Alone On christmas Day ... new single

[HeyJude]

If Brian Wilson isn't involved with or appearing on a new group recording, it can't be labelled a "Beach Boys" release. I thought that had been established and known since the late 90's, maybe.

He is on the original recording. I just bought the cassette off of Ebay last month. It really depends whether Mike uses any or all of the original recording. If it is all original then it is in fact a Beach Boys track.

There cannot be a Beach Boys release without approval, for one. A new single with Mike, Bruce, and Jeff Foskett singing atop a vintage backing track doesn't meet the standard, if that's what people here think it might be. The guidelines as to what can or cannot be labeled "The Beach Boys" in terms of new releases were specific enough to prevent things like the NASCAR tribute from being called a Beach Boys album. No Brian, no Beach Boys. No approval, no Beach Boys.

Kokomo?

Kokomo was 1988, Cam. After February 1998, the entire game changed, including the rules. In 1988 there was no need for licensing and agreements regarding the name or who can tour as The Beach Boys, who can release new music as The Beach Boys, etc.

Did you seriously not consider that after all the years you've been at this?

Do we know rules changed in this way or are we presuming?  Unless I'm forgetting something it seems entirely possible that just as in the past anything can still be released as BB with BRI approval and approval is not necessarily dependent on who did or didn't participate. Is there some documentation or something of a participation requirement?

Well, of course it's a case of needing BRI approval and nothing else. I could go make a solo recording of "Smoke on the Water" and, if BRI approves it, I can call it "The Beach Boys."

The idea is that it's EXTREMELY unlikely for Brian or Al to sign off on Mike releasing a solo single (or album, etc.) as a "Beach Boys" product.

Seriously folks, we're debating something that I don't think Mike (or any of the BB's) would even attempt. Politics and relationships notwithstanding, they all seem to be content with the current naming conventions; Mike licenses the name solely for his touring band, and all *new* recordings seem to occur as solo releases unless they all get back together (e.g. C50).

There are a *small* number of examples of individual BB's doing overdubs on vintage BB outtakes and putting them on a *larger* BB archival compilation as a "Beach Boys" track, such a "Loop de Loop" and "Goin' to the Beach." We could perhaps add Brian's 1999 lead overdub on "You're Still a Mystery", although we don't know for sure what Brian's intentions were for the song in 1999.

There are presently no examples of that sort of thing occurring as a stand-alone track, either as a "single" or placed on an otherwise non-BB compilation or project.

If Mike cut this new track solo from scratch, I don't think Brian or Al would sign off on calling it "The Beach Boys" (nor do I think Mike would even try). If Mike overdubbed onto an old BB recording, I suppose it's possible enough BRI shareholders would agree to call it "The Beach Boys" if the track was kind of like the "Goin' to the Beach" scenario. But I don't think that's likely, and again, I don't think Mike would be likely to be inclined to either A) use an old 1977 backing track, or B) even attempt to release a new single as a "Beach Boys" product. I also don't envision, especially given the current interpersonal relations among some of the members, that Brian or Al would particularly want a twice-rejected 1977 backing track with Mike, Scott Totten, Jeff Foskett, etc. singing on it released as a "Beach Boys" single.

[The Shift]

In the words of the immortal Ron Burgundy:

"Wow.  That escalated quickly.  And got out of control really fast." 

"Brick killed a guy." 

But we're all in bed now and not monitoring the thread at all  


Well, I am …

[drbeachboy]

People, people...Mike recently recorded this. Not a Beach Boys release. Now, get back to arguing over how C50 ended and how Mike owes Brian everything, and the other assorted opinions-stated-as-facts (that are generally completely made up).

Matt, how do you know this? Was there more info out there regarding the track?

[guitarfool2002]

Bubbly - 
John -
Billy - 

Drink up!

[KDS]

The heck with this Christmas single. 

It's almost October, time to bust out the Beach Boys Concert Album and crank The Monster Mash.

 

[guitarfool2002]

If Brian Wilson isn't involved with or appearing on a new group recording, it can't be labelled a "Beach Boys" release. I thought that had been established and known since the late 90's, maybe.

He is on the original recording. I just bought the cassette off of Ebay last month. It really depends whether Mike uses any or all of the original recording. If it is all original then it is in fact a Beach Boys track.

There cannot be a Beach Boys release without approval, for one. A new single with Mike, Bruce, and Jeff Foskett singing atop a vintage backing track doesn't meet the standard, if that's what people here think it might be. The guidelines as to what can or cannot be labeled "The Beach Boys" in terms of new releases were specific enough to prevent things like the NASCAR tribute from being called a Beach Boys album. No Brian, no Beach Boys. No approval, no Beach Boys.

Kokomo?

Kokomo was 1988, Cam. After February 1998, the entire game changed, including the rules. In 1988 there was no need for licensing and agreements regarding the name or who can tour as The Beach Boys, who can release new music as The Beach Boys, etc.

Did you seriously not consider that after all the years you've been at this?

Do we know rules changed in this way or are we presuming?  Unless I'm forgetting something it seems entirely possible that just as in the past anything can still be released as BB with BRI approval and approval is not necessarily dependent on who did or didn't participate. Is there some documentation or something of a participation requirement?

Well, of course it's a case of needing BRI approval and nothing else. I could go make a solo recording of "Smoke on the Water" and, if BRI approves it, I can call it "The Beach Boys."

The idea is that it's EXTREMELY unlikely for Brian or Al to sign off on Mike releasing a solo single (or album, etc.) as a "Beach Boys" product.

Seriously folks, we're debating something that I don't think Mike (or any of the BB's) would even attempt. Politics and relationships notwithstanding, they all seem to be content with the current naming conventions; Mike licenses the name solely for his touring band, and all *new* recordings seem to occur as solo releases unless they all get back together (e.g. C50).

There are a *small* number of examples of individual BB's doing overdubs on vintage BB outtakes and putting them on a *larger* BB archival compilation as a "Beach Boys" track, such a "Loop de Loop" and "Goin' to the Beach." We could perhaps add Brian's 1999 lead overdub on "You're Still a Mystery", although we don't know for sure what Brian's intentions were for the song in 1999.

There are presently no examples of that sort of thing occurring as a stand-alone track, either as a "single" or placed on an otherwise non-BB compilation or project.

If Mike cut this new track solo from scratch, I don't think Brian or Al would sign off on calling it "The Beach Boys" (nor do I think Mike would even try). If Mike overdubbed onto an old BB recording, I suppose it's possible enough BRI shareholders would agree to call it "The Beach Boys" if the track was kind of like the "Goin' to the Beach" scenario. But I don't think that's likely, and again, I don't think Mike would be likely to be inclined to either A) use an old 1977 backing track, or B) even attempt to release a new single as a "Beach Boys" product. I also don't envision, especially given the current interpersonal relations among some of the members, that Brian or Al would particularly want a twice-rejected 1977 backing track with Mike, Scott Totten, Jeff Foskett, etc. singing on it released as a "Beach Boys" single.

HeyJude, that sounds pretty much right on. Summing it up, there would need to be BRI approval for any release that would be labeled "The Beach Boys" as we've been saying. Let common sense be the guide as to what would or would not qualify for those conditions to get a "yes" vote. Also, let the years since 1998 at least be the example too, and consider what did and what did not get released as an official Beach Boys release. Anyone doubting what HeyJude above or anyone else has said on this, take a look at what has been released and how it was labeled in recent decades (NASCAR, Santa Goes To Kokomo, to name two), where these releases appeared, etc. It's set up so Mike or Al or Brian or anyone else can't put out what amounts to a solo release or something less than a true group effort and have it be a Beach Boys label on the release that might be misleading or not represent the name.

[guitarfool2002]

The heck with this Christmas single. 

It's almost October, time to bust out the Beach Boys Concert Album and crank The Monster Mash.

 

Some fans would say "My Solution" is the Halloween jam, for me it's neither...I like to bust out "Spooky" by the Classics IV, better chords. 

[The Shift]

If Brian Wilson isn't involved with or appearing on a new group recording, it can't be labelled a "Beach Boys" release. I thought that had been established and known since the late 90's, maybe.

He is on the original recording. I just bought the cassette off of Ebay last month. It really depends whether Mike uses any or all of the original recording. If it is all original then it is in fact a Beach Boys track.

There cannot be a Beach Boys release without approval, for one. A new single with Mike, Bruce, and Jeff Foskett singing atop a vintage backing track doesn't meet the standard, if that's what people here think it might be. The guidelines as to what can or cannot be labeled "The Beach Boys" in terms of new releases were specific enough to prevent things like the NASCAR tribute from being called a Beach Boys album. No Brian, no Beach Boys. No approval, no Beach Boys.

Kokomo?

Kokomo was 1988, Cam. After February 1998, the entire game changed, including the rules. In 1988 there was no need for licensing and agreements regarding the name or who can tour as The Beach Boys, who can release new music as The Beach Boys, etc.

Did you seriously not consider that after all the years you've been at this?

Do we know rules changed in this way or are we presuming?  Unless I'm forgetting something it seems entirely possible that just as in the past anything can still be released as BB with BRI approval and approval is not necessarily dependent on who did or didn't participate. Is there some documentation or something of a participation requirement?

Well, of course it's a case of needing BRI approval and nothing else. I could go make a solo recording of "Smoke on the Water" and, if BRI approves it, I can call it "The Beach Boys."

The idea is that it's EXTREMELY unlikely for Brian or Al to sign off on Mike releasing a solo single (or album, etc.) as a "Beach Boys" product.

Seriously folks, we're debating something that I don't think Mike (or any of the BB's) would even attempt. Politics and relationships notwithstanding, they all seem to be content with the current naming conventions; Mike licenses the name solely for his touring band, and all *new* recordings seem to occur as solo releases unless they all get back together (e.g. C50).

There are a *small* number of examples of individual BB's doing overdubs on vintage BB outtakes and putting them on a *larger* BB archival compilation as a "Beach Boys" track, such a "Loop de Loop" and "Goin' to the Beach." We could perhaps add Brian's 1999 lead overdub on "You're Still a Mystery", although we don't know for sure what Brian's intentions were for the song in 1999.

There are presently no examples of that sort of thing occurring as a stand-alone track, either as a "single" or placed on an otherwise non-BB compilation or project.

If Mike cut this new track solo from scratch, I don't think Brian or Al would sign off on calling it "The Beach Boys" (nor do I think Mike would even try). If Mike overdubbed onto an old BB recording, I suppose it's possible enough BRI shareholders would agree to call it "The Beach Boys" if the track was kind of like the "Goin' to the Beach" scenario. But I don't think that's likely, and again, I don't think Mike would be likely to be inclined to either A) use an old 1977 backing track, or B) even attempt to release a new single as a "Beach Boys" product. I also don't envision, especially given the current interpersonal relations among some of the members, that Brian or Al would particularly want a twice-rejected 1977 backing track with Mike, Scott Totten, Jeff Foskett, etc. singing on it released as a "Beach Boys" single.

HeyJude, that sounds pretty much right on. Summing it up, there would need to be BRI approval for any release that would be labeled "The Beach Boys" as we've been saying. Let common sense be the guide as to what would or would not qualify for those conditions to get a "yes" vote. Also, let the years since 1998 at least be the example too, and consider what did and what did not get released as an official Beach Boys release. Anyone doubting what HeyJude above or anyone else has said on this, take a look at what has been released and how it was labeled in recent decades (NASCAR, Santa Goes To Kokomo, to name two), where these releases appeared, etc. It's set up so Mike or Al or Brian or anyone else can't put out what amounts to a solo release or something less than a true group effort and have it be a Beach Boys label on the release that might be misleading or not represent the name.

Agree 100% that nothing can come out as a BBs release without BRI's sign off. But no one has said - or even, as far as I can tell suggested - otherwise. People had only speculated about what might be on the way.

Matt Etherton's the only person after the OP to have offered solid fact about this single and I'd love to hear more of what he knows and is able to share.

[KDS]

The heck with this Christmas single. 

It's almost October, time to bust out the Beach Boys Concert Album and crank The Monster Mash.

 

Some fans would say "My Solution" is the Halloween jam, for me it's neither...I like to bust out "Spooky" by the Classics IV, better chords. 

I have a lot of go-to songs for the upcoming Halloween season, a lot of Alice Cooper and King Diamond among others, but I was just keeping with the BB theme. 

[SMiLE Brian]

Alice Cooper is a hell of golfer along with his music career!

[KDS]

Alice Cooper is a hell of golfer along with his music career!

Yep, he needed golf in his life to help kick the booze.  And the help of a doctor named Landy. 

[guitarfool2002]

If Brian Wilson isn't involved with or appearing on a new group recording, it can't be labelled a "Beach Boys" release. I thought that had been established and known since the late 90's, maybe.

He is on the original recording. I just bought the cassette off of Ebay last month. It really depends whether Mike uses any or all of the original recording. If it is all original then it is in fact a Beach Boys track.

There cannot be a Beach Boys release without approval, for one. A new single with Mike, Bruce, and Jeff Foskett singing atop a vintage backing track doesn't meet the standard, if that's what people here think it might be. The guidelines as to what can or cannot be labeled "The Beach Boys" in terms of new releases were specific enough to prevent things like the NASCAR tribute from being called a Beach Boys album. No Brian, no Beach Boys. No approval, no Beach Boys.

Kokomo?

Kokomo was 1988, Cam. After February 1998, the entire game changed, including the rules. In 1988 there was no need for licensing and agreements regarding the name or who can tour as The Beach Boys, who can release new music as The Beach Boys, etc.

Did you seriously not consider that after all the years you've been at this?

Do we know rules changed in this way or are we presuming?  Unless I'm forgetting something it seems entirely possible that just as in the past anything can still be released as BB with BRI approval and approval is not necessarily dependent on who did or didn't participate. Is there some documentation or something of a participation requirement?

Well, of course it's a case of needing BRI approval and nothing else. I could go make a solo recording of "Smoke on the Water" and, if BRI approves it, I can call it "The Beach Boys."

The idea is that it's EXTREMELY unlikely for Brian or Al to sign off on Mike releasing a solo single (or album, etc.) as a "Beach Boys" product.

Seriously folks, we're debating something that I don't think Mike (or any of the BB's) would even attempt. Politics and relationships notwithstanding, they all seem to be content with the current naming conventions; Mike licenses the name solely for his touring band, and all *new* recordings seem to occur as solo releases unless they all get back together (e.g. C50).

There are a *small* number of examples of individual BB's doing overdubs on vintage BB outtakes and putting them on a *larger* BB archival compilation as a "Beach Boys" track, such a "Loop de Loop" and "Goin' to the Beach." We could perhaps add Brian's 1999 lead overdub on "You're Still a Mystery", although we don't know for sure what Brian's intentions were for the song in 1999.

There are presently no examples of that sort of thing occurring as a stand-alone track, either as a "single" or placed on an otherwise non-BB compilation or project.

If Mike cut this new track solo from scratch, I don't think Brian or Al would sign off on calling it "The Beach Boys" (nor do I think Mike would even try). If Mike overdubbed onto an old BB recording, I suppose it's possible enough BRI shareholders would agree to call it "The Beach Boys" if the track was kind of like the "Goin' to the Beach" scenario. But I don't think that's likely, and again, I don't think Mike would be likely to be inclined to either A) use an old 1977 backing track, or B) even attempt to release a new single as a "Beach Boys" product. I also don't envision, especially given the current interpersonal relations among some of the members, that Brian or Al would particularly want a twice-rejected 1977 backing track with Mike, Scott Totten, Jeff Foskett, etc. singing on it released as a "Beach Boys" single.

HeyJude, that sounds pretty much right on. Summing it up, there would need to be BRI approval for any release that would be labeled "The Beach Boys" as we've been saying. Let common sense be the guide as to what would or would not qualify for those conditions to get a "yes" vote. Also, let the years since 1998 at least be the example too, and consider what did and what did not get released as an official Beach Boys release. Anyone doubting what HeyJude above or anyone else has said on this, take a look at what has been released and how it was labeled in recent decades (NASCAR, Santa Goes To Kokomo, to name two), where these releases appeared, etc. It's set up so Mike or Al or Brian or anyone else can't put out what amounts to a solo release or something less than a true group effort and have it be a Beach Boys label on the release that might be misleading or not represent the name.

Agree 100% that nothing can come out as a BBs release without BRI's sign off. But no one has said - or even, as far as I can tell suggested - otherwise. People had only speculated about what might be on the way.

Matt Etherton's the only person after the OP to have offered solid fact about this single and I'd love to hear more of what he knows and is able to share.

But what solid fact did Matt Etherton offer, all he said was it's not a Beach Boys track - A few of us were saying that all along!   That was the debate among some members, the speculation as to what it would be.

Again, if I had driven to Boston, Somerville to be exact, and headed to Q Division...or if you had flown trans-Atlantic, John, and dropped in August 14th or thereabouts, you could have seen exactly what they were recording and sending to the west coast. From what Mike has said about it (what little it was so far), it won't be a Beach Boys single unless BRI signs off on it or unless something different develops in the next weeks. Mike can't release a Beach Boys single without BRI signing off, as we established.

[The Shift]

Alice Cooper is a hell of golfer along with his music career!

Yep, he needed golf in his life to help kick the booze.  And the help of a doctor named Landy. 

The golf kinda ruins his hell raiser image.

[Jim V.]

I have to say that I'm not really cool with what was done to runners. It was obviously a joke not aimed at anyone in particular. Not really liking the weird standards used by the mods these days.

[KDS]

Alice Cooper is a hell of golfer along with his music career!

Yep, he needed golf in his life to help kick the booze.  And the help of a doctor named Landy. 

The golf kinda ruins his hell raiser image.

So did his appearance on the Muppet Show and some of the bad music he put out in the early 1980s. 

Plus, thanks in part to MTV, it's really hard for an artist like Alice or KISS to maintain any kind of intrigue.  Alice has stated many times over that "Alice Cooper" is really just a character. 

[guitarfool2002]

Alice Cooper is a hell of golfer along with his music career!

Yep, he needed golf in his life to help kick the booze.  And the help of a doctor named Landy. 

The golf kinda ruins his hell raiser image.

So did his appearance on the Muppet Show and some of the bad music he put out in the early 1980s. 

Plus, thanks in part to MTV, it's really hard for an artist like Alice or KISS to maintain any kind of intrigue.  Alice has stated many times over that "Alice Cooper" is really just a character. 

The funny thing is "Alice Cooper" was the band name, and because Vincent Furnier was the frontman and face of the band it turned into him becoming *the* Alice Cooper. Odd how that happened, but not unexpected. Reminds me of "by the way, which one's Pink?" from Have A Cigar. 

[KDS]

Alice Cooper is a hell of golfer along with his music career!

Yep, he needed golf in his life to help kick the booze.  And the help of a doctor named Landy. 

The golf kinda ruins his hell raiser image.

So did his appearance on the Muppet Show and some of the bad music he put out in the early 1980s. 

Plus, thanks in part to MTV, it's really hard for an artist like Alice or KISS to maintain any kind of intrigue.  Alice has stated many times over that "Alice Cooper" is really just a character. 

The funny thing is "Alice Cooper" was the band name, and because Vincent Furnier was the frontman and face of the band it turned into him becoming *the* Alice Cooper. Odd how that happened, but not unexpected. Reminds me of "by the way, which one's Pink?" from Have A Cigar. 

Yeah, it's too bad the original Alice Cooper Group didn't stay together longer.  He put out some good solo albums with Welcome to My Nightmare and Go to Hell, but he hit a bit of a rough patch before his late 80s revival.  And he never came close to that string of albums with the original group - Love It To Death, Killer, Schools Out, Billion Dollar Babies, and Muscle of Love. 

[The Shift]

Like so many folk think Jethro Tull is Ian Anderson (I used to think Iain Anderson was Ian Anderson)!

[KDS]

Like so many folk think Jethro Tull is Ian Anderson (I used to think Iain Anderson was Ian Anderson)!

True.  The only difference here is that Ian Anderson didn't change his name to Jethro Tull.  And lately, it seems Anderson no longer wishes to tour with Jethro Tull. 

[Cam Mott]

Let common sense be your facts, not opinions.   

[DonnyL]

Here's what I think are the possible scenarios, ranked in order from what I consider to be most likely to least.

1. Mike Love re-recording released under the name "Mike Love", or some variant of "with Bruce Johnston, Jeff Foskett, whoever!!!" ... Not sure if "of the Beach Boys" is allowed at this point. Yawn. The thing is, it seems strange that such a thing would be in a Bill Murray movie. He seems like a hip guy and seems to associate with more interesting things.

2. The original track with some overdubs (maybe a new lead vocal) and remix, under the Beach Boys name. Less likely but certainly possible.

3. The original recording, maybe remixed, under the group's name. Stranger things have happened in BB land. This would be my preferred outcome ... The original mix of course 😀. The references to being "in the studio" to work on the song could be anything from re-recording from scratch to listening back to the original mix and approving it.

4. A brand new recording featuring the actual Beach Boys. Maybe this would be even better, since it would possibly point to more reunion work. Seems unlikely but you never know. Maybe Tony Asher wrote some new lyrics 😀

5. Scenario 1 released under the Beach Boys name. Could happen but I doubt it. And all hell would break loose around here if it did! This would be pretty super lame.

In any case, I think this news is potentially big, but most likely a snooze fest.

[KDS]

Here's what I think are the possible scenarios, ranked in order from what I consider to be most likely to least.

1. Mike Love re-recording released under the name "Mike Love", or some variant of "with Bruce Johnston, Jeff Foskett, whoever!!!" ... Not sure if "of the Beach Boys" is allowed at this point. Yawn. The thing is, it seems strange that such a thing would be in a Bill Murray movie. He seems like a hip guy and seems to associate with more interesting things.

I don't know about Bill Murray these days.  He tries really hard to be hip (appearing in Wes Anderson films), but he's apparently also making a cameo in the atrocious looking remake of Ghostbusters being released next summer. 

[HeyJude]

Here's what I think are the possible scenarios, ranked in order from what I consider to be most likely to least.

1. Mike Love re-recording released under the name "Mike Love", or some variant of "with Bruce Johnston, Jeff Foskett, whoever!!!" ... Not sure if "of the Beach Boys" is allowed at this point. Yawn. The thing is, it seems strange that such a thing would be in a Bill Murray movie. He seems like a hip guy and seems to associate with more interesting things.

2. The original track with some overdubs (maybe a new lead vocal) and remix, under the Beach Boys name. Less likely but certainly possible.

3. The original recording, maybe remixed, under the group's name. This would be my preferred outcome ... The original mix of course 😀. The references to being "in the studio" to work on the song could be anything from re-recording from scratch to listening back to the original mix and approving it.

4. A brand new recording featuring the actual Beach Boys. Maybe this would be even better, since it would possibly point to more reunion work.

5. Scenario 1 released under the Beach Boys name. Could happen but I doubt it. And all hell would break loose around here if it did! This would be pretty super lame.

In any case, I think this news is potentially big, but most likely a snooze fest.

While it’s almost surely not happening, I’d say even all five (or six or seven) Beach Boys reuniting to re-record “Alone on Christmas Day” from scratch would be a relative snooze fest. It would obviously have more happy implications (the guys working together), but the project itself doesn’t sound exciting in any iteration. I suppose if Mike has written a totally new song from scratch, and it’s a good song, and he has recorded a nice version of it, that could be appealing.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the ’77 track is horrible. It’s not that bad, and probably better than a few of the ’77 X-Mas tracks they included on “Ultimate Christmas.”

I’d also say that Mike’s mention of working on a track in the studio is highly unlikely to be a “listening session.” He described working on it (possibly remotely) with an outside producer (can’t remember the guy’s name). They wouldn’t do all of this if they were just remixing the ’77 track. Also, the track was vetoed from the ’98 “Ultimate Christmas” album, suggesting someone thought it was sub-par, and I’d venture to guess Mike himself would find the original lead vocal a little wonky.

And I’d say there’s a better chance of Mike recording a cover version of the entire “Sweet Insanity” album than there is a chance of Mike releasing a solo track under the “Beach Boys” name without BRI approval.

[Marty Castillo]

Here's what I think are the possible scenarios, ranked in order from what I consider to be most likely to least.

1. Mike Love re-recording released under the name "Mike Love", or some variant of "with Bruce Johnston, Jeff Foskett, whoever!!!" ... Not sure if "of the Beach Boys" is allowed at this point. Yawn. The thing is, it seems strange that such a thing would be in a Bill Murray movie. He seems like a hip guy and seems to associate with more interesting things.

I don't know about Bill Murray these days.  He tries really hard to be hip (appearing in Wes Anderson films), but he's apparently also making a cameo in the atrocious looking remake of Ghostbusters being released next summer. 

Beat me to it, also, see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield:_The_Movie

[KDS]

Here's what I think are the possible scenarios, ranked in order from what I consider to be most likely to least.

1. Mike Love re-recording released under the name "Mike Love", or some variant of "with Bruce Johnston, Jeff Foskett, whoever!!!" ... Not sure if "of the Beach Boys" is allowed at this point. Yawn. The thing is, it seems strange that such a thing would be in a Bill Murray movie. He seems like a hip guy and seems to associate with more interesting things.

I don't know about Bill Murray these days.  He tries really hard to be hip (appearing in Wes Anderson films), but he's apparently also making a cameo in the atrocious looking remake of Ghostbusters being released next summer. 

Beat me to it, also, see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield:_The_Movie

Bill Murray kind of admitted that was a mistake in his cameo in Zombieland. 

Fun fact - Lorenzo Music, the voice of cartoon Garfield, voiced Bill Murray's character Peter Venkman in the animated Real Ghostbusters.   Years later, Murray voiced Garfield in the live action movie of Garfield.