The Beach Boys on Fox News

[The_Beach]

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-and-friends/all-american-summer-concert-series

On www.foxnews.com they have a big announcement on the top of their website about a beach boys take over!
I didn't see this anywhere on here yet.

EDIT: You can live stream it

[Matt H]

Great picture of the 50th reunion Beach Boys at that link.

[Senator Blutarsky]

Great picture of the 50th reunion Beach Boys at that link.

 Too bad they keep using that picture to promote this Brian-less ( and Al-less) version.

[The_Beach]

My guess is that it is an error by the web site and not Mike  trying to promote it as the whole band! but who knows could be just the most recent photo the website had of the beach boys

[HeyJude]

As has always been the case in the random instances (mostly in 2012 and perhaps 2013) where promoters or other entities erroneously use a C50 photo in relation to something to do with Mike's band, I'm sure Mike has nothing to do with it and would prefer to not have such a headache. It's not Mike's fault.

However, it is unfortunate that, to my best guess/assumption, Mike probably didn't have any problem with BRI going after Al for similar issues (more to do with erroneously billing Al's band as "The Beach Boys" than using incorrect photos) back in 1999. And for those who believe BRI actions have nothing specifically to do with Mike, I somehow doubt BRI is admonishing or considering legal action against Mike for these innocent mistakes of someone else using incorrect photos to promote Mike's band.

[filledeplage]

As has always been the case in the random instances (mostly in 2012 and perhaps 2013) where promoters or other entities erroneously use a C50 photo in relation to something to do with Mike's band, I'm sure Mike has nothing to do with it and would prefer to not have such a headache. It's not Mike's fault.

However, it is unfortunate that, to my best guess/assumption, Mike probably didn't have any problem with BRI going after Al for similar issues (more to do with erroneously billing Al's band as "The Beach Boys" than using incorrect photos) back in 1999. And for those who believe BRI actions have nothing specifically to do with Mike, I somehow doubt BRI is admonishing or considering legal action against Mike for these innocent mistakes of someone else using incorrect photos to promote Mike's band.

This is another "I don't blame Mike" but "I'm really blaming Mike." One cannot have it both ways. 

This Touring Band is in alliance with BRI.  They are working in furtherance of BRI.  That is why they have the license.  One cannot always control out-of-date photos that are used by a news outlet.   

[HeyJude]

As has always been the case in the random instances (mostly in 2012 and perhaps 2013) where promoters or other entities erroneously use a C50 photo in relation to something to do with Mike's band, I'm sure Mike has nothing to do with it and would prefer to not have such a headache. It's not Mike's fault.

However, it is unfortunate that, to my best guess/assumption, Mike probably didn't have any problem with BRI going after Al for similar issues (more to do with erroneously billing Al's band as "The Beach Boys" than using incorrect photos) back in 1999. And for those who believe BRI actions have nothing specifically to do with Mike, I somehow doubt BRI is admonishing or considering legal action against Mike for these innocent mistakes of someone else using incorrect photos to promote Mike's band.

This is another "I don't blame Mike" but "I'm really blaming Mike." One cannot have it both ways. 

This Touring Band is in alliance with BRI.  They are working in furtherance of BRI.  That is why they have the license.  One cannot always control out-of-date photos that are used by a news outlet.   

I don't agree with any of that. "They" don't have the license. Mike has the license, and he has it because he sought it out, because he wants to make money touring as "The Beach Boys." They aren't "in alliance" with BRI; the touring band is not employed by BRI, they are employed by MELECO. MELECO/Mike is a licensee; they are not in "alliance."

And of course out of date photos can't be controlled; that was what I said in my original post.

If you want to continue to snatch contention and disagreement from the jaws of agreement and discussion, feel free. But just know that you're then the one bringing that contentious nature to the discussion.

[You Kane, You Commanded, You Conquered]

Not even 10 posts in and already the arguing begins.

[filledeplage]

As has always been the case in the random instances (mostly in 2012 and perhaps 2013) where promoters or other entities erroneously use a C50 photo in relation to something to do with Mike's band, I'm sure Mike has nothing to do with it and would prefer to not have such a headache. It's not Mike's fault.

However, it is unfortunate that, to my best guess/assumption, Mike probably didn't have any problem with BRI going after Al for similar issues (more to do with erroneously billing Al's band as "The Beach Boys" than using incorrect photos) back in 1999. And for those who believe BRI actions have nothing specifically to do with Mike, I somehow doubt BRI is admonishing or considering legal action against Mike for these innocent mistakes of someone else using incorrect photos to promote Mike's band.

This is another "I don't blame Mike" but "I'm really blaming Mike." One cannot have it both ways. 

This Touring Band is in alliance with BRI.  They are working in furtherance of BRI.  That is why they have the license.  One cannot always control out-of-date photos that are used by a news outlet.   

I don't agree with any of that. "They" don't have the license. Mike has the license, and he has it because he sought it out, because he wants to make money touring as "The Beach Boys." They aren't "in alliance" with BRI; the touring band is not employed by BRI, they are employed by MELECO. MELECO/Mike is a licensee; they are not in "alliance."

And of course out of date photos can't be controlled; that was what I said in my original post.

If you want to continue to snatch contention and disagreement from the jaws of agreement and discussion, feel free. But just know that you're then the one bringing that contentious nature to the discussion.

Hey Jude - that is a semantic. They "license" the name in return for "certain conditions."

You are not a mod.  If a mod chooses to move the thread, I have no problem going "downstairs" to discuss.  This is not "Upstairs - Downstairs."

"Jaws of agreement" or "jaws of bullying" people into a certain position or chilling an opposing viewpoint.  It is hardly an open discussion if a certain faction with a certain political ideology wants to occupy the field.  I would call it "leftist leaning" but that would be politically incorrect.   
 
On topic?   

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude - that is a semantic. They "license" the name in return for "certain conditions."

You are not a mod.  If a mod chooses to move the thread, I have no problem going "downstairs" to discuss.  This is not "Upstairs - Downstairs."

"Jaws of agreement" or "jaws of bullying" people into a certain position or chilling an opposing viewpoint.  It is hardly an open discussion if a certain faction with a certain political ideology wants to occupy the field.  I would call it "leftist leaning" but that would be politically incorrect.   
 
On topic?   

Your first line is on-topic, everything else is not. So yeah, everything else I would say needs to be taken to the Sandbox.

I do think it's a bummer that you acknowledge your posts are off-topic, and even indicate that you would move your discussion if the Mods chose to move it there. Why do you need to wait to be forced to do so?

As for your one on-topic line, it's not semantics, and I would think that someone who has railed on and on and on about the "letter of the law" and went into tedious legalese ad nauseam would recognize that. Pointing out that the licensee is being incorrectly named, and the nature of the license is being over-simplified and incorrectly referenced, is not simply "semantics."

[filledeplage]

Hey Jude - that is a semantic. They "license" the name in return for "certain conditions."

You are not a mod.  If a mod chooses to move the thread, I have no problem going "downstairs" to discuss.  This is not "Upstairs - Downstairs."

"Jaws of agreement" or "jaws of bullying" people into a certain position or chilling an opposing viewpoint.  It is hardly an open discussion if a certain faction with a certain political ideology wants to occupy the field.  I would call it "leftist leaning" but that would be politically incorrect.   
 
On topic?   

Your first line is on-topic, everything else is not. So yeah, everything else I would say needs to be taken to the Sandbox.

I do think it's a bummer that you acknowledge your posts are off-topic, and even indicate that you would move your discussion if the Mods chose to move it there. Why do you need to wait to be forced to do so?

As for your one on-topic line, it's not semantics, and I would think that someone who has railed on and on and on about the "letter of the law" and went into tedious legalese ad nauseam would recognize that. Pointing out that the licensee is being incorrectly named, and the nature of the license is being over-simplified and incorrectly referenced, is not simply "semantics."

Hey Jude - you corrected what I wrote, so I put on another hat. It is semantics in my opinion.  You don't like Mike or the Touring Band.  Just say it.  It saves time. 

Most Beach Boys fans I know after 50 years don't segment the groups.

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude - you corrected what I wrote, so I put on another hat. It is semantics in my opinion.  You don't like Mike or the Touring Band.  Just say it.  It saves time. 

Most Beach Boys fans I know after 50 years don't segment the groups.

I'm not big on "fan blaming", either on an individual basis or collectively. To me, that's a cop-out. The Beach Boys have segmented themselves; the fans didn't do that. They tour under multiple banners and choose to not work together. They are the ones who have sued each other, said nasty things about each other, etc. That has certainly spilled over into fandom (and seriously, this is *not* unique to the Beach Boys fanbase, I've seen far more acrimony within other fan communities).

I don't appreciate the implication that I "don't like" Mike or the touring band. I don't know any of them personally, so I don't like or dislike them. I've said on *numerous* occasions that they all (Mike included) seem like nice guys. (Bruce is the only one who has publically reportedly done/said some nasty things towards fans). I've said countless times that Mike is great with fans in person, and based on his Facebook postings, contributes to a warm, loving family atmosphere.

I disagree with some of the things Mike has done or said over the years, mainly regarding the Beach Boys, some of which tangentially involve the touring band. I'm sorry if you feel this degree of defensiveness regarding the "Touring Band." If you want to create a straw man to defend them against, that's your prerogative, and is at least on-topic I suppose.

[filledeplage]

Hey Jude - you corrected what I wrote, so I put on another hat. It is semantics in my opinion.  You don't like Mike or the Touring Band.  Just say it.  It saves time. 

Most Beach Boys fans I know after 50 years don't segment the groups.

I'm not big on "fan blaming", either on an individual basis or collectively. To me, that's a cop-out. The Beach Boys have segmented themselves; the fans didn't do that. They tour under multiple banners and choose to not work together. They are the ones who have sued each other, said nasty things about each other, etc. That has certainly spilled over into fandom (and seriously, this is *not* unique to the Beach Boys fanbase, I've seen far more acrimony within other fan communities).

I don't appreciate the implication that I "don't like" Mike or the touring band. I don't know any of them personally, so I don't like or dislike them. I've said on *numerous* occasions that they all (Mike included) seem like nice guys. (Bruce is the only one who has publically reportedly done/said some nasty things towards fans). I've said countless times that Mike is great with fans in person, and based on his Facebook postings, contributes to a warm, loving family atmosphere.

I disagree with some of the things Mike has done or said over the years, mainly regarding the Beach Boys, some of which tangentially involve the touring band. I'm sorry if you feel this degree of defensiveness regarding the "Touring Band." If you want to create a straw man to defend them against, that's your prerogative, and is at least on-topic I suppose.

Hey Jude - what the individual band members have experienced, is their business and not mine.  Our relationship is that of fans, at an arm's length. 

They are each, extraordinarily talented, but they are human and subject to whatever flaws, we all have. 

Who among us has not chosen our words carefully, spoken out-of-turn, and someone unintended hears it and the label of "animus" or ill feeling sticks, long after both parties have forgotten an incident.  Dredging up 50+ year old incidents is counter productive.  And that is what is going on in my opinion.  It is not "going forward"- it is "going backwards" and hanging labels on people based on hearsay or old incidents. 

Who cares?  Most fans don't.  They just look at the art of the music and appreciate the work.    That is what this board needs, in my opinion as a lurker/poster going on 10y years. 

[The Cincinnati Kid]

As has always been the case in the random instances (mostly in 2012 and perhaps 2013) where promoters or other entities erroneously use a C50 photo in relation to something to do with Mike's band, I'm sure Mike has nothing to do with it and would prefer to not have such a headache. It's not Mike's fault.

However, it is unfortunate that, to my best guess/assumption, Mike probably didn't have any problem with BRI going after Al for similar issues (more to do with erroneously billing Al's band as "The Beach Boys" than using incorrect photos) back in 1999. And for those who believe BRI actions have nothing specifically to do with Mike, I somehow doubt BRI is admonishing or considering legal action against Mike for these innocent mistakes of someone else using incorrect photos to promote Mike's band.

The second part of your post was really unnecessary and irrelevant to the thread.

[HeyJude]

As has always been the case in the random instances (mostly in 2012 and perhaps 2013) where promoters or other entities erroneously use a C50 photo in relation to something to do with Mike's band, I'm sure Mike has nothing to do with it and would prefer to not have such a headache. It's not Mike's fault.

However, it is unfortunate that, to my best guess/assumption, Mike probably didn't have any problem with BRI going after Al for similar issues (more to do with erroneously billing Al's band as "The Beach Boys" than using incorrect photos) back in 1999. And for those who believe BRI actions have nothing specifically to do with Mike, I somehow doubt BRI is admonishing or considering legal action against Mike for these innocent mistakes of someone else using incorrect photos to promote Mike's band.

The second part of your post was really unnecessary and irrelevant to the thread.

Fair enough; I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Every time someone points out (correctly, I might add) that Mike is not at fault for someone else using a C50 photo to promote his band, I immediately see the obvious irony in reference to what happened to Al in 1999.

While some fans have gone to lengths to immediately point out (again, correctly) that Mike isn't at fault for his band being incorrectly promoted, some were not as open-minded to the same explanation being offered when Al's shows in 1999 were being incorrectly billed by venues and/or promoters.

Yes, it's dredging up old stuff, no question. But when something happens in 2016 that can be informed by what has happened in the past with the band, I think it's worth mentioning. I think some newer fans here may not have been around in 1999 when Al had that very similar thing happen to him.

[Marty Castillo]

Any idea what they played? Was it live or do we need to start a new thread about lipsync/click track?   

[guitarfool2002]

Watch here:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4926092440001/beach-boys-perform-good-vibrations/?#sp=show-clips

[Marty Castillo]

Watch here:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4926092440001/beach-boys-perform-good-vibrations/?#sp=show-clips

Thanks for the link. I have it DVR'd at home, so I'll reserve final judgement until I hear it in better quality, but I dare say it is the same track used for the Memorial Day Concert.   

[guitarfool2002]

Watch here:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4926092440001/beach-boys-perform-good-vibrations/?#sp=show-clips

Thanks for the link. I have it DVR'd at home, so I'll reserve final judgement until I hear it in better quality, but I dare say it is the same track used for the Memorial Day Concert.   

I doubt that, but when you do watch maybe you can pick out who is playing the cello triplets in the chorus. Unless they're now using backing tracks to fill out the sound, I couldn't see any musicians playing the cello parts yet they're heard in the mix.

[Marty Castillo]

Watch here:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4926092440001/beach-boys-perform-good-vibrations/?#sp=show-clips

Thanks for the link. I have it DVR'd at home, so I'll reserve final judgement until I hear it in better quality, but I dare say it is the same track used for the Memorial Day Concert.   

I doubt that, but when you do watch maybe you can pick out who is playing the cello triplets in the chorus. Unless they're now using backing tracks to fill out the sound, I couldn't see any musicians playing the cello parts yet they're heard in the mix.

Craig, I've tried to follow your back and forth with Stephen in the other thread, but I do not have the expertise of either of you and find myself not following.

In your opinion, are these vocals being "sweetened" on the fly or are they lipsyncing?

If they are lipsyncing, I don't understand the need, GV sounded great when I saw them live in Kansas City three weeks ago.

[Cam Mott]

Whatever it was wouldn't it be Fox News decision?

[guitarfool2002]

Watch here:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4926092440001/beach-boys-perform-good-vibrations/?#sp=show-clips

Thanks for the link. I have it DVR'd at home, so I'll reserve final judgement until I hear it in better quality, but I dare say it is the same track used for the Memorial Day Concert.   

I doubt that, but when you do watch maybe you can pick out who is playing the cello triplets in the chorus. Unless they're now using backing tracks to fill out the sound, I couldn't see any musicians playing the cello parts yet they're heard in the mix.

Craig, I've tried to follow your back and forth with Stephen in the other thread, but I do not have the expertise of either of you and find myself not following.

In your opinion, are these vocals being "sweetened" on the fly or are they lipsyncing?

If they are lipsyncing, I don't understand the need, GV sounded great when I saw them live in Kansas City three weeks ago.

Marty, I'd be happy to talk more on the Desper thread - My comments were strictly about the DC concert from PBS, I have no other references other than what surrounded that show. The performance on Fox this morning is a separate deal, but having done both live and studio work now for several decades and am a confirmed music geek, when I see a performance I look for the really minor details. I like to compare notes, like the case of the cello triplets on this morning's performance - i did not see either Bruce or Tim B playing them yet they're heard prominently in the mix. That has to be a prerecorded track, unless someone sees otherwise.

[guitarfool2002]

Whatever it was wouldn't it be Fox News decision?

No. When the band's management has a contract drawn up for a performance, all of the details are usually negotiated, and the artists rightfully have the most say in how both they and their music are going to be presented. If the artist agrees, then it's a done deal. The only anomaly I can remember in 30+ years was the old Letterman show when he was on at 12:30 on NBC, and many artists had to play with Paul Shaffer's band backing them up instead of their own bands, which i remember a few times included bands' drummers banging on tambourines or something while Anton Fig played the actual kit for the songs.

[CenturyDeprived]

As has always been the case in the random instances (mostly in 2012 and perhaps 2013) where promoters or other entities erroneously use a C50 photo in relation to something to do with Mike's band, I'm sure Mike has nothing to do with it and would prefer to not have such a headache. It's not Mike's fault.

However, it is unfortunate that, to my best guess/assumption, Mike probably didn't have any problem with BRI going after Al for similar issues (more to do with erroneously billing Al's band as "The Beach Boys" than using incorrect photos) back in 1999. And for those who believe BRI actions have nothing specifically to do with Mike, I somehow doubt BRI is admonishing or considering legal action against Mike for these innocent mistakes of someone else using incorrect photos to promote Mike's band.

The second part of your post was really unnecessary and irrelevant to the thread.

Fair enough; I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Every time someone points out (correctly, I might add) that Mike is not at fault for someone else using a C50 photo to promote his band, I immediately see the obvious irony in reference to what happened to Al in 1999.

Of course. If it was something that could be used as ammunition against another BB member (at a time when they were basically at war with each other), Mike would gladly use that type of thing to his advantage, while hypocritically remaining mum about whatever mixup (probably not his fault at all) caused the current pic snafu. Not a surprising double standard; the only thing surprising is when people bend themselves into pretzels to find a way to think what I've stated above is somehow off-base. It ain't.

[Marty Castillo]

Watch here:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4926092440001/beach-boys-perform-good-vibrations/?#sp=show-clips

Thanks for the link. I have it DVR'd at home, so I'll reserve final judgement until I hear it in better quality, but I dare say it is the same track used for the Memorial Day Concert.   

I doubt that, but when you do watch maybe you can pick out who is playing the cello triplets in the chorus. Unless they're now using backing tracks to fill out the sound, I couldn't see any musicians playing the cello parts yet they're heard in the mix.

Craig, I've tried to follow your back and forth with Stephen in the other thread, but I do not have the expertise of either of you and find myself not following.

In your opinion, are these vocals being "sweetened" on the fly or are they lipsyncing?

If they are lipsyncing, I don't understand the need, GV sounded great when I saw them live in Kansas City three weeks ago.

Marty, I'd be happy to talk more on the Desper thread - My comments were strictly about the DC concert from PBS, I have no other references other than what surrounded that show. The performance on Fox this morning is a separate deal, but having done both live and studio work now for several decades and am a confirmed music geek, when I see a performance I look for the really minor details. I like to compare notes, like the case of the cello triplets on this morning's performance - i did not see either Bruce or Tim B playing them yet they're heard prominently in the mix. That has to be a prerecorded track, unless someone sees otherwise.

Thanks!