations again if they do this show".

That's as fair as when those idiots a few years ago decided to boycott French Fries and sales dropped across the US. People who happened to sell french fries with no skin in the political zealotry game lost out on their livelihood because of that - either that or they had to get new signs made to read "Freedom Fries" so they wouldn't lose business. Absolutely silly sh*t, right? This cannot happen to the legacy of the Beach Boys. And the classic records are the real legacy, and always will be, well beyond whoever happens to hold the license to the brand name. Anyone who tries to get people to think otherwise just doesn't get it. End rant.

I cannot remember a day like this where the band was being publicly trashed and even the music called into question like this. Truly sad, but actions and decisions made years ago can have a bad habit of coming back to wreak havoc.

I was lurking over at the Pet Sounds forum and noticed the Professor ended up there to complain about how we're a bunch of intolerant liberals.  >:D

Mike KNOWS the other BBs want nothing to do with Trump, yet is salivating to go out under the full band name (just because he "can").

Being that he knows that the other bandmates do not support Trump, isn't an attempt to use the band name (and not just go out as "Mike Love") not the most chickenshit thing he could possibly do? Too afraid to just own the Trump thing as his own? This goes beyond what anyone thinks of Trump. Take Trump out of the equation; it's pathetic to use the band name in such a MAJOR way for an extremely divisive politician when the other bandmembers are not for it. That is inarguable. It's classless. Anyone care to defend that? Mike needs his very own chickensh*t emoji.

(http://i68.tinypic.com/2qtl64z.jpg)

Has Mike EVER in his entire life thought "just because I can, doesn't mean I should"? No, that's THE antithesis of Mike Love, and THE antithesis of his orange hero. Peas in a friggin' pod.

I mean, seriously. This would NOT happen if Carl were around. Mike must know that.

Him calling us intolerant is quite rich coming from him. I was actually reconsidering making his ban unpermanent...not anymore.

Oh the irony  :lol

CD won the thread with that emoji! :smokin

If Mike gets his own way and the band plays the inauguration it would be a wonderful irony if Brian & Al ended up playing the Protest Concert with all the big A-listers on the same day. >:D

You know, maybe some of us are seeing this the wrong way, since the rap is that we never miss a chance to criticize and bash Mike Love. So what if we looked at some of the musical benefits if, say, Mike and Ted Nugent both agreed to do this gig Jan 20th.

A Mike and Ted duet on the Nugent song "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang".

It would be a showstopper.






 ;)  :beer  Happy Friday!

Frankly, that would be incredible. The biggest f-you to both his cousin as well as the turd-elect, and drawing a line in the sand about where the real Beach Boys stand. That said, I don't think Brian wants to even deal with political fallout in any way, either internally among BRI, or with the public with regards to actual politics, which is why this likely won't happen, and which is why it sucks that he even is being put into the position of having to deal with this garbage.

Whatever Brian does at this point - be it inaction, or action of some sort - it will be considered to be a political statement of some sort, which he'll inevitably be asked about countless times... and that sucks if you are somebody who loves avoidance (but doesn't necessarily want the avoidance to be a statement in and of itself). Not sure how anyone could come to any other conclusion other than that Mike doesn't seem to give many f*cks about how his current actions could affect his cousin's mental health.  

Speaking of mental health and disabilities... let's think back to that image of Trump making fun of that reporter with the physical disability. Let that sink in when one realizes what Brian has been through - that Brian has a lifelong physical disability (hearing impairment), plus has dealt with mental illness, Tardive Dyskinesia, etc. - of which are theoretically potential fodder for making fun of by childish asswipes like Trump.

Mike will perhaps be playing an inauguration for the guy who publicly, shamelessly - and without apology - makes fun of disabled people... when he is the "frontman" of the band that features arguably THE most famous case ever of someone overcoming disabilities - who is also his family member.  

It just gets worse the more one thinks about it.

A politician shamefully and unapologetically mocking a person with disabilities/challenges SHOULD be someone who *any* tactful, sane person who is Brian's bandmate would NOT proudly publicly support in a mega high-profile way.

:lol

And add Kanye West to the mix as well.

If Kanye, Mike, and Trump were all on the same stage, the amount of ego on that stage could literally be measured by a Geiger Counter. They might create a new atomic element of sh*t.

He won it with that post, too.

Mikes worked pretty hard the last few years trying to change the worlds perception. Other than a couple of own goals i think he'd made a bit of progress.

A quick google around the news sites and their comments would indicate it's all been for nothing. The reaction has been pretty consistent everywhere. Except for a bit of a laugh at another forum. I'd wondered if there was anything Mike could do to get some criticism there. With a couple of exceptions - nup!

You must not have read much of the posts then at "that other forum".

Does anyone know if Brian or Al voted for Trump or not?  Didn't think so.

And why was it The Professor was banned from here?  His words were not as inflammatory as some others (including Billy's) have been.  Trump would be so proud of you guys trying to ban free speech.  The Professor didn't insist anyone personally.  Maybe it cut a bit close to home for some?

I was just thinking about when The Beach Boys played Sun City in 1981. It seems that  that is probably the one event in Beach Boys history that can compare to the current trump fiasco. Does anybody here happen to remember when they played South Africa, and how it compares to the current controversy, if at all?

I'd call questioning the level of intelligence  of people that disagree with him and saying they lack formal education is pretty insulting (I mean, not everyone can be a professor at a community college) . And for the record I edited my post because I admit I did go too far with my initial reaction.
On a more worrisome subject...his ban was initially only temporary...until I logged in the day after I saw he was mysteriously no longer banned. I checked the moderation log and sure enough...the last action was me banning him. He wasn't unbanned by me or Craig. Coincidentally or not, also online were three other posters from that "other board" , two of which were banned here (the other rarely posts anymore) and also had somehow been mysteriously unbanned. So it's permanent now; I'd say it could be revisted but he seems to be happier there.

I'm actually quite pleased that they're all at that other board making it so wonderfully easy to avoid them and their personal vitriol - that is, except when they come trolling here and BW.  Thanks to you and Craig for taking care of those issues - a thankless job.  May they live happily ever after there. 

As far as the Professor is concerned, I'll leave that discussion to others.  Living with a real professor from an actual university, I know that the last thing he wants to do is prance around announcing the fact.  He found that it made people self-conscious around him, but I guess he's pretty self-assured as an "elite academic" who is somehow also an "hysterical person with no political understanding" and "very little formal education" (cute trick, I must say).

Re: how Brian and Al voted...Who here ever said that they know how they voted?  I feel safe that none of us followed them into the voting booth, but they've made themselves pretty clear that they have no plans to perform at the Inaugural.   I believe that was the discussion.

Reinstate the Professor. Banning him for his shitty political opinion is stupid.

I read what Billy posted, and my understanding is that it was a temporary ban for being insulting to other members until someone other than a mod reinstated him against the temporary ban, along with other banned posters.  That caused a permanent ban.  I believe that's part of the rules?  Billy or Craig can correct me if I'm wrong.

You are 100% correct

Actually those two other banned posters weren't unbanned yesterday. ..they've just mysteriously been unbanned previously. Again it may be coincidence but the timing is awful suspect

Sorry Debbie but that was not what CenturyDeprived seem to be saying on the previous page:

"Being that he (Mike) knows that the other bandmates do not support Trump..."

How does CD know that Mike knows this?  Maybe him and Mike both followed Brian and Al into the booth!  Maybe Brian and Al support Trump, maybe they don't.  But if they do, then that would throw the cat among the pigeons here.  Would folks be so quick to criticise Mike for thinking about playing?

Anyway, it's not a big deal, Merry Christmas everyone!

You are correct; I don't know it for a fact, but it is an educated guess on my part.

What I do know is that they haven't, and surely won't, do any sort of public endorsement of Trump, and that makes all the difference to me.

What's really hilarious is thinking back a few months when people like FDP were bending themselves into pretzels to try and claim  that Mike was *only* doing a "soft" endorsement of Trump, and how his posing with him while giving a thumbs up was evidence of absolutely nothing with regards to supporting the man in any sort of official capacity. Ha ha friggin ha.

Read the comments after the article. Most of the posters leave very brutal comments about The Boys.

Ian Rusten and Jon Stebbins's "In Concert" book goes into that show/tour, and I think the main takeaway from it was that the BBs were so under the radar/unpopular at the time that few noticed they were playing Sun City. The book reprints an unapologetic quote from Mike on the subject:

"It's nice money. The U.N. can go screw themselves. They never buy tickets to Beach Boys concerts."

I believe Mike's going to play it, if Brian and Al are that against it,  they are going to need put out strong media statements saying that a la the LA Times feels like we've been fired tone, only stronger.

Mike should do it, as the ultimate rock n' roll act of defiance.

I think it's funny everybody assumes BW and AJ voted for Hillary, when Trump got most of the older, white vote. Last time I checked Brian  and Al are old white men.

There's gonna be a lot of people watching, why not entertain them?

It's the Huffington Post, what do you expect?

There's always an ulterior motive with Mike.
I'm thinking long term like the Presidential Medal Of Freedom Award!
Something he can shove in Brians face!!!
And if he does play don't be surprised when he gets it!

That's true. I'd ban anyone who always speaks in the 3rd person though so  :lol

I just posted on the Huffington site...that it showed up as being posted by my sister-in-law was a bit of a shocker.  She's here for Christmas.  That she was loaded and locked into the site most recently slipped my attention.  Anyway I think I explained it reasonably well.

"The Beach Boys don't deserve the vitriol and low blows being sent their way over this issue. Mike Love, who has always sold out the Beach Boys 'brand' in order to satiate his own need for "nourishment and revenge" is the one to be held responsible. He does not represent the REAL Beach Boys...namely Brian and Al...who want NOTHING to do with performing at Trump's little shindig."

 ;D

Thanks for doing that!  I'm explaining to friend after friend about this.  I've explained to them many times, I do not go to today's "Beach Boys" concerts.  I see Brian and his brilliant band.  But somehow, Mike having that touring license continues to be a curse that I have to explain over and over.  Non-fans aren't expected to know much about the intricacies and history of this band - not their fault - but it's a genuine problem.
 

From a thread on facebook:
(https://s28.postimg.org/g0o1no61p/Sk_rmavbild_2016_12_27_kl_01_47_56.jpg)

He doesn't back it up with any reliable sources though.

Not my country, election or president however the phrase 'Dance Of The Desperates' springs to mind looking at the performers mentioned.

Yes, I can't find any source for this.  I enjoy John's posts, but in this case, some confirmation would be helpful.  We know how things are around Trump.  Everything changes in a flash and nothing is certain.

The over-dramatic hysteria on this board over whether or not Mike Love's BB will play the Trump inauguration is quite entertaining.  It does not matter either way if the Beach Boys play at the inauguration. 

That's one of many reasons why I'd rather they not play this gig. Don't get me wrong, the touring band (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5AhcMhze1Q&feature=youtu.be&t=36) is hilariously entertaining (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iej6vk1_Occ), but if the goal is to entertain and get more fans perhaps this isn't the best move.

Yes, a generalization for sure. What's always overlooked in these kinds of scenarios are that Brian's vocal arrangements from 1963 onwards were so exquisite, sophisticated and ahead of their time (and of course, The Beach Boys as a group could actually pull them off!) that this fact alone knocks the whole progressive argument on its head. The music seems simple on the surface but when you open it up and analyze it, there's so much going on there that it would make your head spin. I know quite a few "serious" musicians who like to downplay the groups pre-Pet Sounds material (after all, it's the fashionable thing to do) but when push comes to shove they can't comprehend or replicate those vocal arrangements. Why?

Because they..don't..have...the...f**king...talent...or...ability to do it.  

Unfortunately I need to call this wishful thinking.  You honestly have no idea whether or not BW and AJ want to perform at his inauguration or not, despite your strongly worded statement.  You are pretty much telling a lie right there.
You just desperately hope that is the case because otherwise it would bring about a Beach Boys Fan Existential Crisis in you.  Like many others on here (myself included), you might want to prepare part of your mind for the worst case scenario.

You forgot the lucky strike gig! ;D

 :woot :woot :woot

Well, except a: Brian Wilson's representative made a preemptive statement that he would not be involved and b. Some people on this board have access to ask Brian Wilson and/or his management questions, and perhaps they hav.
So you are perhaps being as presumptuous as he.

What’s John’s relationship to the band? I know he’s on some ESQ CDs.

Right. The wording in that letter seemed just short of a "hell no" with regards to Brian's involvement. I truly doubt that Brian/Al privately voted for Trump, but even if that were possibly the case, while it would make me sick, it's an ENTIRELY different animal with regards to being a musical act performing at an inauguration. That's a major "I'm PROUD" of supporting Trump type of statement - totally next level.

Brian/Al having any involvement in performing at a Trump inauguration would be the worst case scenario, and fortunately, that ain't happening.

Huh?  A statement was issued which clearly states that Brian and Al have not and will not even consider playing for trump.  As for the so-called Beach Boys 'doing' the gig... ... ...IF it proves to be true...I will be saddened, disgusted and gobsmacked.  I will NOT, though, be surprised.  Not in the least.

"Nourishment and revenge" are dishes best served cold to the cold-hearted.  That 'love' fool IS all that... ... ...and less.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh and the generalizations made regarding Beach Boys fans don't add up.  A fan from the beginning...Surfin Safari was my 1st BB's album and I think that Little Deuce Coupe, Shut Down Volume 2, All Summer Long, Today and Summer Days and Summer Nights are all terrific albums and accurately chart the group's [and Brian's] growth.  From 15 'Bigguns' on...the lps clearly illustrate that 'love' guy's obvious and mind-numbing lack of growth...and creativity.  That said...as was also the case with Getcha Back...I was still pleased to hear Kokomo on the radio...especially Carl's outstanding voice.  It had been way too long since the radio had shown the Beach Boys the kind of respect that their 1963-1974 body of work deserved and deserves.  After THIS fiasco I think their airplay will decrease still more.  That Brian, Al, Blondie and David might be subjected to blame for Mike's idiosyn'crazies'. is ever-so disheartening.

[I also LIKE the Surfin USA, Surfer Girl, Christmas and Party lps.  Note...that's LIKE not love.  I do NOT like Smiley Smile or Love You and Summer in Pair of Dice is pure, unadulterated POOP.]

The Beach Boys aren't just the Wilsons.  When it comes to the creativity end of things though... ... ...well... ... ...they sure as phuque aren't mike 'love'.  He's just 2 nostrils and an asshole.

Okay, I just saw a Guardian article that stated that, I had not read it before.  Thanks for the correction, I was wrong.

Whatever is or isn't debatable about this debacle, the suggestion that "we don't know" Brian and Al's position, implying there's any chance they would be supportive of this in any way, is beyond ridiculous:

1. Jean Sievers said that both Brian and Al are not a part of this in any way.

2. Brian and Al have a rather tenuous connection or predisposition to be supportive of Mike's touring band in general anyway.

3. Al's politics are mostly completely in opposition to even a *standard* Republican politician, let alone Trump. The guy who wrote songs decrying the deregulation of energy in California, and then rewrote the same song with lyrics decrying the California recall election, would not tend to align with the politics of Republicans.

I'm still bummed that Brian and Al aren't doing (or can't do) more about this, as this whole thing damages the band's brand, not just Mike's touring band.

It would be nice to see a more forceful, specific repudiation of this by Brian and Al. Not just pointing out that they're not part of Mike's band/organization, but also a specific renouncing and condemnation. If they feel as such, of course. I don't buy for a second that Brian or Al would be supportive of Trump at all. What I'm less sure of is how much they care that Mike is sullying the reputation and brand that they're a part of.

Three thoughts:

a) I think this is part of the overall denial across much of the US right now about how toxic Trump is.

b) Brian may just feel too old and tired to keep fighting the band battles with Mike. The 50th anniversary may have been his way of saying goodbye to the band as a current brand.

c) In a decade, Trump will be dead and gone and a historical embarrassment, but how many band members will still be alive at that point? What will be left is the classic recordings of 1962-77 or so, and everything post-77 will be a footnote. In other words, Mike doing Trump's inauguration will be shameful, but the memory will fade. It will go in the shitcan of late-career blunders like Baywatch and the like.

I can agree with you about the shameful part, and surely the memory would fade *some*, yet many people will be permanently disgusted by any artist associating themselves that deeply with such ilk, to the point that they can't even connect emotionally with their music on the same level anymore. Personally, I'm pondering when I'm gonna want to sit down and be able to get "the feels" on an emotional level from any Mike Love-sung BB song, and honestly the major association with a toxic fool like Trump (it's major even now, just based on the fact that it's an offer being "considered") makes me want to not listen to Mike's music... or at least minimize the amount of listening I'd do to songs that remind me of his stupid face (ie. his leads). Yeah, it's emotion that dictating that desire for me, but I don't know if and when that will change. It friggin' sucks, but I can't press a button and make myself not give a sh*t - my loss I suppose. (I can detach the artist from the art with Phil Spector and his music, but that's because he is a delusional, majorly mentally ill, sick genius, while Mike is a very special kind of repugnant that differs from Phil's terribleness. While he's nearly killed many people's love for this band, Mike's not a murderer like Phil, and I know that, lest anyone want to remind me).

Believe me - I know some major BB fans in real life, and I will just bet that they are not gonna want to listen to any Mike-sung BB song (at minimum) for the foreseeable future. An artist who cares not one bit that the candidate they support thinks it's hunky dory to call people derogatory epithets will become poison for many. I could easily see less BB songs being licensed in films/commercials with Mike's lead vocals. People who think liberal and LGBT media makers and music supervisors are simply gonna just not care are in for a wakeup call.

It's far, far worse than some mere, embarrassing Baywatch appearance.

If Mike goes ahead with it, I imagine he'll continually be inundated with people who want to call him out on his lack of giving f*cks about derogatory terms like "dikes" that are thrown around by Trump's cabinet - and not just "not caring" about that, but actively *supporting* the orange fool in the most public way possible. An inauguration performance - even being considered - shows that the LGBT community, just for starters, is the lowest of the low when it comes to Mike giving any hoot whatsoever. When Mike flies coach and walks through airports as he regularly does, does he actually think he won't regularly be questioned about this? Or maybe an LBGT activist group can buy up most of the tickets for a M&B show and fill up a venue just to make Mike squirm... how would Mike look them in the face? It would be the most uncomfortable thing ever to watch, and if filmed, the Youtube ad revenue could even pay for all those tickets.

Do Mike or his supporters really think there's not gonna be fallout?

I think the Beach Boys playing Trump's inauguration is no different than if Pres. Obama had asked them to play at his.  If the President or President elect ask you to come and play, you do it.  I believe Republicans should respect Pres. Obama just as Democrats should respect President Trump, recognizing there are strong partisan feelings all the way around.

Don't get me wrong. I dig most of their early material. What I was trying to convey is that a certain type of fan will enjoy aspects of music that certain other fans might not. It's just curious how interests and political beliefs go hand-in-hand sometimes.

Very well put.

Time for those brass tacks again. Someone already mentioned it, but it's worth repeating.

When all of this brou-haha was still bubbling up, a public statement was issued that said Brian and Al had nothing to do with this. What is one of the most unfortunate effects of all this, if not the most unfortunate in my opinion, is that because of the way Mike and his PR handled this going back weeks now, the musical legacy of Brian and Al as Beach Boys is being thrown into the mud. And again, they had nothing to do with any of this other than being founding members of The Beach Boys.

If Mike and/or his PR team had declined the invitation in private, and not leaked a comment to the press, none of this would have happened. It turned into a clusterfuck yet again because it simply was not handled the right way. And there is still no official word whether Mike and his band will or will not play this event.

Remove the political nature of this mess just for discussion purposes, and I cannot think of another time when the legacy of this great band has been called out across multiple demographics, media outlets, and among people who know nothing about BRI, licenses, "set end dates", phony historians and honored guests, and the like. Whether the reasons why are agreed with or not, the fact that a single event had the potential to generate such a backlash should have warranted a more careful plan of action in terms of comments to the press.

Now, we have all this.

And just a personal message to people suggesting this is all a symptom of the "Mike bashing" that originates with a very small minority of non-fans on this forum and blaming this forum in general as a toxic place for Mike-bashing: Get real. Enough of the bullshit. Read those reader comments on any news or web page that ran this story this week before trying to blame yet another fake boogeyman to try avoiding the reality of where this band's image has ended up. All the "campaigns" in the world to try changing and reshaping this one fan forum wouldn't have changed the overall tone of those web comments this week one iota.

I can't wait until Trump himself blames his own low approval ratings on Wilson-based negativity.

"Dammit, Pence, I told you don't f*** with the formula!"

The formula of racism, scare tactics, and homophobia is working...  don't change a thing!

Hang On To Your Electoral System
Make America Do It Again

Okay - that wins the hilarity moment of the day, and it was desperately needed!.

And yes, Craig, this is the usual crock of sh*t.  It's truly boring at this point.  For whatever reason, a whole lot (given the extent of the posts on non-BB related websites) of people don't like Mike Love and it started decades before SS ever existed.  In other words, it didn't originate here.  It's just out there, and has been for many decades...Blaming SS is ridiculous.

Every good whitewashing attempt needs a scapegoat to justify itself among those holding the paintbrushes. :)

What I heard just yesterday is that some frustration is coming out against Mike's non-answer or vacillating so far from those who want to know if he's going to agree to perform who would want to see him perform. Add that to the voices already against the performance...

A PR mess that could have been handled properly from the get-go to avoid all of this and keep the name "Beach Boys" out of the whole deal. Now both "sides" are frustrated. Great move.  ::)

A new version of an old classic, Make it Bigot, is being prepped just in case.

While I 110% disagree, I have to admit...that's pretty clever.   

Just as I suspected. Whether they agree to play or not, this is going to be spun against Mike--he can't win either way. Somehow even considering it is equated to accepting. Just as being photographed with Trump was considered an endorsement.

Brian and Al's only comment has been they wouldn't be performing with Mike and Bruce--not exactly surprising. If they were really against the idea of the Beach Boys being associated with Trump, maybe a stronger statement is in order.

For the record, I would rather they not perform at the inauguration, but doubt this has any lasting impact on their legacy positive or negative.

It shouldn't be surprising that it's falling on Mike after recent years of interviews and articles and books where he's been saying he is the public face of the band touring under the Beach Boys banner and name - With that comes the responsibility when decisions are made regarding that touring activity, especially if there could be the potential for negative consequences. Top to bottom this could have been handled better, more professionally and even more discretely too.

What would have been wrong with "no comment"? Also considering there was already controversy in the air (again, whether people agree with it or not) surrounding this event, before making any comment in or to the press beyond "no comment", wouldn't it have been better to run it past Brian and Al as well? If not contractually or legally obligated to do so, just as a personal thing considering the name Beach Boys isn't limited to Mike.

I haven't seen any reports one way or the other. Or, are you assuming it wasn't?

Again, the only thing I've seen from Brian and Al is a representative saying they wouldn't be included, which, again, I feel has more to do with the current state of the band rather than saying they wouldn't participate because it Trump. Al participated in the Reagan 100th birthday celebration, it's not like he has been publicly anti-Republican in recent (or past) years. I can't find any indication of any of the Beach Boys making campaign contributions to Republican or Democrats--if somebody can dig this up, I would be interested. It wasn't exactly a profile in courage to publicly support Hillary Clinton in 2016 among the celebrity crowd...

Hey GF.....don't you think (or have a feel for) that Mike IS legally bound to BRI via the terms of the license ?   I'm guessing behind the scenes, a lot is being said within BRI and the 4 principals.  If Mike's legal team determines that he must get BRI approval to pass muster, then I believe this is the hold-up.  A 2-2 vote would be a negative right ??  Guessing he must need a 3-1 vote to be able to play.

What you're asking me to speculate on is part of the whole problem that could have been solved if the reply to the press had been "no comment". You also raised the issue of this being spun against Mike, is that a suggestion too that it is being unfairly spun against Mike? If he's been touting the fact for at least a decade that he is the public face of the Beach Boys via his touring, and this is about Mike's touring band deciding whether or not to play a gig, why would it be surprising if people are looking at Mike when looking at the decision-making surrounding this event and the way it's being handled?

So far it's only speculation among fans beyond the pretty definitive public statement that said Brian and Al are removed from this entirely, and the issue for me is the backlash that happened against the band's reputation as an entity beyond Mike's touring that dragged Brian and Al into it via the music itself falling under public scrutiny. If I had to speculate, I'd say whoever it was who gave the comment to the press that was anything but "no comment" wasn't thinking of Brian or Al or what they thought about it (never mind approval or disapproval within BRI) when that comment was made to the press.

If we're speculating, does anyone think Brian or Al had been consulted prior to that kind of open-ended statement about the gig hitting the news wires? I think they should have been, but that doesn't mean they were, and it's just a fan's opinion anyway.

Not to keep beating the same dead horse, but the fact a statement was given to the press as it was versus saying "no comment" or anything similar to avoid the issue entirely as other artists (even those who were assumed to be ones to agree based on their political support) suggests it was done without BRI and the full vote process.

It's pure speculation, but would any corporate entity - and that's what BRI is complete with licensing of a franchise and brand name - allow a comment to be made regarding their name that had the potential to turn their customers and the public at large against the brand name? If it went through the whole corporate vetting process, I'd say whatever legal and marketing interests would resort to "no comment" to avoid any backlash. Now - agree with the reasons or not - they have to look at damage control. And it all could have been avoided.

Regardless of whether or not somebody is a Voldermort supporter, and/or a big Mike supporter/defender... I feel it's pretty safe to assume that the reason why Mike has yet to give a definitive public answer must logically be, at least partially, related to some behind-the-scenes pushback from the other members of BRI. I can't prove this, yet I cannot see any reason why Mike - if he didn't have any roadblocks - wouldn't have just agreed to do it, right off the bat; after all, months back, Mike said they'd play if asked.

That said, this must mean that Mike is trying to make sure that the brand name The Beach Boys is associated with Voldermort, against the wishes of the other members of BRI. And frankly, that's super shitty. No rogue band member should think that it's right or ethical to try and push their political agenda into being associated with the other band members if they don't want it to be.

Does anyone - even Voldermort supporters - think it's ethical for Mike to try and force a public association between the brand name and Voldermort - even if that association is not desired by other members of the band? If anyone can think of a different logical explanation for Mike still being in "considering the offer" mode, I'm all ears.  

This goes beyond the candidate involved, and it's about simple common sense regarding what's right or wrong. It ain't right to try and force something like this against other members' wishes.

Do you have a source? I don't remember reading this.

As a Donald supporter, I don't think that Mike's willingness to play the inauguration is really trying to force a public association with The Beach Boys brand and the President Elect.  

But, that being said, if BRI does vote on this, and Mike loses the vote 3-1, then he should respect that.  But, does BRI actually have a say in what gig Mike does / doesn't play.  Did they have to vote for them to play the Memorial Day concert last past May?

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

"In September, Love told The Post’s Hardeep Phull that he would be open to playing the January festivities if Trump were to win.

“He’s been a friend for a long time,” Love said. “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.”

Um... if Brian and Al do NOT desire for the brand name to be associated with Voldermort, and Mike knows this, but is continuing to try and finagle a way to still make it happen... how exactly is that anything BUT trying to force an association with Voldermort against the other band members' wishes?

This isn't a simple disagreement about album track sequencing, after all.

I'm discussing the matter of whether or not Mike could ever consider the old addage "just because I can, doesn't mean I should" - and I say that regardless of how I feel about Voldermort... I'm currently focusing on how it's shitting on the very probable wishes of his bandmates.

I can't help but think this is ultimately still all about sticking it to Brian and Melinda for not letting him get his way in 2012. Just to make a point about "don't you tell me what I can and cannot do". Seriously, I'm not even kidding. Let's consider for a moment a reunited band in 2012 where Mike gets to write with Brian in a room, gets tons of critical acclaim for being a great lyricist, etc... and the band stays reunited together, and continues into 2016 and beyond. Under those circumstances, I don't see Mike trying to pull this stunt in this current manner.

Ah, thank you. I'm guessing the original comments were made during Mike's book tour. Even more intriguing as to why the invitation hasn't been accepted, yet.

I'm sitting this one out until a decision is made.

No problem. Again, IMHO there is no explanation that makes any sort of logical sense except BRI pushback behind the scenes.

That depends.  If it comes down to a vote, that's one thing.  But, if Mike doesn't need Brian's and Al's votes to accept the invitation, then it's really a non issue.  I don't know the parameters of the agreement. 

And, at the end of the day, playing the inauguration doesn't necessarily associate the Beach Boys brand with the 45th President IMO. 

Obviously, I think it's extremely unlikely even if Mike played the gig that he would suggest he *wants* the Beach Boys to be directly associated with this one politician. He (and supporters of a decision to play the gig) would no doubt hide behind the "honoring the office/country/tradition" excuse.

I was surprised earlier this year when Mike, while still seemingly slightly hesitant and hedging, seemed to go beyond a "meh, we'll perform at any inauguration" and did seem to suggest some level of admiration/support/preference for DonaldTrump.

So I think it's overstating the "anti" argument here to suggest the problem is that Mike wants to "force" a public association.

But the association *will* be there, and Mike's not dumb when it comes to this stuff. He *knows* there will be an association, and if he *doesn't* understand why this particular case is not the same as playing both Carter and Reagan events, then he's been living with his head in the sand.

I don't think Mike is that ignorant as to the specific PR/moral/ethical issues involved with being associated with DonaldTrump. Why do I say that?

Kind of overlooked in this debate is this: Why was Mike's camp (I'm not sure what spokespersons actually spoke to the media regarding "considering" the invitation) not either accepting or rejecting the invitation?

Who announces they're "considering" an invitation like that? There's no indication that it's a scheduling issue, otherwise Mike's camp would have said "We definitely want to do it, but we're not sure if it will work scheduling-wise."

No, the indication is that they're still deciding. Okay, fair enough. But why then announce it? The *only* reason to announce they essentially haven't made up their mind yet is in order to gauge public reaction/sentiment, etc. Let's also be clear, they may not be trying to find out if there's *any* negative PR associated with this. They surely already know that's the case, and I think Mike has lived for years with an awful image and awful PR. My guess is Mike's camp floated this to simply try to determine if it would result in a catastrophic level of blowback from the public. As long as that doesn't happen, I think Mike's good to go.

And let's be honest with ourselves, I think about the only thing that would literally *end* Mike's career touring would be a huge catastrophic scandal involving felony charges of murder or abuse or something like that. Short of that, nothing much will literally completely tank the "Beach Boys" trademark.

In any event, at a certain point it gets back to a more fundamental train of though that I often take when it comes to stuff like this. If you're hesitating and hedging on whether to do something (as Mike's camp's words suggest), there's a darn good chance then maybe you shouldn't do it.

Any PR person or branding expert or agent or manager with half their wits about them would surely tell you this is completely inaccurate.

No, nobody remembers or cares that "The Beach Boys" played both Carter and Reagan functions.

But the 2016 election is different in terms of who won. If even Romney had won, or McCain, or whomever, it wouldn't be a huge deal in *any* of those other scenarios.  But the "big deal" this is or would be right now today, both in terms of PR and "brand association" or whatever else you want to call it, is VERY different from how it would have been in 1976 for them to play a Carter function or in 1980 to play a Regan function, etc.

Tell that to the singer who agreed to sing the National Anthem.  Her album went to #1 in her respective chart. 

As I've mentioned, I'm at the moment focusing on this issue irrelevant from whether or not Mike actually *needs* their votes to accept the invitation. I'm posing the question about whether it's right/ethical to use the brand name - founded by not just him, but by Brian and Al as well - in the probable event that Brian and Al don't want the brand name used at the inauguration (regardless of whether or not they have the ability to block him or not).  

I don't see how there's any way to make that right.

The "vote" issue is likely very simple. Mike got his exclusive license in 1999/2000, and there has apparently/allegedly been no vote on the issue since. While there are certainly guidelines outlining that license, I doubt they strictly enforce all of them (e.g. "keeping the image" of the band with no female singers, setlist guidelines, etc.), and mainly make sure the checks keep rolling in.

Mike does a myriad of public and private shows in person and on TV under the BB name, so I'm sure pretty much any function is okay to book.

What BRI theoretically *could* do is convene a new vote to address this new issue. They could vote for all sorts of fixes to this problem. Vote to specifically bar Mike from this one gig, or vote specific guidelines in that would preclude this gig, and so on.

So I doubt Mike is breaking any guidelines or going against any corporate vote by doing the gig. But BRI could enforce something new if they wanted to.

The skeptic in me thinks the only reason this "consideration" is taking so long is due to the negotiation of an acceptable fee both parties can agree on :).

Any chance there is push-back from within the touring group?

Bottom line.  If he has the right to use the brand name, and there's no votes involved, then it's his choice when and where he gets to play under the banner. 

Evancho's career is not comparable to the Beach Boys for about a gazillion reasons. Nobody will care in five or ten years that she did the gig, because nobody much will know or care about her at all. If another name comparable to the Beach Boys had booked the gig, then the comparison would be potentially apt, as the discussion here is not just what is happening in the moment, but what it means about a legacy and the "brand."

And, it's worth nothing that Evancho charts on the "Classical" charts, which require *far lower* sales numbers to reach #1 as compared to the main Top 200 albums charts. It appears her "#1" album is #93 on the Billboard 200. I can't get a precise sales number on how many copies got it to #93, but the #50 album on the chart sold 9,211 copies. So I'm guessing Evancho probably moved, at most, a few thousand copies of her album.

Point me to a PR person who thinks booking this gig is a good LONG TERM decision.

This guy also sold more records than most of the finalists on "American Idol":

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Uost-qK-L.jpg)

If you want to go with the "all publicity is good publicity", feel free. It's often true in the short term.

Who said it wasn't Mike's choice? Hoping BRI votes to block him for the sake of the brand is a totally different thing. I haven't seen anybody suggest Mike isn't allowed to book the show.

CD asked whether or not if was ethical of Mike to accept if Brian and Al wished we wouldn't.   

Anything's possible, but I highly doubt it. They're under contract to go where Mike tells them to go.

It would be great if one or more of those guys made a stand on this issue, but I'm not holding my breath.

Yes, and that's a perfectly straightforward, reasonable question, and one which has nothing to do with whether Mike is legally/contractually allowed to play the show.

If someone is saying there's a moral or ethical issue, then that is a 100% subjective, opinion-based discussion. Answering that subjective, moral/ethical question with "it's Mike's choice whether to do the gig" is a rather Cam-esque dodge in my opinion.

Or it's my opinion. 

If your opinion can include answering a different question than the one that was asked, then yes.

No, my honest opinion is that, if Brian or Al morally object to Mike's playing on 1/20, it doesn't matter because Mike controls the brand name. 

That's my answer to CD's question. 

F*** that!

The only thing is...if they morally object enough it could be called to a vote, and that could potentially effect Mike's license. . Whether or not they do, I honestly don't know...haven't asked.

So your answer to whether Mike's decision would be "ethical" is "it doesn't matter", which in my opinion is dodging the question.

One could easily answer whether, in their own opinion, something is ethical while still pointing out that legally it doesn't matter.

You're essentially arguing that legal contracts don't take subjective ethics into account, which nobody doesn't already understand, and is certainly not what CenturyDeprived was trying to discuss.

Much like when CenturyDeprived would desperately try to get Cam Mott or Filledeplage to tell us how they *feel* about something on a moral/ethical personal level, and we would all see a mouth full of legalese and dodging. I'm just trying to say that your answer reads much like those non-answers that those old posters used to provide. I'm not saying you're just like those old posters, nor is anybody suggesting anybody *has* to answer a question from someone else asking for one's personal ethical/moral opinion.

If Brian wanted to do something with the BB name, and Al, Mike, and Carl's estate were all vehemently opposed to it, I would have no problem saying that regardless of the legalities, Brian would be treading into morally questionable areas in my opinion if he did something against the wishes of the other members. I would not simply say "Brian can legally do that" and drop the mic.

It is possible that there may be pushback but the affected person could go anyway albeit bregrudingly. If we see a temporary fill-in replacement for this particular performance (or a permanent line-up change) then that would pretty much confirm that.

All this is merely conjecture on my part, though.

I wish they would, but it's so, so unlikely to happen. I think the only way BRI would convene a vote to strip the license of Mike would be if he had pending serious criminal charges and refused to give up the license, or something crazy and extreme like that.

Also worth pointing out is that it's actually possible that even if BRI convened today and tried to block Mike from doing the gig, he could easily contest it in court and use any number of legal arguments that could or could not succeed.

It has been speculated a number of times that if BRI voted to strip Mike's license, Mike could well tie it up in court for *years*, which is probably one of the main reasons BRI never takes any action on the issue.

It would be great to see any of his band members take a stand and skip the gig; and I'm not even 100% convinced Mike would fire them if they asked to not do the gig.

A decent solution for this would be for Mike to book the appearance under *his own damn name* and bring whatever musicians want to come along. The PR damage to the BB name will have already been done to some degree, but it would be a decent gesture to BRI shareholders.

I will also say that, if Mike does the gig, a clear, thoughtful and precise statement from Brian and Al disavowing the decision would be much appreciated. They could easily explain why *in this particular instance* they object and want to clarify further that this isn't *THE* Beach Boys that is involved.

Here's the opposite end of the corporate/trademark issue: Would or could Mike take legal action against Brian and Al for speaking ill of Mike's show, or tour, or decision to play a gig? We know from comments from Al in recent years that Brian and Al continue to be harangued and reminded to not use the BB name too prominently for their shows.

So as much as I'd like to think BRI and/or Brian's people have been sending messages to Mike's people asking or advising him against doing this gig, it's just as likely that Mike's people could be sending notes to Brian and Al "reminding" them not to besmirch Mike's band.

Good point, and at their ages, time is of the essence and is not on their side.

It would be a decent gesture, and it will never happen because it would remind the public that "The BBs" isn't really The BBs, and is really just Mike with hired hands. That's not something Mike wants people thinking about, because it would beg the question as to why any future post-inauguration shows should legitimately be considered "BB" shows, as opposed to just "Mike" shows. It would be the ultimate "what's the difference between the two" question - not a question Mike wants to be asked in interviews, I am sure.

Indeed, Jean Sievers's recent statement concerning this fiasco is one of the only times someone from Brian's camp has clearly and explicitly stated that it's Mike Love's band and is *licensing* the Beach Boys name to tour behind.

So you have no problem with the idea of a bandmate - and relative - believing their fellow bandmate/relative's moral objections are of zero concern to them, and that it's perfectly ok to do absolutely whatever they want just "because they can"?

I haven't posted here in a long time and haven't read through this entire thread, so forgive me if I've missed something.  It seems to me that virtually everyone on the board is viewing the President-elect as the worst human being on earth, and that anyone who associates with him, much less actually supports him, is darkly evil and idiotic.  Am I fairly accurate?

Briefly and just in the interest of accuracy, Bannon (who has the famous derogatory comments about lesbians [and actually feminists in general]) isn't nominated for a cabinet position, but rather a high-level advisory position.

And Hillary is better than that?  

I'd rather continue this discussion in the Sandbox, please.

Or the kitty litter box Billy.

NO Beach Boys for that Tee-Rump twit...not even some dorky, never to ultimately get paid even 1 AGREED TO red cent 'cause that's how that lyin' s.o.b. donny does his 'shyte', d. j. playing the Sand Pail Sailors' 45s through a 1/2-assed sound system while the [ho-friggin'-hum] rockettes dance as if it's that old  'Deuce Coupe'/Joffrey Ballet /Twyla Tharp thing those folks did like 40-some-odd years ago.  

Even THAT is too good for that old prick.  The fact that dirty Mike hasn't issued his dictum re: playing the 'ball' even now suggests but one thing.  He's enjoying the sh*t out of sticking it to the REAL fans just-a one more time.  The ultimate "nourishment and revenge" opportunity has suddenly been allowed to rise and impact on his miserable 'raison d'etre' one last glorious time.

Those that think this won't have a long lasting negative impact on the group name and brand. are mere ostriches avoiding the sunlight...and reality.

Why can't the dickish donald and that 'love' guy have asshole transplants?

The asshole would reject them both... ... ...immediately.

I'll fix it...but I'm also moving this to the Sandbox as this isn't even about Mike playing anymore but back to the same old tired political aruguments

Odd...I deleted the filter and it fixed the URL....but the Voldemort thing is still showing up in the last post as opposed to Trump.

Case in point - This is a thread directly related to the Beach Boys in many ways, it's a hot topic across the internet discussing the Beach Boys, and it gets moved to the sandbox because posters post political content rather than discuss the actual topic.

This is not the way it should be. Connecting it to that other thread about the board and politics, if there is a topic directly related to and about the Beach Boys as this one is, maybe the mods (Billy and I) should consider taking a more active role and either deleting the purely political content entirely or the lesser option, jumping in to get it back on topic. A better option to consider might be individual posters trying to reign in the posts which are purely political.

There should be no reason to move a thread like this unless moving it off the main board because of the topic itself was the goal.

Adding this: If the Beach Boys playing or not playing this gig is a current topic of discussion and speculation across the internet and people might come here to get news or updates or just talk about it, there should be no reason it isn't on the main board if the issue itself can be discussed without political squabbles separate from the band's actions.

We can move it back to the regular forum, but I'd like the off topic political nonsense moved in a separate thread, or deleted. Or a new thread made about the actual topic

Damn those Russian hackers!

:lol

Obviously I moved this back and split the topic

Well, Im glad you have a better understanding of how I should form my opinions than I do.   

If theres no vote involved, theres no issue. 

If Brian really objects to this, he can get on the phone and contact his cousin.  But unless that happens, I see no issue with Mike taking the gig

I'm old enough to remember the Scott Bennett thread getting moved to the sandbox because it wasn't on topic.

To refresh that memory even more, Marty, start here: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23778.msg575629.html#msg575629 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23778.msg575629.html#msg575629)


Work back and forward from there a few pages if you want to be reminded of all that, and note too that for some unknown reason the currently banned member Dr. Beach Boy and a few others now gone from here took that thread as an opportunity yet again to try to lie about and f*** over both Billy and I with those lies and insinuations that had *nothing* to do with the topic...perhaps for whatever reasons or campaign he had running at that time around the time Doe got banned. Good riddance, I hope the door did hit him square in his ass on his way out of this place and off to greener pastures.

Now why bring that old thread up at all, Marty? Have something you'd like to claim about the way things were handled in this case?

It's a difference of opinion on how moderation should be done. Both Scott Bennett's legal troubles and the Beach Boys possibly playing Trump's Inauguration are directly linked to and part of Beach Boys history. I'm all for warning or suspending people when they veer off topic and completely derail a thread--I would also be in favor of editing threads to delete the offending material.

To me, once something moves to the Sandbox it's essentially out of sight out of mind. Again, difference of opinion. Both threads have gotten out of hand at times, but that's no reason to whitewash history, as uncomfortable as it may be.

That's why this thread is back on the main board and the off topic parts are back in the litter box where they belong. 

Fair enough, why wasn't that done with the Bennett thread?

Drop it, Marty. You're trying to dredge up an old thread that was basically dead around August save for a few straggling posts. This thread tied in directly with discussions we've had this week concerning moving forward with how to deal with these issues in the future, and off-topic posts derailing on-topic threads especially with political arguments. What was done with previous threads is done, that's where it stands and will stand.

Have you considered that Brian might strenuously object to it, but not feel emotionally able to tackle a potential verbal argument with his cousin?  I mean, Brian is known for being passive and inadvertently allowing stuff that he doesn't desire to happen to nevertheless occur due to his own inaction.   Putting it on Brian - of all people - to make it his responsibility to put a stop to Mike via a phone call just seems like an unfair scenario, given their specific history of particularly poor communication.

I really don't know how anyone who is a big fan of the band, and empathetic to Brian and his hurdles with communicating, can simply feel that this is all his responsibility, and that it's no big deal if his probable feelings are disrespected on this matter.

That said, I can't imagine that Mike would be unaware of Brian's thoughts on the matter, even if Brian possibly hasn't communicated with him directly about it.  The fact of the matter is that if Mike knows that Brian truly doesn't want it to happen, but is trying to make it happen anyway, that's disrespectful and shitty.  It's a really big deal, not just Mike trying to sneak a last-minute eleventh hour lyrical revision on a song, where he can reference a crusty old BB song lyric for the millionth time. I think Mike probably feel justified in pulling this kind of stuff against people's wishes because he constantly feels slighted in every way possible, so it is his way of sticking it to everyone who has stopped the surf word man from getting his "due" in the past.  It's egotistical and pathetic if in fact that's what's happening here.

Maybe the next step for Mike can be for him to play a pro-Pence event, where he can wear a hat with gay conversion therapy rhetoric on it.   I'm sure that would be OK as well, right?  Even if his bandmates objected to it, even if they might have gay children or gay friends and would be utterly horrified.  Just because Mike can, it's always ok, ethical, and hunky-dory?

It's OKKK

It would be the grandest historical event in the Kokomization of the Beach Boys thus far. Even though Mike's done so much crap already that's practically ruined his reputation among feeling humans, this might truly be the eternal nail in his coffin.

It's quite amazing that the group who reached the highest highs in all of history are the same guys who more or less could sink to the lowest lows. Thankfully we all know who wrote Pet Sounds and that he could never want this to happen. Heroes and Villains, indeed.

I'd do everything I could to stop Mike and Bruce from using the name for that gig if I could. I don't care if they play it, but for Al and Dave and even for Brian, having the name associated with someone so divisive and hates is just bad business. I mean, Al's last name isn't really Jardine, his name is "Al Jardine of the Beach Boys". Turning that name to mud is bad business.

Brian sort of has an existence without the name, but Al, Dave, Bruce and Mike do not. It's a bad business decision for all of them.

Seems to me that some here are trying to impose their "morals" and "ethics" (both terms have been freely used in this thread) on Brian and Al.

Unless I've missed something, there's been no statement issued other than that Brian and Al are not involved in this possible appearance.

I took that to mean "We try not to even be in the same state as Mike Love, to say nothing about ever again appearing on stage with him".

It really could be that simple. Feel good if you want because you think Brian and Al share your beliefs, but there's no evidence yet that that's the case here.    

 +10...and that word "Kokomization" is so damn appropriate.

I can't imagine Trump's favorite Beach Boys song is 'Cabinessence'.

It would be the most short-sighted mistake for the brand since Murry sold the catalog in '69. Maybe not *as* damaging, but I cannot see any other single, purposeful decision made for the brand since '69 as being worthy of holding the #2 trophy. And at least the Murry incident had no adverse affect which wouls cause people to want nothing to do with the brand (other than perhaps laughing at how such a poor decision was made); the damage was merely internal to their pocketbooks.

Too bad Mike couldn't have waited just another two short years to do something like this in 2019, because it could have been a great promo opportunity to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Incredibly Inane BB Brand Decisions. Mike's off his game to pass up a 1969-2019 promotional tour like this. C50: DAE (Dumbass Edition).

Jack Rieley's quote about the band blowing it consistently, tragically, and pathologically is incredibly fitting for this. No wonder Mike disliked the guy enough to not acknowledge his passing. Jack called it like it was/is.

Favorite: Putin My Room
Least Favorite: Alec Baldwind Chimes

Favorite: Donald Trump & Villains
Least Favorite: Mexican Girls

 :lol

Favorite: I'd Love Just Once To Grab Them By The Pussee You
Least Favorite: Here Comes The Saturday Night Live

 :laugh:

A couple of his favorites: How I Boogalooed Her By The Pussee, I Just Got My Pay, Everyone's In Love With Me, Don't Go Near the Border, Let's Put Our Wallets Together

"Trump Only Knows," "The Traitor," "I Wanna Pick Ivanka Up," "Plantation Girls (1857)."

As absolutely horrible as the sentiment would be and just wrong all around, that song would be something to hear. Especially sung by Mike Love.

I never said it was all on Brian, but how would Mike know that Brian objects if Brian doesn't reach out to him?

I'm thinking Mike is well aware that Jean Sievers told the press that Brian and Al aren't a part of this. I suppose you can try to stretch it and claim this isn't an outright objection, but when prior to this has Brian ever had his agent tell the media he's not involved in a Mike gig/project? When Mike goes on the Queen Latifah Show, Brian doesn't feel the need to tell people he's not involved.

We don't know if Brian has directly or indirectly reached out to Mike or Mike's people, but Jean Sievers's statement to the press should make it clear to Mike that Brian does not wish to endorse the idea of this inauguration gig.

As with the years and years of Cam Mott dodges, it would be far easier in scenarios like this to just admit that Mike is doing something he knows some find objectionable. What's the problem with admitting that, if Mike does this gig, he's doing it with the knowledge that Brian and Al want nothing to do with it? What's the problem with admitting that, if Mike does this gig, he's doing so with a larger amount of protest and outrage than probably any other gig any iteration of the "Beach Boys" ever has?

As I've often said in the past, at least Mike owns his decisions a little bit more than a select group of defenders seems to on occasion.

I'm not saying Mike's playing the inauguration wouldn't be seen as objectionable.  

I just think the notion of "Mike's having The Beach Boys playing it will tarnish the legacy of The Beach Boys" is being blown way out of proportion.  

Let's face it.  Many who object to Mike and Bruce playing the inauguration don't really acknowledge them as The Beach Boys anyway.  

I just don't think a 20 minute performance for even somebody as polarizing at Trump will hurt the brand as much as people think.  

I'll preface these remarks by stipulating that I did not have a candidate in this race. In my view, both candidates were horrible and neither is Hitler. I also consider myself part of the 'Mike & Bruce aren't the Beach Boys' crowd.

After reading this thread over the last week or so, it seems clear that one's prediction of how negatively a BB inauguration performance will affect the band's legacy is directly proportional to one's distaste for the pres-elect. It's called projection, and it's stupid.

I'm also fascinated by the whole "I normally wouldn't oppose it, but this time it's different..." argument. Yep, there's always an exception when you're butt-hurt.

I hate artists performing at any political function, frankly, so I would be opposed to this. That said, I'm not sure the Boys need or care about our concern for their legacy.

Here's a question for you. Suppose Brian left a message for Mike, or sent him an email stating he doesn't want the brand associated with Trump. Or suppose Brian told Brian's lawyer to tell Mike his feelings on this on behalf of himself, not wanting to get into a potential argument with his cousin, who it would seem is a guy who is prone to guilt trips.

Suppose for the sake of argument that these things have actually happened in some shape or form.

If such communication happened behind the scenes, and Mike - now knowingly - still is trying to make sure "The BBs" perform the inauguration against Brian's wishes, would you still not say that is rather shitty?  Again - can't some things be chalked up to "just because he can" not being an adequate statement to absolve someone of the shittiness of their actions?  Brian's and Al's wishes should mean something, and not just be ignored because some lawyers can find a way to make their feelings not matter.

As HeyJude has stated, it's rather reaching to think that Mike wouldn't have been able to figure it out just from Jean Sievers' statement alone. Mike's not a dumbass (at least not in that way). He just has a history of not giving a flying f*** about what Brian cares about. And I could imagine he might be extra motivated to want to do this *specifically* just to purposefully piss Melinda off.

If Mike were somehow in the running for getting some major critical/industry accolades in the near future, chosen by a group of largely anti-Trump musician peer voters, I don't think Mike would do the gig, nor would he have even issued a "we're considering it" statement. Because he'd have someone's butt to kiss then. He knows now that he's never going to be accepted by critics/his peers in any way shape or form close to his liking, so now I almost wonder if this isn't about sticking it to everyone who has ever disliked him in the biggest way possible. Rubbing his d*ck in their face, so to speak. Hey, it's a crude analogy, but it's very Trump level, so it should not be objectionable to any Trump fan.

The fact that it's January 3rd, less than 3 weeks before the election, and there hasn't been any public update to the "considering" statement that really tells me there's no real plausible explanation other than there is some major turmoil - likely legally between lawyers representing the members of BRI - in trying to block this from happening. In other words, Mike likely trying to run roughshod over Brian and Al's feelings. The thought that Mike would be "holding out for more money" is really farfetched. This is a cause he *wants* to do very badly.

 http://thehill.com/homenews/news/312542-clintons-to-attend-trumps-inauguration (http://thehill.com/homenews/news/312542-clintons-to-attend-trumps-inauguration)

So Hillary and Bill are going, does that mean they're supporting Racismysoganihomophobism?

In comparison, Mitt Romney after losing in 2012 did not attend Obama's 2nd inauguration.

If the Beach Boys do play the inauguration, it doesn't mean they support everything Trump has said, done,  allegedly said or allegedly done.

There are more important things to lose your sanity over!

If Hillary and Bill are going, that is because politicians basically *have* to attend, or forever be seen as not only sore losers, but as divisive to the country - and the country is FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR more divided now than in 2012. Hillary knows how influential she is to legions of her supporters in a way that Mitt was not. Mitt may not have attended, but Hillary is trying very hard to be the bigger person here. A *far* bigger person than Trump would have been had he lost - that seems inarguable. I hope even pro-Trump people can agree with that.

A musician choosing to attend and perform their art at the event is completely different.

To anyone who is ok with "The BBs" potentially performing at Trump's inauguration... does there exist an action or pattern of behavior that if Trump were unequivocally proven to have done, that you would actually say "yep, now I am NO longer ok with The BBs being associated with that person's inauguration"? How about if there were proven (on video) rape or child molestation that is un-prosecutable due to statute of limitations? Or if there were videos of Trump calling black people the "N" word hundreds of times?  

Would those be chalked up to "well those actions fall under the things that Mike must not support, and because Mike said he doesn't support everything that Trump does/says, this is still okay"?

What if instead of the disabled reporter who Trump mocked, there were hours of video of Trump mocking Brian Wilson and his Tardive Dyskinesia (that Brian suffers from). Would that be the straw that breaks the camel's back?

I really want to know where people would draw the line. There has to be a line for everyone.

You might....granted might....be able to make the case that if Mike knows that Brian and Al don't want the Beach Boys name associated with it, then it's a "shitty" thing to do, but let's be honest, it's a stretch.  

But, there's really no point in you and me going back and forth as we share different views of the situation, so I'll just respectfully agree to disagree with you.  

I'm not a fan of the controversial things Trump has said and done and  I am not about to defend that , but I am willing to give him a chance as POTUS.

Where I draw the line......Job performance.

 If after 6 months,  his actions while in office unfairly target certain groups of Americans or we go down a dangerous path fiscally, Ill be right there with you with torch and pitchfork in hand.

I haven't read every single post on this thread, but I'm not sure I've seen very much support for their potential involvement-- just disagreement over how/if their involvement would affect their legacy (see my previous comments above).

I personally am opposed to their involvement with a Trump inauguration for the same reasons I would have opposed a performance at Obama's inauguration or a Hillary inauguration. Politicians and politics suck, and I prefer my art to be divorced from both.

Regarding your proposed thresholds, it's all relative. You have to consider that there are a good number of non-bigoted voters who were aware of Trump's despicable behavior and still preferred him over Hillary.

I can be upset with them over this as well. I'll be there protesting the day after with the Women's March, so it's not just about The Beach Boys to me. And I'm not losing my sanity over it. I'm keeping it by keeping my eyes open to who he is and the danger he presents. I'll be there to show the rest of the world and future generations that we weren't at all united behind him.

And while this is (obviously) your right to feel this way, I'd say there are plenty of people, including both partisans and people who love or hate *both* candidates, would disagree with equating the two. I've met plenty of people who dislike both candidates, but feel one is *exponentially* more objectionable in a far more broad, moral/ethical context.

I reject the idea that most or all of the people who *objectively* recognize playing the inauguration is a bad PR move are doing so because they're "butt hurt" their candidate lost. Again, I don't think there would be even 10% of the objections from the masses had Mike played the 2004 inauguration.

Again, even the most conservative, Republican-leaning PR person would, if they're actually doing their job, tell their client *not* to play this particular inauguration.

You may disagree, but plenty of folks including political scholars and history buffs agree this particular election (and thus inauguration) *IS* different.

The fact that people have paid far less attention to guests at previous inaugurations, and the fact that the paucity of willing big-name acts for *this* inauguration is an issue, should help indicate that this isn't just another run of the mill situation.

Meaning that if there were video proof of him raping and molesting children, making fun of Brian Wilson's Tardive Dyskinesia (and refusing to apologize for it), and calling black people the "N" word hundreds of times, you would still not object to "The BBs" performing at his election?

You may be right in terms of the USA however many other places around the world are a very different story. Think attendances in the UK and Western Europe would certainly suffer.

Comparing a musical act to previous Presidents, Senators, cabinet members, and other politicians is really missing the point.

If Mike Love had run in this past election, or served in any elected capacity in Washington, his appearance at an inauguration would have an ENTIRELY different context.

Bill and Hillary haven't publicly lobbied to become members of the Beach Boys, but I don't think that speaks to how much they like or don't like the band.

Estranged or disgruntled band members showing up at their own bands' R&R Hall of Fame induction would, I guess, be a slightly closer analogy. Even if they held their own band, or members of their own band, or other bands being inducted, in low esteem, their appearance at the ceremony would have some purpose and context, and wouldn't indicate their predisposition to support others at the ceremony.

So yeah, there's a difference when professional decorum/tradition/expectations influence one's involvement in something.

One can indeed agree or disagree with all of this, but I don't see how that scenario is a stretch. 2/3 of the living, active shareholders in the company don't want you to do something and feel it will damage the legacy and trademark, and it's a stretch that that's a "shitty" thing to do?

And yes, as I've already said, I'd argue the same if it was Brian advocating something that both 2/3 of the living shareholders and vast swaths of fans and the general public disagreed with.

And this is the perfect example of a position/opinion that is (again, obviously) one that you're entitled to, and one that I find 100% arbitrary and random and based on nothing more than personal whim.

And that's all fine, but this discussion does involve, I would say, some level of a more "big picture" view of the situation. We can't say what each individual person thinks of Mike playing this inauguration. What I think any person on either side of the political spectrum who is being honest with themselves and others  should be able to agree on is that, objectively, playing the gig is a bad PR move *unlike* other bad PR moves on Mike's part.

The only stretch in this scenario is the stretch that the Fake Shemp Beach Boys that are "considering" the election are actually the real deal.

(http://i64.tinypic.com/k12qdw.jpg)

Unfortunately, the public at large doesn't know this. Brian, Al, and David's picture has already been used in major publications. That will happen again. And even if that weren't a factor, the impression will surely persist (and taint the brand) among many.

My reading, but I stand to be corrected, is that ex-presidents often attend to acknowledge the office more than anything. Hillary will be there by association.

The longer no word comes from Mike, the more I think they will play. The thought could be the longer they can delay any backlash, the better.

I hope you're wrong, but if this is true, that's a pretty chickensh*t thing for him to do. He's gonna have to own that backlash one way or another.

They're going because Bill Clinton is a former President (I know, sometimes I forget that too) and they need to be there to stand alongside the Carters, the Bushes, and the Obamas to create a sense of unity, superficial as it may be.

He doesn't seem to be interested in owning any of this. Not a mention of the gig or the controversy surrounding it on his FB page. Just this:

(https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/15800420_1234837416595097_7164502887752375193_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=b737422d6bad57612130c2e7b0f224cd&oe=5920D563)

I can understand if they pass, not wanting to deal with all the bullshit. But it isn't cool that the band be intimidated to not play. Let them make the decision on their own. Not everyone has the same political opinion. As Ive mentioned in previous posts, the inauguration really shouldn't be about who the candidate is, but the process that it is in the nation's history. 

I did not like Obama, but it was a historic moment when he was sworn in at his inauguration. I gave him a chance, then I got to see him in action and really did not like his style & pretty much disagreed with him 75% of the time. But that's another topic of discussion.....

The terminology "the band" is not entirely appropriate, because while we know Mike has the license to tour, he is not the band himself, and certainly he is not the band from an ethical standpoint, where everybody's opinion should matter regarding this specific gig.  

Secondly, Mike's a big boy. He intimidated Brian in the studio with Redwood; he intimidated Brian with a ridiculous lawsuit in 2005.  There are more examples, it's a pattern. So yeah, I find it hard to have much empathy for any intimidation he may feel at this point in time regarding this matter, you know?  It's why I can only laugh when I see Trump getting mad at being made fun of on SNL.

Mike craves powerful friends... ::)

If Mike plays the gig, and Brian and Al unequivocably wind up stating to the media that they did not approve of the brand being associated with Trump… how would Mike ever answer an interview question about that?  

By just saying that he did it because he could?  Is there any other possible answer he could spin?  Or he would just state upfront to every interviewer from now until eternity that they are not allowed to ask him such a question, or offer some sort of "no comment" nonsense?  

I just don't know if he's thought this through very well.

If Mike does the gig, and then if he ever addresses the issue in an interview, I have little doubt that he'll hide behind one of the "it's not about politics or endorsements, it's about respecting the office and the decorum of the event" sort of rationalizations.

But it's clear he's buddies with Mr. Trump, and "I don't agree with everything he says" is hardly a condemnation (even the most ardent of political allies never agree on literally *everything*). From the September New York Post piece:

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.”

So as late as September of this year (well after FIFTY ZILLION reports were out about the horrible things Mike's buddy had done and said), Mike said he was "sure" he would do the gig if asked. I think it's interesting then that as of December, it had turned into saying Mike was "considering" it, with no indication that the hedging had anything to do with scheduling. That of course very obviously reeks of testing the waters PR-wise to see how bad the decision would be for Mike. That being said, I see no reason at this stage nor any indication that it's looking like Mike *won't* do the gig. I hope I'm wrong and Mike for once makes a good decision when it comes to this stuff.

What's interesting is that, apart from all the "legacy" stuff and stuff about hurting the brand/trademark, this decision will surely even more firmly cement the much more abstract yet prevalent notion that Mike is the biggest a**hole of the "classic rock" era. The one thing that makes me think that there is a *sliver* of chance he'll pass on the gig is that he has spent the last X number of months promoting his book and giving interviews to help explain to people why he *isn't* the a**hole he has the reputation for being. Playing a gig for a widely despised political figure unlike the Bushes and Reagans of the past, will only more firmly cement the image that he at least partly seems to want to clear up.

Interviewer: What is the biggest regret you have for about your career and life?
Mike: It’s not a regret, but the biggest thing that impacted our lives is drugs.

Interviewer: What's been your greatest struggle?
Mike: To coexist while watching the people I love choose less than life-supporting paths via drugs, alcohol or poor lifestyle decisions.

I can see Mike being asked a simple question about playing Trump's inauguration and his response would probably be something regarding Brian's past drug abuses.

"I didn't do drugs" is turning into Mike's version of "I am Groot."

I agree...If we're talking about Mike Love's personal band he uses to play certain gigs not affiliated with the Beach Boys.

But if he uses the Beach Boys name to play this gig I think fans/management/band-members have the right to express their opinions (negative or positive) about them playing the gig. The Beach Boys are far more than what the little touring band is these days. To most people who pop in a Greatest Hits compilation The Beach Boys are about Brian, Al, Dennis, Carl, Mike, Bruce, etc). And if Brian and Al (and Blondie) don't want to be associated with a gig of this magnitude I think it's only fair that Mike respect those wishes.

Mike should just play the gig under his own name - though without the drawing power of the Beach Boys name I wonder if they'd even be considered...

Somebody photoshop Groot onstage with M&B! :lol :lol :lol :lol

True, yet I don't know how he'd escape a specific question which asks about why he used the brand name in specific violation of the desires of Brian and Al for this event. It would just have to be a duck and dodge where he answers a different question that wasn't asked.

Not a bad idea actually. For the inauguration or afterwards.  Or just call it 'The Beach Boy.'

"So as late as September of this year (well after FIFTY ZILLION reports were out about the horrible things Mike's buddy had done and said), "

Well, at least you don't exaggerate much. ::)  Now I want them to play the inauguration just to watch all the splodey heads on this site....

I didn't care whether or not they played at the inauguration  -- until I read this thread. Now I want them to play. ^-^

If the fake Beach Boys play for the Trumpster, it will be so entertaining to watch myKe luHv try in vain to climb out of yet another deep hole he's dug for himself and the brand as well.

I am one of those Beachboys fans who have for decades defended his love for this band in spite of ridicule by the media hip and elite,  one of those who have helped through their loving support, to elevate the band to their current level of respectability and iconic status.   Most posters here have staunchly supported the band despite the embarrassing episodes over the years (many stemming from Mike Love) .  But, this appearance would be far beyond what I could, or would, be willing to defend.    Many of us are not his people, the car people, but rather the SMiLE People, The Pet Sounds People, The Eccentric Brian Wilson people, the young indie crowd fan people.   Mike Love stands to alienate and distance the band from those who have brought them legitimacy beyond that of an oldies band who plays the Trump Inaugaration.  I f this happens, I will inform those who have long known me as a die hard Beachboys fan, that  I no longer have a taste for the material or it's creators or current incarnations as bands.  As I continue to bring my huge vinyl collection under control, I will consider getting rid of my four bankers boxes of Beachboys LPs as an OPPORTUNITY to rid myself of  material I no longer care to hear.  Sometimes In life, one must move on.

I totally understand where you were coming from, and sadly largely feel the same way.

The funny thing is, it occurred to me today that maybe this attitude among a certain segment of fans is actually what Mike Love *wants*. Even if inadvertent, perhaps  it's his way of removing the fans who are more fans of Brian's adventurous work, by killing their interest in the brand. I don't for a moment think he will be sorry to see them go.  

At a certain point, I think that even if his bottom line is affected, perhaps he would be happier to not even have those fans be interested in the band anymore.  Because those people are more likely to be critical of him. I honestly think he wants to tell fans who prefer that side of the BBs to go f*** themselves.

Despite my issues with him, I have defended Mike to many people in person, time and time again…  but this will be rather impossible to do.  Just for starters, I don't even know how I would be able to wear any shirt with the brand name on it anymore and not feel awkward about it.  It nearly kills - or at least dulls - my interest in the brand on some level. Maybe that will go away after a certain point, I don't know.  As a fan who has invested countless hours and countless amounts of money into the brand, it pisses me off beyond words that an original member wants to take a giant diarrhea sh*t on the name by  publicly supporting - in literally the biggest way possible - a pathetic bully who makes fun of disabled folks, etc.

It's possibly *the* most shortsighted and jerk move of all time in rock 'n' roll history, in particular if he does it against the wishes of the other people who share an interest in the name.  It's in front of the whole world, in a way that is unparalleled in modern history. This election, this candidate, and the new media age in which we live in will make this a spectacularly well-known decision that will haunt the brand for years.  People can claim this is exaggerating, but many music fans will deeply feel that, and nobody has a right to say that those are "incorrect" or ridiculous feelings.

Just for a moment and imagine what it will be like to wear a Beach Boys shirt in the city of San Francisco, for example, after this inauguration.  It might be like wearing a confederate flag shirt while walking down the streets of Compton.

I think it's one thing to stop supporting the band in any future endeavor (should the performance actually take place) but completely erasing the music from your life is an extreme move.  Is "God Only Knows" truly tarnished now?  "Good Vibrations" is now forever unlistenable?  I just don't see the logic in this.  These were songs written and recorded decades before anyone even heard the name Trump. 

If this thing actually goes through I will be very disappointed.  But that's not going to stop me from putting on "Smiley Smile" or "Sunflower" the next day.  No way. 

I thoroughly agree that this would not help the band's image whatsoever but honestly...I think most of us here are vastly over-estimating just how much the general public actually cares about the Beach Boys in the first place. Thanks to "Love and Mercy" and the Pet Sounds anniversary, I truly think Brian has secured his place above all this inaugural BS. Mike Love, however, has not...and thanks to his autobiography and choice venues etc. I think a move like this is almost expected from him. Al Jardine, Bruce Johnston, and David Marks are unknown and irrelevant in the public eye. They could walk down the street in any town unnoticed where as Brian would be easily noticed, and Mike Love would go around ensuring that he's noticed...

It's kind of funny, because whether you agree or disagree with those who believe Mike shouldn't play the gig, at least those people seem to have some sort of principled or logical reason for doing so, and in most cases it isn't even based on politically ideology as much as wanting to protect the band's legacy. 

I haven't seen anybody who doesn't want Mike to play the gig say "I hope Mike cancels the gig so Trump supporters are pissed off!"

But I do appreciate people being honest and letting us know how their disdain for people on this board and/or antagonistic attitude towards people on this board outweighs their ability or desire to try to approach this topic with even a modicum of objectivity in terms of this impacts the band's trademark/brand/legacy.

These points are in large part generally accurate in my view. But the idea that the "public doesn't care much about the Beach Boys" works *both* ways. Indeed, the fact that many who would protest playing inauguration don't know any ins and outs of the history of the band would tend to make things worse.

That is, people at least know that "The Beach Boys" are a famous, old band. They have that baseline name recognition even among people who couldn't name members or name many or any songs.

People who are (understandably) objecting to the idea of playing this inauguration will then all of a sudden take a much stronger interest in "The Beach Boys" solely in the realm of condemning them. That they don't know the members or know the name licensing situation then becomes a *liability* for the band's branding, because all we will get from many of those people is a condemnation of anything to do with the band.

This is why I keep saying I'm looking at this from an objective PR point of view. While my *personal* opinion is that anybody and everybody should be rightly outraged at the idea of Mike playing this gig, I would also lament any person or member of the press/media who doesn't take the time to understand why "The Beach Boys" in terms of the true, full band and their legacy have nearly *nothing* to do with Mike's band. But I recognize that *is* what's going to happen, which is just another among the litany of reasons why doing this gig is a bad idea.

As each day passes, now it's 15 days away from the actual event, it's hard to figure out why Mike hasn't announced if he's playing or not playing the gig.

I couldn't have said it better. Anything Trump touches is scrutinized by the media...sometimes for very very good reason, other times not (CNN actually did a 'news' segment about Trump eating fried chicken with a knife and fork). Two days ago in Chicago a special needs person was kidnapped, bound, gagged, tortured (kicked, slapped, cut up, cigarettes put out in his wounds, etc) - the kidnappers on Facebook Live Streaming forced this guy to say "f*** Donald Trump!"

Take a look at any footage outside Donald Trump Rallies in the Southwest a few months ago. I couldn't begin to count how many people got the hell beat out of them all because they were walking out of Donald Trump rallies. As Century Deprived says: "imagine what it will be like to wear a Beach Boys shirt in the city of San Francisco, for example, after this inauguration.  It might be like wearing a confederate flag shirt while walking down the streets of Compton." - he's not exaggerating. If you people really want your favorite band associated with this bullshit then so be it. But, Trump politics aside, I want Mike to keep his little touring band as far away from this nightmare as possible. Frankly I'd still like to tell people I like the Beach Boys without the threat of getting punched or irritation thrown my way.

Edit: I also want to emphasize that I have no doubt the media scrutiny will be heavy on this. When it was said that Jackie Evancho would be playing the inauguration, most people said "Who?". But AMERICA'S BAND (that wholesome surf, love, and California band who rivaled the Beatles in their heyday) playing for this racist, misogynistic, homophobic President Elect (not my words, just saying what the media has allowed to be said about him) will bring in mass ratings on news networks - I think there will be heavy media scrutiny...and in turn a public hatred/boycott for the Beach Boys will follow. Look what happened to Kanye West - he was called terrible names on Twitter and calls for boycotting his music were made - all because he met with the President Elect (I can't imagine what would've happened had he done a concert for him).

This isn't about politics, it's about legacy.

Let me preface this by saying that I did not vote for Trump, never would and hated him long before he ever became a "politician".  He's an ass, plain and simple, and always has been.  And while everyone is entitled to their opinion and to hate Mike for even considering playing this, I do agree that there is some over-reaction here on this board as I'm sure there will be on the internet as well, if they do play.  That's one of the hallmarks of the internet: allow people to over-react to things everyday.  That being said, if Brian and Al truly object on some moral level to "The Beach Boys" playing this thing, then as shareholders in BRI, I'm sure they could call an emergency meeting of all BRI shareholders and discuss this and make their moral objections known.  We may never be privy to this even if it does happen but it does not appear that Brian and Al are even close to being as enraged about this as some people on this board.  My guess is they will try to distance themselves from it in the media more as a self-preservation thing than based on some moral grounds.  And to those people who will make statements that they will dump their Beach Boys collection or never buy anything from the band again, that is certainly their right to do and if they believe that strongly in this cause, I encourage them to do so.  But there is a small part of me that believes in a couple of years anyone is even going to care that they played, if they decide to.

It's funny, in another politically-laced thread that was moved to the sandbox a few months ago (wrongly, IMO), I predicted that at some point being a fan of the Beach Boys will be code for 'racist.' That prediction was based on the growing notion of the Boys as "white dad music," which in our increasingly PC world is automatically categorized on the racist spectrum.  I was castigated for that prediction by some of the very posters on this thread.

I maintain that, given the ascendancy of progressive/PC culture, any older white band or artist will be regarded as racist to a degree.  Mike playing at a Trump inauguration will seal that deal for the Beach Boys.  This is one reason I hope they decline-- and soon.

That said, I continue to be fascinated by the psychological phenomena I'm seeing in this thread. Double standards like crazy (for instance- The Professor banned for a single stupid, yet fairly innocuous comment while more toxic jabs from other perspectives are completely ignored).  The special pleading fallacy, which has become the crux of so many arguments on this thread is cracking me up.  It's funny how concern for the band's legacy is being used to justify the demonization of roughly half the country.

Speaking of demonizing half the country, how are your hysterical pronouncements about "the ascendancy of progressive/PC culture" making "any older white band or artist [seem] racist" different from those who call Trump supporters ignorant, misogynistic, homophobic, or white supremacist? "Your progressive values are ruining my culture!"

The fact that the band's music, aside from this ridiculous inauguration stuff, has been getting flack for being out of touch in small little bits and pieces from various online articles is really pretty silly (most certainly IMO an example of when PC culture unfortunately becomes overly-reaching - I have no problem in admitting that it absolutely does sometimes), and pre-Trump, I don't think that negative taglines associated with the band were ever going to get much traction at all in a way that actually made people think of the term "racism"  in the same breath as the name.  There are certainly overzealous people who want to harp on the band for being too "whitebread", but in and of itself that was never going to have legs to go to the next level.

That's because the public at large understands that these songs were written decades ago in a different time, and while they typically are not about particularly diverse topics, there's nothing really divisive or mean-spirited about the songs. There was previously no toxic modern connection to the brand. People like myself, who are incredibly critical of not only Trump but the idea that the band might play the inauguration, actively stood up against a recent article that promoted the notion that the band needs to be criticized for Pet Sounds not being diverse enough. I think it's a silly thing designed as click bait, although I don't doubt the author was sincere in thinking that. Still, that ideology was never going to have real traction, and the band name was never going to be truly be associated with racism and unapologetic homophobia/bigotry... until now.

A major association and endorsement of this idiot is completely different, and the criticism they will get for association with such a bigot, who is incredibly blatant about it, unapologetic about it, etc. will be off the charts, and will not go away.  These are modern times, and the guy unapologetically makes fun of disabled people. Remind me where Mike wrote a song lyric about that?  There would never be any remote association with that kind of putrid crap... until they associate with this idiot.

You can bet that a "BB" inauguration performance will become THE highest-viewed live video of the band in the entire existence of YouTube. More people will see it than The TAMI Show, than all of their '60s TV show appearances combined.

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

The band cannot be held accountable for, and had no obligation to be any more diverse or progressive than they were back in the day (when they were just innocently singing about topics in their lives during simpler times)... but they do have an obligation to not support a modern-day bigot who wants to (and whose cabinet wants to) turn back rights for many groups if they want to NOT be associated with racism, homophobia, normalization of mocking disabled people, etc.

You have a problem with my abbreviation of the band's name? I'm on a phone; I abbreviate where I can.

EDIT: While I do tend to abbreviate Beach Boys as 'BB', I don't think I've done it in this thread. So I guess I'm confused by your use of quotation marks.

Everytime I see there's been activity in this thread, I check it with a sense of dread. Hoping against hope this won't happen.    :(

Hysterical? I suppose you and I define that word differently.

I think he put the "BB" in quotations because they're not the "real" Beach Boys. For this inauguration most people across America won't understand that the band from the 60s is totally fractured, yet Mike will still go out there and people will most likely think that the whole band from the 60s is playing this gig. It's why Brian's management made it clear that Brian and Al were not apart of this gig.

Right. Exactly as rab2591 described.

Roger that. My bad.

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

Sure. Here goes...


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



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


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

Well that's a damn shame. And I thank you for your insight, because I am certainly not a teacher and am unaware of this. I think there needs to be delicate nuance involved in any such teaching to kids, and while I can understand kids need to be aware that there was a lack of diversity in the past... artists don't need to have some bad label attached to them simply for having written about falling in love and simple teenaged topics (and not writing about something they "should" have written about).  

I am sure some of this is down to the nuance of how things are taught, because I would think there *must* be some sort of a nuanced way to communicate ideas without dragging down the band.

Still, the Trump association is absolutely the last thing the brand needs, MOST ESPECIALLY if these things are currently being taught to young people. The best thing that could *counteract* the long-term notion of BB as a racist symbol would be for the band to have publicly turned down the gig (before any "we're considering it" stuff was made public).

I think it's a fallacy to say that an intense opposition to Donald Trump is a demonization of half the country. I also think that slapping the "PC culture" label on any criticism of the status quo is the most PC sh*t I've ever heard in my life. Calling out the very real influence of racism, in a country that was founded with slavery, had to fight a full civil war to end it, took nearly another hundred years to end legalized apartheid in a huge swath of it, still hasn't dealt with the massive inequality that all of that created and finds it more comfortable to use prisons to put it out of sight, to me, that's not PC, it's just telling it like it is. And rejecting a president that got his first big spike in support after calling for a ban on Muslims entering the United States isn't about being offended because he wasn't "PC" about it, it's about that being some blatantly Islamphobic sh*t that has a huge effect on millions of real Americans who will be cut off from their families and be subject to a second-tier citizen status.

People start clutching pearls as soon as racism comes up, saying "no no no, not me" is as ridiculous as someone getting mad at a doctor when they say "you're sick". America's got a history of racism, there's plenty of it left, and to be honest it will probably never fully go away. People need to stop worrying if it means the doctor is saying that they're bad people for getting sick and start fixing it. Instead they want to pretend they're already better.

Nah. Intense opposition to Trump at the very least includes disdain for those who elected him. Do you really mean to tell me that your disgust for Trump is exclusive to the man, completely divorced from voters who supported him? If you can really say that, you're a much better man than I.

I agree totally.

Not the best analogy.  A doctor works closely with his/her patient to come to a conclusion regarding their illness.  Learning more about symptoms, running additional tests--you know: getting more information about the situation before making a diagnosis.

What you're doing is more like a person wearing a doctors coat (but is in fact not a doctor) walking down the street, passing someone randomly who sneezes and stopping and saying to them: "You're sick.  Get help immediately."

But no one has a "racist bone in their body", that's a little saying we use to imply that racism can only be an inborn deficiency rather than fess up to the "systematically racist culture" we were all born into and often accepted as normal. I don't think of the Beach Boys as being evangelically racist, but they definitely were a product of a racist world. And I think for a lot of people if you're not actively opposing racism as someone who benefits from it, you're part of it. They had a massive platform at a time of major social upheaval and they didn't really say anything about race. The one thing I can think of where they almost did was SMiLE which tried to tackle issues of the European conquest of America, and that ended up going unreleased.

I think the criticism you could easily make is that they were comfortable with the status quo. Their music was a celebration of white life in California that was often built on the rhythms of black rock & R&B. While I immensely enjoy what came out of that melding, I don't think it's unfair to discuss and criticize appropriation and how it feels to the people who's culture is being borrowed. That kids are doing this in Utah is awesome to me.

Again, I'm not saying they are KKK members or something. On the other hand you could make an argument that there was something revolutionary about adding Ricky & Blondie to the group, thought it was certainly not the thing the band is best known for.

Anyway, sorry for getting so heated about this. We're at a moment where a lot of things I'm passionate about are colliding (The Beach Boys, discussions of racism, politics). Glad to read what you're adding to this conversation.

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

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

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

Plus - when The BBs did take the time to write a political song - like Student Demonstration Time - it came out super clunky and embarrassing (which I imagine they probably were aware of that perception pretty soon too); maybe they just realized this wasn't their strong suit. They weren't race scholars; they were scholars in writing about surfing, roller skating, and love songs with tennis analogies.

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

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

You would probably enjoy the the article discussed in this thread:  http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24451.0.html

The Beach Boys' music was a celebration of life:  relationships, growing up, being in your room, being bugged at your old man, getting a new car, liking a girl and trying to ask her out, breaking up with a girl...   These are stories that everyone faces in their lives---regardless of their race.  That's why they wrote them--not with the pure intent of it only being served ONLY to a white audience. 

What is more racist:  The Beach Boys ONLY creating music stemming from their white heritage or celebrating, creating (and often acknowledging/crediting) the music being made by the black R&B artists that they genuinely loved? 


-----
Everyone is worried about what a Trump inauguration will do to the band's legacy but going by some of the comments here and what another poster said about how his students see the band---their legacy is already bruised. 

It's curious to me, as well.  I speculate that it's that the Trump people haven't confirmed with them, or that they don't want any attention on it.  But, then again, I have no clue.  There seems to have been a bit of spin involving other "Trump friends" not playing the event, from both Team Trump and the artists.

I notice what no one mentions (and I don't lack my own political views), is that one thing is agreed across the media - Trump isn't getting any A-list celebrities.  Aside from the anger from those appalled by Trump, playing at his inaugural pretty much labels the performer as someone desperate enough, and irrelevant enough to play this event, a bit like being on a reality TV show.

If Mike and friends are to perform...won't it take longer than 15 days to get everything planned out? Even looking past the political atrocity that is coming in 2 weeks, aren't we pretty much guaranteeing a complete clusterfuck of a performance?

How much do you want to be they will be miming to a pre-recorded track?

Just cue up the tape from Memorial Day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the article, hadn't seen it. A lot to digest. Some points I agree with, some I don't (for instance, I don't even really think of Pet Sounds as a Rock album).

I agree with your points. Thanks for posting them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting down to brass tacks version 3.0...

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

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

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

Irony? Hypocrisy? Who knows.

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

And yours.

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

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

How exactly is this not true?


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response moved here:

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

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

Done.

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

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

I'm looking for the positives here.

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

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

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

I know that feeling all too well.

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

It's not a nice thing at all.

Actually, I can't think of a Beach Boys shirt I would want to wear anywhere nowadays. They pretty much all suck! ;D

I was being facetious,  sorry. I think my point was I never became a BB fan because of the bands reputation. And I did enjoy the kudos of the Beach Boys being my thing.

It's  always been about the music. But totally agree about this inaugaration not being a good thing, I just mean that it won't affect my enjoyment of their music.  I like a bit of Richard Wagner if I'm in the mood, and I can seperate his music from the Nazi association. I certainly wouldn't wear a Bayreuth Festival  T shirt in Israel though, for the same reasons as you.

Anyhow, the last thing I want to do is offend anyone, especially you, CD as I enjoy your posts,  so apologies in advance if I have.  :)

No I wasn't offended, just trying to clarify what you meant; the internet has a habit of words not coming across quite right sometimes :) And thanks. Some other folks in this thread just seem actively *happy* for the possibility that people will get offended by Trump playing, and that's just a really shitty way to be. I hope I'm able to enjoy the music the same way, though I'm not sure I will. I don't know when I'll be playing Looking Back With Love again; maybe Mike can get Trump to do a duet on a Rockin' The Man in the Boat remake.  :-\

Grabbin' the Little Man in the Boat?

10 days to go and counting: Is Mike going to play the gig or not?

(http://i67.tinypic.com/14o6ts4.jpg)

(Picture from CenturyDeprived)