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

[SMiLE Brian]

This thread is just the beginning of the ugliness that will happen if mike plays this show. This is far worse than the c50 blow up on here.

[rab2591]

This thread is just the beginning of the ugliness that will happen if mike plays this show. This is far worse than the c50 blow up on here.

This right here, and this chaos should be obvious to all why this concert is a terribly bad idea.

@Emily, regardless of how I worded a sentence or made a supposedly inapt comparison (even though I still stand by the comparison), my main point still stands and I'll leave it at that.

[SMiLE Brian]

Exactly, the BBs have chance to live on with a new generation of indie listeners and Mike could turn them away with this show. The brand would be tarnished beyond belief yet again for Mike's ego.

[Emily]

This thread is just the beginning of the ugliness that will happen if mike plays this show. This is far worse than the c50 blow up on here.

This right here, and this chaos should be obvious to all why this concert is a terribly bad idea.

@Emily, regardless of how I worded a sentence or made a supposedly inapt comparison (even though I still stand by the comparison), my main point still stands and I'll leave it at that.

The one is meant to be the choice of a public office holder by its constituents. The other is a non-governmental organization choosing whom they would like to put forth for the position. The latter is akin to a club. While there may be regulations regarding discrimination, etc. they are not bound by any law or legal philosophy that I'm aware of to hold open elections at all.
is your point that one ought not criticize the electoral college system? Or that one ought not correct people  when they make an incorrect statement?

[KDS]

Exactly, the BBs have chance to live on with a new generation of indie listeners and Mike could turn them away with this show. The brand would be tarnished beyond belief yet again for Mike's ego.

Seriously?  

If these indie listeners are going to form their musical opinions based on what candidate an artist supports / doesn't support, that's their problem.  

[SMiLE Brian]

I am dead serious, this gig would cement the legacy of the BBs as a political group favoring the older PBS crowds at shows. The art is being lost under the commerce and egos again.

[KDS]

I am dead serious, this gig would cement the legacy of the BBs as a political group favoring the older PBS crowds at shows. The art is being lost under the commerce and egos again.

This coming from a poster who, over and over again, refuses to acknowledge the current touring band as "The Beach Boys." 

I think The Beach Boys, and their legacy will be fine. 

Music fans aren't going to dismiss the entire legacy of one of America's great bands just because the touring version of the band plays at the inauguration of Donald Trump.  And if fans do chose to dismiss a legacy that's over half a century long over this, then shame on them. 

Pink Floyd is my favorite band of all time, but I 100% do not agree with Roger Waters's political views, but you bet as soon as his new album his shelves in 2017, I'll be at the record store to snag myself a copy. 

[rab2591]

This thread is just the beginning of the ugliness that will happen if mike plays this show. This is far worse than the c50 blow up on here.

This right here, and this chaos should be obvious to all why this concert is a terribly bad idea.

@Emily, regardless of how I worded a sentence or made a supposedly inapt comparison (even though I still stand by the comparison), my main point still stands and I'll leave it at that.

The one is meant to be the choice of a public office holder by its constituents. The other is a non-governmental organization choosing whom they would like to put forth for the position. The latter is akin to a club. While there may be regulations regarding discrimination, etc. they are not bound by any law or legal philosophy that I'm aware of to hold open elections at all.
is your point that one ought not criticize the electoral college system? Or that one ought not correct people  when they make an incorrect statement?

Neither of those are my point. I'll take this to PMs as I won't clog up yet another thread with this inane political talk that has dominated this forum in the past couple months.

[bluesno1fann]

i dont see the problem. Maybe because i am european but they did more presidents. Remember Ronald Reagan the actor who became president? Just do it Boys i dont care. I booked my tickets for their european tour already. no sweat.

There's a BIG difference between Ronald Reagan and Führer-elect Trump.

why is Trump a Fuhrer??? The american people  choose him. Stop wyning and get on with your life. in 4 years there is another democratic election...

If the American people chose Trump, then he wouldn't have lost the popular vote.... by nearly three million votes

Can we stop with this moronic popular vote argument? If we went by popularity then Hillary won the 2008 primary and Barack Obama never became president - but that isn't the way that system works. Hillary knew about the electoral college going into the race yet she completely disregarded Wisconsin, made far less stops than Trump in key states. Blaming Trump for playing by the rules of the game (regarding the EC) isn't going to get the democrats into the White House in 2020. I implore everyone here to listen to Sam Harris's podcast 'Most Powerful Clown' where he gives factual criticism about Trump (and it is scathing criticism) and calls out democrats for exactly why they lost. It should be heard by every democrat who actually wants a shot at winning another election in this country. Because the name calling, whining about the electoral college, blaming the media, telling people to go f*** themselves sure as hell isn't going to do the democrats any favors in the coming years.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/dec/23/beach-boys-donald-trump-inauguration?CMP=share_btn_tw


Being picked up in the mainstream. Saw references on twitter.  Damage will be done soon even if they decline eventually

Well this is wonderful. If this concert actually happens the best case scenario is that people forget about it as soon as possible. This is one of Mike's most delusional ideas yet. I really wonder why he doesn't just perform under his own name? Oh, because no one would know who the hell he was if he didn't name-flash the Beach Boys name...

Oh by all means I'm not defending/supporting Hillary - on the contrary I think she was an appalling candidate who was completely inappropriate for this sort of election. Nor do I support the Democrats (who I regard as too far to the right) at all. Also I'm completely in agreement with you on how Hillary f***ed up by disregarding crucial swing states - states that Bernie Sanders unquestionably would have either won or have stood a far better chance at - and how the denigration by much of the left was not only extremely counterproductive but also strengthened the right (though that said from my point of view both sides have been guilty of that - though the left did not take defeat gracefully at all). I think Jonathan Pie summed up what happened best - and I have a feeling you'll be in agreement with him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

But the fact of the matter is that although Trump won the election, by losing the popular vote quite significantly one cannot claim that the American people voted for him, when the majority did not.

[the captain]

Noooooooo....Jay, Luther is Captain. Professor was just some Johnny-Came-Lately who was condescending as hell and acted like he knew everything. Two completely different people. sh*t, I like Luther

sh*t. Sorry Luther/captain!   I knew he changed his name and avi. I thought he changed to the professor and took on a "persona". Oops.  

lol I'd been ignoring this thread because as far as I'm concerned it's the equivalent of re-re-rehashing, say, "did Mike cause Smile to collapse?" Another BBs/Trump thing. But I check in, read a particularly overgeneralizing and nasty post from the annoying, third-person-speaking, alleged professor (whose typically illiterate posts have always been bullshit anyway ... and then find out I'm him. motherfucker, it's a bad morning!

[SMiLE Brian]

I am dead serious, this gig would cement the legacy of the BBs as a political group favoring the older PBS crowds at shows. The art is being lost under the commerce and egos again.

This coming from a poster who, over and over again, refuses to acknowledge the current touring band as "The Beach Boys." 

I think The Beach Boys, and their legacy will be fine. 

Music fans aren't going to dismiss the entire legacy of one of America's great bands just because the touring version of the band plays at the inauguration of Donald Trump.  And if fans do chose to dismiss a legacy that's over half a century long over this, then shame on them. 

Pink Floyd is my favorite band of all time, but I 100% do not agree with Roger Waters's political views, but you bet as soon as his new album his shelves in 2017, I'll be at the record store to snag myself a copy. 

Ignoring the insult in the first sentence, the BBs performing for Trump after most musical acts wouldn't doesn't bode well. It reinforces the image of M&B using the BBs name for nationalist purposes as "america's band" instead letting the music speak for itself.

[KDS]

I am dead serious, this gig would cement the legacy of the BBs as a political group favoring the older PBS crowds at shows. The art is being lost under the commerce and egos again.

This coming from a poster who, over and over again, refuses to acknowledge the current touring band as "The Beach Boys." 

I think The Beach Boys, and their legacy will be fine. 

Music fans aren't going to dismiss the entire legacy of one of America's great bands just because the touring version of the band plays at the inauguration of Donald Trump.  And if fans do chose to dismiss a legacy that's over half a century long over this, then shame on them. 

Pink Floyd is my favorite band of all time, but I 100% do not agree with Roger Waters's political views, but you bet as soon as his new album his shelves in 2017, I'll be at the record store to snag myself a copy. 

Ignoring the insult in the first sentence, the BBs performing for Trump after most musical acts wouldn't doesn't bode well. It reinforces the image of M&B using the BBs name for nationalist purposes as "america's band" instead letting the music speak for itself.

My first sentence was not an insult, but a fact. 

This whole argument is just plain silly, and yet another excuse to bash Mike Love and Donald Trump. 

[SamMcK]

To the boring BS argument being put out by Trump supporters, i.e "He won, suck it up, they should play it".. He also happens to be the most divisive figure in western politics. It's much more controversial for the band to play for him than Reagan. Also, with the internet playing such a huge part in how the world works these days could completely ruin The Beach Boys reputation and legacy for the sake of Mike Love's political gain.

That would result in the alienation of the largest portion of BB fans, in the long run that would effectively damage future sales of CD's, concerts, merchandise ect. associated with the band.

To be more blunt, why sh*t on their 55 year musical legacy just to make Mike and Bruce happy?

[KDS]

To the boring BS argument being put out by Trump supporters, i.e "He won, suck it up, they should play it".. He also happens to be the most divisive figure in western politics. It's much more controversial for the band to play for him than Reagan. Also, with the internet playing such a huge part in how the world works these days could completely ruin The Beach Boys reputation and legacy for the sake of Mike Love's political gain.

That would result in the alienation of the largest portion of BB fans, in the long run that would effectively damage future sales of CD's, concerts, merchandise ect. associated with the band.

I'll agree with this point to a certain degree in that it's a questionable business decision for any musician to have supported either candidate in the most divisive election in US History. 

But, I'm not 100% convinced that the vast majority of BB fans are anti Trump. 

And, like I said before, if you chose your music based on politics, that's on the fan, not the band. 

Last time I saw Paul McCartney in concert, he dedicated two songs to the Obamas.  Did I beat my fists on the floor, throw a fit, and declare I'd never buy anything Paul, Beatles, or Wings related again?  No!!!  I'm more angry about the fact that he's keeping the Let It Be move in the vaults. 

[SMiLE Brian]

I am dead serious, this gig would cement the legacy of the BBs as a political group favoring the older PBS crowds at shows. The art is being lost under the commerce and egos again.

This coming from a poster who, over and over again, refuses to acknowledge the current touring band as "The Beach Boys." 

I think The Beach Boys, and their legacy will be fine. 

Music fans aren't going to dismiss the entire legacy of one of America's great bands just because the touring version of the band plays at the inauguration of Donald Trump.  And if fans do chose to dismiss a legacy that's over half a century long over this, then shame on them. 

Pink Floyd is my favorite band of all time, but I 100% do not agree with Roger Waters's political views, but you bet as soon as his new album his shelves in 2017, I'll be at the record store to snag myself a copy. 

Ignoring the insult in the first sentence, the BBs performing for Trump after most musical acts wouldn't doesn't bode well. It reinforces the image of M&B using the BBs name for nationalist purposes as "america's band" instead letting the music speak for itself.

My first sentence was not an insult, but a fact. 

This whole argument is just plain silly, and yet another excuse to bash Mike Love and Donald Trump. 

Knock it off with the passive-aggressive act, you support M&B playing for Trump and that's fine. But don't drag it out with others that don't agree with you.

[HeyJude]

I think The Beach Boys, and their legacy will be fine. 

Music fans aren't going to dismiss the entire legacy of one of America's great bands just because the touring version of the band plays at the inauguration of Donald Trump.  And if fans do chose to dismiss a legacy that's over half a century long over this, then shame on them. 

Pink Floyd is my favorite band of all time, but I 100% do not agree with Roger Waters's political views, but you bet as soon as his new album his shelves in 2017, I'll be at the record store to snag myself a copy. 

I'd say several things.

One, your attitude (e.g. Pink Floyd) about having differing politics from artists you like is not the adult attitude that many others tend to take about that sort of stuff, especially casual fans and non-invested observers who will still get behind "boycotts" and the like. And *that's* going to be the problem. Not hardcore fans. But people who simply know who "The Beach Boys" are (to the degree they simply know it's a famous band), *those* are the people who are going to put this huge blight on the band's legacy. It won't require people to "dismiss a half century legacy", because it'll people with little or no vested interest in the band or being a fan who will make this a PR disaster.

And perhaps rightly so. I'd have to take every single case on an individual basis, but if some artist played for Trump that I only had a passing interest in, I certainly wouldn't be warming to them.

Two, your Pink Floyd analogy indicates you're a Pink Floyd/Waters fan. Certainly, true fans of a band or artists are far less likely to let something like a political affiliation or action spoil their love of the band/artist. Further, as a fan, you'll understand the context of things better. So in the BB case, I'm not worried about hardcore fans throwing their copy of "Pet Sounds" in the trash because Mike Love is an a**hole.

Third, I don't think anybody is suggesting anything will completely ruin the BB's legacy. Look at other artists who have weathered (to varying degrees) far worse issues. An obvious example would be Michael Jackson. He *never* lost the most basic, ground-level support for his music. Even people who were convinced he was guilty of everything he was accused of still often were happy to continue to enjoy "The Jackson Five" and "Thriller" and all of that. So the issue with the BBs is not that their catalog will fall into the ether like episodes of "The Cosby Show." Rather, it will be another blight, another stupid thing that will be attached to their name when it should just be attached to Mike Love.

This is really just the Stamos thing all over again. If you understand how the Stamos/Full House thing has, in many ways (not every way) hurt the band's legacy (not irreparably, just a nice little ding), then you can understand this Trump thing. Except, the Trump thing will be probably relatively worse. It will be worse now, and could well in retrospect look *really* bad far later on.

It's always hard to put one's objective hat on when it comes to anything even tangentially related to politics, but I'd argue that even a Trump supporter should understand why *this particular* instance (as opposed to any other inaugurations) is a bad idea for the band and the brand.

[KDS]

I am dead serious, this gig would cement the legacy of the BBs as a political group favoring the older PBS crowds at shows. The art is being lost under the commerce and egos again.

This coming from a poster who, over and over again, refuses to acknowledge the current touring band as "The Beach Boys." 

I think The Beach Boys, and their legacy will be fine. 

Music fans aren't going to dismiss the entire legacy of one of America's great bands just because the touring version of the band plays at the inauguration of Donald Trump.  And if fans do chose to dismiss a legacy that's over half a century long over this, then shame on them. 

Pink Floyd is my favorite band of all time, but I 100% do not agree with Roger Waters's political views, but you bet as soon as his new album his shelves in 2017, I'll be at the record store to snag myself a copy. 

Ignoring the insult in the first sentence, the BBs performing for Trump after most musical acts wouldn't doesn't bode well. It reinforces the image of M&B using the BBs name for nationalist purposes as "america's band" instead letting the music speak for itself.

My first sentence was not an insult, but a fact. 

This whole argument is just plain silly, and yet another excuse to bash Mike Love and Donald Trump. 

Knock it off with the passive-aggressive act, you support M&B playing for Trump and that's fine. But don't drag it out with others that don't agree with you.

I really don't care either way.  If they play, that's fine.  If they don't that's fine. 

I just don't think it's the big deal everybody is making it out to be. 

Hillary was just as divisive as Trump, and many artists lined up to support her.  Did it affect their bottom line?  I doubt it. 

[HeyJude]

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

How is what he said hate filled?

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

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

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

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

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

[KDS]

I think The Beach Boys, and their legacy will be fine. 

Music fans aren't going to dismiss the entire legacy of one of America's great bands just because the touring version of the band plays at the inauguration of Donald Trump.  And if fans do chose to dismiss a legacy that's over half a century long over this, then shame on them. 

Pink Floyd is my favorite band of all time, but I 100% do not agree with Roger Waters's political views, but you bet as soon as his new album his shelves in 2017, I'll be at the record store to snag myself a copy. 

I'd say several things.

One, your attitude (e.g. Pink Floyd) about having differing politics from artists you like is not the adult attitude that many others tend to take about that sort of stuff, especially casual fans and non-invested observers who will still get behind "boycotts" and the like. And *that's* going to be the problem. Not hardcore fans. But people who simply know who "The Beach Boys" are (to the degree they simply know it's a famous band), *those* are the people who are going to put this huge blight on the band's legacy. It won't require people to "dismiss a half century legacy", because it'll people with little or no vested interest in the band or being a fan who will make this a PR disaster.

And perhaps rightly so. I'd have to take every single case on an individual basis, but if some artist played for Trump that I only had a passing interest in, I certainly wouldn't be warming to them.

Two, your Pink Floyd analogy indicates you're a Pink Floyd/Waters fan. Certainly, true fans of a band or artists are far less likely to let something like a political affiliation or action spoil their love of the band/artist. Further, as a fan, you'll understand the context of things better. So in the BB case, I'm not worried about hardcore fans throwing their copy of "Pet Sounds" in the trash because Mike Love is an a**hole.

Third, I don't think anybody is suggesting anything will completely ruin the BB's legacy. Look at other artists who have weathered (to varying degrees) far worse issues. An obvious example would be Michael Jackson. He *never* lost the most basic, ground-level support for his music. Even people who were convinced he was guilty of everything he was accused of still often were happy to continue to enjoy "The Jackson Five" and "Thriller" and all of that. So the issue with the BBs is not that their catalog will fall into the ether like episodes of "The Cosby Show." Rather, it will be another blight, another stupid thing that will be attached to their name when it should just be attached to Mike Love.

This is really just the Stamos thing all over again. If you understand how the Stamos/Full House thing has, in many ways (not every way) hurt the band's legacy (not irreparably, just a nice little ding), then you can understand this Trump thing. Except, the Trump thing will be probably relatively worse. It will be worse now, and could well in retrospect look *really* bad far later on.

It's always hard to put one's objective hat on when it comes to anything even tangentially related to politics, but I'd argue that even a Trump supporter should understand why *this particular* instance (as opposed to any other inaugurations) is a bad idea for the band and the brand.

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

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

[KDS]

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

How is what he said hate filled?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HeyJude]

I really don't care either way.  If they play, that's fine.  If they don't that's fine.  

I just don't think it's the big deal everybody is making it out to be.  

Hillary was just as divisive as Trump, and many artists lined up to support her.  Did it affect their bottom line?  I doubt it.  

Hillary and Trump, objectively speaking from a PR standpoint, are NOT the same thing. Even Trump supporters should acknowledge this, and in many cases I think would, especially off the record.  

Go to ANY PR person in the industry, and they'll tell you why supporting Hillary, or playing at pretty much ANY other inauguration, would be FAR different from playing at Trump's.

This case is a VERY unique animal, unlike anything ever seen before. I really can't put any stock in someone's sense of history and politics and pop culture and whatnot if they really actually think the 2016 election was "just another election" and "no big deal." Again, whether you love or loathe Trump, there are many, many unique things about this election and the current political climate that render ANY other comparison moot.

Set the politics aside; I'm talking about objective PR. Make no mistake, I have a thousand moral/ethical reasons this is a bad idea too, but let's just look at the PR aspect. Any band manager or PR person would tell them this is a horrible, horrible idea.

[KDS]

I really don't care either way.  If they play, that's fine.  If they don't that's fine. 

I just don't think it's the big deal everybody is making it out to be. 

Hillary was just as divisive as Trump, and many artists lined up to support her.  Did it affect their bottom line?  I doubt it. 

Hillary and Trump, objectively speaking from a PR standpoint, are NOT the same thing. Even Trump supporters should acknowledge this, and in many cases I think would, especially off the record.  

Go to ANY PR person in the industry, and they'll tell you why supporting Hillary, or playing at pretty much ANY other inauguration, would be FAR different from playing at Trump's.

This case is a VERY unique animal, unlike anything ever seen before. I really can't put any stock in someone's sense of history and politics and pop culture and whatnot if they really actually thing the 2016 election was "just another election" and "no big deal." Again, whether you love or loathe Trump, there are many, many unique things about this election and the current political climate that render ANY other comparison moot.

Set the politics aside; I'm talking about objective PR. Make no mistake, I have a thousand moral/ethical reasons this is a bad idea too, but let's just look at the PR aspect. Any band manager or PR person would tell them this is a horrible, horrible idea.

Like I said before, it might be a PR mistake if The Beach Boys were a current band. 

If Brian Wilson were playing, I might say it's a mistake, because Brian Wilson still puts out new product. 

[Jarhead ghost]

Can we get back to the issues!

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

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

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

[HeyJude]

Like I said before, it might be a PR mistake if The Beach Boys were a current band. 

If Brian Wilson were playing, I might say it's a mistake, because Brian Wilson still puts out new product. 

"Bad PR" is not measured by how much "new" product you plan to release in the future.

Look at how much "Good PR" the band got in 1983 due to the Watt controversy, when they had pretty much NOTHING going on other than touring.

The Beach Boys is a BRAND, an ongoing machine that sells music, merchandise, to say nothing of a legacy. *That's* what we're talking about.