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

[CenturyDeprived]

Favorite: Putin My Room
Least Favorite: Alec Baldwind Chimes

Favorite: Donald Trump & Villains
Least Favorite: Mexican Girls

 

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

[Adult Child]

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

 

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

[AKA]

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

[Adult Child]

"Plantation Girls (1857)."

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

[KDS]

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

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

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

Or it's my opinion.  

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

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

That's my answer to CD's question.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's OKKK

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

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

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

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

[KDS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bonnevillemariner]

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

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

Or it's my opinion.  

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

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

That's my answer to CD's question.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's OKKK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Senator Blutarsky]

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

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

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

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

There are more important things to lose your sanity over!

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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

There are more important things to lose your sanity over!
  

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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

[KDS]

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

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

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

Or it's my opinion.  

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

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

That's my answer to CD's question.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's OKKK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Senator Blutarsky]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bonnevillemariner]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[doinnothin]

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

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

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

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

There are more important things to lose your sanity over!

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

[HeyJude]

I'll preface these remarks by stipulating that I did not have a candidate in this race. In my view, both candidates were horrible and neither is Hitler.

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

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

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

[Peadar 'Big Dinner' O'Driscoll]

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

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

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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



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

[Pretty Funky]

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

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

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

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

There are more important things to lose your sanity over!
  

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

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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