Beach Boys playing for Trump

[KDS]

Personally, I think music fans waste far too much energy worrying about who a band/artist supports politically.  As long as it doesn't affect the music, I don't care. 

I can't stand Barack Obama, but when Paul McCartney dedicated two songs to him when I saw him in 2009, I wasn't tempted to walk out on the show or stop listening to his music. 

My vote this fall will likely be going to Trump, but if Brian or Al decides to support Hillary, it wouldn't bother me in the least. 

[Rocky Raccoon]

Showing support for a candidate is one thing.  Appearing at an event to campaign for one is another.

[KDS]

Showing support for a candidate is one thing.  Appearing at an event to campaign for one is another.

Still doesn't really bother me.   Heck, I was more offended when Styx played at a Pittsburgh Steelers game. 

Like I said, as long as it doesn't affect the music. 

[filledeplage]

Personally, I think music fans waste far too much energy worrying about who a band/artist supports politically.  As long as it doesn't affect the music, I don't care. 

I can't stand Barack Obama, but when Paul McCartney dedicated two songs to him when I saw him in 2009, I wasn't tempted to walk out on the show or stop listening to his music. 

My vote this fall will likely be going to Trump, but if Brian or Al decides to support Hillary, it wouldn't bother me in the least. 

KDS - I hope no one hurts themselves "jumping to conclusions."  If anyone took the time to look up their touring schedule they would see that they are booked out that week.  That is not to say that they could not be miraculous, and be two places at once.   

[HeyJude]

Personally, I think music fans waste far too much energy worrying about who a band/artist supports politically.  As long as it doesn't affect the music, I don't care.  

I can't stand Barack Obama, but when Paul McCartney dedicated two songs to him when I saw him in 2009, I wasn't tempted to walk out on the show or stop listening to his music.  

My vote this fall will likely be going to Trump, but if Brian or Al decides to support Hillary, it wouldn't bother me in the least.  

Random thoughts:

A) It isn't a big mystery as to why some folks would find it objectionable if Mike played a Trump fundraiser (or posed for pics with him, or if they had a public "BFF" ceremony, or whatever). The outrage regarding a Trump/Love connection is perhaps predictable and quickly becomes an exercise is redundancy. But the sort of manufactured (in my opinion) incredulity as to why such a reaction occurs is just silly.

B) Some eras/elections/candidates are more divisive than at other times. Nobody cares who supported Bob Dole in 1996 anymore, or who supported Edmund Muskie in 1972. Any sort of pro-Trump stuff at *this* time, in *this* election is *not* the same, objectively speaking, as many of the *numerous* times in the past where Mike or the Beach Boys or other artists played fundraisers for or otherwise supported candidates.

C) Those who find Mike supporting Trump as an objectionable idea aren't "spending too much energy worrying about it." It doesn't take that long to post "Ewwww" on a message board.

D) It's far more on-topic to discuss the politics of the actual band members, or public gigs (or potential gigs) for candidates than it is for members here to tell us how *they're* voting. I have some level of interest (not to the point of seething outrage) if a member of the Beach Boys supports any given candidate, from the perspective of a historian and scholar of the band. What I *don't* care about is how a member here plans to vote.

E) Who a band member supports politically doesn't typically directly effect "the music" (let's set aside "I'm pickin' up Bush Vibrations" I guess), especially when we're talking about just playing old songs in concert, but it isn't wholly unrelated to the machinations of the history of a band. Mike's politics and general political attitude may help speak to the attitude he takes towards the band, or at least its corporate and financial machinations.

[bachelorofbullets]

I wonder what the Stame-ster has to say about this, most of Hollywood leans left.

[filledeplage]

Personally, I think music fans waste far too much energy worrying about who a band/artist supports politically.  As long as it doesn't affect the music, I don't care.  

I can't stand Barack Obama, but when Paul McCartney dedicated two songs to him when I saw him in 2009, I wasn't tempted to walk out on the show or stop listening to his music.  

My vote this fall will likely be going to Trump, but if Brian or Al decides to support Hillary, it wouldn't bother me in the least.  

Random thoughts:

A) It isn't a big mystery as to why some folks would find it objectionable if Mike played a Trump fundraiser (or posed for pics with him, or if they had a public "BFF" ceremony, or whatever). The outrage regarding a Trump/Love connection is perhaps predictable and quickly becomes an exercise is redundancy. But the sort of manufactured (in my opinion) incredulity as to why such a reaction occurs is just silly.

B) Some eras/elections/candidates are more divisive than at other times. Nobody cares who supported Bob Dole in 1996 anymore, or who supported Edmund Muskie in 1972. Any sort of pro-Trump stuff at *this* time, in *this* election is *not* the same, objectively speaking, as many of the *numerous* times in the past where Mike or the Beach Boys or other artists played fundraisers for or otherwise supported candidates.

C) Those who find Mike supporting Trump as an objectionable idea aren't "spending too much energy worrying about it." It doesn't take that long to post "Ewwww" on a message board.

D) It's far more on-topic to discuss the politics of the actual band members, or public gigs (or potential gigs) for candidates than it is for members here to tell us how *they're* voting. I have some level of interest (not to the point of seething outrage) if a member of the Beach Boys supports any given candidate, from the perspective of a historian and scholar of the band. What I *don't* care about is how a member here plans to vote.

E) Who a band member supports politically doesn't typically directly effect "the music" (let's set aside "I'm pickin' up Bush Vibrations" I guess), especially when we're talking about just playing old songs in concert, but it isn't wholly unrelated to the machinations of the history of a band. Mike's politics and general political attitude may help speak to the attitude he takes towards the band, or at least its corporate and financial machinations.

Hey Jude - here is my problem with that analysis.  During this contentious election cycle, there is an undercurrent which would silence free speech and tell (the opposition) they have "no right to a say" because they don't agree with it.  That is the beauty of the USA - the ability to speak freely (within some time, place and manner constraints.)  

If the band takes a gig, it does not equal an endorsement.  It is business.  Now, suppose that the Touring BB's were regularly turning down good work, because of a difference in some political opinion, and it hurt the overall BRI bottom line, couldn't that pose a problem?  

  

[SMiLE Brian]

Touring band aka solo group behind Mike's personal support for Trump. For somebody who drones on and on for what's best for the corporate BRI, you seem to support this rash move 100 percent.

[KDS]

Touring band aka solo group behind Mike's personal support for Trump. For somebody who drones on and on for what's best for the corporate BRI, you seem to support this rash move 100 percent.

Mike is a conservative, and has been for awhile.  So, I really wouldn't call his decision to support Donald Trump a rash decision. 

But, if you want to use this as yet another excuse to dump on Mike, more power to you. 

[CenturyDeprived]

Touring band aka solo group behind Mike's personal support for Trump. For somebody who drones on and on for what's best for the corporate BRI, you seem to support this rash move 100 percent.

Mike is a conservative, and has been for awhile.  So, I really wouldn't call his decision to support Donald Trump a rash decision.  

But, if you want to use this as yet another excuse to dump on Mike, more power to you.  

What if Mike, using the BB brand name, played at a David Duke rally (back when racist pig/noted Trump supporter Duke, was running for office)? Would that bug you? Does there exist a potential politician with absolutely *any* kind of views whatsoever that would finally cross the line and make you say "yeah, that is really not cool" regarding the band's association with said person?

[KDS]

Touring band aka solo group behind Mike's personal support for Trump. For somebody who drones on and on for what's best for the corporate BRI, you seem to support this rash move 100 percent.

Mike is a conservative, and has been for awhile.  So, I really wouldn't call his decision to support Donald Trump a rash decision.  

But, if you want to use this as yet another excuse to dump on Mike, more power to you.  

What if Mike, using the BB brand name, played at a David Duke rally (back when racist pig/noted Trump supporter Duke, was running for office)? Would that bug you? Does there exist a potential politician with absolutely *any* kind of views whatsoever that would finally cross the line and make you say "yeah, that is really not cool" regarding the band's association with said person?

Since David Duke is a racist and a one time KKK, I wouldn't be too happy about it. 

Since Donald Trump is not a racist, then play on. 

[CenturyDeprived]

Touring band aka solo group behind Mike's personal support for Trump. For somebody who drones on and on for what's best for the corporate BRI, you seem to support this rash move 100 percent.

Mike is a conservative, and has been for awhile.  So, I really wouldn't call his decision to support Donald Trump a rash decision.  

But, if you want to use this as yet another excuse to dump on Mike, more power to you.  

What if Mike, using the BB brand name, played at a David Duke rally (back when racist pig/noted Trump supporter Duke, was running for office)? Would that bug you? Does there exist a potential politician with absolutely *any* kind of views whatsoever that would finally cross the line and make you say "yeah, that is really not cool" regarding the band's association with said person?

Since David Duke is a racist and a one time KKK, I wouldn't be too happy about it.  

Since Donald Trump is not a racist, then play on.  

Well I'm glad you would nix the idea of being happy about them playing a Duke rally. I hope you can at least understand and empathize that if someone other than yourself believes that Trump is promoting racist views - even if you don't personally agree with that assessment - that it's at least understandable, and not some wild idea, that people with that viewpoint of Trump (and there are many) would be put off by the brand name being associated with him.  

[KDS]

Touring band aka solo group behind Mike's personal support for Trump. For somebody who drones on and on for what's best for the corporate BRI, you seem to support this rash move 100 percent.

Mike is a conservative, and has been for awhile.  So, I really wouldn't call his decision to support Donald Trump a rash decision.  

But, if you want to use this as yet another excuse to dump on Mike, more power to you.  

What if Mike, using the BB brand name, played at a David Duke rally (back when racist pig/noted Trump supporter Duke, was running for office)? Would that bug you? Does there exist a potential politician with absolutely *any* kind of views whatsoever that would finally cross the line and make you say "yeah, that is really not cool" regarding the band's association with said person?

Since David Duke is a racist and a one time KKK, I wouldn't be too happy about it.  

Since Donald Trump is not a racist, then play on.  

Well I'm glad you would nix the idea of being happy about them playing a Duke rally. I hope you can at least understand and empathize that if someone other than yourself believes that Trump is promoting racist views - even if you don't personally agree with that assessment - that it's at least understandable that people with that viewpoint (and there are many) would be put off by the brand name being associated with him.  

I get it.  Trump's a polarizer.  I'll respect somebody's opinion for/against Trump, as I'd expect the same in return.  I'm not so certain if I'd go so far to empathize with that person. 

But, I think there's also some anti-Mike bias in play with this thread.

[CenturyDeprived]

Touring band aka solo group behind Mike's personal support for Trump. For somebody who drones on and on for what's best for the corporate BRI, you seem to support this rash move 100 percent.

Mike is a conservative, and has been for awhile.  So, I really wouldn't call his decision to support Donald Trump a rash decision.  

But, if you want to use this as yet another excuse to dump on Mike, more power to you.  

What if Mike, using the BB brand name, played at a David Duke rally (back when racist pig/noted Trump supporter Duke, was running for office)? Would that bug you? Does there exist a potential politician with absolutely *any* kind of views whatsoever that would finally cross the line and make you say "yeah, that is really not cool" regarding the band's association with said person?

Since David Duke is a racist and a one time KKK, I wouldn't be too happy about it.  

Since Donald Trump is not a racist, then play on.  

Well I'm glad you would nix the idea of being happy about them playing a Duke rally. I hope you can at least understand and empathize that if someone other than yourself believes that Trump is promoting racist views - even if you don't personally agree with that assessment - that it's at least understandable that people with that viewpoint (and there are many) would be put off by the brand name being associated with him.  

I get it.  Trump's a polarizer.  I'll respect somebody's opinion for/against Trump, as I'd expect the same in return.  I'm not so certain if I'd go so far to empathize with that person. 

But, I think there's also some anti-Mike bias in play with this thread.

Regarding anti-Mike bias... speaking personally, if any BB member, including members other than Mike, did actions that would drag the brand name into any sort of  association with Trump, I'd be put off as well.

[HeyJude]

This non-show show may end up indeed being a non-issue.

But in general, when it comes to Mike doing something that some folks find objectionable, he probably is often more swiftly criticized. But there's a reason for that. I and many other fans feel like they've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt in the past over and over and over, tried to cut him some slack, waited for him to do something relating to the band (no one doubts he has participated in charity events or that he is a warm and kind person with his friends and close family) that redeems his past objectionable actions. It has happened on occasion, the main thing of recent decades being his participation in C50. But even with that, he couldn't even get through the end of that tour without casting a pall over the whole thing.

I've said it before: There are cases where if Al or Brian (or Dave, or even Bruce in some cases) had done the same thing Mike did, they might be given more of a benefit of the doubt. But they've earned it to varying degrees. If Brian gave an interview where he dredged up some negative aspect of Mike's past, I'd probably not immediately assume the worst. But when Mike brings up the Wilson drug abuse for the *trillionth* time, as a random example, I'm no longer willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume something other than him just being a d**k about it.

I haven't been a fan of every publically political thing every one of my favorite artists have done or said. But usually, there is some mitigating factor that sooner or later doesn't make me harp on them about it endlessly. When McCartney did that gawdawful "Freedom" song, I don't think even he was aware of what he was stoking. But McCartney less than a year later dropped the song from the setlist and acknowledged it was being co-opted or interpreted in a way (e.g. pro-war) that he didn't want it to be.

Mike is unapologetic about his views for the most part, and I do respect that element of his demeanor. I think he still tries and utterly fails at trying to counteract his image and perception (the recent Rolling Stone piece is a good example of this), and in that sense I can't even admire him as some straight-shooting old school rocker who doesn't give a s**t what people think.

[KDS]

While it was painfully obvious that Paul wrote "Freedom" in about ten minutes, I'd never thought of it as a pro war song.  But, maybe I'm just thinking that knowing the composer's personality. 

I liked the message of the song itself, but yes, it was a crap song. 

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude - here is my problem with that analysis.  During this contentious election cycle, there is an undercurrent which would silence free speech and tell (the opposition) they have "no right to a say" because they don't agree with it.  That is the beauty of the USA - the ability to speak freely (within some time, place and manner constraints.)  

If the band takes a gig, it does not equal an endorsement.  It is business.  Now, suppose that the Touring BB's were regularly turning down good work, because of a difference in some political opinion, and it hurt the overall BRI bottom line, couldn't that pose a problem?  

To your first point regarding "silencing free speech", that's nonsense as far as I'm concerned. That sounds like an entirely imaginary argument. People have been trying for ages to equate disagreement with stifling of free speech. It's a common tactic, and it's silly.

When someone says something you say or believe in is total bulls**t, they're not trying to keep you from saying it. They're just calling it bulls**t.

As for taking a gig, if it's a fundraiser gig or other political event for a candidate, OF COURSE it's perceived as an endorsement. We already had this ridiculous "if someone doesn't specifically say they're voting for someone or that they official endorse them, then it's not an endorsement" discussion before.

And if Mike, in some hypothetical, said "We're doing this Trump rally gig, but we're not endorsing him; We just take a gig because it pays", then that might actually come off *even worse* than doing the gig due to political convictions.

The answer, the EASY answer when it comes to PR and brand management, would be for an actual Beach Boys manager to say "OF COURSE it's a bad idea to play at a Trump-related gig", regardless of whether every board member and associate of BRI is a staunch conservative. It would be a HORRIBLE PR move, and as I said above, it would probably only make it worse to use the "hey, it's a paying gig, I don't care who the event is linked to" reasoning.

Not taking any politics-related gigs is a non-issue when it comes to BRI's or MELECO's bottom line, and even suggesting not taking a Trump-related gig would hurt their income is laughable. Nearly all gigs are either normal public gigs or private corporate gigs. If Mike's tour schedule turns to predominantly political rallies and party conventions, then he and BRI have far bigger problems.

[HeyJude]

While it was painfully obvious that Paul wrote "Freedom" in about ten minutes, I'd never thought of it as a pro war song.  But, maybe I'm just thinking that knowing the composer's personality. 

I liked the message of the song itself, but yes, it was a crap song. 

It was a tedious song to be sure (though Paul's actual lead vocal was actually quite impressive, hitting the high notes crisp and clean with no autotune).

I'm not sure what his initial intention was with the song; I think he was caught up in what many non-hard-leftwingers were in that timeframe, which was a lot of puffery and jingoism, and stunningly wasn't aware that the song could (and he later admitted WAS to some degree) co-opted by hawkish, pro-war folks.

It obviously wasn't a huge deal, and the best thing to come out of it was the Maysles documentary released years later that shows McCartney showing the song to Eric Clapton back stage at the Concert for New York, where you can see Clapton is biting his lip and doing his best to not call bulls**t on the whole thing musically and thematically.

[HeyJude]

The Beach Boys played Sun City in late 1981, and as Rusten and Stebbins point out in their excellent "In Concert" book, they didn't see any backlash because *nobody cared* about the band at that moment in their career.

The climate is totally different now. I guarantee you if Mike's band plays a Trump-related gig (whether arranged by Trump's campaign or some third party or some PAC or whatever), there will be a ton of bad PR. And you know what? I expect this sort of stuff from Mike.

If the "brand" and band's name gets muddied in the press because Mike plays a Trump-related gig and the lazy media doesn't know or care *who* is in the band, then it will be just as much if not more the fault of Brian, Al, and Carl's estate for not doing *something* to keep stuff like that from happening. Purely 100% from an economical point of view in protecting the brand, even if everybody involved plans to vote for Trump, they should be able to see that even an implied or perceived endorsement would gain the band and brand *nothing* and would only hurt.

They can't keep Mike from appearing wherever and taking photo ops with whomever they want. But they own the trademark, so they can attempt to control how it is used and whom it is associated with.

[filledeplage]

Hey Jude - here is my problem with that analysis.  During this contentious election cycle, there is an undercurrent which would silence free speech and tell (the opposition) they have "no right to a say" because they don't agree with it.  That is the beauty of the USA - the ability to speak freely (within some time, place and manner constraints.)  

If the band takes a gig, it does not equal an endorsement.  It is business.  Now, suppose that the Touring BB's were regularly turning down good work, because of a difference in some political opinion, and it hurt the overall BRI bottom line, couldn't that pose a problem?  

To your first point regarding "silencing free speech", that's nonsense as far as I'm concerned. That sounds like an entirely imaginary argument. People have been trying for ages to equate disagreement with stifling of free speech. It's a common tactic, and it's silly.

When someone says something you say or believe in is total bulls**t, they're not trying to keep you from saying it. They're just calling it bulls**t.

As for taking a gig, if it's a fundraiser gig or other political event for a candidate, OF COURSE it's perceived as an endorsement. We already had this ridiculous "if someone doesn't specifically say they're voting for someone or that they official endorse them, then it's not an endorsement" discussion before.

And if Mike, in some hypothetical, said "We're doing this Trump rally gig, but we're not endorsing him; We just take a gig because it pays", then that might actually come off *even worse* than doing the gig due to political convictions.

The answer, the EASY answer when it comes to PR and brand management, would be for an actual Beach Boys manager to say "OF COURSE it's a bad idea to play at a Trump-related gig", regardless of whether every board member and associate of BRI is a staunch conservative. It would be a HORRIBLE PR move, and as I said above, it would probably only make it worse to use the "hey, it's a paying gig, I don't care who the event is linked to" reasoning.

Not taking any politics-related gigs is a non-issue when it comes to BRI's or MELECO's bottom line, and even suggesting not taking a Trump-related gig would hurt their income is laughable. Nearly all gigs are either normal public gigs or private corporate gigs. If Mike's tour schedule turns to predominantly political rallies and party conventions, then he and BRI have far bigger problems.

Hey Jude - here is the difference that I have seen in this election cycle.  And this is a little off-topic only tangentially related to a thread that is inflammatory because no one bothered to check the Touring Band's schedule (unless they will do a fly-over to do 2 cities in one day) - that week is booked.  So, it is moot.  They are unavailable, "apparently."

Yes, the demonstrations to "stop Trump" from appearing and silence that viewpoint have occurred this year.  Free Speech (and including political speech) is protected within some basic time, place and manner considerations.  Let's not make this either personal or confrontational.  The confrontational nonsense is one of the issues that precipitated the development of another BB board.  "Shutting people down" or the demonstrations which have been calculated to stop a candidate from appearing at a planned venue is new this election cycle.  

But, the point of whether it is a fan board's say-so over whether gig dates are accepted are beyond the point of reason, in my view and attempt to destroy the concept that music is generally a place of neutrality.  (That would be contrary to music that was protest music  and used in conjunction with a type of rally.)  

This is different from a business accepting new business which I think this is.  What is a bad idea for you might not be a bad idea for those in charge.  You think it is a horrible move, but is is not up to you, or me.  

Trump could be elected President and they could play the inauguration.  It could happen.  The more he is attacked, it seems that his base of support rises, and that includes many disenfranchised Democrats, Republicans and Independents despite the temper tantrums all-around.  

You don't like Mike, so anything he would do would not please you.  Ton of bad PR?  Trump fans, numbering in the millions, according to votes cast for him, can be BB fans (or not.)  

Plenty of Hollywood (and others) are supporting Trump.  It is not politically correct but that is what many Americans are sick and tired of.  That "filter" of political correctness which is no longer convenient.  Playing a gig is not an endorsement until it is publicly announced.  When you go into the voting booth, no one knows whom you vote for.  

[Robbie Mac]

Touring band aka solo group behind Mike's personal support for Trump. For somebody who drones on and on for what's best for the corporate BRI, you seem to support this rash move 100 percent.

Mike is a conservative, and has been for awhile.  So, I really wouldn't call his decision to support Donald Trump a rash decision.  

But, if you want to use this as yet another excuse to dump on Mike, more power to you.  

What if Mike, using the BB brand name, played at a David Duke rally (back when racist pig/noted Trump supporter Duke, was running for office)? Would that bug you? Does there exist a potential politician with absolutely *any* kind of views whatsoever that would finally cross the line and make you say "yeah, that is really not cool" regarding the band's association with said person?

Since David Duke is a racist and a one time KKK, I wouldn't be too happy about it.  

Since Donald Trump is not a racist, then play on.  .

Well I'm glad you would nix the idea of being happy about them playing a Duke rally. I hope you can at least understand and empathize that if someone other than yourself believes that Trump is promoting racist views - even if you don't personally agree with that assessment - that it's at least understandable that people with that viewpoint (and there are many) would be put off by the brand name being associated with him.  

I get it.  Trump's a polarizer.  I'll respect somebody's opinion for/against Trump, as I'd expect the same in return.  I'm not so certain if I'd go so far to empathize with that person. 

But, I think there's also some anti-Mike bias in play with this thread.

Why does a vile POS like Donald Trump deserve respect?

[The_Beach]

Touring band aka solo group behind Mike's personal support for Trump. For somebody who drones on and on for what's best for the corporate BRI, you seem to support this rash move 100 percent.

Mike is a conservative, and has been for awhile.  So, I really wouldn't call his decision to support Donald Trump a rash decision.  

But, if you want to use this as yet another excuse to dump on Mike, more power to you.  

What if Mike, using the BB brand name, played at a David Duke rally (back when racist pig/noted Trump supporter Duke, was running for office)? Would that bug you? Does there exist a potential politician with absolutely *any* kind of views whatsoever that would finally cross the line and make you say "yeah, that is really not cool" regarding the band's association with said person?

Since David Duke is a racist and a one time KKK, I wouldn't be too happy about it.  

Since Donald Trump is not a racist, then play on.  .

Well I'm glad you would nix the idea of being happy about them playing a Duke rally. I hope you can at least understand and empathize that if someone other than yourself believes that Trump is promoting racist views - even if you don't personally agree with that assessment - that it's at least understandable that people with that viewpoint (and there are many) would be put off by the brand name being associated with him.  

I get it.  Trump's a polarizer.  I'll respect somebody's opinion for/against Trump, as I'd expect the same in return.  I'm not so certain if I'd go so far to empathize with that person. 

But, I think there's also some anti-Mike bias in play with this thread.

Why does a vile POS like Donald Trump deserve respect?

What did he do to you to make you think he is a "POS"?

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude - here is my problem with that analysis.  During this contentious election cycle, there is an undercurrent which would silence free speech and tell (the opposition) they have "no right to a say" because they don't agree with it.  That is the beauty of the USA - the ability to speak freely (within some time, place and manner constraints.)  

If the band takes a gig, it does not equal an endorsement.  It is business.  Now, suppose that the Touring BB's were regularly turning down good work, because of a difference in some political opinion, and it hurt the overall BRI bottom line, couldn't that pose a problem?  

To your first point regarding "silencing free speech", that's nonsense as far as I'm concerned. That sounds like an entirely imaginary argument. People have been trying for ages to equate disagreement with stifling of free speech. It's a common tactic, and it's silly.

When someone says something you say or believe in is total bulls**t, they're not trying to keep you from saying it. They're just calling it bulls**t.

As for taking a gig, if it's a fundraiser gig or other political event for a candidate, OF COURSE it's perceived as an endorsement. We already had this ridiculous "if someone doesn't specifically say they're voting for someone or that they official endorse them, then it's not an endorsement" discussion before.

And if Mike, in some hypothetical, said "We're doing this Trump rally gig, but we're not endorsing him; We just take a gig because it pays", then that might actually come off *even worse* than doing the gig due to political convictions.

The answer, the EASY answer when it comes to PR and brand management, would be for an actual Beach Boys manager to say "OF COURSE it's a bad idea to play at a Trump-related gig", regardless of whether every board member and associate of BRI is a staunch conservative. It would be a HORRIBLE PR move, and as I said above, it would probably only make it worse to use the "hey, it's a paying gig, I don't care who the event is linked to" reasoning.

Not taking any politics-related gigs is a non-issue when it comes to BRI's or MELECO's bottom line, and even suggesting not taking a Trump-related gig would hurt their income is laughable. Nearly all gigs are either normal public gigs or private corporate gigs. If Mike's tour schedule turns to predominantly political rallies and party conventions, then he and BRI have far bigger problems.

Hey Jude - here is the difference that I have seen in this election cycle.  And this is a little off-topic only tangentially related to a thread that is inflammatory because no one bothered to check the Touring Band's schedule (unless they will do a fly-over to do 2 cities in one day) - that week is booked.  So, it is moot.  They are unavailable, "apparently."

Yes, the demonstrations to "stop Trump" from appearing and silence that viewpoint have occurred this year.  Free Speech (and including political speech) is protected within some basic time, place and manner considerations.  Let's not make this either personal or confrontational.  The confrontational nonsense is one of the issues that precipitated the development of another BB board.  "Shutting people down" or the demonstrations which have been calculated to stop a candidate from appearing at a planned venue is new this election cycle.  

But, the point of whether it is a fan board's say-so over whether gig dates are accepted are beyond the point of reason, in my view and attempt to destroy the concept that music is generally a place of neutrality.  (That would be contrary to music that was protest music  and used in conjunction with a type of rally.)  

This is different from a business accepting new business which I think this is.  What is a bad idea for you might not be a bad idea for those in charge.  You think it is a horrible move, but is is not up to you, or me.  

Trump could be elected President and they could play the inauguration.  It could happen.  The more he is attacked, it seems that his base of support rises, and that includes many disenfranchised Democrats, Republicans and Independents despite the temper tantrums all-around.  

You don't like Mike, so anything he would do would not please you.  Ton of bad PR?  Trump fans, numbering in the millions, according to votes cast for him, can be BB fans (or not.)  

Plenty of Hollywood (and others) are supporting Trump.  It is not politically correct but that is what many Americans are sick and tired of.  That "filter" of political correctness which is no longer convenient.  Playing a gig is not an endorsement until it is publicly announced.  When you go into the voting booth, no one knows whom you vote for.  

To your point that a fan board is trying to tell Mike whether he should book gigs, that's nonsense. Nobody has suggested that at all. It's just one of countless straw man arguments.

Most of the rest of what you've written is just off-topic political rhetoric and unpaid political advertising (I'm at least trying to keep the topic to something related to the Beach Boys), so I would once again suggest moving all of this to the Sandbox where it can rightly be ignored (if one so chooses.)

[HeyJude]

Touring band aka solo group behind Mike's personal support for Trump. For somebody who drones on and on for what's best for the corporate BRI, you seem to support this rash move 100 percent.

Mike is a conservative, and has been for awhile.  So, I really wouldn't call his decision to support Donald Trump a rash decision.  

But, if you want to use this as yet another excuse to dump on Mike, more power to you.  

What if Mike, using the BB brand name, played at a David Duke rally (back when racist pig/noted Trump supporter Duke, was running for office)? Would that bug you? Does there exist a potential politician with absolutely *any* kind of views whatsoever that would finally cross the line and make you say "yeah, that is really not cool" regarding the band's association with said person?

Since David Duke is a racist and a one time KKK, I wouldn't be too happy about it.  

Since Donald Trump is not a racist, then play on.  .

Well I'm glad you would nix the idea of being happy about them playing a Duke rally. I hope you can at least understand and empathize that if someone other than yourself believes that Trump is promoting racist views - even if you don't personally agree with that assessment - that it's at least understandable that people with that viewpoint (and there are many) would be put off by the brand name being associated with him.  

I get it.  Trump's a polarizer.  I'll respect somebody's opinion for/against Trump, as I'd expect the same in return.  I'm not so certain if I'd go so far to empathize with that person. 

But, I think there's also some anti-Mike bias in play with this thread.

Why does a vile POS like Donald Trump deserve respect?

What did he do to you to make you think he is a "POS"?

Please take anything along that line of discussion to the Sandbox.

[Rob Dean]

Well, I hate to throw a wet blanket on the growing outrage, but...

"The organizations hosting the concerts are Concerts for a Cause, the Creative Coalition, the Cleveland Clinic's educational foundation, law firm Jones Day’s foundation and others. A representative of The Beach Boys, one of the bands that organizers said on Tuesday would perform in Cleveland during the convention, issued a denial to Bloomberg Politics on Wednesday."

Source:  http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-28/trump-campaign-lining-up-tyson-and-ditka-for-convention

No wet blanket. That's excellent news! 

Wait a minute we are all assuming, who says it's Mikes gig ?

It might be Brian - Just saying