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

[Debbie KL]

Time for those brass tacks again. Someone already mentioned it, but it's worth repeating.

When all of this brou-haha was still bubbling up, a public statement was issued that said Brian and Al had nothing to do with this. What is one of the most unfortunate effects of all this, if not the most unfortunate in my opinion, is that because of the way Mike and his PR handled this going back weeks now, the musical legacy of Brian and Al as Beach Boys is being thrown into the mud. And again, they had nothing to do with any of this other than being founding members of The Beach Boys.

If Mike and/or his PR team had declined the invitation in private, and not leaked a comment to the press, none of this would have happened. It turned into a clusterfuck yet again because it simply was not handled the right way. And there is still no official word whether Mike and his band will or will not play this event.

Remove the political nature of this mess just for discussion purposes, and I cannot think of another time when the legacy of this great band has been called out across multiple demographics, media outlets, and among people who know nothing about BRI, licenses, "set end dates", phony historians and honored guests, and the like. Whether the reasons why are agreed with or not, the fact that a single event had the potential to generate such a backlash should have warranted a more careful plan of action in terms of comments to the press.

Now, we have all this.

And just a personal message to people suggesting this is all a symptom of the "Mike bashing" that originates with a very small minority of non-fans on this forum and blaming this forum in general as a toxic place for Mike-bashing: Get real. Enough of the bullshit. Read those reader comments on any news or web page that ran this story this week before trying to blame yet another fake boogeyman to try avoiding the reality of where this band's image has ended up. All the "campaigns" in the world to try changing and reshaping this one fan forum wouldn't have changed the overall tone of those web comments this week one iota.

I can't wait until Voldermort himself blames his own low approval ratings on Wilson-based negativity.

Okay - that wins the hilarity moment of the day, and it was desperately needed!.

And yes, Craig, this is the usual crock of sh*t.  It's truly boring at this point.  For whatever reason, a whole lot (given the extent of the posts on non-BB related websites) of people don't like Mike Love and it started decades before SS ever existed.  In other words, it didn't originate here.  It's just out there, and has been for many decades...Blaming SS is ridiculous.

[guitarfool2002]

Every good whitewashing attempt needs a scapegoat to justify itself among those holding the paintbrushes.

[guitarfool2002]

What I heard just yesterday is that some frustration is coming out against Mike's non-answer or vacillating so far from those who want to know if he's going to agree to perform who would want to see him perform. Add that to the voices already against the performance...

A PR mess that could have been handled properly from the get-go to avoid all of this and keep the name "Beach Boys" out of the whole deal. Now both "sides" are frustrated. Great move. 

[CenturyDeprived]

What I heard just yesterday is that some frustration is coming out against Mike's non-answer or vacillating so far from those who want to know if he's going to agree to perform who would want to see him perform. Add that to the voices already against the performance...

A PR mess that could have been handled properly from the get-go to avoid all of this and keep the name "Beach Boys" out of the whole deal. Now both "sides" are frustrated. Great move. 

A new version of an old classic, Make it Bigot, is being prepped just in case.

[KDS]

What I heard just yesterday is that some frustration is coming out against Mike's non-answer or vacillating so far from those who want to know if he's going to agree to perform who would want to see him perform. Add that to the voices already against the performance...

A PR mess that could have been handled properly from the get-go to avoid all of this and keep the name "Beach Boys" out of the whole deal. Now both "sides" are frustrated. Great move. 

A new version of an old classic, Make it Bigot, is being prepped just in case.

While I 110% disagree, I have to admit...that's pretty clever.   

[Marty Castillo]

What I heard just yesterday is that some frustration is coming out against Mike's non-answer or vacillating so far from those who want to know if he's going to agree to perform who would want to see him perform. Add that to the voices already against the performance...

A PR mess that could have been handled properly from the get-go to avoid all of this and keep the name "Beach Boys" out of the whole deal. Now both "sides" are frustrated. Great move. 

Just as I suspected. Whether they agree to play or not, this is going to be spun against Mike--he can't win either way. Somehow even considering it is equated to accepting. Just as being photographed with Trump was considered an endorsement.

Brian and Al's only comment has been they wouldn't be performing with Mike and Bruce--not exactly surprising. If they were really against the idea of the Beach Boys being associated with Trump, maybe a stronger statement is in order.

For the record, I would rather they not perform at the inauguration, but doubt this has any lasting impact on their legacy positive or negative.

[guitarfool2002]

What I heard just yesterday is that some frustration is coming out against Mike's non-answer or vacillating so far from those who want to know if he's going to agree to perform who would want to see him perform. Add that to the voices already against the performance...

A PR mess that could have been handled properly from the get-go to avoid all of this and keep the name "Beach Boys" out of the whole deal. Now both "sides" are frustrated. Great move.  

Just as I suspected. Whether they agree to play or not, this is going to be spun against Mike--he can't win either way. Somehow even considering it is equated to accepting. Just as being photographed with Voldermort was considered an endorsement.

Brian and Al's only comment has been they wouldn't be performing with Mike and Bruce--not exactly surprising. If they were really against the idea of the Beach Boys being associated with Voldermort, maybe a stronger statement is in order.

For the record, I would rather they not perform at the inauguration, but doubt this has any lasting impact on their legacy positive or negative.

It shouldn't be surprising that it's falling on Mike after recent years of interviews and articles and books where he's been saying he is the public face of the band touring under the Beach Boys banner and name - With that comes the responsibility when decisions are made regarding that touring activity, especially if there could be the potential for negative consequences. Top to bottom this could have been handled better, more professionally and even more discretely too.

What would have been wrong with "no comment"? Also considering there was already controversy in the air (again, whether people agree with it or not) surrounding this event, before making any comment in or to the press beyond "no comment", wouldn't it have been better to run it past Brian and Al as well? If not contractually or legally obligated to do so, just as a personal thing considering the name Beach Boys isn't limited to Mike.

[Marty Castillo]

Wouldn't it have been better to run it past Brian and Al as well? If not contractually or legally obligated to do so, just as a personal thing considering the name Beach Boys isn't limited to Mike.

I haven't seen any reports one way or the other. Or, are you assuming it wasn't?

Again, the only thing I've seen from Brian and Al is a representative saying they wouldn't be included, which, again, I feel has more to do with the current state of the band rather than saying they wouldn't participate because it Trump. Al participated in the Reagan 100th birthday celebration, it's not like he has been publicly anti-Republican in recent (or past) years. I can't find any indication of any of the Beach Boys making campaign contributions to Republican or Democrats--if somebody can dig this up, I would be interested. It wasn't exactly a profile in courage to publicly support Hillary Clinton in 2016 among the celebrity crowd...

[barsone]

Hey GF.....don't you think (or have a feel for) that Mike IS legally bound to BRI via the terms of the license ?   I'm guessing behind the scenes, a lot is being said within BRI and the 4 principals.  If Mike's legal team determines that he must get BRI approval to pass muster, then I believe this is the hold-up.  A 2-2 vote would be a negative right ??  Guessing he must need a 3-1 vote to be able to play.

[guitarfool2002]

Wouldn't it have been better to run it past Brian and Al as well? If not contractually or legally obligated to do so, just as a personal thing considering the name Beach Boys isn't limited to Mike.

I haven't seen any reports one way or the other. Or, are you assuming it wasn't?

Again, the only thing I've seen from Brian and Al is a representative saying they wouldn't be included, which, again, I feel has more to do with the current state of the band rather than saying they wouldn't participate because it Voldermort. Al participated in the Reagan 100th birthday celebration, it's not like he has been publicly anti-Republican in recent (or past) years. I can't find any indication of any of the Beach Boys making campaign contributions to Republican or Democrats--if somebody can dig this up, I would be interested. It wasn't exactly a profile in courage to publicly support Hillary Clinton in 2016 among the celebrity crowd...

What you're asking me to speculate on is part of the whole problem that could have been solved if the reply to the press had been "no comment". You also raised the issue of this being spun against Mike, is that a suggestion too that it is being unfairly spun against Mike? If he's been touting the fact for at least a decade that he is the public face of the Beach Boys via his touring, and this is about Mike's touring band deciding whether or not to play a gig, why would it be surprising if people are looking at Mike when looking at the decision-making surrounding this event and the way it's being handled?

So far it's only speculation among fans beyond the pretty definitive public statement that said Brian and Al are removed from this entirely, and the issue for me is the backlash that happened against the band's reputation as an entity beyond Mike's touring that dragged Brian and Al into it via the music itself falling under public scrutiny. If I had to speculate, I'd say whoever it was who gave the comment to the press that was anything but "no comment" wasn't thinking of Brian or Al or what they thought about it (never mind approval or disapproval within BRI) when that comment was made to the press.

If we're speculating, does anyone think Brian or Al had been consulted prior to that kind of open-ended statement about the gig hitting the news wires? I think they should have been, but that doesn't mean they were, and it's just a fan's opinion anyway.

[guitarfool2002]

Hey GF.....don't you think (or have a feel for) that Mike IS legally bound to BRI via the terms of the license ?   I'm guessing behind the scenes, a lot is being said within BRI and the 4 principals.  If Mike's legal team determines that he must get BRI approval to pass muster, then I believe this is the hold-up.  A 2-2 vote would be a negative right ??  Guessing he must need a 3-1 vote to be able to play.

Not to keep beating the same dead horse, but the fact a statement was given to the press as it was versus saying "no comment" or anything similar to avoid the issue entirely as other artists (even those who were assumed to be ones to agree based on their political support) suggests it was done without BRI and the full vote process.

It's pure speculation, but would any corporate entity - and that's what BRI is complete with licensing of a franchise and brand name - allow a comment to be made regarding their name that had the potential to turn their customers and the public at large against the brand name? If it went through the whole corporate vetting process, I'd say whatever legal and marketing interests would resort to "no comment" to avoid any backlash. Now - agree with the reasons or not - they have to look at damage control. And it all could have been avoided.

[CenturyDeprived]

Regardless of whether or not somebody is a Voldermort supporter, and/or a big Mike supporter/defender... I feel it's pretty safe to assume that the reason why Mike has yet to give a definitive public answer must logically be, at least partially, related to some behind-the-scenes pushback from the other members of BRI. I can't prove this, yet I cannot see any reason why Mike - if he didn't have any roadblocks - wouldn't have just agreed to do it, right off the bat; after all, months back, Mike said they'd play if asked.

That said, this must mean that Mike is trying to make sure that the brand name The Beach Boys is associated with Voldermort, against the wishes of the other members of BRI. And frankly, that's super shitty. No rogue band member should think that it's right or ethical to try and push their political agenda into being associated with the other band members if they don't want it to be.

Does anyone - even Voldermort supporters - think it's ethical for Mike to try and force a public association between the brand name and Voldermort - even if that association is not desired by other members of the band? If anyone can think of a different logical explanation for Mike still being in "considering the offer" mode, I'm all ears.  

This goes beyond the candidate involved, and it's about simple common sense regarding what's right or wrong. It ain't right to try and force something like this against other members' wishes.

[Marty Castillo]

After all, months back, Mike said they'd play if asked.

Do you have a source? I don't remember reading this.

[KDS]

Regardless of whether or not somebody is a Voldermort supporter, and/or a big Mike supporter/defender... I feel it's pretty safe to assume that the reason why Mike has yet to give a definitive public answer must logically be, at least partially, related to some behind-the-scenes pushback from the other members of BRI. I can't prove this, yet I cannot see any reason why Mike - if he didn't have any roadblocks - wouldn't have just agreed to do it, right off the bat; after all, months back, Mike said they'd play if asked.

That said, this must mean that Mike is trying to make sure that the brand name The Beach Boys is associated with Voldermort, against the wishes of the other members of BRI. And frankly, that's super shitty. No rogue band member should think that it's right or ethical to try and push/force their political agenda into being associated with the other band members.  

Does anyone - even Voldermort supporters - think it's ethical for Mike to try and force a public association between the brand name and Voldermort - even if that association is not desired by other members of the band?

This goes beyond the candidate involved, and it's about simple common sense regarding what's right or wrong. It ain't right to try and force something like this against other members' wishes.

As a Donald supporter, I don't think that Mike's willingness to play the inauguration is really trying to force a public association with The Beach Boys brand and the President Elect.  

But, that being said, if BRI does vote on this, and Mike loses the vote 3-1, then he should respect that.  But, does BRI actually have a say in what gig Mike does / doesn't play.  Did they have to vote for them to play the Memorial Day concert last past May?

[CenturyDeprived]

After all, months back, Mike said they'd play if asked.

Do you have a source? I don't remember reading this.

http://pagesix.com/2016/12/22/beach-boys-could-perform-at-trumps-inauguration/

"In September, Love told The Post’s Hardeep Phull that he would be open to playing the January festivities if Trump were to win.

“He’s been a friend for a long time,” Love said. “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.”

[CenturyDeprived]

Regardless of whether or not somebody is a Voldermort supporter, and/or a big Mike supporter/defender... I feel it's pretty safe to assume that the reason why Mike has yet to give a definitive public answer must logically be, at least partially, related to some behind-the-scenes pushback from the other members of BRI. I can't prove this, yet I cannot see any reason why Mike - if he didn't have any roadblocks - wouldn't have just agreed to do it, right off the bat; after all, months back, Mike said they'd play if asked.

That said, this must mean that Mike is trying to make sure that the brand name The Beach Boys is associated with Voldermort, against the wishes of the other members of BRI. And frankly, that's super shitty. No rogue band member should think that it's right or ethical to try and push/force their political agenda into being associated with the other band members.  

Does anyone - even Voldermort supporters - think it's ethical for Mike to try and force a public association between the brand name and Voldermort - even if that association is not desired by other members of the band?

This goes beyond the candidate involved, and it's about simple common sense regarding what's right or wrong. It ain't right to try and force something like this against other members' wishes.

As a Donald supporter, I don't think that Mike's willingness to play the inauguration is really trying to force a public association with The Beach Boys brand and the President Elect.  

But, that being said, if BRI does vote on this, and Mike loses the vote 3-1, then he should respect that.  But, does BRI actually have a say in what gig Mike does / doesn't play.  Did they have to vote for them to play the Memorial Day concert last past May?

Um... if Brian and Al do NOT desire for the brand name to be associated with Voldermort, and Mike knows this, but is continuing to try and finagle a way to still make it happen... how exactly is that anything BUT trying to force an association with Voldermort against the other band members' wishes?

This isn't a simple disagreement about album track sequencing, after all.

I'm discussing the matter of whether or not Mike could ever consider the old addage "just because I can, doesn't mean I should" - and I say that regardless of how I feel about Voldermort... I'm currently focusing on how it's shitting on the very probable wishes of his bandmates.

I can't help but think this is ultimately still all about sticking it to Brian and Melinda for not letting him get his way in 2012. Just to make a point about "don't you tell me what I can and cannot do". Seriously, I'm not even kidding. Let's consider for a moment a reunited band in 2012 where Mike gets to write with Brian in a room, gets tons of critical acclaim for being a great lyricist, etc... and the band stays reunited together, and continues into 2016 and beyond. Under those circumstances, I don't see Mike trying to pull this stunt in this current manner.

[Marty Castillo]

After all, months back, Mike said they'd play if asked.

Do you have a source? I don't remember reading this.

http://pagesix.com/2016/12/22/beach-boys-could-perform-at-trumps-inauguration/

"In September, Love told The Post’s Hardeep Phull that he would be open to playing the January festivities if Voldermort were to win.

“He’s been a friend for a long time,” Love said. “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.”

Ah, thank you. I'm guessing the original comments were made during Mike's book tour. Even more intriguing as to why the invitation hasn't been accepted, yet.

I'm sitting this one out until a decision is made.

[CenturyDeprived]

After all, months back, Mike said they'd play if asked.

Do you have a source? I don't remember reading this.

http://pagesix.com/2016/12/22/beach-boys-could-perform-at-trumps-inauguration/

"In September, Love told The Post’s Hardeep Phull that he would be open to playing the January festivities if Voldermort were to win.

“He’s been a friend for a long time,” Love said. “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.”

Ah, thank you. I'm guessing the original comments were made during Mike's book tour. Even more intriguing as to why the invitation hasn't been accepted, yet.

I'm sitting this one out until a decision is made.

No problem. Again, IMHO there is no explanation that makes any sort of logical sense except BRI pushback behind the scenes.

[KDS]

Regardless of whether or not somebody is a Voldermort supporter, and/or a big Mike supporter/defender... I feel it's pretty safe to assume that the reason why Mike has yet to give a definitive public answer must logically be, at least partially, related to some behind-the-scenes pushback from the other members of BRI. I can't prove this, yet I cannot see any reason why Mike - if he didn't have any roadblocks - wouldn't have just agreed to do it, right off the bat; after all, months back, Mike said they'd play if asked.

That said, this must mean that Mike is trying to make sure that the brand name The Beach Boys is associated with Voldermort, against the wishes of the other members of BRI. And frankly, that's super shitty. No rogue band member should think that it's right or ethical to try and push/force their political agenda into being associated with the other band members.  

Does anyone - even Voldermort supporters - think it's ethical for Mike to try and force a public association between the brand name and Voldermort - even if that association is not desired by other members of the band?

This goes beyond the candidate involved, and it's about simple common sense regarding what's right or wrong. It ain't right to try and force something like this against other members' wishes.

As a Donald supporter, I don't think that Mike's willingness to play the inauguration is really trying to force a public association with The Beach Boys brand and the President Elect.  

But, that being said, if BRI does vote on this, and Mike loses the vote 3-1, then he should respect that.  But, does BRI actually have a say in what gig Mike does / doesn't play.  Did they have to vote for them to play the Memorial Day concert last past May?

Um... if Brian and Al do NOT desire for the brand name to be associated with Voldermort, and Mike knows this, but is continuing to try and finagle a way to still make it happen... how exactly is that anything BUT trying to force an association with Voldermort against the other band members' wishes?

This isn't a simple disagreement about album track sequencing, after all.

That depends.  If it comes down to a vote, that's one thing.  But, if Mike doesn't need Brian's and Al's votes to accept the invitation, then it's really a non issue.  I don't know the parameters of the agreement. 

And, at the end of the day, playing the inauguration doesn't necessarily associate the Beach Boys brand with the 45th President IMO. 

[HeyJude]

Obviously, I think it's extremely unlikely even if Mike played the gig that he would suggest he *wants* the Beach Boys to be directly associated with this one politician. He (and supporters of a decision to play the gig) would no doubt hide behind the "honoring the office/country/tradition" excuse.

I was surprised earlier this year when Mike, while still seemingly slightly hesitant and hedging, seemed to go beyond a "meh, we'll perform at any inauguration" and did seem to suggest some level of admiration/support/preference for DonaldTrump.

So I think it's overstating the "anti" argument here to suggest the problem is that Mike wants to "force" a public association.

But the association *will* be there, and Mike's not dumb when it comes to this stuff. He *knows* there will be an association, and if he *doesn't* understand why this particular case is not the same as playing both Carter and Reagan events, then he's been living with his head in the sand.

I don't think Mike is that ignorant as to the specific PR/moral/ethical issues involved with being associated with DonaldTrump. Why do I say that?

Kind of overlooked in this debate is this: Why was Mike's camp (I'm not sure what spokespersons actually spoke to the media regarding "considering" the invitation) not either accepting or rejecting the invitation?

Who announces they're "considering" an invitation like that? There's no indication that it's a scheduling issue, otherwise Mike's camp would have said "We definitely want to do it, but we're not sure if it will work scheduling-wise."

No, the indication is that they're still deciding. Okay, fair enough. But why then announce it? The *only* reason to announce they essentially haven't made up their mind yet is in order to gauge public reaction/sentiment, etc. Let's also be clear, they may not be trying to find out if there's *any* negative PR associated with this. They surely already know that's the case, and I think Mike has lived for years with an awful image and awful PR. My guess is Mike's camp floated this to simply try to determine if it would result in a catastrophic level of blowback from the public. As long as that doesn't happen, I think Mike's good to go.

And let's be honest with ourselves, I think about the only thing that would literally *end* Mike's career touring would be a huge catastrophic scandal involving felony charges of murder or abuse or something like that. Short of that, nothing much will literally completely tank the "Beach Boys" trademark.

In any event, at a certain point it gets back to a more fundamental train of though that I often take when it comes to stuff like this. If you're hesitating and hedging on whether to do something (as Mike's camp's words suggest), there's a darn good chance then maybe you shouldn't do it.

[HeyJude]

And, at the end of the day, playing the inauguration doesn't necessarily associate the Beach Boys brand with the 45th President IMO. 

Any PR person or branding expert or agent or manager with half their wits about them would surely tell you this is completely inaccurate.

No, nobody remembers or cares that "The Beach Boys" played both Carter and Reagan functions.

But the 2016 election is different in terms of who won. If even Romney had won, or McCain, or whomever, it wouldn't be a huge deal in *any* of those other scenarios.  But the "big deal" this is or would be right now today, both in terms of PR and "brand association" or whatever else you want to call it, is VERY different from how it would have been in 1976 for them to play a Carter function or in 1980 to play a Regan function, etc.

[KDS]

And, at the end of the day, playing the inauguration doesn't necessarily associate the Beach Boys brand with the 45th President IMO. 

Any PR person or branding expert or agent or manager with half their wits about them would surely tell you this is completely inaccurate.

No, nobody remembers or cares that "The Beach Boys" played both Carter and Reagan functions.

But the 2016 election is different in terms of who won. If even Romney had won, or McCain, or whomever, it wouldn't be a huge deal in *any* of those other scenarios.  But the "big deal" this is or would be right now today, both in terms of PR and "brand association" or whatever else you want to call it, is VERY different from how it would have been in 1976 for them to play a Carter function or in 1980 to play a Regan function, etc.

Tell that to the singer who agreed to sing the National Anthem.  Her album went to #1 in her respective chart. 

[CenturyDeprived]

That depends.  If it comes down to a vote, that's one thing.  But, if Mike doesn't need Brian's and Al's votes to accept the invitation, then it's really a non issue.  I don't know the parameters of the agreement.  
 

As I've mentioned, I'm at the moment focusing on this issue irrelevant from whether or not Mike actually *needs* their votes to accept the invitation. I'm posing the question about whether it's right/ethical to use the brand name - founded by not just him, but by Brian and Al as well - in the probable event that Brian and Al don't want the brand name used at the inauguration (regardless of whether or not they have the ability to block him or not).  

I don't see how there's any way to make that right.

[HeyJude]

That depends.  If it comes down to a vote, that's one thing.  But, if Mike doesn't need Brian's and Al's votes to accept the invitation, then it's really a non issue.  I don't know the parameters of the agreement. 

The "vote" issue is likely very simple. Mike got his exclusive license in 1999/2000, and there has apparently/allegedly been no vote on the issue since. While there are certainly guidelines outlining that license, I doubt they strictly enforce all of them (e.g. "keeping the image" of the band with no female singers, setlist guidelines, etc.), and mainly make sure the checks keep rolling in.

Mike does a myriad of public and private shows in person and on TV under the BB name, so I'm sure pretty much any function is okay to book.

What BRI theoretically *could* do is convene a new vote to address this new issue. They could vote for all sorts of fixes to this problem. Vote to specifically bar Mike from this one gig, or vote specific guidelines in that would preclude this gig, and so on.

So I doubt Mike is breaking any guidelines or going against any corporate vote by doing the gig. But BRI could enforce something new if they wanted to.

[DonnyL]

The skeptic in me thinks the only reason this "consideration" is taking so long is due to the negotiation of an acceptable fee both parties can agree on .