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

[Lee Marshall]

Or the kitty litter box Billy.

NO Beach Boys for that Tee-Rump twit...not even some dorky, never to ultimately get paid even 1 AGREED TO red cent 'cause that's how that lyin' s.o.b. donny does his 'shyte', d. j. playing the Sand Pail Sailors' 45s through a 1/2-assed sound system while the [ho-friggin'-hum] rockettes dance as if it's that old  'Deuce Coupe'/Joffrey Ballet /Twyla Tharp thing those folks did like 40-some-odd years ago.  

Even THAT is too good for that old prick.  The fact that dirty Mike hasn't issued his dictum re: playing the 'ball' even now suggests but one thing.  He's enjoying the sh*t out of sticking it to the REAL fans just-a one more time.  The ultimate "nourishment and revenge" opportunity has suddenly been allowed to rise and impact on his miserable 'raison d'etre' one last glorious time.

Those that think this won't have a long lasting negative impact on the group name and brand. are mere ostriches avoiding the sunlight...and reality.

Why can't the dickish donald and that 'love' guy have asshole transplants?

The asshole would reject them both... ... ...immediately.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I'll fix it...but I'm also moving this to the Sandbox as this isn't even about Mike playing anymore but back to the same old tired political aruguments

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Odd...I deleted the filter and it fixed the URL....but the Voldemort thing is still showing up in the last post as opposed to Trump.

[guitarfool2002]

Case in point - This is a thread directly related to the Beach Boys in many ways, it's a hot topic across the internet discussing the Beach Boys, and it gets moved to the sandbox because posters post political content rather than discuss the actual topic.

This is not the way it should be. Connecting it to that other thread about the board and politics, if there is a topic directly related to and about the Beach Boys as this one is, maybe the mods (Billy and I) should consider taking a more active role and either deleting the purely political content entirely or the lesser option, jumping in to get it back on topic. A better option to consider might be individual posters trying to reign in the posts which are purely political.

There should be no reason to move a thread like this unless moving it off the main board because of the topic itself was the goal.

[guitarfool2002]

Adding this: If the Beach Boys playing or not playing this gig is a current topic of discussion and speculation across the internet and people might come here to get news or updates or just talk about it, there should be no reason it isn't on the main board if the issue itself can be discussed without political squabbles separate from the band's actions.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

We can move it back to the regular forum, but I'd like the off topic political nonsense moved in a separate thread, or deleted. Or a new thread made about the actual topic

[Pretty Funky]

Odd...I deleted the filter and it fixed the URL....but the Voldemort thing is still showing up in the last post as opposed to Trump.

Damn those Russian hackers!

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Obviously I moved this back and split the topic

[KDS]

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

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

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

Or it's my opinion. 

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

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

That's my answer to CD's question. 

So your answer to whether Mike's decision would be "ethical" is "it doesn't matter", which in my opinion is dodging the question.

One could easily answer whether, in their own opinion, something is ethical while still pointing out that legally it doesn't matter.

You're essentially arguing that legal contracts don't take subjective ethics into account, which nobody doesn't already understand, and is certainly not what CenturyDeprived was trying to discuss.

Much like when CenturyDeprived would desperately try to get Cam Mott or Filledeplage to tell us how they *feel* about something on a moral/ethical personal level, and we would all see a mouth full of legalese and dodging. I'm just trying to say that your answer reads much like those non-answers that those old posters used to provide. I'm not saying you're just like those old posters, nor is anybody suggesting anybody *has* to answer a question from someone else asking for one's personal ethical/moral opinion.

If Brian wanted to do something with the BB name, and Al, Mike, and Carl's estate were all vehemently opposed to it, I would have no problem saying that regardless of the legalities, Brian would be treading into morally questionable areas in my opinion if he did something against the wishes of the other members. I would not simply say "Brian can legally do that" and drop the mic.

Well, Im glad you have a better understanding of how I should form my opinions than I do.   

If theres no vote involved, theres no issue. 

[KDS]

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

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

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

Or it's my opinion.  

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

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

That's my answer to CD's question.  

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

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

[Marty Castillo]

Case in point - This is a thread directly related to the Beach Boys in many ways, it's a hot topic across the internet discussing the Beach Boys, and it gets moved to the sandbox because posters post political content rather than discuss the actual topic.

This is not the way it should be. Connecting it to that other thread about the board and politics, if there is a topic directly related to and about the Beach Boys as this one is, maybe the mods (Billy and I) should consider taking a more active role and either deleting the purely political content entirely or the lesser option, jumping in to get it back on topic. A better option to consider might be individual posters trying to reign in the posts which are purely political.

There should be no reason to move a thread like this unless moving it off the main board because of the topic itself was the goal.

I'm old enough to remember the Scott Bennett thread getting moved to the sandbox because it wasn't on topic.

[guitarfool2002]

Case in point - This is a thread directly related to the Beach Boys in many ways, it's a hot topic across the internet discussing the Beach Boys, and it gets moved to the sandbox because posters post political content rather than discuss the actual topic.

This is not the way it should be. Connecting it to that other thread about the board and politics, if there is a topic directly related to and about the Beach Boys as this one is, maybe the mods (Billy and I) should consider taking a more active role and either deleting the purely political content entirely or the lesser option, jumping in to get it back on topic. A better option to consider might be individual posters trying to reign in the posts which are purely political.

There should be no reason to move a thread like this unless moving it off the main board because of the topic itself was the goal.

I'm old enough to remember the Scott Bennett thread getting moved to the sandbox because it wasn't on topic.

To refresh that memory even more, Marty, start here: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23778.msg575629.html#msg575629

And this past page is why it was moved to the Sandbox.

Work back and forward from there a few pages if you want to be reminded of all that, and note too that for some unknown reason the currently banned member Dr. Beach Boy and a few others now gone from here took that thread as an opportunity yet again to try to lie about and f*** over both Billy and I with those lies and insinuations that had *nothing* to do with the topic...perhaps for whatever reasons or campaign he had running at that time around the time Doe got banned. Good riddance, I hope the door did hit him square in his ass on his way out of this place and off to greener pastures.

Now why bring that old thread up at all, Marty? Have something you'd like to claim about the way things were handled in this case?

[Marty Castillo]

Case in point - This is a thread directly related to the Beach Boys in many ways, it's a hot topic across the internet discussing the Beach Boys, and it gets moved to the sandbox because posters post political content rather than discuss the actual topic.

This is not the way it should be. Connecting it to that other thread about the board and politics, if there is a topic directly related to and about the Beach Boys as this one is, maybe the mods (Billy and I) should consider taking a more active role and either deleting the purely political content entirely or the lesser option, jumping in to get it back on topic. A better option to consider might be individual posters trying to reign in the posts which are purely political.

There should be no reason to move a thread like this unless moving it off the main board because of the topic itself was the goal.

I'm old enough to remember the Scott Bennett thread getting moved to the sandbox because it wasn't on topic.

To refresh that memory even more, Marty, start here: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23778.msg575629.html#msg575629

And this past page is why it was moved to the Sandbox.

Work back and forward from there a few pages if you want to be reminded of all that, and note too that for some unknown reason the currently banned member Dr. Beach Boy and a few others now gone from here took that thread as an opportunity yet again to try to lie about and f*** over both Billy and I with those lies and insinuations that had *nothing* to do with the topic...perhaps for whatever reasons or campaign he had running at that time around the time Doe got banned. Good riddance, I hope the door did hit him square in his ass on his way out of this place and off to greener pastures.

Now why bring that old thread up at all, Marty? Have something you'd like to claim about the way things were handled in this case?

It's a difference of opinion on how moderation should be done. Both Scott Bennett's legal troubles and the Beach Boys possibly playing Trump's Inauguration are directly linked to and part of Beach Boys history. I'm all for warning or suspending people when they veer off topic and completely derail a thread--I would also be in favor of editing threads to delete the offending material.

To me, once something moves to the Sandbox it's essentially out of sight out of mind. Again, difference of opinion. Both threads have gotten out of hand at times, but that's no reason to whitewash history, as uncomfortable as it may be.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

That's why this thread is back on the main board and the off topic parts are back in the litter box where they belong. 

[Marty Castillo]

That's why this thread is back on the main board and the off topic parts are back in the litter box where they belong. 

Fair enough, why wasn't that done with the Bennett thread?

[guitarfool2002]

That's why this thread is back on the main board and the off topic parts are back in the litter box where they belong. 

Fair enough, why wasn't that done with the Bennett thread?

Drop it, Marty. You're trying to dredge up an old thread that was basically dead around August save for a few straggling posts. This thread tied in directly with discussions we've had this week concerning moving forward with how to deal with these issues in the future, and off-topic posts derailing on-topic threads especially with political arguments. What was done with previous threads is done, that's where it stands and will stand.

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

Or it's my opinion.  

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

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

That's my answer to CD's question.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's OKKK

[Adult Child]

It would be the grandest historical event in the Kokomization of the Beach Boys thus far. Even though Mike's done so much crap already that's practically ruined his reputation among feeling humans, this might truly be the eternal nail in his coffin.

It's quite amazing that the group who reached the highest highs in all of history are the same guys who more or less could sink to the lowest lows. Thankfully we all know who wrote Pet Sounds and that he could never want this to happen. Heroes and Villains, indeed.

[Kurosawa]

I'd do everything I could to stop Mike and Bruce from using the name for that gig if I could. I don't care if they play it, but for Al and Dave and even for Brian, having the name associated with someone so divisive and hates is just bad business. I mean, Al's last name isn't really Jardine, his name is "Al Jardine of the Beach Boys". Turning that name to mud is bad business.

Brian sort of has an existence without the name, but Al, Dave, Bruce and Mike do not. It's a bad business decision for all of them.

[SonoraDick]

Seems to me that some here are trying to impose their "morals" and "ethics" (both terms have been freely used in this thread) on Brian and Al.

Unless I've missed something, there's been no statement issued other than that Brian and Al are not involved in this possible appearance.

I took that to mean "We try not to even be in the same state as Mike Love, to say nothing about ever again appearing on stage with him".

It really could be that simple. Feel good if you want because you think Brian and Al share your beliefs, but there's no evidence yet that that's the case here.    

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

It would be the grandest historical event in the Kokomization of the Beach Boys thus far. Even though Mike's done so much crap already that's practically ruined his reputation among feeling humans, this might truly be the eternal nail in his coffin.

It's quite amazing that the group who reached the highest highs in all of history are the same guys who more or less could sink to the lowest lows. Thankfully we all know who wrote Pet Sounds and that he could never want this to happen. Heroes and Villains, indeed.

 +10...and that word "Kokomization" is so damn appropriate.

[Adult Child]

+10...and that word "Kokomization" is so damn appropriate.

I can't imagine Trump's favorite Beach Boys song is 'Cabinessence'.

[CenturyDeprived]

I'd do everything I could to stop Mike and Bruce from using the name for that gig if I could. I don't care if they play it, but for Al and Dave and even for Brian, having the name associated with someone so divisive and hates is just bad business. I mean, Al's last name isn't really Jardine, his name is "Al Jardine of the Beach Boys". Turning that name to mud is bad business.

Brian sort of has an existence without the name, but Al, Dave, Bruce and Mike do not. It's a bad business decision for all of them.

It would be the most short-sighted mistake for the brand since Murry sold the catalog in '69. Maybe not *as* damaging, but I cannot see any other single, purposeful decision made for the brand since '69 as being worthy of holding the #2 trophy. And at least the Murry incident had no adverse affect which wouls cause people to want nothing to do with the brand (other than perhaps laughing at how such a poor decision was made); the damage was merely internal to their pocketbooks.

Too bad Mike couldn't have waited just another two short years to do something like this in 2019, because it could have been a great promo opportunity to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Incredibly Inane BB Brand Decisions. Mike's off his game to pass up a 1969-2019 promotional tour like this. C50: DAE (Dumbass Edition).

Jack Rieley's quote about the band blowing it consistently, tragically, and pathologically is incredibly fitting for this. No wonder Mike disliked the guy enough to not acknowledge his passing. Jack called it like it was/is.

[CenturyDeprived]

+10...and that word "Kokomization" is so damn appropriate.

I can't imagine Trump's favorite Beach Boys song is 'Cabinessence'.

Favorite: Putin My Room
Least Favorite: Alec Baldwind Chimes

[Adult Child]

Favorite: Putin My Room
Least Favorite: Alec Baldwind Chimes

Favorite: Donald Trump & Villains
Least Favorite: Mexican Girls