Billboard: "Beach Boys" Considering Invitation to Perform at Trump Inauguration

[KDS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

[KDS]

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

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

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

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

[SMiLE Brian]

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

[KDS]

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

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

[guitarfool2002]

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



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

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[the captain]

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

How is what he said hate filled?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HeyJude]

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



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

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

[KDS]

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

How is what he said hate filled?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

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

[the captain]

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

How is what he said hate filled?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KDS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Emdeeh]

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

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


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

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

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

[guitarfool2002]

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

[KDS]

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

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

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

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

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

[HeyJude]

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

[guitarfool2002]

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

Dec30 Denver, CO, USA Paramount Theatre

Jan21 Emporia, VA, USA Emporia Greensville Performing Arts Center

Jan22 Durham, NC, USA Durham Performing Arts Center

Jan24 Nashville, TN, USA Ryman Auditorium


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

[SMiLE Brian]

Fresh and ready for Jan 20 in DC.

[guitarfool2002]

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

[Crow]

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

[SloopJohnB]

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

[KDS]

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

Thank you

[guitarfool2002]

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

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

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