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

[GhostyTMRS]

George is shocked. He might realize that such a statement in certain circles would be considered bashing or hate speech against Mike, of the sort that some thought should be a bannable offense. There are and were people posting around these boards who equated not being excited about Mike and Bruce's UK setlists with not being a real Beach Boys fan, the notion that there really isn't a Beach Boys anymore would trigger WW3.

The difference is I have no problem with any touring iteration of The Beach Boys. I even considered the C50 lineup to be just another touring iteration (albeit a gigantic one), but as I said to you many many moons ago, no Carl Wilson=no original Beach Boys (and much of the ju ju was gone when Dennis died too).
Carl's voice was such a vital part of the mix that it's irreplaceable. Doesn't mean I don't root for the surviving guys in whatever permutation is out there but I'm not fooling myself into thinking Mike & Bruce or Brian, Al and Blondie are the exact same group that made the "All Summer Long" album. That group only exists in the past.

That's also one of the reasons why the C50 breakup doesn't gnaw at me like it does others.    

[HeyJude]

If Clinton had won, would there be similar outrage over the band playing at her inauguration?

Isn't this like the tenth time someone has asked that in this thread?

I'll answer again: No currently active politician of any party would be eliciting this reaction.

[Jay]

None of this matters. Why? Because if the Beach Boys don't play the inauguration, the same people losing their sh*t in this thread will still bitch about Mike having the nerve to even consider playing for somebody like trump.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Beach Boys wouldn't be playing the inauguration those...Mike and Bruce under the Beach Boys banner would be playing, which is the crux of the problem, because much of the general public is too stupid musically to know the difference.

[rab2591]

Beach Boys wouldn't be playing the inauguration those...Mike and Bruce under the Beach Boys banner would be playing, which is the crux of the problem, because much of the general public is too stupid musically to know the difference.

Well to be fair to the general public, Billboard initially put out this article with a picture of Brian and Al included with Mike and Bruce (I believe it was a C50 promo shot), and we've seen examples on this forum of shady advertising (that includes pictures of the original lineup) when it comes to venues promoting the current little Beach Boys touring act.

Not even the media nor the venues understand who is in this band anymore and thus the public perceives this band as not being fractured.

[guitarfool2002]

George is shocked. He might realize that such a statement in certain circles would be considered bashing or hate speech against Mike, of the sort that some thought should be a bannable offense. There are and were people posting around these boards who equated not being excited about Mike and Bruce's UK setlists with not being a real Beach Boys fan, the notion that there really isn't a Beach Boys anymore would trigger WW3.

The difference is I have no problem with any touring iteration of The Beach Boys. I even considered the C50 lineup to be just another touring iteration (albeit a gigantic one), but as I said to you many many moons ago, no Carl Wilson=no original Beach Boys (and much of the ju ju was gone when Dennis died too).
Carl's voice was such a vital part of the mix that it's irreplaceable. Doesn't mean I don't root for the surviving guys in whatever permutation is out there but I'm not fooling myself into thinking Mike & Bruce or Brian, Al and Blondie are the exact same group that made the "All Summer Long" album. That group only exists in the past.

That's also one of the reasons why the C50 breakup doesn't gnaw at me like it does others.    

Is the band Mike currently leads The Beach Boys or the current permutation who carries the license?

I see much more suggestion of the former option coming from Mike himself since he got the license, and especially among his more ardent and vocal supporters and backers, as if any opinion leaning toward the latter is not only blasphemous but should be stricken from the discussions entirely. Those kinds of folks who like to label fan communities and people "toxic".

Some might suggest the point when a license to use the name on tour was even necessary was the final end point, the before and after, even after two Wilson brothers had passed away.

[guitarfool2002]

Beach Boys wouldn't be playing the inauguration those...Mike and Bruce under the Beach Boys banner would be playing, which is the crux of the problem, because much of the general public is too stupid musically to know the difference.

Well to be fair to the general public, Billboard initially put out this article with a picture of Brian and Al included with Mike and Bruce (I believe it was a C50 promo shot), and we've seen examples on this forum of shady advertising (that includes pictures of the original lineup) when it comes to venues promoting the current little Beach Boys touring act.

Not even the media nor the venues understand who is in this band anymore and thus the public perceives this band as not being fractured.

The last line goes right to my point earlier - If it sells tickets and books bigger venues, it's good to not f*** with or change public perceptions, correct or not. If there is a backlash...oops, nope, there are no Beach Boys anymore, it's whatever term or label someone may apply instead. It can't go both ways.

[CenturyDeprived]

Beach Boys wouldn't be playing the inauguration those...Mike and Bruce under the Beach Boys banner would be playing, which is the crux of the problem, because much of the general public is too stupid musically to know the difference.

Well to be fair to the general public, Billboard initially put out this article with a picture of Brian and Al included with Mike and Bruce (I believe it was a C50 promo shot), and we've seen examples on this forum of shady advertising (that includes pictures of the original lineup) when it comes to venues promoting the current little Beach Boys touring act.

Not even the media nor the venues understand who is in this band anymore and thus the public perceives this band as not being fractured.

And even if that pic hadn't been used, the widespread misconception that the brand/band itself is united in supporting the dipshit elect would/will *still* persist.  This is largely an anonymous/faceless band, unlike The Beatles.

[guitarfool2002]

But when that pic was used, it was used by some major media outlets (not blogs or 'citizen reporter' sites or whatever) who have legal staff and a vetting process and researchers and all of that jazz to check the facts before running a news story internationally. That put "The Beach Boys" as a brand identity into the minds of whoever was reading on the basis of the photo that led the story after the headline showing a pic from 2012 as the band being reported on, and it should have never happened at all, even if one magazine ran it.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike is the BBs in his mind so any version of his band is the group. Hence his followers calling it "the touring band" and the constant license legalese repeated on purpose to silence others.

[GhostyTMRS]

George is shocked. He might realize that such a statement in certain circles would be considered bashing or hate speech against Mike, of the sort that some thought should be a bannable offense. There are and were people posting around these boards who equated not being excited about Mike and Bruce's UK setlists with not being a real Beach Boys fan, the notion that there really isn't a Beach Boys anymore would trigger WW3.

The difference is I have no problem with any touring iteration of The Beach Boys. I even considered the C50 lineup to be just another touring iteration (albeit a gigantic one), but as I said to you many many moons ago, no Carl Wilson=no original Beach Boys (and much of the ju ju was gone when Dennis died too).
Carl's voice was such a vital part of the mix that it's irreplaceable. Doesn't mean I don't root for the surviving guys in whatever permutation is out there but I'm not fooling myself into thinking Mike & Bruce or Brian, Al and Blondie are the exact same group that made the "All Summer Long" album. That group only exists in the past.

That's also one of the reasons why the C50 breakup doesn't gnaw at me like it does others.    

Is the band Mike currently leads The Beach Boys or the current permutation who carries the license?

I see much more suggestion of the former option coming from Mike himself since he got the license, and especially among his more ardent and vocal supporters and backers, as if any opinion leaning toward the latter is not only blasphemous but should be stricken from the discussions entirely. Those kinds of folks who like to label fan communities and people "toxic".

Some might suggest the point when a license to use the name on tour was even necessary was the final end point, the before and after, even after two Wilson brothers had passed away.

Of course it's a touring iteration of the "Beach Boys" brand, same as the C50. I can't speak for others and I haven't seen what you're describing (then again, I don't hang around these message boards that much).  
What I do find "toxic" is the incessant bitching about Mike & Bruce using the name, etc, hurling insults their way, constantly looking to find fault with Mike, etc. That kind of playground mentality accomplishes nothing. It's myopic. In fairness, perhaps the disconnect I have that some other fans don't have is that I don't view "The Beach Boys" as a going concern anymore (especially with two main members dead), and I can very easily see Mike & Bruce touring under the name "The Beach Boys" like I see all the other acts out there like "The Temptations" or "The 5th Dimension" where it's 1 or 2 original members licensing the name. That's fine. Doesn't devalue the great records the original groups made in the past at all. How could it? Like I'm going to put on "I Get Around" and think "Oh, my God, this song is ruined now!". That's beyond silly. What always matters to me is the records. If Mike & Bruce were going into the studio and wiping Brian's vocals from the master of "California Girls" or removing Carl's guitar parts THEN I would have a problem with those guys (Ozzy Osbourne has actually done something like this!).    

As I've said many MANY times..I am a Beach Boys fan. I'm a fan of the surviving members of the band (Brian, Mike, Al, Bruce and David). If they're doing a show or a series of shows, whatever they may call themselves or whatever the lineup, more power to them. Am I going to see them? Probably not. I saw The Beach Boys with Carl back in the 90's. I've seen Brian multiple times on the first Pet Sounds tour and then the SMiLE shows. That was it. I'm good (yes, I skipped C50).

As for fantasy scenarios where the name doesn't even become a touring license in the first place..heck, if they had split after Holland I would have been satisfied. I'm glad they made the records they did afterwards but imo the GREAT work, the IMPORTANT work, the work that history will judge them by was already completed. It's been a 45 year victory lap ever since as far as I'm concerned (same goes for what's left of the Stones while I'm at it). Happy to have the other stuff, but...

In any case, I feel like I've written the above about 100 times over the years. Not like it matters evidently.

      

[HeyJude]

C50 was not the same setup legally/business-wise as Mike's licensed setup. You may view them as just two "iterations", but the corporate machinations behind the two were different in many fundamental ways.

That you view these two vastly different setups as just two comparable iterations probably helps explain why you see no issue or problem with Mike using the name, even to the exclusion of other members.

[GhostyTMRS]

C50 was not the same setup legally/business-wise as Mike's licensed setup. You may view them as just two "iterations", but the corporate machinations behind the two were different in many fundamental ways.

That you view these two vastly different setups as just two comparable iterations probably helps explain why you see no issue or problem with Mike using the name, even to the exclusion of other members.

Actually they're very similar in that Carl and Dennis remain dead in both scenarios and The Beach Boys are not enjoying a career as a working, creative recording entity. Put photos of the Mike & Bruce gang and the C50 touring group next to a photo of The Beach Boys on stage in 1965. Which of those photos do you identify as The Beach Boys? I know my answer.

[Jay]

In my opinion, except for the year 2012, the group named The Beach Boys ceased to exist in the late months of 1997, when Carl stepped down from touring, and Mike proceeded with plans to replace Al. I don't really think doing the Inauguration would hurt The Beach Boys that much, because the legacy is already well established. For Mike though, it would be digging his own grave.

[CenturyDeprived]

In my opinion, except for the year 2012, the group named The Beach Boys ceased to exist in the late months of 1997, when Carl stepped down from touring, and Mike proceeded with plans to replace Al. I don't really think doing the Inauguration would hurt The Beach Boys that much, because the legacy is already well established. For Mike though, it would be digging his own grave.

At minimum - THIS.  Good luck with getting potential new fans to cut Mike much of any slack who are beyond disgusted by Trump. One can argue that some preexisting old fans may not care, but beyond those who are grandfathered in…a huge swath of potential new fans sadly will probably shun Mike and his *actual* contributions  - which are certainly worthy of being praised - even way more than if this was not something that he was associated with.

Curious to know what everyone thinks about how this might have played out if Mike had gotten to write songs in a room with Brian the way he wanted to five years ago,  got the respect he felt he deserved, and if this led to the band still being reunited.

Does anyone think there's a snowball's chance in hell that the reunited "BBs" would still be entertaining this offer?

[Scaroline No]

The last line... has this been verified anywhere else?

http://ajournalofmusicalthings.com/trump-inauguration-entertainment-news-whos-gonna-perform/

edit - so as not to give out heartattacks... the last line says they're out. It'd just be great to see another source say the same thing

[rab2591]

The last line... has this been verified anywhere else?

http://ajournalofmusicalthings.com/trump-inauguration-entertainment-news-whos-gonna-perform/

edit - so as not to give out heartattacks... the last line says they're out. It'd just be great to see another source say the same thing

It says they're 'apparently' out, which could mean that the writer is taking the touring band's silence as an apparent "no"

I'm really hoping you're right, but I hate to get my hopes up.

[KDS]

I know that.  You know that.  Most on this board know that.  

But, most people just have vague knowledge of the fact that The Beach Boys associated with Manson.
 

When people find out that the person associated with Manson held such guilt for that association that it may have been a contributing factor leading to him drinking himself to an early grave, well that gives him brownie points too in the court of public opinion. It's friggin' tragic and something that gets him considerable empathy. There is no contest whatsoever why there is a widespread lack of empathy for Mike and Trump. If Mike had drank himself to death out of guilt for shunning Shawn, then maybe people might start to have a different idea about him.

But Mike and Trump have said "mean things."  ***Shudder***

It's because you mockingly use the term "mean things" that shows you likely aren't a person of color, LGBT, or from a disenfranchised race/ethnicity, etc who has been put down by a person who is about the inherit the highest office in the land. It's not a joke. Walk a mile in their shoes and then we'll see how much you will sarcastically mock those "mean things".

If you read that paragraph and roll your eyes, you might have an empathy problem. I say that not condescendingly, but seriously.

Perhaps even worse than those "mean things" are his refusal to own them/apologize for them, like pretending the CAUGHT ON VIDEO mocking of a disabled person didn't even friggin' happen. Failing to apologize is a very Mike thing, so again it's something that makes them like peas in a pod.

Mike and Trump's least favorite Brian Wilson song? Walking Down the Empath of Life

I don't have an empathy problem, but I also don't actively seek racism. 

Trump has said that he wants to actually help the inner cities, even having meetings with prominent figures in the African American community to discuss doing so. 

He's not a threat to the LGBT community whatsoever.  He's already stated he's not going to overturn the marriage law. 

The mocking thing was another thing that was blown way out of proportion.  I've seen Trump use those same gestures to mock non disabled people, including himself. 

You have your views, and I have mine.  But, it's completely ridiculous of you to make assumptions about my beliefs or level of empathy. 

[Emily]

I know that.  You know that.  Most on this board know that.  

But, most people just have vague knowledge of the fact that The Beach Boys associated with Manson.
 

When people find out that the person associated with Manson held such guilt for that association that it may have been a contributing factor leading to him drinking himself to an early grave, well that gives him brownie points too in the court of public opinion. It's friggin' tragic and something that gets him considerable empathy. There is no contest whatsoever why there is a widespread lack of empathy for Mike and Trump. If Mike had drank himself to death out of guilt for shunning Shawn, then maybe people might start to have a different idea about him.

But Mike and Trump have said "mean things."  ***Shudder***

It's because you mockingly use the term "mean things" that shows you likely aren't a person of color, LGBT, or from a disenfranchised race/ethnicity, etc who has been put down by a person who is about the inherit the highest office in the land. It's not a joke. Walk a mile in their shoes and then we'll see how much you will sarcastically mock those "mean things".

If you read that paragraph and roll your eyes, you might have an empathy problem. I say that not condescendingly, but seriously.

Perhaps even worse than those "mean things" are his refusal to own them/apologize for them, like pretending the CAUGHT ON VIDEO mocking of a disabled person didn't even friggin' happen. Failing to apologize is a very Mike thing, so again it's something that makes them like peas in a pod.

Mike and Trump's least favorite Brian Wilson song? Walking Down the Empath of Life

I don't have an empathy problem, but I also don't actively seek racism. 

Trump has said that he wants to actually help the inner cities, even having meetings with prominent figures in the African American community to discuss doing so. 

He's not a threat to the LGBT community whatsoever.  He's already stated he's not going to overturn the marriage law. 

The mocking thing was another thing that was blown way out of proportion.  I've seen Trump use those same gestures to mock non disabled people, including himself. 

You have your views, and I have mine.  But, it's completely ridiculous of you to make assumptions about my beliefs or level of empathy. 

Inner cities - while spreading falsehoods about the black population that feed into his white audience's prejudices
LBGT - while committing to appoint justices who will overturn it.
Mocking - the mocking is inappropriate whether he does it only to disabled people or to others as well. It's the action of a school-yard bully.
Earlier posts "off color" and "against illegal immigration" are transparent straw men as the criticisms are not to do with being off color or with being against illegal immigration.

[HeyJude]

C50 was not the same setup legally/business-wise as Mike's licensed setup. You may view them as just two "iterations", but the corporate machinations behind the two were different in many fundamental ways.

That you view these two vastly different setups as just two comparable iterations probably helps explain why you see no issue or problem with Mike using the name, even to the exclusion of other members.

Actually they're very similar in that Carl and Dennis remain dead in both scenarios and The Beach Boys are not enjoying a career as a working, creative recording entity. Put photos of the Mike & Bruce gang and the C50 touring group next to a photo of The Beach Boys on stage in 1965. Which of those photos do you identify as The Beach Boys? I know my answer.

You may "feel" C50 and Mike's band are "very similar", but by the only available objective measures, they're not very similar beyond the fact that they (obviously) share the fact that they used the Beach Boys name.

Carl and Dennis aren't in Foghat either, but that doesn't make Foghat at all similar to any version of the BBs.

It's debatable how "creative" the TWGMTR album was I suppose, but even *that* aspect was different for C50; they *did* have a new studio album out with another on its way to completion. The *very same* band on stage during C50 also collectively had the ability and contractual right to release a "Beach Boys" album. Not so for Mike's band. Another HUGE difference.

And again, the most objective measure is the underlying business machinations behind the two projects, and in that respect they're patently different. Mike's tour is run through his own MELECO company which licenses the BB name from BRI. C50 was run through a new company formed solely for C50, the "50 Big Ones Productions" run by Brian, Mike, and Joe Thomas.

For Mike's tour, Al only collects his 25% cut of the licensing fee paid from MELECO to BRI. For C50, Al was paid a salary. Back pre-1998, Al (as far as I know) got an equal cut of the actual direct touring income generated by the band on tour. So for Al, *all three* scenarios are vastly different.

The fact that neither C50 nor Mike's band "look" like a 1965 photo of the Beach Boys has zero to do with whether C50 and Mike's band are "very similar." Again, a picture of Foghat doesn't look like the 1965 Beach Boys either; but that doesn't mean it's comparable in any way to other lineups/eras of the Beach Boys.

C50 had *five* Beach Boys on stage, including all three living corporate shareholders. Mike's band has *two* Beach Boys on stage, and only one living corporate shareholder. Nobody including me would argue C50 is "just like the original" (and nobody *ever* argued that in this thread as far as I know), but again, just because two things aren't the same as the original, it doesn't make those two things "very similar." This is pure logical fallacy.

If you "feel" there's little difference between C50 and Mike's band, and if that plays into not caring what Mike does with the name and to the brand in the present day because by your subjective standards it's too far away from the "original" lineup of the band because Dennis and Carl are gone that it no longer matters how many living BBs are on stage, then of course that's your right.

But again, by all available objective measurements, lumping C50 and Mike's band together is in my opinion a gross misreading of history and available data.

[HeyJude]

I don't have an empathy problem, but I also don't actively seek racism.  

Trump has said that he wants to actually help the inner cities, even having meetings with prominent figures in the African American community to discuss doing so.  

He's not a threat to the LGBT community whatsoever.  He's already stated he's not going to overturn the marriage law.  

The mocking thing was another thing that was blown way out of proportion.  I've seen Trump use those same gestures to mock non disabled people, including himself.  

You have your views, and I have mine.  But, it's completely ridiculous of you to make assumptions about my beliefs or level of empathy.  

I'm sorry, but you're continually laying out some pretty darn specific things you don't find objectionable, and you're making excuses or downplaying in a very specific way a number of things said or done by this guy.

While there's no way to know the totality of a person based on a message board, you've provided a pretty good amount of data on your train of thought and proclivities such that I think people can justifiably start forming some opinions about some of your beliefs and indeed your level of empathy on display.

If a person comes in here and offers a one-line post about how they voted, or offers one single little tidbit about something they believe, there's little to work off of. But you've posted on these topics at length, so I don't think it's out of line, for instance, for someone to politely state that in their opinion your posts display a lack of empathy. An alleged lack of empathy would actually, in my opinion, be key to understanding one's lack of outrage at Mike playing a gig for this guy.

All of the things you say above, including your pretty sad (in my opinion) defense of Trump mocking a disabled person, are textbook examples of lacking empathy. To get back to the *Beach Boys* (I'm trying man), all of your defenses of Trump and minimizations of reprehensible actions and words make it *quite clear* why you don't see a problem with Mike and the Beach Boys name associating with the guy.

[guitarfool2002]

The use of C50 photos showing all surviving band members for a gig that features Mike's lineup is an issue that goes beyond irony considering Mike himself sued Brian and a handful of other entities over a "Mail On Sunday" giveaway CD which featured a BB's vintage photo showing Mike on a collage on the "cover". The case Mike filed was surrounding the issue of Mike's image and implied involvement due to the photos showing him in a 60's context attaching his involvement to this giveaway CD and the music on it as a "Beach Boy" among the fans who got the disc when he wasn't involved with the CD. That according to the suit was violating a whole host of "rules" regarding using the Beach Boys name and image, and how such usage was damaging to Mike and the brand he licenses. The photos in question for that lawsuit were roughly the size of a thumbnail on that CD, on the collage.

So now there's this, on top of the past 4 years of putting band members who have no involvement in Mike's shows or tours in the minds of readers who see a C50 photo representing "The Beach Boys" attached to Mike's shows. If it's for selling more tickets that's one level, if it's part of something like December 2016 that caused an uproar, it's a different level altogether. Irony or something else?

[KDS]

I don't have an empathy problem, but I also don't actively seek racism.  

Trump has said that he wants to actually help the inner cities, even having meetings with prominent figures in the African American community to discuss doing so.  

He's not a threat to the LGBT community whatsoever.  He's already stated he's not going to overturn the marriage law.  

The mocking thing was another thing that was blown way out of proportion.  I've seen Trump use those same gestures to mock non disabled people, including himself.  

You have your views, and I have mine.  But, it's completely ridiculous of you to make assumptions about my beliefs or level of empathy.  

I'm sorry, but you're continually laying out some pretty darn specific things you don't find objectionable, and you're making excuses or downplaying in a very specific way a number of things said or done by this guy.

While there's no way to know the totality of a person based on a message board, you've provided a pretty good amount of data on your train of thought and proclivities such that I think people can justifiably start forming some opinions about some of your beliefs and indeed your level of empathy on display.

If a person comes in here and offers a one-line post about how they voted, or offers one single little tidbit about something they believe, there's little to work off of. But you've posted on these topics at length, so I don't think it's out of line, for instance, for someone to politely state that in their opinion your posts display a lack of empathy. An alleged lack of empathy would actually, in my opinion, be key to understanding one's lack of outrage at Mike playing a gig for this guy.

All of the things you say above, including your pretty sad (in my opinion) defense of Trump mocking a disabled person, are textbook examples of lacking empathy. To get back to the *Beach Boys* (I'm trying man), all of your defenses of Trump and minimizations of reprehensible actions and words make it *quite clear* why you don't see a problem with Mike and the Beach Boys name associating with the guy.

Oh, maybe, just maybe, not everybody sees the world the same as you, HJ.  

But, it can't be that way, can it?  One who supports / defends Trump is "racist," "lacks empathy," "ignorant,"  "uneducated," or they're flat our "morons."  

That's fine if you, or whoever else, think that about me, or most of my friends, family, and wife who also voted for Trump and have similar beliefs as me.  

But, you're wrong.    

[HeyJude]

Again, I don't think we know anything near the totality of any person here based on writing on a message board.

The issue isn't that, if you say X, you are wholly lacking in empathy in life. I don't think anybody is suggesting such a thing.

But if, for instance, you downplay what you call "the mocking thing" (the "mocking thing" being a case of Trump making fun of a disabled person), you had better be prepared for people to come away thinking that, in that particular instance at least, you're lacking in empathy. Frankly, I'd say "lacking in empathy" is a much more polite way to describe someone not seeing much of any problem with that instance of Trump mocking a disabled person. I'd probably choose much harsher language.

Again, I think this does relate tangentially to Mike Love. The same thing applies here as it does with Mike Love. Any person on this board, and Mike Love, can say *whatever they want*. They can defend anything they want, they can downplay anything they want, justify anything they want. But then you have to face up to how people are going to think of you, and what they're going to say about you.

Again to try to relate this back to this board's topic, it's not coincidence that many of the same people who defend Mike Love also defend Trump. In my opinion, both cases involve rather cold, clinical views that ignore slews of inflammatory actions and statements.

We had two people formerly on this board who *ad nauseam* for years and years ignored a litany of insulting things uttered by Mike Love, sidestepping and downplaying and minimizing. The same sort of thing eventually reared its head, where it gets to a point where, yeah, you have to call it out as politely as possible as an apparent lack of empathy. The alternative is some sort of attempt at the most polite possible name-calling, and I don't think that's conducive to keeping the board in good working order. So I think something more like "your statements display a lack of empathy" is fair after some lengthy back and forth.

[SMiLE Brian]

Remember all that M&B advertising that used the C50 pictures and AGD always said the venue made a "mistake"