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

[CenturyDeprived]

What precedent are you basing your predictions from?

There are any number of entertainers whose careers have suffered from having extremely divisive political opinions, or in an extreme example, you have someone like Bill Cosby (who apparently actually grabbed many women by the ...). Here, we have someone (representing an entire major, world-known act) supporting a person who brags about said despicable act. Not saying it's an equal thing to Cosby, but sexual assault - or bragging about potential sexual assault - is not entirely divorced in peoples' minds either.

Bottom line: this is unprecedented territory here, but it's highly risky for the brand in any number of ways, most especially in terms of liberal filmmakers/music supervisors being able to send a message with their inaction of simply not picking BB music in the future. And even if they have no potential personal ethical issue with licensing Mike Love cowritten/sung music, they are also beholden to public backlash of the potential audience.

Do I think that every single BB music placement will dry up until the end of time? No. Do I think there's a good chance the brand will suffer in untold ways? Yes.

Just remember one thing:

Music supervisors are a group of folks who hold an incredibly coveted position. They are GODS, like it or not. They hold a huge amount of power, and many artists salivate to get them to pull the strings to get their music licensed. They can also very easily screw an artist over, either out of actual spite, or out of simply not wanting to have anything whatsoever to do with controversy. They are untouchable. There are no rules/regulations that they are subject to; no artist can have a peek behind the curtains and make a claim of "unfair" treatment.

Nobody will ever know if a music supervisor chooses to skip over The BBs because of this... because the skipping over will happen silently.

Their rule is the law of the land, period. And as most Republicans will attest to, Hollywood is run by a bunch of "no-good liberals". Well... those no-good liberals are gonna be able to passive aggressively, silently fight back if they choose to.  They are likely highly motivated to do so at this time.  I don't think this is in any way an unreasonable thing to assume is a great risk for the brand at this point.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike really makes it hard for people to like him.

[rab2591]

Meryl Streep's speech the other night is a good indicator of how loathesome Trump is seen by Hollywood. If the Beach Boys start associating with Trump I can't imagine them being to kind to the band after that.

Steer clear, fake Beach Boys, steer clear.

@Century Deprived; I wouldn't just limit it to Mike credited songs. Like I say, public perception of the Beach Boys is that they are still the band they were in the 60s (it doesn't help that media outlets and even venues that host Mike's little band use C50 photos and other classic 1960s live shots of the full lineup in their advertising). A mass of the public will follow along with the headlines that America's loving surf and love band is playing for misogynist, racist, homophobic, Russia loving (all per the media) Donald J Trump. I can imagine that Hollywood won't be too keen on using any of their music for a while.

[CenturyDeprived]

Meryl Streep's speech the other night is a good indicator of how loathesome Trump is seen by Hollywood. If the Beach Boys start associating with Trump I can't imagine them being to kind to the band after that.

Steer clear, fake Beach Boys whose actions can unfortunately also screw things up for the actual, non-fake Beach Boys, steer clear.

Fixed that for ya 

[rab2591]

I fully support that correction

[SMiLE Brian]

CD gets some honorary OSD woots!

[CenturyDeprived]

Meryl Streep's speech the other night is a good indicator of how loathesome Trump is seen by Hollywood. If the Beach Boys start associating with Trump I can't imagine them being to kind to the band after that.

Steer clear, fake Beach Boys, steer clear.

@Century Deprived; I wouldn't just limit it to Mike credited songs. Like I say, public perception of the Beach Boys is that they are still the band they were in the 60s (it doesn't help that media outlets and even venues that host Mike's little band use C50 photos and other classic 1960s live shots of the full lineup in their advertising). A mass of the public will follow along with the headlines that America's loving surf and love band is playing for misogynist, racist, homophobic, Russia loving (all per the media) Donald J Trump. I can imagine that Hollywood won't be too keen on using any of their music for a while.

True, I agree with this statement, although I would say that the material that Mike is most involved with would be most at risk comparatively speaking.  The irony that the most risk-averse member of the band would want to put the brand at risk like this is something indeed.

Jack Rieley quote x 10000000000000000000

Someone please tell me when that quote has *ever* ultimately been proven wrong since it was originally uttered. From early '70s-present. MOST especially about any major brand decision/direction that was coerced into happening as a result of Mike's own specific agenda. I will wait for a response as the tumbleweeds blow by…  

[CenturyDeprived]

CD gets some honorary OSD woots!

Thanks, but where I differ from OSD is that I will happily acknowledge Mike's absolutely vital contributions to the band. I don't think he's worthless either in the band or worthless as a person. I think that somewhere there is good person stuff buried in him.  Much more so than Trump. I think he's just surrounded by sycophants who are afraid to say no for fear of being cut out of some current or eventual financial benefit.  

To ignore Mike's good points is toxic.

That said, it would feel irresponsible as a devoted fan of the band to not call out an incredibly poor and shortsighted decision when I see it.

[KDS]

What precedent are you basing your predictions from?

There are any number of entertainers whose careers have suffered from having extremely divisive political opinions, or in an extreme example, you have someone like Bill Cosby (who apparently actually grabbed many women by the ...). Here, we have someone (representing an entire major, world-known act) supporting a person who brags about said despicable act. Not saying it's an equal thing to Cosby, but sexual assault - or bragging about potential sexual assault - is not entirely divorced in peoples' minds either.

Bottom line: this is unprecedented territory here, but it's highly risky for the brand in any number of ways, most especially in terms of liberal filmmakers/music supervisors being able to send a message with their inaction of simply not picking BB music in the future. And even if they have no potential personal ethical issue with licensing Mike Love cowritten/sung music, they are also beholden to public backlash of the potential audience.

Do I think that every single BB music placement will dry up until the end of time? No. Do I think there's a good chance the brand will suffer in untold ways? Yes.

Just remember one thing:

Music supervisors are a group of folks who hold an incredibly coveted position. They are GODS, like it or not. They hold a huge amount of power, and many artists salivate to get them to pull the strings to get their music licensed. They can also very easily screw an artist over, either out of actual spite, or out of simply not wanting to have anything whatsoever to do with controversy. They are untouchable. There are no rules/regulations that they are subject to; no artist can have a peek behind the curtains and make a claim of "unfair" treatment.

Nobody will ever know if a music supervisor chooses to skip over The BBs because of this... because the skipping over will happen silently.

Their rule is the law of the land, period. And as most Republicans will attest to, Hollywood is run by a bunch of "no-good liberals". Well... those no-good liberals are gonna be able to passive aggressively, silently fight back if they choose to.  They are likely highly motivated to do so at this time.  I don't think this is in any way an unreasonable thing to assume is a great risk for the brand at this point.

I getvthat you oppose The Beach Boys playing next Friday, but this is a stretch.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

CD gets some honorary OSD woots!

Thanks, but where I differ from OSD is that I will happily acknowledge Mike's absolutely vital contributions to the band. I don't think he's worthless either in the band or worthless as a person. I think that somewhere there is good person stuff buried in him.  Much more so than Trump. I think he's just surrounded by sycophants who are afraid to say no for fear of being cut out of some current or eventual financial benefit.  

To ignore Mike's good points is toxic.

That said, it would feel irresponsible as a devoted fan of the band to not call out an incredibly poor and shortsighted decision when I see it.

Always have enjoyed your posts, CD, and yes we differ as to his "worth" in the band, whether it be decades ago or in his present incarnation. But, no, I do not see the good person in him that you mention nor do I see the sycophant situation as anything but a very clear example of his slant on running that band out of a certain fear that those around him have. It's exactly what the man wants more than anything to assuage his incredible ego and the need for power over others which is a hateful trait that indeed makes him a despised character. Toxic? I think not. What's toxic is what he's been doing to the brand with no shame involved.

[CenturyDeprived]

What precedent are you basing your predictions from?

There are any number of entertainers whose careers have suffered from having extremely divisive political opinions, or in an extreme example, you have someone like Bill Cosby (who apparently actually grabbed many women by the ...). Here, we have someone (representing an entire major, world-known act) supporting a person who brags about said despicable act. Not saying it's an equal thing to Cosby, but sexual assault - or bragging about potential sexual assault - is not entirely divorced in peoples' minds either.

Bottom line: this is unprecedented territory here, but it's highly risky for the brand in any number of ways, most especially in terms of liberal filmmakers/music supervisors being able to send a message with their inaction of simply not picking BB music in the future. And even if they have no potential personal ethical issue with licensing Mike Love cowritten/sung music, they are also beholden to public backlash of the potential audience.

Do I think that every single BB music placement will dry up until the end of time? No. Do I think there's a good chance the brand will suffer in untold ways? Yes.

Just remember one thing:

Music supervisors are a group of folks who hold an incredibly coveted position. They are GODS, like it or not. They hold a huge amount of power, and many artists salivate to get them to pull the strings to get their music licensed. They can also very easily screw an artist over, either out of actual spite, or out of simply not wanting to have anything whatsoever to do with controversy. They are untouchable. There are no rules/regulations that they are subject to; no artist can have a peek behind the curtains and make a claim of "unfair" treatment.

Nobody will ever know if a music supervisor chooses to skip over The BBs because of this... because the skipping over will happen silently.

Their rule is the law of the land, period. And as most Republicans will attest to, Hollywood is run by a bunch of "no-good liberals". Well... those no-good liberals are gonna be able to passive aggressively, silently fight back if they choose to.  They are likely highly motivated to do so at this time.  I don't think this is in any way an unreasonable thing to assume is a great risk for the brand at this point.

I getvthat you oppose The Beach Boys playing next Friday, but this is a stretch.

Dude… Even Republicans like Bill O'Reilly are constantly yammering on about some sort of "reverse McCarthyism".  Why is it so unthinkable that it could apply here also?  Like it or not, people will see fit to blacklist other people.  Neither you nor I make these rules, and the only certainty in this is that there are plenty of mediamakers/music supervisors who have total control over this sort of thing.  

The questions to be asking here are what would influence their decisions; what do you think their likely predominant political views are, how much might they get a perverse joy out of being able to deny Mike a royalty check by simple but intentional inaction, and what do you think their fear of a public backlash would be with regards to potentially licensing a Mike Love-sung BB song in any content aimed at people who would have vehemently opposed Trump... particularly when the Internet Outrage Machine goes into full force - to a level previously unseen - if they play the inauguration. I don't think those are negligible concerns.   I think it's something for the brand to be concerned about, no question about it.  

I think the band will have less of a concern being licensed by mediamakers in red states, working on content aimed at a red state demographic.  The question is,  how many are there of those? Is the destiny of the band to only be licensed on Kirk Cameron type pictures?

Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle. Maybe I am overstating it, but the potential for a backlash against the brand, even if silently and internally amongst mediamakers, is most likely not a thing that is going to amount to nothing.  And once again, it's not worth the risk. Mr. Risk Averse himself should know that, and it's baffling to me that he doesn't.

[CenturyDeprived]

CD gets some honorary OSD woots!

Thanks, but where I differ from OSD is that I will happily acknowledge Mike's absolutely vital contributions to the band. I don't think he's worthless either in the band or worthless as a person. I think that somewhere there is good person stuff buried in him.  Much more so than Trump. I think he's just surrounded by sycophants who are afraid to say no for fear of being cut out of some current or eventual financial benefit.  

To ignore Mike's good points is toxic.

That said, it would feel irresponsible as a devoted fan of the band to not call out an incredibly poor and shortsighted decision when I see it.

Always have enjoyed your posts, CD, and yes we differ as to his "worth" in the band, whether it be decades ago or in his present incarnation. But, no, I do not see the good person in him that you mention nor do I see the sycophant situation as anything but a very clear example of his slant on running that band out of a certain fear that those around him have. It's exactly what the man wants more than anything to assuage his incredible ego and the need for power over others which is a hateful trait that indeed makes him a despised character. Toxic? I think not. What's toxic is what he's been doing to the brand with no shame involved.

OSD,  I didn't mean that to come off as a swipe against you, all I want to say is that I think that everyone, across the board, should acknowledge the good things that Mike has brought to the band.  My favorite song by this band is perhaps Please Let Me Wonder.  It's such a fucking perfect song in every way, and Mike wrote the lyrics, and he also sings several lines in the song. Regardless of how I feel about him (which I complain about a lot, certainly too much)... there's nothing that can make me to diminish how excellent everything about that song is. IMHO...not a single person, you incuded, should claim that Mike didn't kick ass on this song.  He did kick ass on that song. Period, end of story.  And it shouldn't be like pulling teeth to say it, either. It should be a given thing that is not arguable.

This is just one example, but I think that the cumulative effect of people being very pissed at Mike (for lots of very, very legitimate reasons)  has led to people actively dismissing things which shouldn't be dismissed, like this particular contribution I bring up.  I think it's toxic because I literally think that Mike has developed a major, major complex, which is itself toxic, in part as a result of many people not appreciating the actual good things he brought to the band *whatsoever, at all*. And in my opinion, that insanity he has developed - in part due to him witnessing this phenomenon - has probably led him down the narcissistic road where he is surrounded by sycophants, and has become inclined to support the monster who is about to enter the White House...  a move which itself is doubtlessly supported by said sycophants.

All I mean to say is that if, over decades, people had been a little more reasoned and levelheaded about the actual good contributions from Mike, maybe he wouldn't have become as bad as he has become now.  And maybe, just maybe, he wouldn't be in the position he is in now, about to deeply associate with such an imbecile of epic proportions.  On the other hand, maybe I am reaching, and maybe he's just as bad as you think. Neither of us knows him personally, so it's tough to say. I try to have an open mind as hard as I possibly can.  

But yeah, it's extraordinarily hard to have empathy for him in this situation.  I probably have too much empathy, which is a flaw, however a flaw that is probably preferable than the opposite… but I can't help seeing the good in people.  Including Mike. That said… I can honestly say that I don't see any good in Trump whatsoever.  Any.

[Kid Presentable]

I share pretty much the exact same perspective as CD.

For public health purposes I would really enjoy seeing a thread where OSD and his like, just once, say a small nice thing about Mike Love or something he did.  Such as "The lyrics to Darlin' were really good" or "Big Sur is a great song". 

[CenturyDeprived]

I share pretty much the exact same perspective as CD.

For public health purposes I would really enjoy seeing a thread where OSD and his like, just once, say a small nice thing about Mike Love or something he did.  Such as "The lyrics to Darlin' were really good" or "Big Sur is a great song".  

And most importantly, it has to be done without sarcasm or adding a dig/joke at the end. Which, understandably, will be even harder to do at such a point in time as we are at currently.

Honestly, even both Hillary and Drumpf were shockingly, surprisingly, and fortunately able to do so when posed with such a question/request at the end of an excruciatingly brutal debate.

[KDS]

What precedent are you basing your predictions from?

There are any number of entertainers whose careers have suffered from having extremely divisive political opinions, or in an extreme example, you have someone like Bill Cosby (who apparently actually grabbed many women by the ...). Here, we have someone (representing an entire major, world-known act) supporting a person who brags about said despicable act. Not saying it's an equal thing to Cosby, but sexual assault - or bragging about potential sexual assault - is not entirely divorced in peoples' minds either.

Bottom line: this is unprecedented territory here, but it's highly risky for the brand in any number of ways, most especially in terms of liberal filmmakers/music supervisors being able to send a message with their inaction of simply not picking BB music in the future. And even if they have no potential personal ethical issue with licensing Mike Love cowritten/sung music, they are also beholden to public backlash of the potential audience.

Do I think that every single BB music placement will dry up until the end of time? No. Do I think there's a good chance the brand will suffer in untold ways? Yes.

Just remember one thing:

Music supervisors are a group of folks who hold an incredibly coveted position. They are GODS, like it or not. They hold a huge amount of power, and many artists salivate to get them to pull the strings to get their music licensed. They can also very easily screw an artist over, either out of actual spite, or out of simply not wanting to have anything whatsoever to do with controversy. They are untouchable. There are no rules/regulations that they are subject to; no artist can have a peek behind the curtains and make a claim of "unfair" treatment.

Nobody will ever know if a music supervisor chooses to skip over The BBs because of this... because the skipping over will happen silently.

Their rule is the law of the land, period. And as most Republicans will attest to, Hollywood is run by a bunch of "no-good liberals". Well... those no-good liberals are gonna be able to passive aggressively, silently fight back if they choose to.  They are likely highly motivated to do so at this time.  I don't think this is in any way an unreasonable thing to assume is a great risk for the brand at this point.

I getvthat you oppose The Beach Boys playing next Friday, but this is a stretch.

Dude… Even Republicans like Bill O'Reilly are constantly yammering on about some sort of "reverse McCarthyism".  Why is it so unthinkable that it could apply here also?  Like it or not, people will see fit to blacklist other people.  Neither you nor I make these rules, and the only certainty in this is that there are plenty of mediamakers/music supervisors who have total control over this sort of thing.  

The questions to be asking here are what would influence their decisions; what do you think their likely predominant political views are, how much might they get a perverse joy out of being able to deny Mike a royalty check by simple but intentional inaction, and what do you think their fear of a public backlash would be with regards to potentially licensing a Mike Love-sung BB song in any content aimed at people who would have vehemently opposed Trump... particularly when the Internet Outrage Machine goes into full force - to a level previously unseen - if they play the inauguration. I don't think those are negligible concerns.   I think it's something for the brand to be concerned about, no question about it.  

I think the band will have less of a concern being licensed by mediamakers in red states, working on content aimed at a red state demographic.  The question is,  how many are there of those? Is the destiny of the band to only be licensed on Kirk Cameron type pictures?

Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle. Maybe I am overstating it, but the potential for a backlash against the brand, even if silently and internally amongst mediamakers, is most likely not a thing that is going to amount to nothing.  And once again, it's not worth the risk. Mr. Risk Averse himself should know that, and it's baffling to me that he doesn't.

If there is some sort of reverse McCarthyism, why bow down to it? 

Maybe Don't Back Down could be the opening song now that I think of it. 

[Kid Presentable]

I share pretty much the exact same perspective as CD.

For public health purposes I would really enjoy seeing a thread where OSD and his like, just once, say a small nice thing about Mike Love or something he did.  Such as "The lyrics to Darlin' were really good" or "Big Sur is a great song".  

And most importantly, it has to be done without sarcasm or adding a dig/joke at the end. Which, understandably, will be even harder to do at such a point in time as we are at currently.

Honestly, even both Hillary and Drumpf were shockingly, surprisingly, and fortunately able to do so when posed with such a question/request at the end of an excruciatingly brutal debate.

It should be like a penalty box, where if someone is posting out of line the mods can require them to go to the Mike Love thread and post something positive.   

[KDS]

I share pretty much the exact same perspective as CD.

For public health purposes I would really enjoy seeing a thread where OSD and his like, just once, say a small nice thing about Mike Love or something he did.  Such as "The lyrics to Darlin' were really good" or "Big Sur is a great song". 

If I saw that, I would assume OSD's profile was hacked. 

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

Okay- politics and music aside- Trump takes the cake for narcissistic President of the US. WHo do you possibly have in mind to "trump" him on that?

Obama, easily the biggest narcissist to every occupy the WH.  Did you see the size of that presidential seal behind him at his eternal farewell address last night?  The seal was so huge it was Nazi rally creepy in scope.  Almost as large as BO's head.  And who names his dog after himself?  He's the only one I've ever heard of...

Hahahaha you're picking on the size of the presidential seal, but ignore the fact that the small-fingered vulgarian plasters his grunt-like name on everything he touches and turns to sh*t?

[SMiLE Brian]

I share pretty much the exact same perspective as CD.

For public health purposes I would really enjoy seeing a thread where OSD and his like, just once, say a small nice thing about Mike Love or something he did.  Such as "The lyrics to Darlin' were really good" or "Big Sur is a great song".  

And most importantly, it has to be done without sarcasm or adding a dig/joke at the end. Which, understandably, will be even harder to do at such a point in time as we are at currently.

Honestly, even both Hillary and Drumpf were shockingly, surprisingly, and fortunately able to do so when posed with such a question/request at the end of an excruciatingly brutal debate.

It should be like a penalty box, where if someone is posting out of line the mods can require them to go to the Mike Love thread and post something positive.   

Big fan of OSD's posts but that is pretty funny!

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

   I've gotta say, it is a hilarious idea. Billy?

[CenturyDeprived]

What precedent are you basing your predictions from?

There are any number of entertainers whose careers have suffered from having extremely divisive political opinions, or in an extreme example, you have someone like Bill Cosby (who apparently actually grabbed many women by the ...). Here, we have someone (representing an entire major, world-known act) supporting a person who brags about said despicable act. Not saying it's an equal thing to Cosby, but sexual assault - or bragging about potential sexual assault - is not entirely divorced in peoples' minds either.

Bottom line: this is unprecedented territory here, but it's highly risky for the brand in any number of ways, most especially in terms of liberal filmmakers/music supervisors being able to send a message with their inaction of simply not picking BB music in the future. And even if they have no potential personal ethical issue with licensing Mike Love cowritten/sung music, they are also beholden to public backlash of the potential audience.

Do I think that every single BB music placement will dry up until the end of time? No. Do I think there's a good chance the brand will suffer in untold ways? Yes.

Just remember one thing:

Music supervisors are a group of folks who hold an incredibly coveted position. They are GODS, like it or not. They hold a huge amount of power, and many artists salivate to get them to pull the strings to get their music licensed. They can also very easily screw an artist over, either out of actual spite, or out of simply not wanting to have anything whatsoever to do with controversy. They are untouchable. There are no rules/regulations that they are subject to; no artist can have a peek behind the curtains and make a claim of "unfair" treatment.

Nobody will ever know if a music supervisor chooses to skip over The BBs because of this... because the skipping over will happen silently.

Their rule is the law of the land, period. And as most Republicans will attest to, Hollywood is run by a bunch of "no-good liberals". Well... those no-good liberals are gonna be able to passive aggressively, silently fight back if they choose to.  They are likely highly motivated to do so at this time.  I don't think this is in any way an unreasonable thing to assume is a great risk for the brand at this point.

I getvthat you oppose The Beach Boys playing next Friday, but this is a stretch.

Dude… Even Republicans like Bill O'Reilly are constantly yammering on about some sort of "reverse McCarthyism".  Why is it so unthinkable that it could apply here also?  Like it or not, people will see fit to blacklist other people.  Neither you nor I make these rules, and the only certainty in this is that there are plenty of mediamakers/music supervisors who have total control over this sort of thing.  

The questions to be asking here are what would influence their decisions; what do you think their likely predominant political views are, how much might they get a perverse joy out of being able to deny Mike a royalty check by simple but intentional inaction, and what do you think their fear of a public backlash would be with regards to potentially licensing a Mike Love-sung BB song in any content aimed at people who would have vehemently opposed Trump... particularly when the Internet Outrage Machine goes into full force - to a level previously unseen - if they play the inauguration. I don't think those are negligible concerns.   I think it's something for the brand to be concerned about, no question about it.  

I think the band will have less of a concern being licensed by mediamakers in red states, working on content aimed at a red state demographic.  The question is,  how many are there of those? Is the destiny of the band to only be licensed on Kirk Cameron type pictures?

Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle. Maybe I am overstating it, but the potential for a backlash against the brand, even if silently and internally amongst mediamakers, is most likely not a thing that is going to amount to nothing.  And once again, it's not worth the risk. Mr. Risk Averse himself should know that, and it's baffling to me that he doesn't.

If there is some sort of reverse McCarthyism, why bow down to it?  

Maybe Don't Back Down could be the opening song now that I think of it.  

It's not bowing down. It's called being realistic.  I personally know a gay woman who is a music supervisor.  I also know many people who are mediamakers, directors, who are women, gay,  persons of color, etc.  And these people despise Trump. I mean they really, really despise him with every fiber of their being.  And it goes miles beyond any type of feeling that they have had for any other politician in their entire lives.  It's deeply personal.

Do you really think they are going to go out of their way to license music written/sung by Mike after this inauguration? No use being an ostrich about what the potential is for blacklisting. Denial isn't going to make it not happen.  I'm not encouraging it, and as a fan of this band I think it's tragic…  I just think it's silly to pretend it's not something that will in fact be an issue.  

The discussion could perhaps be how big a deal this will be, but one thing that is certain is that it won't be a non-issue.  It's a "because they can" situation, which they have total control over. They have the power.  All the foot stomping in the world will have zero effect.

[KDS]

What precedent are you basing your predictions from?

There are any number of entertainers whose careers have suffered from having extremely divisive political opinions, or in an extreme example, you have someone like Bill Cosby (who apparently actually grabbed many women by the ...). Here, we have someone (representing an entire major, world-known act) supporting a person who brags about said despicable act. Not saying it's an equal thing to Cosby, but sexual assault - or bragging about potential sexual assault - is not entirely divorced in peoples' minds either.

Bottom line: this is unprecedented territory here, but it's highly risky for the brand in any number of ways, most especially in terms of liberal filmmakers/music supervisors being able to send a message with their inaction of simply not picking BB music in the future. And even if they have no potential personal ethical issue with licensing Mike Love cowritten/sung music, they are also beholden to public backlash of the potential audience.

Do I think that every single BB music placement will dry up until the end of time? No. Do I think there's a good chance the brand will suffer in untold ways? Yes.

Just remember one thing:

Music supervisors are a group of folks who hold an incredibly coveted position. They are GODS, like it or not. They hold a huge amount of power, and many artists salivate to get them to pull the strings to get their music licensed. They can also very easily screw an artist over, either out of actual spite, or out of simply not wanting to have anything whatsoever to do with controversy. They are untouchable. There are no rules/regulations that they are subject to; no artist can have a peek behind the curtains and make a claim of "unfair" treatment.

Nobody will ever know if a music supervisor chooses to skip over The BBs because of this... because the skipping over will happen silently.

Their rule is the law of the land, period. And as most Republicans will attest to, Hollywood is run by a bunch of "no-good liberals". Well... those no-good liberals are gonna be able to passive aggressively, silently fight back if they choose to.  They are likely highly motivated to do so at this time.  I don't think this is in any way an unreasonable thing to assume is a great risk for the brand at this point.

I getvthat you oppose The Beach Boys playing next Friday, but this is a stretch.

Dude… Even Republicans like Bill O'Reilly are constantly yammering on about some sort of "reverse McCarthyism".  Why is it so unthinkable that it could apply here also?  Like it or not, people will see fit to blacklist other people.  Neither you nor I make these rules, and the only certainty in this is that there are plenty of mediamakers/music supervisors who have total control over this sort of thing.  

The questions to be asking here are what would influence their decisions; what do you think their likely predominant political views are, how much might they get a perverse joy out of being able to deny Mike a royalty check by simple but intentional inaction, and what do you think their fear of a public backlash would be with regards to potentially licensing a Mike Love-sung BB song in any content aimed at people who would have vehemently opposed Trump... particularly when the Internet Outrage Machine goes into full force - to a level previously unseen - if they play the inauguration. I don't think those are negligible concerns.   I think it's something for the brand to be concerned about, no question about it.  

I think the band will have less of a concern being licensed by mediamakers in red states, working on content aimed at a red state demographic.  The question is,  how many are there of those? Is the destiny of the band to only be licensed on Kirk Cameron type pictures?

Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle. Maybe I am overstating it, but the potential for a backlash against the brand, even if silently and internally amongst mediamakers, is most likely not a thing that is going to amount to nothing.  And once again, it's not worth the risk. Mr. Risk Averse himself should know that, and it's baffling to me that he doesn't.

If there is some sort of reverse McCarthyism, why bow down to it?  

Maybe Don't Back Down could be the opening song now that I think of it.  

It's not bowing down. It's called being realistic.  I personally know a gay woman who is a music supervisor.  I also know many people who are mediamakers, directors, who are women, gay,  persons of color, etc.  And these people despise Trump. I mean they really, really despise him with every fiber of their being.  And it goes miles beyond any type of feeling that they have had for any other politician in their entire lives.  It's deeply personal.

Do you really think they are going to go out of their way to license music written/sung by Mike after this inauguration? No use being an ostrich about what the potential is for blacklisting. Denial isn't going to make it not happen.  I'm not encouraging it, I just think it's silly to pretend it's not something that will be an issue.  The discussion could perhaps be how big a deal this will be, but one thing that is certain is that it won't be a non-issue.  It's a "because they can" situation, which they have total control over.

If that's the case, and music supervisors are making decisions based on personal bias, then they should be removed from their jobs immediately. 

I don't feel the artists should have to try to predict how a decision will impact the personal bias of these people. 

I could see it if a band were to play for a Klan rally, or BLM, or Al Quada.  But, we're not talking about that.  However people feel about him, we're talking about the Inauguration of the President of the United States.  If an artist is invited to play for the Inauguration of the President of the Unites States, they should be able to do so without having to worry about vengeful so called music supervisors who are going to not license their music because they don't "like" something the artist did. 

Artists who have done blatantly despicable things (and I mean actual crimes not just being prickish as Mike sometimes is) haven't had to lose sleep about their music getting licensed.   

[CenturyDeprived]

What precedent are you basing your predictions from?

There are any number of entertainers whose careers have suffered from having extremely divisive political opinions, or in an extreme example, you have someone like Bill Cosby (who apparently actually grabbed many women by the ...). Here, we have someone (representing an entire major, world-known act) supporting a person who brags about said despicable act. Not saying it's an equal thing to Cosby, but sexual assault - or bragging about potential sexual assault - is not entirely divorced in peoples' minds either.

Bottom line: this is unprecedented territory here, but it's highly risky for the brand in any number of ways, most especially in terms of liberal filmmakers/music supervisors being able to send a message with their inaction of simply not picking BB music in the future. And even if they have no potential personal ethical issue with licensing Mike Love cowritten/sung music, they are also beholden to public backlash of the potential audience.

Do I think that every single BB music placement will dry up until the end of time? No. Do I think there's a good chance the brand will suffer in untold ways? Yes.

Just remember one thing:

Music supervisors are a group of folks who hold an incredibly coveted position. They are GODS, like it or not. They hold a huge amount of power, and many artists salivate to get them to pull the strings to get their music licensed. They can also very easily screw an artist over, either out of actual spite, or out of simply not wanting to have anything whatsoever to do with controversy. They are untouchable. There are no rules/regulations that they are subject to; no artist can have a peek behind the curtains and make a claim of "unfair" treatment.

Nobody will ever know if a music supervisor chooses to skip over The BBs because of this... because the skipping over will happen silently.

Their rule is the law of the land, period. And as most Republicans will attest to, Hollywood is run by a bunch of "no-good liberals". Well... those no-good liberals are gonna be able to passive aggressively, silently fight back if they choose to.  They are likely highly motivated to do so at this time.  I don't think this is in any way an unreasonable thing to assume is a great risk for the brand at this point.

I getvthat you oppose The Beach Boys playing next Friday, but this is a stretch.

Dude… Even Republicans like Bill O'Reilly are constantly yammering on about some sort of "reverse McCarthyism".  Why is it so unthinkable that it could apply here also?  Like it or not, people will see fit to blacklist other people.  Neither you nor I make these rules, and the only certainty in this is that there are plenty of mediamakers/music supervisors who have total control over this sort of thing.  

The questions to be asking here are what would influence their decisions; what do you think their likely predominant political views are, how much might they get a perverse joy out of being able to deny Mike a royalty check by simple but intentional inaction, and what do you think their fear of a public backlash would be with regards to potentially licensing a Mike Love-sung BB song in any content aimed at people who would have vehemently opposed Trump... particularly when the Internet Outrage Machine goes into full force - to a level previously unseen - if they play the inauguration. I don't think those are negligible concerns.   I think it's something for the brand to be concerned about, no question about it.  

I think the band will have less of a concern being licensed by mediamakers in red states, working on content aimed at a red state demographic.  The question is,  how many are there of those? Is the destiny of the band to only be licensed on Kirk Cameron type pictures?

Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle. Maybe I am overstating it, but the potential for a backlash against the brand, even if silently and internally amongst mediamakers, is most likely not a thing that is going to amount to nothing.  And once again, it's not worth the risk. Mr. Risk Averse himself should know that, and it's baffling to me that he doesn't.

If there is some sort of reverse McCarthyism, why bow down to it?  

Maybe Don't Back Down could be the opening song now that I think of it.  

It's not bowing down. It's called being realistic.  I personally know a gay woman who is a music supervisor.  I also know many people who are mediamakers, directors, who are women, gay,  persons of color, etc.  And these people despise Trump. I mean they really, really despise him with every fiber of their being.  And it goes miles beyond any type of feeling that they have had for any other politician in their entire lives.  It's deeply personal.

Do you really think they are going to go out of their way to license music written/sung by Mike after this inauguration? No use being an ostrich about what the potential is for blacklisting. Denial isn't going to make it not happen.  I'm not encouraging it, I just think it's silly to pretend it's not something that will be an issue.  The discussion could perhaps be how big a deal this will be, but one thing that is certain is that it won't be a non-issue.  It's a "because they can" situation, which they have total control over.

If that's the case, and music supervisors are making decisions based on personal bias, then they should be removed from their jobs immediately.  

I don't feel the artists should have to try to predict how a decision will impact the personal bias of these people.  

I could see it if a band were to play for a Klan rally, or BLM, or Al Quada.  But, we're not talking about that.  However people feel about him, we're talking about the Inauguration of the President of the United States.  If an artist is invited to play for the Inauguration of the President of the Unites States, they should be able to do so without having to worry about vengeful so called music supervisors who are going to not license their music because they don't "like" something the artist did.  

Artists who have done blatantly despicable things (and I mean actual crimes not just being prickish as Mike sometimes is) haven't had to lose sleep about their music getting licensed.    

Good luck with that. The entire industry is based on favors, who you know, who you like, and things like that. There will never be any proof of it because it will all happen behind closed doors.  Look what happened to David when he left the band. Were there any repercussions for Murry?   It doesn't mean that those things are the only factors that play into how decisions are made, but, no pun intended, they can trump other things, and do so completely transparently.

[KDS]

What precedent are you basing your predictions from?

There are any number of entertainers whose careers have suffered from having extremely divisive political opinions, or in an extreme example, you have someone like Bill Cosby (who apparently actually grabbed many women by the ...). Here, we have someone (representing an entire major, world-known act) supporting a person who brags about said despicable act. Not saying it's an equal thing to Cosby, but sexual assault - or bragging about potential sexual assault - is not entirely divorced in peoples' minds either.

Bottom line: this is unprecedented territory here, but it's highly risky for the brand in any number of ways, most especially in terms of liberal filmmakers/music supervisors being able to send a message with their inaction of simply not picking BB music in the future. And even if they have no potential personal ethical issue with licensing Mike Love cowritten/sung music, they are also beholden to public backlash of the potential audience.

Do I think that every single BB music placement will dry up until the end of time? No. Do I think there's a good chance the brand will suffer in untold ways? Yes.

Just remember one thing:

Music supervisors are a group of folks who hold an incredibly coveted position. They are GODS, like it or not. They hold a huge amount of power, and many artists salivate to get them to pull the strings to get their music licensed. They can also very easily screw an artist over, either out of actual spite, or out of simply not wanting to have anything whatsoever to do with controversy. They are untouchable. There are no rules/regulations that they are subject to; no artist can have a peek behind the curtains and make a claim of "unfair" treatment.

Nobody will ever know if a music supervisor chooses to skip over The BBs because of this... because the skipping over will happen silently.

Their rule is the law of the land, period. And as most Republicans will attest to, Hollywood is run by a bunch of "no-good liberals". Well... those no-good liberals are gonna be able to passive aggressively, silently fight back if they choose to.  They are likely highly motivated to do so at this time.  I don't think this is in any way an unreasonable thing to assume is a great risk for the brand at this point.

I getvthat you oppose The Beach Boys playing next Friday, but this is a stretch.

Dude… Even Republicans like Bill O'Reilly are constantly yammering on about some sort of "reverse McCarthyism".  Why is it so unthinkable that it could apply here also?  Like it or not, people will see fit to blacklist other people.  Neither you nor I make these rules, and the only certainty in this is that there are plenty of mediamakers/music supervisors who have total control over this sort of thing.  

The questions to be asking here are what would influence their decisions; what do you think their likely predominant political views are, how much might they get a perverse joy out of being able to deny Mike a royalty check by simple but intentional inaction, and what do you think their fear of a public backlash would be with regards to potentially licensing a Mike Love-sung BB song in any content aimed at people who would have vehemently opposed Trump... particularly when the Internet Outrage Machine goes into full force - to a level previously unseen - if they play the inauguration. I don't think those are negligible concerns.   I think it's something for the brand to be concerned about, no question about it.  

I think the band will have less of a concern being licensed by mediamakers in red states, working on content aimed at a red state demographic.  The question is,  how many are there of those? Is the destiny of the band to only be licensed on Kirk Cameron type pictures?

Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle. Maybe I am overstating it, but the potential for a backlash against the brand, even if silently and internally amongst mediamakers, is most likely not a thing that is going to amount to nothing.  And once again, it's not worth the risk. Mr. Risk Averse himself should know that, and it's baffling to me that he doesn't.

If there is some sort of reverse McCarthyism, why bow down to it?  

Maybe Don't Back Down could be the opening song now that I think of it.  

It's not bowing down. It's called being realistic.  I personally know a gay woman who is a music supervisor.  I also know many people who are mediamakers, directors, who are women, gay,  persons of color, etc.  And these people despise Trump. I mean they really, really despise him with every fiber of their being.  And it goes miles beyond any type of feeling that they have had for any other politician in their entire lives.  It's deeply personal.

Do you really think they are going to go out of their way to license music written/sung by Mike after this inauguration? No use being an ostrich about what the potential is for blacklisting. Denial isn't going to make it not happen.  I'm not encouraging it, I just think it's silly to pretend it's not something that will be an issue.  The discussion could perhaps be how big a deal this will be, but one thing that is certain is that it won't be a non-issue.  It's a "because they can" situation, which they have total control over.

If that's the case, and music supervisors are making decisions based on personal bias, then they should be removed from their jobs immediately.  

I don't feel the artists should have to try to predict how a decision will impact the personal bias of these people.  

I could see it if a band were to play for a Klan rally, or BLM, or Al Quada.  But, we're not talking about that.  However people feel about him, we're talking about the Inauguration of the President of the United States.  If an artist is invited to play for the Inauguration of the President of the Unites States, they should be able to do so without having to worry about vengeful so called music supervisors who are going to not license their music because they don't "like" something the artist did.  

Artists who have done blatantly despicable things (and I mean actual crimes not just being prickish as Mike sometimes is) haven't had to lose sleep about their music getting licensed.    

Good luck with that. The entire industry is based on favors, who you know, who you like, and things like that. There will never be any proof of it because it will all happen behind closed doors.  Look what happened to David when he left the band. Were there any repercussions for Murry?   It doesn't mean that those things are the only factors that play into how decisions are made, but, no pun intended, they can trump other things, and do so completely transparently.

There are plenty of musicians way more divisive who've had no trouble. 

[CenturyDeprived]

There are plenty of musicians way more divisive who've had no trouble.  

Not sure what examples you are thinking of (please inform me of who, in the event that I'm missing something), but I'm quite confident no entertainer has ever been involved on such a high profile level with someone more divisive to entire populations of people, genders, minorities, on such a high profile as this. It's completely unprecedented.