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

[bonnevillemariner]

As Century Deprived says: "imagine what it will be like to wear a Beach Boys shirt in the city of San Francisco, for example, after this inauguration.  It might be like wearing a confederate flag shirt while walking down the streets of Compton." - he's not exaggerating. If you people really want your favorite band associated with this bullshit then so be it. But, Trump politics aside, I want Mike to keep his little touring band as far away from this nightmare as possible. Frankly I'd still like to tell people I like the Beach Boys without the threat of getting punched or irritation thrown my way.

It's funny, in another politically-laced thread that was moved to the sandbox a few months ago (wrongly, IMO), I predicted that at some point being a fan of the Beach Boys will be code for 'racist.' That prediction was based on the growing notion of the Boys as "white dad music," which in our increasingly PC world is automatically categorized on the racist spectrum.  I was castigated for that prediction by some of the very posters on this thread.

I maintain that, given the ascendancy of progressive/PC culture, any older white band or artist will be regarded as racist to a degree.  Mike playing at a Trump inauguration will seal that deal for the Beach Boys.  This is one reason I hope they decline-- and soon.

That said, I continue to be fascinated by the psychological phenomena I'm seeing in this thread. Double standards like crazy (for instance- The Professor banned for a single stupid, yet fairly innocuous comment while more toxic jabs from other perspectives are completely ignored).  The special pleading fallacy, which has become the crux of so many arguments on this thread is cracking me up.  It's funny how concern for the band's legacy is being used to justify the demonization of roughly half the country.

[maggie]

As Century Deprived says: "imagine what it will be like to wear a Beach Boys shirt in the city of San Francisco, for example, after this inauguration.  It might be like wearing a confederate flag shirt while walking down the streets of Compton." - he's not exaggerating. If you people really want your favorite band associated with this bullshit then so be it. But, Trump politics aside, I want Mike to keep his little touring band as far away from this nightmare as possible. Frankly I'd still like to tell people I like the Beach Boys without the threat of getting punched or irritation thrown my way.

It's funny, in another politically-laced thread that was moved to the sandbox a few months ago (wrongly, IMO), I predicted that at some point being a fan of the Beach Boys will be code for 'racist.' That prediction was based on the growing notion of the Boys as "white dad music," which in our increasingly PC world is automatically categorized on the racist spectrum.  I was castigated for that prediction by some of the very posters on this thread.

I maintain that, given the ascendancy of progressive/PC culture, any older white band or artist will be regarded as racist to a degree.  Mike playing at a Trump inauguration will seal that deal for the Beach Boys.  This is one reason I hope they decline-- and soon.

That said, I continue to be fascinated by the psychological phenomena I'm seeing in this thread. Double standards like crazy (for instance- The Professor banned for a single stupid, yet fairly innocuous comment while more toxic jabs from other perspectives are completely ignored).  The special pleading fallacy, which has become the crux of so many arguments on this thread is cracking me up.  It's funny how concern for the band's legacy is being used to justify the demonization of roughly half the country.

Speaking of demonizing half the country, how are your hysterical pronouncements about "the ascendancy of progressive/PC culture" making "any older white band or artist [seem] racist" different from those who call Trump supporters ignorant, misogynistic, homophobic, or white supremacist? "Your progressive values are ruining my culture!"

[CenturyDeprived]

As Century Deprived says: "imagine what it will be like to wear a Beach Boys shirt in the city of San Francisco, for example, after this inauguration.  It might be like wearing a confederate flag shirt while walking down the streets of Compton." - he's not exaggerating. If you people really want your favorite band associated with this bullshit then so be it. But, Trump politics aside, I want Mike to keep his little touring band as far away from this nightmare as possible. Frankly I'd still like to tell people I like the Beach Boys without the threat of getting punched or irritation thrown my way.

It's funny, in another politically-laced thread that was moved to the sandbox a few months ago (wrongly, IMO), I predicted that at some point being a fan of the Beach Boys will be code for 'racist.' That prediction was based on the growing notion of the Boys as "white dad music," which in our increasingly PC world is automatically categorized on the racist spectrum.  I was castigated for that prediction by some of the very posters on this thread.

The fact that the band's music, aside from this ridiculous inauguration stuff, has been getting flack for being out of touch in small little bits and pieces from various online articles is really pretty silly (most certainly IMO an example of when PC culture unfortunately becomes overly-reaching - I have no problem in admitting that it absolutely does sometimes), and pre-Trump, I don't think that negative taglines associated with the band were ever going to get much traction at all in a way that actually made people think of the term "racism"  in the same breath as the name.  There are certainly overzealous people who want to harp on the band for being too "whitebread", but in and of itself that was never going to have legs to go to the next level.

That's because the public at large understands that these songs were written decades ago in a different time, and while they typically are not about particularly diverse topics, there's nothing really divisive or mean-spirited about the songs. There was previously no toxic modern connection to the brand. People like myself, who are incredibly critical of not only Trump but the idea that the band might play the inauguration, actively stood up against a recent article that promoted the notion that the band needs to be criticized for Pet Sounds not being diverse enough. I think it's a silly thing designed as click bait, although I don't doubt the author was sincere in thinking that. Still, that ideology was never going to have real traction, and the band name was never going to be truly be associated with racism and unapologetic homophobia/bigotry... until now.

A major association and endorsement of this idiot is completely different, and the criticism they will get for association with such a bigot, who is incredibly blatant about it, unapologetic about it, etc. will be off the charts, and will not go away.  These are modern times, and the guy unapologetically makes fun of disabled people. Remind me where Mike wrote a song lyric about that?  There would never be any remote association with that kind of putrid crap... until they associate with this idiot.

You can bet that a "BB" inauguration performance will become THE highest-viewed live video of the band in the entire existence of YouTube. More people will see it than The TAMI Show, than all of their '60s TV show appearances combined.

Literally billions of people will see it, and the association will linger. Whatever previous ways in which the band could have been stereotyped will then become blown out of proportion, and twisted into making their previous works into something they were not. Maybe not overnight, but this will be a long-term albatross over the brand.

The band cannot be held accountable for, and had no obligation to be any more diverse or progressive than they were back in the day (when they were just innocently singing about topics in their lives during simpler times)... but they do have an obligation to not support a modern-day bigot who wants to (and whose cabinet wants to) turn back rights for many groups if they want to NOT be associated with racism, homophobia, normalization of mocking disabled people, etc.

[bonnevillemariner]

You can bet that a "BB" inauguration performance will become...

You have a problem with my abbreviation of the band's name? I'm on a phone; I abbreviate where I can.

EDIT: While I do tend to abbreviate Beach Boys as 'BB', I don't think I've done it in this thread. So I guess I'm confused by your use of quotation marks.

[MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm]

Everytime I see there's been activity in this thread, I check it with a sense of dread. Hoping against hope this won't happen.   

[bonnevillemariner]

Speaking of demonizing half the country, how are your hysterical pronouncements about "the ascendancy of progressive/PC culture"...

Hysterical? I suppose you and I define that word differently.

[rab2591]

You can bet that a "BB" inauguration performance will become...

You have a problem with my abbreviation of the band's name? I'm on a phone; I abbreviate where I can.

EDIT: While I do tend to abbreviate Beach Boys as 'BB', I don't think I've done it in this thread. So I guess I'm confused by your use of quotation marks.

I think he put the "BB" in quotations because they're not the "real" Beach Boys. For this inauguration most people across America won't understand that the band from the 60s is totally fractured, yet Mike will still go out there and people will most likely think that the whole band from the 60s is playing this gig. It's why Brian's management made it clear that Brian and Al were not apart of this gig.

[CenturyDeprived]

You can bet that a "BB" inauguration performance will become...

You have a problem with my abbreviation of the band's name? I'm on a phone; I abbreviate where I can.

EDIT: While I do tend to abbreviate Beach Boys as 'BB', I don't think I've done it in this thread. So I guess I'm confused by your use of quotation marks.

I think he put the "BB" in quotations because they're not the "real" Beach Boys. For this inauguration most people across America won't understand that the band from the 60s is totally fractured, yet Mike will still go out there and people will most likely think that the whole band from the 60s is playing this gig. It's why Brian's management made it clear that Brian and Al were not apart of this gig.

Right. Exactly as rab2591 described.

[bonnevillemariner]

Right. Exactly as rab2591 described.

Roger that. My bad.

[CenturyDeprived]

Right. Exactly as rab2591 described.

Roger that. My bad.

Do you have any thoughts on the rest of my response?

[bonnevillemariner]

Do you have any thoughts on the rest of my response?

Sure. Here goes...

...pre-Trump, I don't think that negative taglines associated with the band were ever going to get much traction at all in a way that actually made people think of the term "racism"  in the same breath as the name.  There are certainly overzealous people who want to harp on the band for being too "whitebread", but in and of itself that was never going to have legs to go to the next level.

I disagree. I am a public secondary school teacher and my views are drawn from my observations at school. I usually introduce my students to the concept of digital audio by playing them an 8-bit digital cover of Pet Sounds (which we then compare to the sound of my vinyl copy on a turntable-- cool lesson, actually).  Since I started doing this in 2013, I get multiple comments each year about the Beach Boys being "white dad music" and therefore on the racist spectrum. They're being taught-- in this Utah school district-- that while cultural phenomena, artists and historical figures may not have been racist, they are a product of a systemically racist culture and should be regarded as such. It doesn't matter that the boys didn't have a racist bone in their body.

That's because the public at large understands that these songs were written decades ago in a different time...

Sure, but it doesn't matter. They are a product of an institutionally racist culture. Their music, however benign, is the product of behavioral norms that supported racist thinking. Guilt by mere chronistic association.  Again, I base this opinion on my daily interactions with 200 high school kids.

Literally billions of people will see it, and the association will be cemented.  Whatever previous ways in which the band could have been stereotyped will then become blown out of proportion, and twisted into making their previous works into something they were not. Maybe not overnight, but this will be a long-term albatross over the brand.

Agreed, to an extent.  An inauguration performance would cement the association, but I believe the long-term notion of BB as a racist symbol will stem from the mindset I described above.

[CenturyDeprived]

Do you have any thoughts on the rest of my response?

Sure. Here goes...

...pre-Trump, I don't think that negative taglines associated with the band were ever going to get much traction at all in a way that actually made people think of the term "racism"  in the same breath as the name.  There are certainly overzealous people who want to harp on the band for being too "whitebread", but in and of itself that was never going to have legs to go to the next level.

I disagree. I am a public secondary school teacher and my views are drawn from my observations at school. I usually introduce my students to the concept of digital audio by playing them an 8-bit digital cover of Pet Sounds (which we then compare to the sound of my vinyl copy on a turntable-- cool lesson, actually).  Since I started doing this in 2013, I get multiple comments each year about the Beach Boys being "white dad music" and therefore on the racist spectrum. They're being taught-- in this Utah school district-- that while cultural phenomena, artists and historical figures may not have been racist, they are a product of a systemically racist culture and should be regarded as such. It doesn't matter that the boys didn't have a racist bone in their body.

That's because the public at large understands that these songs were written decades ago in a different time...

Sure, but it doesn't matter. They are a product of an institutionally racist culture. Their music, however benign, is the product of behavioral norms that supported racist thinking. Guilt by mere chronistic association.  Again, I base this opinion on my daily interactions with 200 high school kids.

Literally billions of people will see it, and the association will be cemented.  Whatever previous ways in which the band could have been stereotyped will then become blown out of proportion, and twisted into making their previous works into something they were not. Maybe not overnight, but this will be a long-term albatross over the brand.

Agreed, to an extent.  An inauguration performance would cement the association, but I believe the long-term notion of BB as a racist symbol will stem from the mindset I described above.

Well that's a damn shame. And I thank you for your insight, because I am certainly not a teacher and am unaware of this. I think there needs to be delicate nuance involved in any such teaching to kids, and while I can understand kids need to be aware that there was a lack of diversity in the past... artists don't need to have some bad label attached to them simply for having written about falling in love and simple teenaged topics (and not writing about something they "should" have written about).  

I am sure some of this is down to the nuance of how things are taught, because I would think there *must* be some sort of a nuanced way to communicate ideas without dragging down the band.

Still, the Trump association is absolutely the last thing the brand needs, MOST ESPECIALLY if these things are currently being taught to young people. The best thing that could *counteract* the long-term notion of BB as a racist symbol would be for the band to have publicly turned down the gig (before any "we're considering it" stuff was made public).

[doinnothin]

As Century Deprived says: "imagine what it will be like to wear a Beach Boys shirt in the city of San Francisco, for example, after this inauguration.  It might be like wearing a confederate flag shirt while walking down the streets of Compton." - he's not exaggerating. If you people really want your favorite band associated with this bullshit then so be it. But, Trump politics aside, I want Mike to keep his little touring band as far away from this nightmare as possible. Frankly I'd still like to tell people I like the Beach Boys without the threat of getting punched or irritation thrown my way.

It's funny, in another politically-laced thread that was moved to the sandbox a few months ago (wrongly, IMO), I predicted that at some point being a fan of the Beach Boys will be code for 'racist.' That prediction was based on the growing notion of the Boys as "white dad music," which in our increasingly PC world is automatically categorized on the racist spectrum.  I was castigated for that prediction by some of the very posters on this thread.

I maintain that, given the ascendancy of progressive/PC culture, any older white band or artist will be regarded as racist to a degree.  Mike playing at a Trump inauguration will seal that deal for the Beach Boys.  This is one reason I hope they decline-- and soon.

That said, I continue to be fascinated by the psychological phenomena I'm seeing in this thread. Double standards like crazy (for instance- The Professor banned for a single stupid, yet fairly innocuous comment while more toxic jabs from other perspectives are completely ignored).  The special pleading fallacy, which has become the crux of so many arguments on this thread is cracking me up.  It's funny how concern for the band's legacy is being used to justify the demonization of roughly half the country.

I think it's a fallacy to say that an intense opposition to Donald Trump is a demonization of half the country. I also think that slapping the "PC culture" label on any criticism of the status quo is the most PC sh*t I've ever heard in my life. Calling out the very real influence of racism, in a country that was founded with slavery, had to fight a full civil war to end it, took nearly another hundred years to end legalized apartheid in a huge swath of it, still hasn't dealt with the massive inequality that all of that created and finds it more comfortable to use prisons to put it out of sight, to me, that's not PC, it's just telling it like it is. And rejecting a president that got his first big spike in support after calling for a ban on Muslims entering the United States isn't about being offended because he wasn't "PC" about it, it's about that being some blatantly Islamphobic sh*t that has a huge effect on millions of real Americans who will be cut off from their families and be subject to a second-tier citizen status.

People start clutching pearls as soon as racism comes up, saying "no no no, not me" is as ridiculous as someone getting mad at a doctor when they say "you're sick". America's got a history of racism, there's plenty of it left, and to be honest it will probably never fully go away. People need to stop worrying if it means the doctor is saying that they're bad people for getting sick and start fixing it. Instead they want to pretend they're already better.

[bonnevillemariner]

I think it's a fallacy to say that an intense opposition to Donald Trump is a demonization of half the country.

Nah. Intense opposition to Trump at the very least includes disdain for those who elected him. Do you really mean to tell me that your disgust for Trump is exclusive to the man, completely divorced from voters who supported him? If you can really say that, you're a much better man than I.

[bonnevillemariner]

Still, the Trump association is absolutely the last thing the brand needs, MOST ESPECIALLY if these things are currently being taught to young people.

I agree totally.

[Justin]

People start clutching pearls as soon as racism comes up, saying "no no no, not me" is as ridiculous as someone getting mad at a doctor when they say "you're sick". America's got a history of racism, there's plenty of it left, and to be honest it will probably never fully go away. People need to stop worrying if it means the doctor is saying that they're bad people for getting sick and start fixing it. Instead they want to pretend they're already better.

Not the best analogy.  A doctor works closely with his/her patient to come to a conclusion regarding their illness.  Learning more about symptoms, running additional tests--you know: getting more information about the situation before making a diagnosis.

What you're doing is more like a person wearing a doctors coat (but is in fact not a doctor) walking down the street, passing someone randomly who sneezes and stopping and saying to them: "You're sick.  Get help immediately."

[doinnothin]

I disagree. I am a public secondary school teacher and my views are drawn from my observations at school. I usually introduce my students to the concept of digital audio by playing them an 8-bit digital cover of Pet Sounds (which we then compare to the sound of my vinyl copy on a turntable-- cool lesson, actually).  Since I started doing this in 2013, I get multiple comments each year about the Beach Boys being "white dad music" and therefore on the racist spectrum. They're being taught-- in this Utah school district-- that while cultural phenomena, artists and historical figures may not have been racist, they are a product of a systemically racist culture and should be regarded as such. It doesn't matter that the boys didn't have a racist bone in their body.

That's because the public at large understands that these songs were written decades ago in a different time...

Sure, but it doesn't matter. They are a product of an institutionally racist culture. Their music, however benign, is the product of behavioral norms that supported racist thinking. Guilt by mere chronistic association.  Again, I base this opinion on my daily interactions with 200 high school kids.

But no one has a "racist bone in their body", that's a little saying we use to imply that racism can only be an inborn deficiency rather than fess up to the "systematically racist culture" we were all born into and often accepted as normal. I don't think of the Beach Boys as being evangelically racist, but they definitely were a product of a racist world. And I think for a lot of people if you're not actively opposing racism as someone who benefits from it, you're part of it. They had a massive platform at a time of major social upheaval and they didn't really say anything about race. The one thing I can think of where they almost did was SMiLE which tried to tackle issues of the European conquest of America, and that ended up going unreleased.

I think the criticism you could easily make is that they were comfortable with the status quo. Their music was a celebration of white life in California that was often built on the rhythms of black rock & R&B. While I immensely enjoy what came out of that melding, I don't think it's unfair to discuss and criticize appropriation and how it feels to the people who's culture is being borrowed. That kids are doing this in Utah is awesome to me.

Again, I'm not saying they are KKK members or something. On the other hand you could make an argument that there was something revolutionary about adding Ricky & Blondie to the group, thought it was certainly not the thing the band is best known for.

Anyway, sorry for getting so heated about this. We're at a moment where a lot of things I'm passionate about are colliding (The Beach Boys, discussions of racism, politics). Glad to read what you're adding to this conversation.

[CenturyDeprived]

They had a massive platform at a time of major social upheaval and they didn't really say anything about race.

The problem with that line of thinking = it would seem the only solution is that every single artist of every single medium needs to be talking about race/politics constantly, or face a backlash. Even if The BBs had done so a lot more than they actually did, someone educated would still come along and say "it still wasn't enough" and write an online article about it, simply because that person has randomly decided such with their expectation barometer. I don't know why anyone gets to set these expectations for bands at their random choosing. It's ridiculous.

Some artists don't like to get particularly involved, and they don't automatically deserve criticism for it - especially not from some highly-educated overly-PC person who happens to not be highly educated about the band as a whole. It's like there is some magical amount of "expected" political engagement that some random educated people have randomly deemed necessary for an artist to have had - a completely arbitrary amount that is literally pulled out of their butts - and somehow this measure of expected engagement is fodder for criticism and clickbait articles, if the artist they have deemed as politically deficient does not measure up.

I *get* that it would be cool if the band had done a few more socially conscious actions in the '60s, but I don't think it's fair to fault them for not being more political. I don't fault ABBA or any of the disco bands for having song topics that are mostly apolitical either. Their music is escapism. It's nobody's decision but the artist, and really unfair to label the artist in a negative way simply by some random person's perceived reasons for the artist's inaction. I also don't fault Gilligan's Island for not having an episode tackling race relations, while I do think it's cool that Bewitched, by comparison, DID have such an episode. It just means one of those shows was perhaps more progressive and gutsy than another.

Plus - when The BBs did take the time to write a political song - like Student Demonstration Time - it came out super clunky and embarrassing (which I imagine they probably were aware of that perception pretty soon too); maybe they just realized this wasn't their strong suit. They weren't race scholars; they were scholars in writing about surfing, roller skating, and love songs with tennis analogies.

And yeah, as you also mentioned, sadly the more politically-minded songs from SMiLE wound up being unreleased. And the lack of the general public being aware that those songs - with progressive political lyrics - means that the band is once again being unfairly judged. The judgment is misdirected; any judgment should be directed towards any actions the band does *actively* promoting/supporting someone with abhorrent views, or if the band actually did or said racist, homophobic things, those things would be terrible and worthy of major criticism for sure.

I do wonder if the band hadn't continually been associated with Reagan, George HW Bush, etc, if they'd still be getting as much criticism (Trump aside) for enjoying the status quo that white privilege has afforded them. I imagine the Reagan/Bush associations have only helped further the ideology that they are worthy of criticism... but the Trump association is a whole other animal that will really take things to the next level, and it breaks my heart.

[Justin]

Their music was a celebration of white life in California that was often built on the rhythms of black rock & R&B.

You would probably enjoy the the article discussed in this thread:  http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24451.0.html

The Beach Boys' music was a celebration of life:  relationships, growing up, being in your room, being bugged at your old man, getting a new car, liking a girl and trying to ask her out, breaking up with a girl...   These are stories that everyone faces in their lives---regardless of their race.  That's why they wrote them--not with the pure intent of it only being served ONLY to a white audience. 

What is more racist:  The Beach Boys ONLY creating music stemming from their white heritage or celebrating, creating (and often acknowledging/crediting) the music being made by the black R&B artists that they genuinely loved? 


-----
Everyone is worried about what a Trump inauguration will do to the band's legacy but going by some of the comments here and what another poster said about how his students see the band---their legacy is already bruised. 

[Debbie KL]

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

It's curious to me, as well.  I speculate that it's that the Trump people haven't confirmed with them, or that they don't want any attention on it.  But, then again, I have no clue.  There seems to have been a bit of spin involving other "Trump friends" not playing the event, from both Team Trump and the artists.

I notice what no one mentions (and I don't lack my own political views), is that one thing is agreed across the media - Trump isn't getting any A-list celebrities.  Aside from the anger from those appalled by Trump, playing at his inaugural pretty much labels the performer as someone desperate enough, and irrelevant enough to play this event, a bit like being on a reality TV show.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

If Mike and friends are to perform...won't it take longer than 15 days to get everything planned out? Even looking past the political atrocity that is coming in 2 weeks, aren't we pretty much guaranteeing a complete clusterfuck of a performance?

How much do you want to be they will be miming to a pre-recorded track?

[KDS]

If Mike and friends are to perform...won't it take longer than 15 days to get everything planned out? Even looking past the political atrocity that is coming in 2 weeks, aren't we pretty much guaranteeing a complete clusterfuck of a performance?

How much do you want to be they will be miming to a pre-recorded track?

Just cue up the tape from Memorial Day.

[doinnothin]

They had a massive platform at a time of major social upheaval and they didn't really say anything about race.

The problem with that line of thinking = it would seem the only solution is that every single artist of every single medium needs to be talking about race/politics constantly, or face a backlash. Even if The BBs had done so a lot more than they actually did, someone educated would still come along and say "it still wasn't enough" simply because that person has randomly decided such with their expectation barometer. It's ridiculous.

Some artists don't like to get particularly involved, and they don't automatically deserve criticism for it - especially not from some highly-educated overly-PC person who happens to not be highly educated about the band as a whole. It's like there is some magical amount of "expected" political engagement that some random educated people have randomly deemed necessary for an artist to have had - a completely arbitrary amount that is literally pulled out of their butts - and somehow this measure of expected engagement is fodder for criticism and clickbait articles, if the artist they have deemed as politically deficient does not measure up.

I *get* that it would be cool if the band had done a few more socially conscious actions in the '60s, but I don't think it's fair to fault them for it. I don't fault ABBA or any of the disco bands for having song topics that are mostly apolitical either. It's nobody's decision but the artist, and really unfair to label the artist in a negative way simply by some random person's perceived reasons for the artist's inaction. I also don't fault Gilligan's Island for not having an episode tackling race relations, while I do think it's cool that Bewitched, by comparison, DID have such an episode. It just means one of those shows was perhaps more progressive and gutsy than another.

And yeah, as you also mentioned, sadly the more politically-minded songs from SMiLE wound up being unreleased. And the lack of the general public being aware that those songs - with progressive political lyrics - means that the band is once again being unfairly judged. The judgment is misdirected; any judgment should be directed towards any actions the band does *actively* promoting/supporting someone with abhorrent views, or if the band actually did or said racist, homophobic things, those things would be terrible and worthy of major criticism for sure.

Just a reminder. I love the Beach Boys. Favorite music of all time. "Don't Talk" is my favorite song. The first dance at my wedding was to "All I Wanna Do". I'm not shitting on them as a whole. But this thread is about them in a political context.

In that context, I think they're deserving of criticism. I agree that it's an individual artists decision whether to make a political statement. But they also then live with the consequences of how saying nothing comes off to people who either don't have the benefit of avoiding seeing the world through a political prism due to their existence at the center of political controversy or how it comes off to people who put political causes at the center of their own lives. The artist can do whatever they want but to say that going along with the status quo is never a fair thing to criticize seems like an opinion that ignores the stakes for a lot of people for whom the status quo is a threat.

Also, I don't know if this is in reference to me "especially not from some highly-educated overly-PC person who happens to not be highly educated about the band as a whole", but I don't really relate to any of those criticisms if they are or know what I would have said to make you feel that way. Might not have been about me though.

[CenturyDeprived]

They had a massive platform at a time of major social upheaval and they didn't really say anything about race.

The problem with that line of thinking = it would seem the only solution is that every single artist of every single medium needs to be talking about race/politics constantly, or face a backlash. Even if The BBs had done so a lot more than they actually did, someone educated would still come along and say "it still wasn't enough" simply because that person has randomly decided such with their expectation barometer. It's ridiculous.

Some artists don't like to get particularly involved, and they don't automatically deserve criticism for it - especially not from some highly-educated overly-PC person who happens to not be highly educated about the band as a whole. It's like there is some magical amount of "expected" political engagement that some random educated people have randomly deemed necessary for an artist to have had - a completely arbitrary amount that is literally pulled out of their butts - and somehow this measure of expected engagement is fodder for criticism and clickbait articles, if the artist they have deemed as politically deficient does not measure up.

I *get* that it would be cool if the band had done a few more socially conscious actions in the '60s, but I don't think it's fair to fault them for it. I don't fault ABBA or any of the disco bands for having song topics that are mostly apolitical either. It's nobody's decision but the artist, and really unfair to label the artist in a negative way simply by some random person's perceived reasons for the artist's inaction. I also don't fault Gilligan's Island for not having an episode tackling race relations, while I do think it's cool that Bewitched, by comparison, DID have such an episode. It just means one of those shows was perhaps more progressive and gutsy than another.

And yeah, as you also mentioned, sadly the more politically-minded songs from SMiLE wound up being unreleased. And the lack of the general public being aware that those songs - with progressive political lyrics - means that the band is once again being unfairly judged. The judgment is misdirected; any judgment should be directed towards any actions the band does *actively* promoting/supporting someone with abhorrent views, or if the band actually did or said racist, homophobic things, those things would be terrible and worthy of major criticism for sure.

Just a reminder. I love the Beach Boys. Favorite music of all time. "Don't Talk" is my favorite song. The first dance at my wedding was to "All I Wanna Do". I'm not shitting on them as a whole. But this thread is about them in a political context.

In that context, I think they're deserving of criticism. I agree that it's an individual artists decision whether to make a political statement. But they also then live with the consequences of how saying nothing comes off to people who either don't have the benefit of avoiding seeing the world through a political prism due to their existence at the center of political controversy or how it comes off to people who put political causes at the center of their own lives. The artist can do whatever they want but to say that going along with the status quo is never a fair thing to criticize seems like an opinion that ignores the stakes for a lot of people for whom the status quo is a threat.

Also, I don't know if this is in reference to me "especially not from some highly-educated overly-PC person who happens to not be highly educated about the band as a whole", but I don't really relate to any of those criticisms if they are or know what I would have said to make you feel that way. Might not have been about me though.

That wasn't in reference to you, by the way. Not at all. Apologies if it came off that way. It was directed to people such as the author who wrote the article criticizing Pet Sounds (which to tell you the truth, I didn't even finish reading all the way through), and to booksmart people who applaud that line of thinking without nuance, in an attempt to somehow demonize the band and its members (or say they must be taken down a notch from where they are artistically regarded as).

I think the whole "saying nothing" thing would hold more weight if there was a pattern of specific instances where perhaps the band - in the '60s - was asked about race relations and specifically ducked such a question in an interview, or things like that.  Or if they had been asked to perform at an anti-bigotry rally but refused because they were too afraid to make any kind of political statement. That would be super lame. The band theoretically ducking questions and ducking associations would be something to write about in a critical manner.

Simple inaction where there is some expectation that they should have gone out of their way to do/say certain things - especially being such a fractured band dealing with a member with mental illness, as well as dealing with an ongoing identity crisis as a brand - seems a bit of a stretch to me, IMO. Yet to say they were lucky to have not had to deal with certain things due to having been white kids is a very true statement. I just don't see why criticism is needed in conjunction with that statement.

I can understand that people think that it might've been nice if they'd *proactively* done x,y, and z (and I'd include myself in thinking that would have been nice), but I don't hold them to some sort of level where I *expect* that from them.  The BBs were a bunch of dorky guys from Hawthorne who signed up to be singers, not politically-engaged spokespeople. Again - I don't like the idea that they are getting singled out for that; what about The Turtles, The Mamas & The Papas, etc etc etc? I guess the singling out is only because The BBs are more famous than those bands, but it seems way unfair for them to be saddled with that expectation and resultant image (again, I am talking about the image they had pre-Trump).

[doinnothin]

Their music was a celebration of white life in California that was often built on the rhythms of black rock & R&B.

You would probably enjoy the the article discussed in this thread:  http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24451.0.html

The Beach Boys' music was a celebration of life:  relationships, growing up, being in your room, being bugged at your old man, getting a new car, liking a girl and trying to ask her out, breaking up with a girl...   These are stories that everyone faces in their lives---regardless of their race.  That's why they wrote them--not with the pure intent of it only being served ONLY to a white audience. 

What is more racist:  The Beach Boys ONLY creating music stemming from their white heritage or celebrating, creating (and often acknowledging/crediting) the music being made by the black R&B artists that they genuinely loved? 


-----
Everyone is worried about what a Trump inauguration will do to the band's legacy but going by some of the comments here and what another poster said about how his students see the band---their legacy is already bruised. 

Thanks for the article, hadn't seen it. A lot to digest. Some points I agree with, some I don't (for instance, I don't even really think of Pet Sounds as a Rock album).

I agree with your points. Thanks for posting them.