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

[Rocky Raccoon]

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.

They're going because Bill Clinton is a former President (I know, sometimes I forget that too) and they need to be there to stand alongside the Carters, the Bushes, and the Obamas to create a sense of unity, superficial as it may be.

[HeyJude]

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.

He doesn't seem to be interested in owning any of this. Not a mention of the gig or the controversy surrounding it on his FB page. Just this:

[Senator Blutarsky]

I can understand if they pass, not wanting to deal with all the bullshit. But it isn't cool that the band be intimidated to not play. Let them make the decision on their own. Not everyone has the same political opinion. As Ive mentioned in previous posts, the inauguration really shouldn't be about who the candidate is, but the process that it is in the nation's history. 

I did not like Obama, but it was a historic moment when he was sworn in at his inauguration. I gave him a chance, then I got to see him in action and really did not like his style & pretty much disagreed with him 75% of the time. But that's another topic of discussion.....

[CenturyDeprived]

I can understand if they pass, not wanting to deal with all the bullshit. But it isn't cool that the band be intimidated to not play. Let them make the decision on their own. Not everyone has the same political opinion. As Ive mentioned in previous posts, the inauguration really shouldn't be about who the candidate is, but the process that it is in the nation's history.  

I did not like Obama, but it was a historic moment when he was sworn in at his inauguration. I gave him a chance, then I got to see him in action and really did not like his style & pretty much disagreed with him 75% of the time. But that's another topic of discussion.....

The terminology "the band" is not entirely appropriate, because while we know Mike has the license to tour, he is not the band himself, and certainly he is not the band from an ethical standpoint, where everybody's opinion should matter regarding this specific gig.  

Secondly, Mike's a big boy. He intimidated Brian in the studio with Redwood; he intimidated Brian with a ridiculous lawsuit in 2005.  There are more examples, it's a pattern. So yeah, I find it hard to have much empathy for any intimidation he may feel at this point in time regarding this matter, you know?  It's why I can only laugh when I see Trump getting mad at being made fun of on SNL.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike craves powerful friends...

[CenturyDeprived]

If Mike plays the gig, and Brian and Al unequivocably wind up stating to the media that they did not approve of the brand being associated with Trump… how would Mike ever answer an interview question about that?  

By just saying that he did it because he could?  Is there any other possible answer he could spin?  Or he would just state upfront to every interviewer from now until eternity that they are not allowed to ask him such a question, or offer some sort of "no comment" nonsense?  

I just don't know if he's thought this through very well.

[HeyJude]

If Mike plays the gig, and Brian and Al unequivocably wind up stating to the media that they did not approve of the brand being associated with Trump… how would Mike ever answer an interview question about that?  

By just saying that he did it because he could?  Is there any other possible answer he could spin?  Or he would just state upfront to every interviewer from now until eternity that they are not allowed to ask him such a question, or offer some sort of "no comment" nonsense?  

I just don't know if he's thought this through very well.

If Mike does the gig, and then if he ever addresses the issue in an interview, I have little doubt that he'll hide behind one of the "it's not about politics or endorsements, it's about respecting the office and the decorum of the event" sort of rationalizations.

But it's clear he's buddies with Mr. Trump, and "I don't agree with everything he says" is hardly a condemnation (even the most ardent of political allies never agree on literally *everything*). From the September New York Post piece:

One certain truth is Love’s allegiance to the Republican Party. The Beach Boys, who are set to perform in Central Park on Wednesday (sans Brian Wilson and Jardine), played inaugural balls for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Although Love stops short of a full endorsement, it’s clear that he feels love for Donald Trump.

“He’s been a friend for a long time,” says Love. “Does that mean I agree with everything he says? No. But . . . if we were asked [to play his inauguration], I’m sure that we would.”

So as late as September of this year (well after FIFTY ZILLION reports were out about the horrible things Mike's buddy had done and said), Mike said he was "sure" he would do the gig if asked. I think it's interesting then that as of December, it had turned into saying Mike was "considering" it, with no indication that the hedging had anything to do with scheduling. That of course very obviously reeks of testing the waters PR-wise to see how bad the decision would be for Mike. That being said, I see no reason at this stage nor any indication that it's looking like Mike *won't* do the gig. I hope I'm wrong and Mike for once makes a good decision when it comes to this stuff.

What's interesting is that, apart from all the "legacy" stuff and stuff about hurting the brand/trademark, this decision will surely even more firmly cement the much more abstract yet prevalent notion that Mike is the biggest a**hole of the "classic rock" era. The one thing that makes me think that there is a *sliver* of chance he'll pass on the gig is that he has spent the last X number of months promoting his book and giving interviews to help explain to people why he *isn't* the a**hole he has the reputation for being. Playing a gig for a widely despised political figure unlike the Bushes and Reagans of the past, will only more firmly cement the image that he at least partly seems to want to clear up.

[rab2591]

If Mike plays the gig, and Brian and Al unequivocably wind up stating to the media that they did not approve of the brand being associated with Trump… how would Mike ever answer an interview question about that?  

By just saying that he did it because he could?  Is there any other possible answer he could spin?  Or he would just state upfront to every interviewer from now until eternity that they are not allowed to ask him such a question, or offer some sort of "no comment" nonsense?  

I just don't know if he's thought this through very well.

Interviewer: What is the biggest regret you have for about your career and life?
Mike: It’s not a regret, but the biggest thing that impacted our lives is drugs.

Interviewer: What's been your greatest struggle?
Mike: To coexist while watching the people I love choose less than life-supporting paths via drugs, alcohol or poor lifestyle decisions.

I can see Mike being asked a simple question about playing Trump's inauguration and his response would probably be something regarding Brian's past drug abuses.

[HeyJude]

"I didn't do drugs" is turning into Mike's version of "I am Groot."

[rab2591]

But it isn't cool that the band be intimidated to not play.

I agree...If we're talking about Mike Love's personal band he uses to play certain gigs not affiliated with the Beach Boys.

But if he uses the Beach Boys name to play this gig I think fans/management/band-members have the right to express their opinions (negative or positive) about them playing the gig. The Beach Boys are far more than what the little touring band is these days. To most people who pop in a Greatest Hits compilation The Beach Boys are about Brian, Al, Dennis, Carl, Mike, Bruce, etc). And if Brian and Al (and Blondie) don't want to be associated with a gig of this magnitude I think it's only fair that Mike respect those wishes.

Mike should just play the gig under his own name - though without the drawing power of the Beach Boys name I wonder if they'd even be considered...

[SMiLE Brian]

"I didn't do drugs" is turning into Mike's version of "I am Groot."

Somebody photoshop Groot onstage with M&B!

[CenturyDeprived]

If Mike plays the gig, and Brian and Al unequivocably wind up stating to the media that they did not approve of the brand being associated with Trump… how would Mike ever answer an interview question about that?  

By just saying that he did it because he could?  Is there any other possible answer he could spin?  Or he would just state upfront to every interviewer from now until eternity that they are not allowed to ask him such a question, or offer some sort of "no comment" nonsense?  

I just don't know if he's thought this through very well.

If Mike does the gig, and then if he ever addresses the issue in an interview, I have little doubt that he'll hide behind one of the "it's not about politics or endorsements, it's about respecting the office and the decorum of the event" sort of rationalizations.

True, yet I don't know how he'd escape a specific question which asks about why he used the brand name in specific violation of the desires of Brian and Al for this event. It would just have to be a duck and dodge where he answers a different question that wasn't asked.

[Senator Blutarsky]

But it isn't cool that the band be intimidated to not play.

Mike should just play the gig under his own name - though without the drawing power of the Beach Boys name I wonder if they'd even be considered...

Not a bad idea actually. For the inauguration or afterwards.  Or just call it 'The Beach Boy.'

[MikestheGreatest!!]

"So as late as September of this year (well after FIFTY ZILLION reports were out about the horrible things Mike's buddy had done and said), "

Well, at least you don't exaggerate much.   Now I want them to play the inauguration just to watch all the splodey heads on this site....

[clack]

I didn't care whether or not they played at the inauguration  -- until I read this thread. Now I want them to play.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

If the fake Beach Boys play for the Trumpster, it will be so entertaining to watch myKe luHv try in vain to climb out of yet another deep hole he's dug for himself and the brand as well.

[donald]

I am one of those Beachboys fans who have for decades defended his love for this band in spite of ridicule by the media hip and elite,  one of those who have helped through their loving support, to elevate the band to their current level of respectability and iconic status.   Most posters here have staunchly supported the band despite the embarrassing episodes over the years (many stemming from Mike Love) .  But, this appearance would be far beyond what I could, or would, be willing to defend.    Many of us are not his people, the car people, but rather the SMiLE People, The Pet Sounds People, The Eccentric Brian Wilson people, the young indie crowd fan people.   Mike Love stands to alienate and distance the band from those who have brought them legitimacy beyond that of an oldies band who plays the Trump Inaugaration.  I f this happens, I will inform those who have long known me as a die hard Beachboys fan, that  I no longer have a taste for the material or it's creators or current incarnations as bands.  As I continue to bring my huge vinyl collection under control, I will consider getting rid of my four bankers boxes of Beachboys LPs as an OPPORTUNITY to rid myself of  material I no longer care to hear.  Sometimes In life, one must move on.

[CenturyDeprived]

I am one of those Beachboys fans who have for decades defended his love for this band in spite of ridicule by the media hip and elite,  one of those who have helped through their loving support, to elevate the band to their current level of respectability and iconic status.   Most posters here have staunchly supported the band despite the embarrassing episodes over the years (many stemming from Mike Love) .  But, this appearance would be far beyond what I could, or would, be willing to defend.    Many of us are not his people, the car people, but rather the SMiLE People, The Pet Sounds People, The Eccentric Brian Wilson people, the young indie crowd fan people.   Mike Love stands to alienate and distance the band from those who have brought them legitimacy beyond that of an oldies band who plays the Trump Inaugaration.  I f this happens, I will inform those who have long known me as a die hard Beachboys fan, that  I no longer have a taste for the material or it's creators or current incarnations as bands.  As I continue to bring my huge vinyl collection under control, I will consider getting rid of my four bankers boxes of Beachboys LPs as an OPPORTUNITY to rid myself of  material I no longer care to hear.  Sometimes In life, one must move on.

I totally understand where you were coming from, and sadly largely feel the same way.

The funny thing is, it occurred to me today that maybe this attitude among a certain segment of fans is actually what Mike Love *wants*. Even if inadvertent, perhaps  it's his way of removing the fans who are more fans of Brian's adventurous work, by killing their interest in the brand. I don't for a moment think he will be sorry to see them go.  

At a certain point, I think that even if his bottom line is affected, perhaps he would be happier to not even have those fans be interested in the band anymore.  Because those people are more likely to be critical of him. I honestly think he wants to tell fans who prefer that side of the BBs to go f*** themselves.

Despite my issues with him, I have defended Mike to many people in person, time and time again…  but this will be rather impossible to do.  Just for starters, I don't even know how I would be able to wear any shirt with the brand name on it anymore and not feel awkward about it.  It nearly kills - or at least dulls - my interest in the brand on some level. Maybe that will go away after a certain point, I don't know.  As a fan who has invested countless hours and countless amounts of money into the brand, it pisses me off beyond words that an original member wants to take a giant diarrhea sh*t on the name by  publicly supporting - in literally the biggest way possible - a pathetic bully who makes fun of disabled folks, etc.

It's possibly *the* most shortsighted and jerk move of all time in rock 'n' roll history, in particular if he does it against the wishes of the other people who share an interest in the name.  It's in front of the whole world, in a way that is unparalleled in modern history. This election, this candidate, and the new media age in which we live in will make this a spectacularly well-known decision that will haunt the brand for years.  People can claim this is exaggerating, but many music fans will deeply feel that, and nobody has a right to say that those are "incorrect" or ridiculous feelings.

Just for a moment and imagine what it will be like to wear a Beach Boys shirt in the city of San Francisco, for example, after this inauguration.  It might be like wearing a confederate flag shirt while walking down the streets of Compton.

[Justin]

I am one of those Beachboys fans who have for decades defended his love for this band in spite of ridicule by the media hip and elite,  one of those who have helped through their loving support, to elevate the band to their current level of respectability and iconic status.   Most posters here have staunchly supported the band despite the embarrassing episodes over the years (many stemming from Mike Love) .  But, this appearance would be far beyond what I could, or would, be willing to defend.    Many of us are not his people, the car people, but rather the SMiLE People, The Pet Sounds People, The Eccentric Brian Wilson people, the young indie crowd fan people.   Mike Love stands to alienate and distance the band from those who have brought them legitimacy beyond that of an oldies band who plays the Trump Inaugaration.  I f this happens, I will inform those who have long known me as a die hard Beachboys fan, that  I no longer have a taste for the material or it's creators or current incarnations as bands.  As I continue to bring my huge vinyl collection under control, I will consider getting rid of my four bankers boxes of Beachboys LPs as an OPPORTUNITY to rid myself of  material I no longer care to hear.  Sometimes In life, one must move on.

I think it's one thing to stop supporting the band in any future endeavor (should the performance actually take place) but completely erasing the music from your life is an extreme move.  Is "God Only Knows" truly tarnished now?  "Good Vibrations" is now forever unlistenable?  I just don't see the logic in this.  These were songs written and recorded decades before anyone even heard the name Trump. 

If this thing actually goes through I will be very disappointed.  But that's not going to stop me from putting on "Smiley Smile" or "Sunflower" the next day.  No way. 

[RubberSoul13]

I thoroughly agree that this would not help the band's image whatsoever but honestly...I think most of us here are vastly over-estimating just how much the general public actually cares about the Beach Boys in the first place. Thanks to "Love and Mercy" and the Pet Sounds anniversary, I truly think Brian has secured his place above all this inaugural BS. Mike Love, however, has not...and thanks to his autobiography and choice venues etc. I think a move like this is almost expected from him. Al Jardine, Bruce Johnston, and David Marks are unknown and irrelevant in the public eye. They could walk down the street in any town unnoticed where as Brian would be easily noticed, and Mike Love would go around ensuring that he's noticed...

[HeyJude]

"So as late as September of this year (well after FIFTY ZILLION reports were out about the horrible things Mike's buddy had done and said), "

Well, at least you don't exaggerate much.   Now I want them to play the inauguration just to watch all the splodey heads on this site....

It's kind of funny, because whether you agree or disagree with those who believe Mike shouldn't play the gig, at least those people seem to have some sort of principled or logical reason for doing so, and in most cases it isn't even based on politically ideology as much as wanting to protect the band's legacy. 

I haven't seen anybody who doesn't want Mike to play the gig say "I hope Mike cancels the gig so Trump supporters are pissed off!"

But I do appreciate people being honest and letting us know how their disdain for people on this board and/or antagonistic attitude towards people on this board outweighs their ability or desire to try to approach this topic with even a modicum of objectivity in terms of this impacts the band's trademark/brand/legacy.

[HeyJude]

I thoroughly agree that this would not help the band's image whatsoever but honestly...I think most of us here are vastly over-estimating just how much the general public actually cares about the Beach Boys in the first place. Thanks to "Love and Mercy" and the Pet Sounds anniversary, I truly think Brian has secured his place above all this inaugural BS. Mike Love, however, has not...and thanks to his autobiography and choice venues etc. I think a move like this is almost expected from him. Al Jardine, Bruce Johnston, and David Marks are unknown and irrelevant in the public eye. They could walk down the street in any town unnoticed where as Brian would be easily noticed, and Mike Love would go around ensuring that he's noticed...

These points are in large part generally accurate in my view. But the idea that the "public doesn't care much about the Beach Boys" works *both* ways. Indeed, the fact that many who would protest playing inauguration don't know any ins and outs of the history of the band would tend to make things worse.

That is, people at least know that "The Beach Boys" are a famous, old band. They have that baseline name recognition even among people who couldn't name members or name many or any songs.

People who are (understandably) objecting to the idea of playing this inauguration will then all of a sudden take a much stronger interest in "The Beach Boys" solely in the realm of condemning them. That they don't know the members or know the name licensing situation then becomes a *liability* for the band's branding, because all we will get from many of those people is a condemnation of anything to do with the band.

This is why I keep saying I'm looking at this from an objective PR point of view. While my *personal* opinion is that anybody and everybody should be rightly outraged at the idea of Mike playing this gig, I would also lament any person or member of the press/media who doesn't take the time to understand why "The Beach Boys" in terms of the true, full band and their legacy have nearly *nothing* to do with Mike's band. But I recognize that *is* what's going to happen, which is just another among the litany of reasons why doing this gig is a bad idea.

[guitarfool2002]

As each day passes, now it's 15 days away from the actual event, it's hard to figure out why Mike hasn't announced if he's playing or not playing the gig.

[rab2591]

at least those people seem to have some sort of principled or logical reason for doing so, and in most cases it isn't even based on politically ideology as much as wanting to protect the band's legacy.

I couldn't have said it better. Anything Trump touches is scrutinized by the media...sometimes for very very good reason, other times not (CNN actually did a 'news' segment about Trump eating fried chicken with a knife and fork). Two days ago in Chicago a special needs person was kidnapped, bound, gagged, tortured (kicked, slapped, cut up, cigarettes put out in his wounds, etc) - the kidnappers on Facebook Live Streaming forced this guy to say "f*** Donald Trump!"

Take a look at any footage outside Donald Trump Rallies in the Southwest a few months ago. I couldn't begin to count how many people got the hell beat out of them all because they were walking out of Donald Trump rallies. As Century Deprived says: "imagine what it will be like to wear a Beach Boys shirt in the city of San Francisco, for example, after this inauguration.  It might be like wearing a confederate flag shirt while walking down the streets of Compton." - he's not exaggerating. If you people really want your favorite band associated with this bullshit then so be it. But, Trump politics aside, I want Mike to keep his little touring band as far away from this nightmare as possible. Frankly I'd still like to tell people I like the Beach Boys without the threat of getting punched or irritation thrown my way.

Edit: I also want to emphasize that I have no doubt the media scrutiny will be heavy on this. When it was said that Jackie Evancho would be playing the inauguration, most people said "Who?". But AMERICA'S BAND (that wholesome surf, love, and California band who rivaled the Beatles in their heyday) playing for this racist, misogynistic, homophobic President Elect (not my words, just saying what the media has allowed to be said about him) will bring in mass ratings on news networks - I think there will be heavy media scrutiny...and in turn a public hatred/boycott for the Beach Boys will follow. Look what happened to Kanye West - he was called terrible names on Twitter and calls for boycotting his music were made - all because he met with the President Elect (I can't imagine what would've happened had he done a concert for him).

This isn't about politics, it's about legacy.

[Shark]

Let me preface this by saying that I did not vote for Trump, never would and hated him long before he ever became a "politician".  He's an ass, plain and simple, and always has been.  And while everyone is entitled to their opinion and to hate Mike for even considering playing this, I do agree that there is some over-reaction here on this board as I'm sure there will be on the internet as well, if they do play.  That's one of the hallmarks of the internet: allow people to over-react to things everyday.  That being said, if Brian and Al truly object on some moral level to "The Beach Boys" playing this thing, then as shareholders in BRI, I'm sure they could call an emergency meeting of all BRI shareholders and discuss this and make their moral objections known.  We may never be privy to this even if it does happen but it does not appear that Brian and Al are even close to being as enraged about this as some people on this board.  My guess is they will try to distance themselves from it in the media more as a self-preservation thing than based on some moral grounds.  And to those people who will make statements that they will dump their Beach Boys collection or never buy anything from the band again, that is certainly their right to do and if they believe that strongly in this cause, I encourage them to do so.  But there is a small part of me that believes in a couple of years anyone is even going to care that they played, if they decide to.