Does anyone know who Peaches Marion Book is? I was reading Deana Martin's (Dean Martin's daughter) testimony in the Tex Watson trial (one of the Manson family), and she mentions being at a party at Dennis Wilson's in July or October of 1968 with "Peaches Marion Book" (as well as Terry Melcher, Gregg Jakobson, and others), and it tracks for being around the time when Dennis recorded the 20/20-era demo/outtake "Peaches" (August 29, 1968), so I obviously wondered if she was the inspiration.

From the testimony via https://www.cielodrive.com/deana-martin-trial-testimony.php

Q: And were you ever at Mr. Wilson’s residence at 14400 Sunset Boulevard in West Los Angeles?
A: Yes.
Q: Near Will Rogers Park?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you ever attend a party at Mr. Wilson’s residence in July of 1968?
A: I am not sure if it was July or October, but I was there at a party, yes.
Q: And who was at the party with you?
A: Terry Melcher, Allen Warrnick, Annie Marshal, Gwen Wells, Peaches Marion Book, B-o-o-k -- did I say Gwen Wells?
THE COURT: Yes, you did.
THE WITNESS: And Dean Moorehouse and Greg Jacobson.

Anyone have any info on her?

Was Princeton 11-13-71 a soundboard or just the same as the boot that's already out there? The version of Caroline, No I have from that show is so magic, would love to hear as a soundboard.

We're such a lucky fanbase. What a joy to even get a taste of what's headed our way. Thank you to all involved!

More peopl liked this tweet than signed the Feel Flows petition 

As a huge Beach Boys fan and a strong conservative centered around the importance of values, morals and ethics, I'm proud that Mike is playing the Trump sponsored concert.   For all my other musical 'heroes' that have supported the politics of hatred, divide, racism and suppression of freedoms (liberals), I'm glad that the Beach Boys band name is being represented on the right side of history.    Congrats to Mike.   Remember, the thoughts shared on these boards are not as widespread as you'd like to believe.   Americans in the vast majority of states, cities and counties elected Trump as our President because he stood for the political decisions/directions we so desired after being on the brink of a civil war with President Obama.   The seething anger of racism generated by that man's words and actions were unlike anything this country had saw, but the media and these boards rarely bothered to notice or report.  

For fucks sake, you’re completely missing the point that they’re playing a concert for a crowd during a pandemic. I don’t give a sh*t about Mike’s politics or your politics, it doesn’t change that it’s stupid and dangerous and against CDC guidelines.

Hi Rocky.  No, I didn't miss that point.  I think its perfectly okay to play a concert during a 'pandemic' because I don't believe its a 'pandemic'.   Survival rates are over 99.9% and nearly half of the reported deaths are dying WITH COVID, not OF COVID.  And American numbers include all the states where liberal Governors placed COVID patients in nursing homes with those most susceptible!  I live near Lancaster, PA where this occurred.  It was truly heartbreaking.  The elderly were killed and then the numbers are now used on Biden ads as political fodder.   The numbers are completely overstated and the real truth is in overall deaths from year to year.   We all have family in the medical field and some in the undertaking field continually exposing death certificates where COVID was slapped on because of the financial incentives.  We also all have families with real examples of healthy people dying of COVID.  No doubt, the virus is real and dangerous, but its been totally blown out of proportion for government control which is making much worse scenarios than simply protecting those most vulnerable.  Luckily, Trump cut off travel to China early on.   Remember, the experts stated for years including this spring that masks do nothing.   Now, people are turning against each other because they bought into the hype that MY MASK PROTECTS YOU.   No, your mask is having more ill affects on you having to breathe your own 'exhaust' all day long.   We could publicize stories on a daily basis of heathly individuals dying from a variety of common illnesses.   This was an evil political opportunity.  For instance, cancer patients are in much higher numbers and always have been more susceptible to illnesses and we didn't care for them with COVID-like precautions??   And obviously, the media is outraged by Trump's rallies but has no problem with the racist protestors that rioted in our USA cities and streets most of the summer months???

Hi Nathan,

It looks like you're taking in a lot of politicized news sources and anecdotes. A lot of the information you're citing has been repeatedly refuted in non-biased fact checks by apolitical groups, and I'd encourage you to be more wary of the places you're getting news from and to try googling some of the information you're citing with the words "fact check" in there to get an alternate perspective from people focused more on accuracy than political perspective.

Best of luck

[Exile]

My feeling is that the surviving BBs are a lot less interested in what goes on these releases than we are.

Of course. I'd say nearly for sure. And I'd say the same for perhaps Bob Dylan and his Bootleg Series. Of all the major artists involved with their archival projects, I'd probably say maybe Pete Townshend is one of the few that would be super hands on. And maybe Mick Jagger with the Stones (at least Exile and Some Girls) as he actually went in and finished previously unfinished stuff for those projects re-issues.

I raise you one Neil Young

I mean they already played one of the inauguration parties for Donald Trump, so I don't quite get the surprise here. You can't really go lower than that in my opinion, just hit the bottom again and again.

Hands down. That time Mike's Beach Boys played at two inaugural balls to celebrate the beginning of Donald Trump's presidency.

Though perhaps it went past cringe and into actual retching.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[incorrect info on my part]

Bullshit kds.  YOU insult the site.  You insult the Beach Boys.  You insult the fans.  You insult the music.  You insult the legacy.  You insult America.  You insult the world.  You can't see the forest for the trees.  I thought you had your sh*t together.  I was decidedly wrong.  You're entrenched in your hip-waders which are firmly stuck in bullshit basement.

This sh*t should be in the sandbox.  The sandbox at Brian's house was full of dog-sh*t.  This one is firmly 'enriched' with bullshit.  Donald, his save his ass VP choice and that 'love' guy are weighted down with unadulterated sh*t PERIOD.  You want to make this personal?  OK.  You threw yourself onto that 'mound'.  I didn't.  If I was wrong...I'd admit it.  You obviously can't.

I think this crosses a line. I've disagreed pretty strongly with KDS in this thread, but I've always felt like were having a discussion. This is just personal attacks. KDS this doesn't represent my perspective at all.

"And I seen all kinds of girls. Yeah, but I couldn't wait to get back in the states. Back to the cutest girls in the world. I wish they all could be California girls..."

#1 - Suggests that no girls are as cute as California girls. Which is false.
#2 - Suggests that the Beach Boys advocate eugenics, or at the very least, a global takeover initiated by the state of California. Which is unclear - how exactly does he "wish" that we could all be Californian?
#3 - Suggests that the "cutest" girls are inherently better than other girls. Blatant objectification of women.

The Beach Boys need not be associated with this malarkey. Females, like illegal immigrants, are a race that we should all be respectful and mindful of. Anyone up for a petition to ban "California Girls"?

Silly, but I'll bite.

#1 - Within your breakdown, I would say that the main difference is that "California Girls" is clearly a subjective judgement. The quote you pulled regularly employs the 1st person pronoun "I" to indicate these are the opinions of the singer/group and not an objective fact.
#2 - The song as a whole isn't about the supremacy of California Girls, but actually about how great all the girls in the United States are "East Coast girls", "Southern girls", "Mid-West farmer's daughters", "Northern girls", they are all girls he wishes COULD BE California Girls (presumably because that's where he lives).
#3 - The song does have an underlying focus on cuteness, but there is a good amount of time appreciating girls' sense of style, way of talking.

(Also, females, while not a race, do definitely deserve respect.)

"Mexico is sending rapists", on the other hand, is clearly a false statement that boosts view of undocumented residents as criminals (apart from their immigration status) and is being used as the basis of a multi-billion dollar infrastructure spending proposal that the country will likely have to pay for with our tax money.

"California Girls" seems in keeping with The Beach Boys image. "Mexico is sending rapists" seems like a pretty off brand one to me.

New article from the NYTimes about how acts have responded to playing the inauguration. The Beach Boys are the only major act that appears to be considering. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/arts/music/donald-trump-inauguration-performers.html

I'm sorry, but I don't see how wanting to keep illegal immigrants who commit felonies out of the US is racist.  It's not like he said "all Mexicans are rapists, drug dealers, and murders."  That would be racist.  

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

#1 - Suggests Mexico is intentionally sending criminals. Which is false.
#2 - Suggests undocumented residents aren't "like us". Which is unclear what it refers to, but certainly sews the seed of treating them as "others".
#3 - Suggests undocumented residents are people who bring drugs, crime and are rapists. This flies in the face of the facts that, overwhelmingly they come for low wage jobs that American employers pay them under the table to do. As a group, non-citizens have a lower crime rate than American citizens. Because this is factually inaccurate, it means it was either never researched before he said it which means it's based on assumptions that would have to be considered racist in nature or it was researched and then ignored because he didn't care about the truth in preference of using them as scapegoats. Either way, it's racist.
#4 - Suggests most are not good people. Which is a moral judgement on millions of people he's never met based exclusively on their country of origin & the legal status of their residency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/08/donald-trumps-false-comments-connecting-mexican-immigrants-and-crime/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/06/donald-trump/trump-mexican-government-they-send-bad-ones-over/

I think this is a racist kind of politics. It's not the kind that The Beach Boys should be forever associated with, especially when they've done so much to solidify their legacy over the last decade plus. From Brian Presenting SMiLE to the 50th Reunion to Love & Mercy, things have been generally on the up, this would crash it.

EDIT: I see the call to take this to the sandbox, and I'll honor whatever decision is made. In my own posts, I've tried to keep things related to whether the characteristics of Donald Trump are something good for the Beach Boys to be associated with. Obviously the nature of this whole thread is inextricably political, but people don't have to follow it and it does relate to the subject at hand which is a very Beach Boys related discussion. Again, I'll honor whatever decision is made, but I wanted to voice my perspective.

Is he a great man?  I've never met him.  He lacks tact, I'll give you that.  But, I don't see evil when I look at him either.  I see a guy who speaks his mind and it labelled evil by an increasingly oversensitive society. 

I think we'll see after January 20, that much of the hysteria and fear around him is unwarranted. 

You say "increasingly oversensitive", I say "fed up". Marginalized communities and those who ally with them are tired of taking it on the cheek. It's "speaking his mind" to say that Mexico is sending rapists, but it's "hysteria" to say that that's racist?

It's not overly sensitive for people who have been trampled on by this country over and over again, and continue to be trampled on in many respects, to speak out when they hear someone who wants to do more trampling. No one is saying Trump shouldn't be allowed to say what he's saying. They're saying that the specifics of what he's saying is uniformed and dangerous.

He ran his campaign in wholly new way that deeply offended a majority of the country, even people who voted for him often found it disgusting. The discord in this country now is the fruit of that. For The Beach Boys entity to get tied to a President who made his name in politics by championing the racist conspiracy that President Obama wasn't entitled to hold office, by claiming we needed to build a wall to keep out the rapists, drug dealers, and murderers Mexico was sending, by encouraging violence at his rallies, by proposing a ban of Muslims coming to our country, by sowing deep distrust of even the most basic journalism, and by calling for his political opponent to be locked up, is for them to end their run as America's Band because this man, more than any other person since maybe Jefferson Davis, has divided America. That was his strategy to win. So HE won, AMERICA lost, and that's a fine deal by him. But The Beach Boys don't need to go along with that splintering of America, even if it's by the person who holds it's highest office.

They had a massive platform at a time of major social upheaval and they didn't really say anything about race.

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" simply because that person has randomly decided such with their expectation barometer. 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 it. I don't fault ABBA or any of the disco bands for having song topics that are mostly apolitical either. 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.

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.

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).

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.

Their music was a celebration of white life in California that was often built on the rhythms of black rock & R&B.

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. 

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.

They had a massive platform at a time of major social upheaval and they didn't really say anything about race.

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" simply because that person has randomly decided such with their expectation barometer. 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 it. I don't fault ABBA or any of the disco bands for having song topics that are mostly apolitical either. 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.

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.

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.

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.

That's because the public at large understands that these songs were written decades ago in a different time...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Also does anyone hear him on My Diane from M.I.U.? I don't