Wouldn't It Be Nice To Live Again

[The Shift]

Haven't heard the song yet (not in cover form either).

In theory, I might not like it at all.

But well, on the other hand...

It's a kind of "la-la-la-la-la…" with the words "wouldn't it be nice to live again" in there somewhere, maybe a "da-da-da-da…" or two or three… and some musical bits.  I'd share it but you know how it is…

[SMiLE Brian]

The track will come out in time.....

[LeeDempsey]

I really do think we should leave beachboys_fr in peace. Guy comes here looking for verification of a track and gets vilified for not sharing it before he's had chance to weigh up the risks of whether to share or not.  It's his disc, he paid for it, he can do what he likes.  If he'd said nothing we'd be none the wiser.

Absolutely. Were I to get access to something like that, the very last thing I would do is share it publicly in a way that could be traced back directly to me. Even were there no legal action, it would make it much less likely that I'd ever get any future access to such material.

Well said Andrew -- and based on my personal experiences, 100% true.  And John, I agree with you as well.

And now were back to calling a nice gentleman who is very knowledgeable about Beach Boys promo CDs "egotistical" and "selfish" if he doesn't share...

[Ang Jones]

I apologise unreservedly to the nice gentleman if he isn't egotistical or selfish! I just have had bad experiences of some people who like to gloat about things they have got that others haven't.  I can quite understand those who are reluctant to share because they are concerned about the consequences to themselves or to someone else but if there is anything illegal here it seems to be the acquisition of something that should not have been sold in the first place. I have to admit openly that had I known that this item was available I'd have put in a bid but I also admit I'd have passed on copies to my friends. If that seemed very unwise then I would have mentioned it to no-one.

I hope that it does come out in time but in time for what? It's already too late for some of those who would have liked to have heard it.

[Dancing Bear]

I think we should leave things as they are. A retrospective box set is set to be released in 2013 after all.

Now, if it doesn't include WIBNTLA.... By all means circulate the track, peferably as a flac file.

[GoofyJeff]

The entitlement mentality of this board is sickening, and a sad reflection on society as a whole.

Who gives a flying crap if he shares it or not?  If we were true fans, we would have known about the auction and bid on it ourselves.  He doesn't owe us anything.  Talk about selfish... the people who are like "Well he's selfish if he doesn't share it"  are the most selfish of all.  He won an item fair and square, came here to verify the authenticity of it.  He is under absolutely zero obligation to share it with you.

Of course, should he decide he wants to share it, I want in on the action too...

[LostArt]

 Think of it this way -- I love fine wines.  If I bought a bottle of 2000 Chateau Lafite Rothschild, I might take it to a nice restaurant to share with a few family members or close friends, but if you were a stranger sitting across the room I probably wouldn't pour you a glass.  The owner is well within his rights to share, or not share, as he pleases.

Lee

I don't think this analogy works.  Wine is a finite commodity - sharing a bottle of wine means that the owner gets to drink less of it.

Or, it means that the owner has one less bottle to sell.

Sharing music doesn't reduce the owner's listening experience one bit. The only difference is that the owner doesn't get the egotistical satisfaction of knowing he is the only one, or one of an elite, to have this item.

Correct.  The rarity of the item gives the item a much higher financial value.  If you've got the only one, it's worth much more. (Economics 101)

Let's take another example. Suppose I had discovered the cure for cancer. Would it be incredibly selfish to keep it just for myself? The answer is surely yes.

Suppose you won $50,000 in the lottery.  Would it be incredibly selfish to keep the money just for yourself?  Heck, why not just hand it over to some strangers on a message board.

The owner of this item may have the legal right not to share...

May have the legal right not to share?  The owner definitely has every right not to share.

...but maybe at some time in the future there will be someone who has something he wants and also refuses to help.

That is life.  If you want something bad enough, you try to find one, and if you're lucky enough to find one for sale, you pay what the seller is asking.  If you don't find one, life goes on.

But 'not for sale' doesn't include giving away, does it?

Really? 

[Cabinessenceking]

The entitlement mentality of this board is sickening, and a sad reflection on society as a whole.

Who gives a flying crap if he shares it or not?  If we were true fans, we would have known about the auction and bid on it ourselves.  He doesn't owe us anything.  Talk about selfish... the people who are like "Well he's selfish if he doesn't share it"  are the most selfish of all.  He won an item fair and square, came here to verify the authenticity of it.  He is under absolutely zero obligation to share it with you.

Of course, should he decide he wants to share it, I want in on the action too...

You say being a true fan entails bidding for a promo CD from a very recent comp. I beg to differ.

The sale was not very public in any way (other members, including myself, had not been aware of the auction) and even amongst Beach Boys fans there are very few who actually haunt e-bay and the like in order to pounce given the unlikely scenario of an unreleased track showing up; it's appearance most likely accidental. Furthermore I will bear down upon your statement on the grounds that there was actually another fan who did bid for the CD yet was unwilling to spend more than 400 USD for the sake of a single track.

After all, beachboys_fr did not know about this track, so sharing the file electronically while keeping the phyrical promo CD (which was his original intention) will be of no consequence for him. He will still have the promo CD he desired for the collection and we would all be hearing WIBNTLA.

On the other hand he can use it as leverage against Capitol who will probably attempt to dissuade the leak by bribing him with signed SMiLE surfboards and 1 year free supply of Pacifico.

[rab2591]

The entitlement mentality of this board is sickening, and a sad reflection on society as a whole.

Who gives a flying crap if he shares it or not?  If we were true fans, we would have known about the auction and bid on it ourselves.  He doesn't owe us anything.  Talk about selfish... the people who are like "Well he's selfish if he doesn't share it"  are the most selfish of all.  He won an item fair and square, came here to verify the authenticity of it.  He is under absolutely zero obligation to share it with you.

Of course, should he decide he wants to share it, I want in on the action too...

100% agree. I almost hope beachboys_fr doesn't share the track just because of some of the comments above. The guy paid $$$ for this CD and I was flabbergasted that he even shared interest in letting other people hear it....yet some of you feel like you're owed this track? Get real.

[SMiLE Brian]

Agreed with rab, the badgering for this track is getting lame. Its one BBs outtake for crying out loud and calling a guy "selfish" just because he has it is not cool.

[LeeDempsey]

Since a few folks have had fun with my wine analogy, now that I've slept on it a day, I'd like to amend it...

I said if you were a stranger sitting across the room, I probably wouldn't share a glass of the 2000 Lafite.  But let's say you came across the room, introduced yourself politely, engaged me in conversation about your appreciation for fine wines, and impressed me with your knowledge.  I might be inclined to pour you a glass, and even if I didn't, I might invite you to my next wine tasting so that I could get to know you better.

Let's say you came across the room, and demanded a glass, because you like French Bordeaux, and I obviously have enough to share.  Your chances of getting a glass are nil.

Lee

[drbeachboy]

Agreed with rab, the badgering for this track is getting lame. Its one BBs outtake for crying out loud and calling a guy "selfish" just because he has it is not cool.

For the first time I am in total agreement with you. No one is entitled to anything. Considering he paid $400 for essentially one song and to own a reference CD, I think it only right that we pay him $400 each to own a lossless file of WIBNTLA. Any takers? Didn't think so.

[leggo of my ego]

guess we have learned something here. If I had a rarity I wanted to share...

1) would not blab it on the board

2) would pm a few here and burn about 10 Cds and send them out.

3) Nature would do the rest

[leggo of my ego]

beachboys_fr if you just read my post if your comfortable with that go for it!

[drbeachboy]

guess we have learned something here. If I had a rarity I wanted to share...

1) would not blab it on the board

2) would pm a few here and burn about 10 Cds and send them out.

3) Nature would do the rest

For a board that is monitored such as this one, yea announcing & sharing here is not a smart thing, legally speaking.

[Cabinessenceking]

Agreed with rab, the badgering for this track is getting lame. Its one BBs outtake for crying out loud and calling a guy "selfish" just because he has it is not cool.

For the first time I am in total agreement with you. No one is entitled to anything. Considering he paid $400 for essentially one song and to own a reference CD, I think it only right that we pay him $400 each to own a lossless file of WIBNTLA. Any takers? Didn't think so.

This is silliness

If he shares the track with us, he will still have the collectors item the promo CD is. He loses nothing by sharing the track.


TWOTS promo CD      = 400 USD
WIBNTLA                 ≠ 400 USD


I repeat: he loses NOTHING sharing that track. I can hardly see why this is an issue and now, by coming back to reply but not sharing and after having disclosed to everyone here that he has the track, he decides to not share? Uhm yes this is not really a very credible road of decision making. Ofc if he worries about legal matters then it is perfectly understandable that he does as he wants to.

Anyway this is just my opinion on the matter and I will hold my peace until something of substance and less frustration shows up...

[Ang Jones]

In response to Lost Art, if I won $50000 in a lottery and decided to keep it, it is the same as if I had a bottle of Lafite Rothschild and decided to drink all of it or sell it. Giving some away diminishes the amount I have left. But if I have a song, copying and giving away costs me virtually nothing. I got loads of criticism for likening to someone having the cure for cancer and keeping it to themselves. Of course I did not mean that Dennis' song is as important as the cure for cancer but the principle remains the same. If any of us has something they know is valuable to others and yet doesn't share it, whilst that is undoubtedly their right, it is not a generous attitude to take although if they are motivated by a wish to avoid bad consequences for themselves or others the situation is of course different.

The moniker 'Lost Art' is ironic really. I don't like the idea of lost art - I would rather we all get the benefit of it. I don't care that I don't own the original folio of Shakespeare or the manuscript of Beethoven's 9th Symphony or the Mona Lisa. I just want these things to be available for everyone.

And I agree entirely with the above post.  But I would actually be prepared to pay $400 for Wouldn't It Be Nice to Live Again if it was officially released as a special collector's item for this price and if this was the only way I could get it, I'd pay up.

[hypehat]

In response to Lost Art, if I won $50000 in a lottery and decided to keep it, it is the same as if I had a bottle of Lafite Rothschild and decided to drink all of it or sell it. Giving some away diminishes the amount I have left. But if I have a song, copying and giving away costs me virtually nothing. I got loads of criticism for likening to someone having the cure for cancer and keeping it to themselves. Of course I did not mean that Dennis' song is as important as the cure for cancer but the principle remains the same. If any of us has something they know is valuable to others and yet doesn't share it, whilst that is undoubtedly their right, it is not a generous attitude to take although if they are motivated by a wish to avoid bad consequences for themselves or others the situation is of course different.

No it really isn't, you goon. I don't think any of us hearing an mp3 will literally save millions of lives around the planet.

I mean, even the bottle of plonk analogy is better than that. He paid $400 for a physical object, with an appeal to a few knowledgeable folk. No-one dies needlessly as a result of having not heard a Beach Boys outtake. If you insist on using that analogy, you're really showing that you either don't know or care about the implications of what you're saying. Which, seeing as you're obviously so desperate for this track, is not a good look. Calm yourself.

[Lowbacca]

Agreed with rab, the badgering for this track is getting lame. Its one BBs outtake for crying out loud and calling a guy "selfish" just because he has it is not cool.

For the first time I am in total agreement with you. No one is entitled to anything. Considering he paid $400 for essentially one song and to own a reference CD, I think it only right that we pay him $400 each to own a lossless file of WIBNTLA. Any takers? Didn't think so.

This is silliness

If he shares the track with us, he will still have the collectors item the promo CD is. He loses nothing by sharing the track.


TWOTS promo CD      = 400 USD
WIBNTLA                 ≠ 400 USD


I repeat: he loses NOTHING sharing that track. I can hardly see why this is an issue and now, by coming back to reply but not sharing and after having disclosed to everyone here that he has the track, he decides to not share? Uhm yes this is not really a very credible road of decision making. Ofc if he worries about legal matters then it is perfectly understandable that he does as he wants to.

Anyway this is just my opinion on the matter and I will hold my peace until something of substance and less frustration shows up...

The fact that said promo CD contains a much fantasized-about, still unreleased track by Dennis Wilson highly contributes to its monetary value - doesn't it? Thus, by sharing WIBNTLA and making it somewhat available, Monsieur Collector would indeed lose something. N'est-ce pas?

[hypehat]

Only if he intended on selling it in the future. Which is none of our business.

[drbeachboy]

Agreed with rab, the badgering for this track is getting lame. Its one BBs outtake for crying out loud and calling a guy "selfish" just because he has it is not cool.

For the first time I am in total agreement with you. No one is entitled to anything. Considering he paid $400 for essentially one song and to own a reference CD, I think it only right that we pay him $400 each to own a lossless file of WIBNTLA. Any takers? Didn't think so.

This is silliness

If he shares the track with us, he will still have the collectors item the promo CD is. He loses nothing by sharing the track.


TWOTS promo CD      = 400 USD
WIBNTLA                 ≠ 400 USD


I repeat: he loses NOTHING sharing that track. I can hardly see why this is an issue and now, by coming back to reply but not sharing and after having disclosed to everyone here that he has the track, he decides to not share? Uhm yes this is not really a very credible road of decision making. Ofc if he worries about legal matters then it is perfectly understandable that he does as he wants to.

Anyway this is just my opinion on the matter and I will hold my peace until something of substance and less frustration shows up...

Should he get sued by the RIAA or BRI, it will cost him plenty. Besides, he did not post here to share the track, just to verify that he had the real thing. It is very presumptuous of you to think anything else. I don't care if it is your opinion or a point of fact, it is not for you or I suppose anything with beachboys_fr or his track.

[Lowbacca]

Only if he intended on selling it in the future. Which is none of our business.

I never said it was. Of course it isn't.
Doesn't change the fact that openly sharing WIBNTLA might diminish his CD's value (to BBs collectors & aficionados).

[The Shift]

Tiresome. Some good folks here are casting themselves in a jealous light. Ain't becoming, and this, note, from someone who himself has been not becoming in the past.

[pixletwin]

Meh. He probably won't share it. Which is his right. I would probably be too scared of law suits to share it too. I have resigned myself to wait for it's (hopefully) imminent release on MiC.

[Ang Jones]

Hypehat - I have ALREADY and REPEATEDLY explained that I am not equating the value of Dennis' song to the cure for cancer.

And I agree that the financial value of Wouldn't It Be Nice to Live Again would be less if more had it. But there is more to life than money. And a time is coming when few will have heard of it and even fewer will care.