Beach Boys 2021 Feel Flows World Tour Thread

[CenturyDeprived]

So yes, for those that feel doing gigs at this point in time is life threatening, then this article seems to indicate that the venue and the "Beach Boys management" are trying to stage a potentially dangerous, life-threatening gig.

AND the health department. The articled doesn't just state "Beach Boys management" and the venue. If the Health Department didn't say this gig was safe then Beach Boys management and the venue wouldn't have a gig to stage.

You all are basically saying that EVERY member of Mike's band is cool with the potential for people to die due to their concert because they care more about a gold star from Trump or money than they do human life. Just like the people who think someone as awesome as Nicky Wonder was complicit in forcing Brian to tour for the sake of money, this theory that Mike's band is cool with people dying just so they can make a little money (or get a smile and wink from Trump) is ridiculously offensive to every member of that band. As I've said before, there is risk for death everywhere (there is risk for people do die from the flu by contracting it from someone at this gig). Anytime I go to a concert I put myself and others at risk of dying in a car wreck. That's just life. However the health department thinks that the guidelines and regulations put in place at this venue keep the risk of contracting this virus low enough to deem the gig safe (or else they wouldn't have approved the gig as it would've violated their oath to public safety).

Regardless, the Health Department is just as responsible for this gig (if not more so) as the venue and band management.

One could make the same argument for people who are out of work and need money to survive and go back to their jobs at retail stores reluctantly, they know there is risk involved but they feel they have no choice.

I would not be surprised if a similar mindset was possibly had by either members of the band, crew, or venue. I don't think large groups of people (I imagine the amount of people who would be working this gig would be quite a few in total) just all fall in line robotically with a decision like this, all having the same mindset and feeling totally, 100% fine about it. Nor do I imagine the families of everybody who will be there would feel that same way either.

[rab2591]

If band-members have apprehension about playing this gig then given what is at stake (human life) I would hope they would protest such a gig. If they don't have apprehension then they are obviously trusting the doctors, scientists, and researchers at the Health Department who worked hand in hand with the band to ensure this gig was safe to play.

You and others are projecting your fears about Coronavirus onto the situation. As it stands the facts are that the band is down to play a gig in Lincoln, Nebraska that has been approved by the Health Department after working with the venue to create guidelines and regulations to ensure that the risk of spreading COVID is very low. We don't know any more or any less than that. Anything else is pure speculation - some of which makes the band-members, venue owners, and the health department appear to be completely incompetent or heartless.

[HeyJude]

If band-members have apprehension about playing this gig then given what is at stake (human life) I would hope they would protest such a gig. If they don't have apprehension then they are obviously trusting the doctors, scientists, and researchers at the Health Department who worked hand in hand with the band to ensure this gig was safe to play.

Or, crazy at this sounds, they need the job and don't want to lose it, and "protesting" would lead to their dismissal. Just as many folks have been out of work in recent months, many have paradoxically been forced by their employer to come back to work even when employees feel it's not safe.

[HeyJude]

So yes, for those that feel doing gigs at this point in time is life threatening, then this article seems to indicate that the venue and the "Beach Boys management" are trying to stage a potentially dangerous, life-threatening gig.

AND the health department. The articled doesn't just state "Beach Boys management" and the venue. If the Health Department didn't say this gig was safe then Beach Boys management and the venue wouldn't have a gig to stage.

You all are basically saying that EVERY member of Mike's band is cool with the potential for people to die due to their concert because they care more about a gold star from Trump or money than they do human life. Just like the people who think someone as awesome as Nicky Wonder was complicit in forcing Brian to tour for the sake of money, this theory that Mike's band is cool with people dying just so they can make a little money (or get a smile and wink from Trump) is ridiculously offensive to every member of that band. As I've said before, there is risk for death everywhere (there is risk for people to die from the flu by contracting it from someone at this gig). Anytime I go to a concert I put myself and others at risk of dying in a car wreck. That's just life. However the health department thinks that the guidelines and regulations put in place at this venue keep the risk of contracting this virus low enough to deem the gig safe (or else they wouldn't have approved the gig as it would've violated their oath to public safety).

Regardless, the Health Department is just as responsible for this gig (if not more so - because they have science, knowledge, and expertise on their side) as the venue and band management.

Nope, the health dept. can set guidelines, etc., but nobody is *forcing* Mike to do this show. They are *not* just as responsible for this gig.

Many other artists likely could have attempted gigs in *technically legal* circumstances, but have chosen not to.

In any event, my previous post was in response to someone theorizing that the reason we still see this show on the schedule is simply that it hasn't reached a point where insurance circumstances would allow it to be canceled. I was only pointing out that, according to the venue, Mike's management is *actively* helping to make the gig happen.

[HeyJude]

You and others are projecting your fears about Coronavirus onto the situation. As it stands the facts are that the band is down to play a gig in Lincoln, Nebraska that has been approved by the Health Department after working with the venue to create guidelines and regulations to ensure that the risk of spreading COVID is very low. We don't know any more or any less than that. Anything else is pure speculation - some of which makes the band-members, venue owners, and the health department appear to be completely incompetent or heartless.

A lot of people and companies and entities are having to make a lot of hard decisions; decisions that impact *a lot* of people. Many leaders and people are not simply doing what's *technically legal*, and instead are taking extra precautions and thinking of others and their health. Doing concerts is something that impacts *a lot* of people. I don't think hyperbole like "incompetent" or "heartless" need to be used, when the much more direct and accurate terms like "irresponsible" and "risky" are probably sufficient.

That being said, a lot of incompetence and even in some cases heartlessness (e.g. the "if old people gotta die, then it's worth it to save the economy" people) have also been involved in this continuing COVID problem. You know, the problem that isn't getting better and is by many measures getting worse.

[rab2591]

Or, crazy at this sounds, they need the job and don't want to lose it, and "protesting" would lead to their dismissal. Just as many folks have been out of work in recent months, many have paradoxically been forced by their employer to come back to work even when employees feel it's not safe.

I'm saying that protesting for the sake of saving a mass of human lives would be the conscientious thing to do...and I'm giving the members of that band credit when it comes to human decency....and credit that they have the ability to look at the wanted ads if Mike were heartless enough to fire them.

Nope, the health dept. can set guidelines, etc., but nobody is *forcing* Mike to do this show. They are *not* just as responsible for this gig.

The article literally states "The concert will be set up under a plan approved by the Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department" Notice the word "approved" there - logically meaning they could have disapproved the plan to host the gig if they didn't think it was a safe enough plan. So yeah, they are just as responsible, if not more so as it is THEIR JOB to protect the public. Even if somehow Mike went on with the gig without the Health Department's approval, it would be the Health Department's responsibility to warn and discourage the public of attending such a concert - again, as it is their job to protect the lives of the people in that county.

I don't think hyperbole like "incompetent" or "heartless" need to be used

It does when people are saying that Mike is potentially cool with people dying a horrible death just so he can get a medal of freedom from Trump (because if that's true that is pretty freakin heartless). It does when people are implying that the band members don't have enough moral backbone to stand up for human life (which is both either ignorant or heartless). All these things based on mere speculation. And speculation in this case is rather crass given what the speculation obviously implies.

[juggler]

I wonder if some of these shows lingering on the books of the Beach Boys touring act and other artists has something to do with the insurance for each gig or a policy of the venue? For example, you can't cancel and collect insurance until you get a certain window of time?
I'm just spitballing here, folks.

Spitballing or not, your hypothesis seems more plausible to me than the wild-eyed theory that Mike is trying to stage dangerous, life-threatening gigs -- making himself a sort of the Evel Knievel of the oldies music circuit -- as part of an elaborate scheme to impress Donald Trump.  I mean, come on, people.  I've been as much of a non-fan of some of ML's antics over the decades as the rest of you, but let's not spin nonsense.

 

[guitarfool2002]

Overheard at the fairgrounds:

[background noise] "whennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn..."

"Hey, that engine on his motorcycle doesn't sound too good, do you think he can make the jump on that bike?"

"That's not the engine, that's Mike doing the intro to Be True To Your School"

[HeyJude]

I'm saying that protesting for the sake of saving a mass of human lives would be the conscientious thing to do...and I'm giving the members of that band credit when it comes to human decency....and credit that they have the ability to look at the wanted ads if Mike were heartless enough to fire them.

It's ass-backwards now to the point where *I'm* defending the backing band guys; I think putting that onus on them is unfair. Many folks have gone back to work even though they see a workplace that is potentially dangerous to themselves and/or others. I'm not going to tell those people they should quit on principle and be homeless. The onus should be on the people running these businesses who have the financial ability to not make their employees feel unsafe.

That all being said, we don't know what the deal is with Mike's band. Maybe he has given them free and safe room to say no to gigs. We don't know.

The article literally states "The concert will be set up under a plan approved by the Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department" Notice the word "approved" there - logically meaning they could have disapproved the plan to host the gig if they didn't think it was a safe enough plan. So yeah, they are just as responsible, if not more so as it is THEIR JOB to protect the public. Even if somehow Mike went on with the gig without the Health Department's approval, it would be the Health Department's responsibility to warn and discourage the public of attending such a concert - again, as it is their job to protect the lives of the people in that county.

I think you're confusing the word "approved" for the word "mandated." Nobody is forcing Mike to do a show; nobody is forcing the venue to book a show. If the health department was legally forcing Mike Love to play a concert, then they would be responsible. The chain of events starts with Mike wanting to do a show, and the venue booking the show. Then various agencies can say yes or no. Of course, certainly it would be nice if health departments were playing this safer and said no. But ultimately, saying the health department is responsible for "approving" a concert is like saying the DMV is responsible for the outcome if they license a driver and the driver then goes around and hits a bunch of people with their car.

I don't think hyperbole like "incompetent" or "heartless" need to be used

It does when people are saying that Mike is potentially cool with people dying a horrible death just so he can get a medal of freedom from Trump (because if that's true that is pretty freakin heartless). It does when people are implying that the band members don't have enough moral backbone to stand up for human life (which is both either ignorant or heartless). All these things based on mere speculation. And speculation in this case is rather crass given what the speculation obviously implies.

It's up to you to decide whether you think playing a gig that could result in deaths is "heartless" or "incompetent." This stuff about wanting brownie points from the current administration and/or people of that political proclivity, while certainly possible, is not really the point of all of this.

The bottom line is that concerts are not food and water. Concerts aren't medical care. Concerts are not a necessity. Further, Mike and people like him have a MYRIAD of alternative ways to continue to perform/release music and also financially support their employees without booking venues and putting thousands of people together in a venue, where *inevitably* some folks will remove masks, will not keep six feet apart, and even if they follow *all* the rules, can still infect people within their group/"pod" attending the show, and can remove their mask so long as they're eating a hot dog or drinking a beer.

The fact that a check on Ticketmaster shows nearly all upcoming shows as canceled/rescheduled for most bands would indicate the outlier right now is Mike and this venue. This venue nor the state of Nebraska have any proprietary methods for social distancing or requiring masks, or making hand sanitizer available. Those things are things *all* venues of good repute could easily do, and likely *will* do once venues actually start opening up in larger numbers when (hopefully) the virus numbers make that more doable.

[rab2591]

It's ass-backwards now to the point where *I'm* defending the backing band guys; I think putting that onus on them is unfair. Many folks have gone back to work even though they see a workplace that is potentially dangerous to themselves and/or others. I'm not going to tell those people they should quit on principle and be homeless. The onus should be on the people running these businesses who have the financial ability to not make their employees feel unsafe.

That all being said, we don't know what the deal is with Mike's band. Maybe he has given them free and safe room to say no to gigs. We don't know.

No one in any other profession that I'm aware of is taking part in assembling nearly 3000 people into the same area at once for the sake of entertainment. You're claiming there is a risk to a lot of human life here (though obviously continuously ignoring the FACT that the Health Department has approved of this gig) and my point is that the person who is forced to work the cash register at Uncle Geno's Pizzeria to keep a roof over their head isn't risking the lives of 2000+ people in a 2 hour period like The Beach Boys supposedly are. Thus The Beach Boys band members have a greater responsibility to speak out about against this gig if Mike is forcing them to play against their will.

Again, I give the bandmembers credit for having human decency. This isn't like the trophy hunting gig, this is about human life, and if any of the guys didn't trust the health department's assessment I am sure they would speak out against doing the gig. However, they may just be trusting Health professionals on this which is why we haven't heard of any protest.

I think you're confusing the word "approved" for the word "mandated." Nobody is forcing Mike to do a show; nobody is forcing the venue to book a show. If the health department was legally forcing Mike Love to play a concert, then they would be responsible. The chain of events starts with Mike wanting to do a show, and the venue booking the show. Then various agencies can say yes or no. Of course, certainly it would be nice if health departments were playing this safer and said no. But ultimately, saying the health department is responsible for "approving" a concert is like saying the DMV is responsible for the outcome if they license a driver and the driver then goes around and hits a bunch of people with their car.

No I'm not confusing the word "approved" for the word "mandated". I am saying that if Mike Love is mentally unstable enough to put a mass of public life as risk for the sake of entertainment (as you claim he is) then it is the responsibility of the Health Department to warn the public from partaking in this gig. Not only are they not disapproving of the gig they actually APPROVED the thing. So thus, THEY who are the scientists, doctors, and researchers are the ones who could either publicly disavow this event or publicly approve of it. They have done the latter obviously making them equally or more responsible for this event. If they objected to it and warned the public of any danger, then the responsibility would solely fall in the lap of Mike Love and the venue owner.

The public trusts the health department to give them correct information and advice regarding public health and safety. Thus they have a responsibility to that public to ensure their health and safety.

It's up to you to decide whether you think playing a gig that could result in deaths is "heartless" or "incompetent." This stuff about wanting brownie points from the current administration and/or people of that political proclivity, while certainly possible, is not really the point of all of this.

If I thought that the guys were performing this gig against their better judgement regarding the safety of human life then yes, I would find it heartless that no band-member spoke out against it. Again, this isn't like stocking groceries or selling shoes. This is an entertainment event that will cram almost 3000 people into a venue during a global pandemic that has already killed 597,000+ people. So yeah, if the Health professionals are wrong like you are saying and The Beach Boys band members know this, they will be complicit in adding to the COVID death count.

However, again, they may just be trusting the Health professionals on this one.

[Emdeeh]

Does Nebraska have any restrictions in place on how many people can gather together right now?

[rab2591]

“And gatherings of up to 10,000 people will be allowed as long as indoor venues remain at 50% of their capacity and outdoor venues limit attendance to 75% of their capacity.”

This was from an AP article from a month ago, reporting on the Governor of Nebraska easing restrictions. So if those same eased restrictions are still in place, The Beach Boys are actually going against the mandated number and going with a smaller audience than they officially need to.

However, at the start of the pandemic each county/city in Nebraska had its own set of restrictions and guidelines to follow, so while the governor eased restrictions last month I am wondering if it’s still a county-by-county basis. Very much worth noting that since these restrictions eased up the number of daily Covid cases has risen back to its highest level since May (which was around 300 new cases per day). Since the start of the pandemic around 24,000 have gotten ill and 300 people have died, and Nebraska’s total population is just below 2,000,000.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

I would think that Mike Love would be somewhat concerned about not only his own health, but the health of his band and roadies, etc. I mean what if they perform and some or even one becomes infected and possibly passes away. Even more ironic would be Mike Love meeting the same fate. What a moronic reason to become possibly exposed not to mention those in the audience. Seems no one, including Mike Love, seems to care about the consequences of such an event. 

[Pretty Funky]

I see face masks are going to be required as well as social distancing. My thoughts go out to the security staff who will be faced with enforcing these rules and the entitled Karen’s and Darren’s who will insist on ‘their rights’.

A viewer from afar watching with bemusement. 

[CenturyDeprived]

I see face masks are going to be required as well as social distancing. My thoughts go out to the security staff who will be faced with enforcing these rules and the entitled Karen’s and Darren’s who will insist on ‘their rights’.

A viewer from afar watching with bemusement. 

Yep. That's the thing. Of all shows and all crowds, I unfortunately feel that *this* show and crowd would have a higher chance of those entitied type of folk who will insist on breaking the rules here and there for their "freedoms". Why is this worth the risk?

[Lonely Summer]

I don't believe Mike is going through with this event because he's a heartless, soulless individual who doesn't care about the deaths of thousands of people; i don't believe he is doing it to win gold stars from Trump; he's just a working musician trying to find a way to get through this crisis. No one is being forced to go to this concert; if you don't feel safe in a crowd this size, then don't go. If the band members don't feel safe, then they need to speak up. I'm sure Mike would hear them out, and probably understand their concerns.
Myself, i have no desire to be in a crowd that size right now.

[chewy]

but they'll be cancelled too right?  My show was going to be WA State Fair, and I'm not surprised but still disappointing.   

And these are the dates that are still left for 2020:

Aug. 2 -- Lincoln, NE -- Pinewood Bowl Theater
Aug. 13 -- Marysville, OH -- All Ohio Balloon Fest
Sept. 18 -- Wallingford CT -- Toyota Presents Oakdale Theatre
Sept. 22 -- Virginia Beach, VA -- Sandler Center for the Performing Arts
Sept. 23 -- Rocky Mount, VA -- Harvester Performance Center
Sept. 27 -- Charleston, WV -- Clay Center for the Arts & Sciences
Sept. 28 -- Greenville, SC -- Peace Center, Peace Concert Hall
Sept. 30 -- Pensacola, FL -- Saenger Theatre
Nov. 5-6 -- Ivins, UT -- Tuacahn Center for the Arts
Nov. 21 -- Thackerville, OK -- WinStar World Casino and Resort
Nov. 22 -- Tulsa, OK -- River Spirit Casino Resort, Paradise Cove
Dec. 1 -- Washington, DC -- The Anthem

[HeyJude]

No one in any other profession that I'm aware of is taking part in assembling nearly 3000 people into the same area at once for the sake of entertainment. You're claiming there is a risk to a lot of human life here (though obviously continuously ignoring the FACT that the Health Department has approved of this gig) and my point is that the person who is forced to work the cash register at Uncle Geno's Pizzeria to keep a roof over their head isn't risking the lives of 2000+ people in a 2 hour period like The Beach Boys supposedly are. Thus The Beach Boys band members have a greater responsibility to speak out about against this gig if Mike is forcing them to play against their will.

First of all, there *have* been other large gathers in the thousands at this point. Not many, but I've seen on the news some car racing events have taken place with sparse crowds but that still number up to a few thousand.

Further, the current administration has held *multiple* public events with *no social distancing* and no mask requirement (at least one rally, and also an event on the 4th of July). Everybody said the political rally in Ohio was a bad idea, even though *technically* the law wasn't disallowing it. Sure enough, numbers spiked two weeks after the Ohio rally.

As far as Mike's band members, I think it's simply naive to assume a band member would either feel comfortable doing the gig, or feel completely uncomfortable and boycott the gig and risk their job. It's all the stuff in between those two extremes that makes the whole thing complicated. 

My comparison of playing in Mike's band being like other jobs where people work despite not feeling comfortable doing it, was not about how many people would be at risk, but rather the simple human fact that people need money to survive, and it's a friggin' complicated issue *in any circumstance*. I think many people in that position talk themselves into feel comfortable.

This weird thing of flipping the argument when it's convenient, to suggest that maybe the show *shouldn't* be performed but then putting the onus on band members and the health department instead of the company/entity actually *choosing* to book the gig, is ridiculous in my opinion. Everybody makes choices and impacts all of this, but at the end of the day someone is booking a show, and employees then *react* to that. Similarly, someone is booking a show, and *pre-existing* guidelines from the government, having *nothing* specifically to do with that one choice to do the one gig, are also acted upon *by* the entity booking the gig.

No I'm not confusing the word "approved" for the word "mandated". I am saying that if Mike Love is mentally unstable enough to put a mass of public life as risk for the sake of entertainment (as you claim he is) then it is the responsibility of the Health Department to warn the public from partaking in this gig. Not only are they not disapproving of the gig they actually APPROVED the thing. So thus, THEY who are the scientists, doctors, and researchers are the ones who could either publicly disavow this event or publicly approve of it. They have done the latter obviously making them equally or more responsible for this event. If they objected to it and warned the public of any danger, then the responsibility would solely fall in the lap of Mike Love and the venue owner.

The public trusts the health department to give them correct information and advice regarding public health and safety. Thus they have a responsibility to that public to ensure their health and safety.

I simply disagree. As far as I know, the health department is not changing its rules or giving a special dispensation to this particular gig. They are simply inspecting or otherwise rating how this venue is prepared to handle shows. This idea that Mike should just do whatever he wants and it's all the responsibility of government agencies to stop him is not only not necessarily an argument that holds legal water, but *more importantly* ignores the original crux of this whole discussion, which is that everybody is well aware in knowing that Mike would LEGALLY be in the clear to do the gig, but that he should use better judgment and, you know, be the bigger person/more responsible person and hold off on the gig, realizing how foolhardy any agency and city/state/county/venue would be to allow such a gig *at this moment in time*.

I don't see a flood of touring acts heading to Nebraska to book every night at this venue. There's a very good reason shows aren't happening in droves right now.

[rab2591]

HeyJude,

I did not say that there haven't been other large gatherings, I said that to my knowledge no other "profession" (ie, burger stands, grocery stores, lumber yards) is assembling that amount of people together in one spot at one time. Instead of repeating my points about that subject, I will ask this:

Is anyone in a position of Health expertise telling Mike not to go ahead with this gig? Not to my knowledge. In fact he worked "hand-in-hand" with the health department on this. So the people in a position of scientific knowledge and research have told Mike that he can go ahead and play this gig. Note that I'm not saying he couldn't play this gig anyways, I'm saying that Health professionals who worked with him to create guidelines for the gig have given him a nod of approval to go ahead with playing it. Who else should Mike be listening to if not health professionals?

Using your analogy from a few days ago:

But ultimately, saying the health department is responsible for "approving" a concert is like saying the DMV is responsible for the outcome if they license a driver and the driver then goes around and hits a bunch of people with their car.

Not at all. In this case the DMV has actually worked with the driver "hand-in-hand" to ensure he will be as safe as possible on the road per the scientific research (and in this case, actually gave this driver further laws to abide by to be even safer). You are claiming that the driver will hit a bunch of people based on your own assessment of what you've seen on the news, but that assessment goes against the assessment of the "DMV" - a government entity entrusted with the responsibility of using testing, research, and scientific data to determine who is able to drive safely on the road.

This idea that Mike should just do whatever he wants and it's all the responsibility of government agencies to stop him is not only not necessarily an argument that holds legal water, but *more importantly* ignores the original crux of this whole discussion, which is that everybody is well aware in knowing that Mike would LEGALLY be in the clear to do the gig

You are claiming that this gig is hazardous to human life. If true, then Mike Love putting human life at risk is an obvious sign that he is acting irrational and unstable, right? Thus it is the responsibility of a government entity (whose sole job is to keep the public safe) to ensure that people aren't put at risk due to Mike Love's irrational and unstable behavior. To use your DMV analogy, if a potential driver is clearly blind it is the responsibility of the DMV not to give that person a license.

You are looking at Mike Love as a person able to make responsible decisions, but clearly he isn't if he is putting a mass of human life at risk, right?

But, a government agency whose sole job is to protect the public not only approved Mike Love to play this gig but worked with him "hand-in-hand" to make sure the gig was safe enough. If this government agency thought this gig would put a mass of human life at risk they have a huge responsibility to warn the public about the dangers of this gig (and they absolutely have a responsibility from the start to tell Mike Love not to go ahead with the gig).

[SMiLE Brian]

M&B need to play OSD’s yard instead!

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

 :

M&B need to play OSD’s yard instead!

  Two acres is far too large a venue for those clowns. 

[Emdeeh]

Unbelieveably, two new confirmed dates for M&B:

July 30 -- Springfield, MO -- Ozark Empire Fair (face masks required)
Aug. 21 -- Cedar Rapids, IA -- McGrath Amphitheatre

Even holding a fair right now seems pretty darn risky to me, let alone playing one. Too many people together in one area, no matter how many precautions you take or require. (And no, I'm not going to Disney World anytime soon.)

[HeyJude]

Unbelieveably, two new confirmed dates for M&B:

July 30 -- Springfield, MO -- Ozark Empire Fair (face masks required)
Aug. 21 -- Cedar Rapids, IA -- McGrath Amphitheatre

Even holding a fair right now seems pretty darn risky to me, let alone playing one. Too many people together in one area, no matter how many precautions you take or require. (And no, I'm not going to Disney World anytime soon.)

It's okay; by the time we're actually ready to safely have shows like this, it will be just in time for the benefit concert for the victims of the previous concerts.

[HeyJude]

In an even more stunning move, Mike has added dancers back to the show as well:

[SMiLE Brian]

M&B are insane....