The Smiley Smile Message Board

Mike and Bruce will be touring Australia in November and were on ABC Breakfast TV this morning .... usual jabba jabba with the interviewer asking uncomfortable question about their relationship with Brian but in the interview Mike said that they would be debuting their "new single" ... Alone on Christmas ... Mike said it was to be featured in the new Bill Murray movie and that it was an old song so I'm guessing its what we know as Alone On Christmas Day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLOITFxI0GE

Interesting. Will surely be "released" under Mike's name. Assuming it's a re-recording of the 70's track, it's interesting that he's re-doing one that was left off "Ultimate Christmas." His lead is a bit shaky on the original version, perhaps it was vetoed from "Ultimate Christmas" for that reason...

That original circa '77 version linked on YouTube is running way too fast, if it's worth mentioning.

Wow, never noticed before how much the backing track sounds like King Harvest's "Dancing in the Moonlight" (BB's touring band members Ron Altbach and Eddie Tuleja were members of that band, as was Dave "Doc" Robinson of Celebration).

Lee

*yawn* more retread crap from Mike Love.

Still can't write sh*t after trashing NPP this year. ::)

I assume that this is for A Very Murray Christmas which is coming out on Netflix?

That's a nice song, I'd actually never heard it and I'll be curious to hear the new version.  

It will at least be a hell of a lot better than Santa Goes to Kokomo.  :lol

Why under his own name? It could be the original version. Was it mentioned that it was rerecorded? Since the original was never officially released, it could be under the Beach Boys.

Just as effed up as any other horrendous myKe luHv song ever was.  ::)

There was another blurb somewhere on another thread where Mike mentioned finishing a Christmas track in the studio recently. I suppose he could be overdubbing the old BB recording. But my guess is a total re-record, similar to his "First Love" re-recordings.

Truly! I'd never paid attention to this song at any length before - not great songwriting, but sonically kinda interesting!

On the interview Mike says that Alone On christmas Day is a song he wrote back in the 60's, so maybe it is a new unheard song...

Strewth! That's awful ...

Haven't heard that Mike interview… I guess a newly recorded version with Mike Brian Al Bruce and all is already ruled out though? Needs some lyrical clunkers ironing out…

Assuming it is the “Alone on Christmas Day” we know (and, probably, even if it’s a different song), I don’t think a one-off, mediocre or middling Christmas song would be the best use of reuniting the band again for a new single.

I think the only way any other BBs beyond Bruce are on this is if Mike is using the old ’77 track and overdubbing onto it. This seems relatively unlikely. (And in some if not most cases I think when Mike cuts studio stuff solo he doesn’t even use Bruce). Far easier to re-record the song from scratch.

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.

In all honestly, I'd rather see this as a stand alone Mike Love song. 

Even if somehow the stars aligned, and Brian and Al joined Mike to add some vocals, I couldn't imagine the final  Beach Boys song being a one off Xmas single on a soundtrack. 

I'd much rather have Summer's Gone remain as the coda to The Beach Boys studio career. 

As a stand alone, Mike Love Christmas song, it could be a lot worse. 

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.

I know that. Do we know for sure it is a new recording or even a partial new recording? Where does it say Jeff and Bruce are on a new recording? I haven't seen anything that said that. My point is, if they use the original recording and BRI agreed, it could possibly come out as Beach Boys recording. The three surviving Beach Boys are the same three on the original recording.

Maybe they can use the original version and include it on an upcoming release called -

The Beach Boys - Definitive Ultimate Christmas

While theoreticals are probably pointless since this will almost surely be a totally new recording, BRI would presumably have to approve Mike even using the original recording as a basis for a new overdub session, etc. In terms of what name the release could have, it depends on the scenario. Mike had Scott Totten overdub guitar onto “Goin’ to the Beach”, and it was still a “Beach Boys” recording. In that case, it was Mike adorning a “Beach Boys” song; it was still a 1979 track with just a little overdub. Similarly, Al overdubbed a new lead (and maybe other stuff) in 1998 for “Loop de Loop.” Then you have stuff like Al’s “Don’t Fight the Sea”, where he continually overdubbed the song for years and released it as a “new” song.

I could see Mike partially re-recording the X-Mas track for a BB release and having it still billed as a BB track. But as a stand-alone single, I think even if he overdubbed an old backing track (and even if BRI let him use the tape), it would probably be issued as a solo track as “Don’t Fight the Sea” was.

Obviously, BRI has to approve both the use of any old recordings and use of the BB name. That’s not in question. The question in this case is whether there’s any plausible scenario why any of that would happen? I don’t think Mike would want to use any old recorded elements, and even if he did, I don’t think BRI would want it released as a BB track. Would Mike slap the “Beach Boys” name on his new solo recording if he could? I dunno; probably. I’m assuming this track will either be offered as a free download or be sold as a $1 download. I don’t think he’s going to see huge sales on this thing.

He would stand to make a decent chunk of change if he cut a deal for the song to be used in a movie or TV show/movie; which is another factor that would lead me to believe he would cut such a deal for a solo track.

I think the issue is that it doesn't seem plausible that BRI would agree.

While the demise of C50 showed the group as a whole and individually aren't so great when it comes to PR and business strategy, I would still think they'd be smart enough to know that a partial Mike Love re-recording of song from a rejected 1977/78 album (a track which was then rejected as a bonus track in 1998), released in obscurity as a holiday-themed single might not get them the best bang for their buck in terms of publicity or critical acclaim or sales.

Even a boring re-recording of another classic BB track pushed as another "reunion" single would make more sense.

Since some are stretching this pretty far when there really isn't any room to stretch as far as the standards in place for releasing any new material as "The Beach Boys", how about this. What label hypothetically would release it if Mike and members of his live band are the featured musicians on any hypothetical newly recorded track? It cannot be called "The Beach Boys" unless the standards are met, and we know what those are. So where is the argument?  The license is for billing live shows, the standards for releasing new material are separate and different. It's funny how there really is no argument if the actual licensing and naming standards are considered, yet there are speculations running wild over what this hypothetical single could be labeled. Interesting. Maybe they'll come up with a new variation of how previous releases like the NASCAR album were labeled.

The standards being implied in this thread would allow anyone with a vote on the BRI board to overdub onto an existing BB's recording from the archives that the band members recorded in the past and release it as The Beach Boys on a single or new album, does that make any sense? Not to me, especially since the rules and regs were put in place to prevent that from happening, and it hasn't happened in the past few decades.

At the end of the day, it's a very good song, one of the better originals from that period.  It will be interesting to see what's done with it.  I'd love to see some new material from these guys before it's too late... regardless of the name attached.

Isn't it weird to think that, barring any new BB recordings (which seems quite unlikely at this point), that Going to the Beach may wind up being the last BB song which a recording session was held for?

That is sad. 

Even sadder is that its been in just about every BB setlist since the official release on MIC.  Yet, TWGMTR has been, with few exceptions, ignored in sets by both camps. 

I guess I missed this... What did he say about NPP?

The only mention by Mike of NPP was when he was asked if he'd heard "The Right Time" (this was prior to the release of the album), and he said he hadn't heard it.  If he said anything related to NPP after that, I didn't see it. 

My take on this new Christmas song: "Hopefully no autotune."

Thats what Mike said about NPP and Pisces brothers is loaded with autotune! :lol

You having a bad day? Damn, lighten up a bit. It's just talk. I'd say at this point we know jack, except for a Mike blurb saying the song will be part of a movie soundtrack. But now that I think about it, even with everyone's participation, Don't Fight The Sea was released as by all the individuals and not "The Beach Boys". So, no matter how it is released it most likely will not be The Beach Boys.

My day is and has been just fine, but thanks for asking just the same.

It will not be The Beach Boys because such a release cannot be from "The Beach Boys" unless those releasing it either ignore or change the standards that have been in place for years. Funny, I think that was the original point I made before you brought up a cassette you bought off Ebay or something.

Anyway, hopefully no autotune.

Just remember, it is just a discussion not a college course. Talk, throw out ideas, have fun, a fan forum. Glad your day is going well. :) Just one last thing. Lots of tracks have been released through the years as The Beach Boys. On Endless Harmony, Hawthorne, Ultimate Christmas, etc., so if untouched, why not one track from an aborted Beach Boys album? I get it if Mike remakes the tune that it can't be a Beach Boys track, but if it is from the vaults, then why not?

Fair point. Boils down to, I guess : does BRI have to approve every release with the name  The Beach Boys ? 

Yes it requires approval, and the question of whether an individual band member in the present day can go into the Beach Boys vaults, pull out an old track, record new tracks on top of it, and release it as a Beach Boys single where no current band members (or board members) are on it should be obvious, unless it comes to a BRI vote and approval is given with that vote to release a Beach Boys new recording. And even beyond BRI, what label would handle a Beach Boys single at this point in 2015 with only Mike on the record? Surely not Capitol, they have their own standards in place via contracts they'd negotiate with the band, I think.

That it is still being argued here says a lot.  :)

Beyond this, what would be wrong with Mike Love releasing this (or any hypothetical) single under his own name? If it's not an issue, than why not put it out as a Mike Love solo single and leave the Beach Boys out of the title, labeling, naming, etc? Let the song stand on its own merits as Mike's release if Mike is indeed the only Beach Boy who recorded something on the new single.

Anyone with half an ounce of common sense knows what is or isn't the Beach Boys, why try to stretch the parameters and move the goalposts if it's not or if it won't be?

Point being: The Dr suggested it might simply be the BBs track taken from the vaults and released. That's what I termed a fair point.
Nothing about adding new tracks to it, But simply BEING A BBs TRACK, could it be released for the Bill Murray movie? I suppose BRI needs to approve, but other than that....

How often have BRI/The Beach Boys pulled one single, totally unreleased, ancient, archival track from the vaults, and simply released it on its own as a single and/or offered it up for a movie? They probably *should* be shopping around to do that to help the band’s brand (though probably not with “Alone on Christmas Day”), but they haven’t been doing much of that in this type of scenario.

And again, Mike has already mentioned that they were *in the studio* working on the song recently. Unless Mike has been talking about two separate Christmas-themed tracks, it’s pretty likely I’d say this track is a Mike solo deal, as it has been with “Pisces Brothers” and “Santa’s Goin’ to Kokomo”, etc.

I'd be interested to read these "licensing and naming standards" - could you please post them or provide a link?

Where is Mike's online PR manager to fact check us to death? ;)

And you're probably dead on here; sounds to be a Mike solo/ non-BBs track.
But I think it's possible Murray/ the movie's producers wanted a BBs tack for their release and someone may have offered them this one?   
As no-one seems to know any details at this point, it's anyone's guess.

… and there's a curious thing - if Murray/Murray's handlers did indeed want a BBs' track for the movie, would they accept a Mike Love solo track in its stead, given the proven lack of commercial viability of Mike's solo material and the fact that half the folks purporting to be Beach Boys fans actively dislike him and deride anything he's ever done?

When the truth does come out, it'll no doubt piss on more picnics…

unless, somehow, Bill Murray knows/likes/ is friends with Mike
By the way, can I see your copy of the report showing half of all BBs fans actively dislike Mike?

:lol

It's somewhere in my thesis, looking into the fact that 75% of cited statistics are made up

OK. just thought I'd check. Reports I've seen show most of those fans aren't active

Sounds like it. A RS link from May has no mention of Mike or the Beach Boys but that could have changed.

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/videos/bill-murray-sofia-coppola-team-up-for-a-very-murray-christmas-20150522

You know my motto, strike while the plastic is melting! Or something like that.

Cousin Mike, perhaps this will do as a cover for your single?

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5736/21452183898_3812a578df_o.jpg)

There were quite a few sources for the same info, all dated may 22. I don't think anything else has made the news since, until Mike's announcement.
And just as with the RS piece, none of the sites I found mentioned anything about music( other than artists listed as starring with Bill. I noticed only Miley,)

I'll get right on that, John, but I now regret not making a drive back to my old stomping grounds in and around Boston back in August. I could have dropped into Q Division in Somerville that weekend of the 14th and asked someone directly what was going on with all this stuff. Oops...

I'll make a deal. Someone post more than .03 seconds worth of examples of the supposed "excessive" autotune on No Pier Pressure to justify all of that stuff, and I'll post a link to the BRI rules and regs. Deal?

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).

Not a Beach Boys release. I think I remember saying that here or something...but thanks for the reminder!  ;D

Opinions stated as fact...hmmm, let's see, where can we start on that ball of wax...summon the fact checkers, the keepers of the historical information, in those we trust! Tote that barge, lift that bale, rally 'round the flag boys...ahh, never mind.  :)

Fact or opinion?   ;)

Kokomo?

Silly me, one would think he was talking about the current situation, or at least the post-Landy situation.

Or maybe Ted Cruz just likes randomly spouting out the word "Kokomo" whenever he feels like it.

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?

The latter in your case. 3rd time is the charm.

Glad to have that stated as fact. Would appreciate a source though, please?

What's your source?  :)

Eh?  ???

What part of this post deserves a ban?

In an earlier reply to a comment about this being or not being a Beach Boys release, you said when the truth comes out, it will piss on a few picnics or something along those lines, and combined with the reply to Etherton's "not a Beach Boys release" above it sounded like you may know something more about it.

You explain it then. Who is being called an asshole?

No one. The post is describing his perception of the attitudes on display in this thread. No one is being called an asshole.

Ah… the. Maybe I should have phrased it "pissed on a few picnics either way."

Glad one of us is paying attention.

My picnic's doused… I'd've loved for this to have been a rewritten newly recorded Brian-produced version by all the surviving main members. Cos despite everything that's still my fantasy.

That is also how I understood it. I really hope this isn't a banning issue.

In general, why not post normal, conversational sentences that don't need to be translated? This schtick is stale, man. It's not funny, it's not clever, it often makes no sense, and if I post a reply to you or anyone as was posted above, do you THINK someone might not get the joke of the wording that includes the word ASSHOLE in caps?

True, why would we want anyone to be unconventional when we could all stick to the same format?

Are we really going to send someone away because they're different? I can tell you see what the intention was. The question is: is he going to remained banned due to an misunderstanding on your part?

So "a lot of people here" are quoted as saying "LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT, ASSHOLE", and this is supposed to mean what, exactly? Who are the people, who is being told love it or leave it, who is being called an asshole, and what reply is expected at this point? It doesn't make sense. Beyond that, why not post something that at least makes sense which others can reply to, and debate, and argue about, and discuss? Like a normal conversation, or debate, or argument, or pissing match, for example. This makes no sense.

I'm still trying to figure out what the *point* of the post was to begin with! But looking at his post history, I could say that about many of his past posts as well.

Someone explain it, then explain why it couldn't have been said that way in the first place.

If Runnerz is banned, like Mikie before and no doubt others, I think … well I don't know what to think any more. Not sure I dare state what I think.

At this point I think Emo Phillips buzzing on nitrous would make more sense then some of those posts, but what do I know.  :)

You guys can't be so dense as to not understand what he's saying. It's simply a way of expressing his view that people are exhibiting a "love it or leave it" mentality while being belligerent with each other. Hence the insult at the end. He called no one an "asshole". In fact, it seems quite clear that it's how he sees other people interacting with each other.

As for why he couldn't have said it like that... Why should he have to? Are we not allowed to do things differently? Come on, this is ridiculous. You're banning someone on the basis of "I don't get it".

Love or leave what? Please explain it.

And who was being belligerent to each other in this thread? Please explain it.

I think we should all have the power to ban someone who personally offends us. Even if they weren't actually offending us personally, actually. That way there'd be none of us left within a few days and there'd be world peace…

Once again, this is a post that describes what he thinks. Some of it is easy to understand, the rest I won't speak for. Why didn't you ask him these things before you banned him? Perhaps you woulda got your "normal conversation".

Love it or leave it, asshole. That's what a lot of people here are saying.

So it's basically like abstract art, ASSHOLE used in a post has to be interpreted a specific way so the true meaning is conveyed? Seriously?

Now. You just did actually call me an asshole. Dare I suggest you backtrack?

John, he didn't. He was quoting runners...he (runners) used 'a lot of people' in the quote field in the past.

The only thing that can logically happen next is that guitarfool is banned.

Well I took it personally. That's my take and if I had the power I'd've banned him by now cos that's the way things seem to roll around here. Is my point getting across?

I was repeating "runnersdial"'s original post verbatim, and you took it as a personal insult. I did that purposely not to call you, John, any expletive name or insult, but to show how absurd it really is from the beginning and how statements, phrases, and words in general can be taken many different ways depending on the reader. Right? If I had used the quote function...not an insult. Minus quotes...insult. Does that seem logical?

Point is, the word ASSHOLE in caps should not be part of someone's post that could be read by other members in the same way you read mine, and this abstract Dada-ist posting stuff may be funny for some but possibly not as much for most readers.

Oh so I'm being taught a lesson? Gee thanks… humble thanks…

John misunderstood your arty approach to posting, GF. Apparently that's legitimate grounds for bans now. Is this just gonna be a one-week suspension for you, or longer?

Well, John, you just said you would have banned me for quoting exactly what RunnersDialZero posted because you thought you were being called an asshole in my post (which wasn't my wording), yet you defended RunnersDialZero when he was posting it originally as a reply. So I get banned for quoting the exact words that you defended another for posting in a reply.

Right?

I just looked back… Runnerz post quoted no one directly, while yours was a direct reply to my post, even quoting it direct. So you're not calling me an asshole? Lemme have a think abou how that works?

It's okay though, I won't ban you on this occasion.

When RunnersDialZero posts "a lot of people here are saying: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT, ASSHOLE" in a reply, it's a commentary. When I post the same words verbatim in a reply, it's a personal insult.

So the "ban" should be applied to the words when someone takes them as a personal insult, but not when the interpretation of those same exact words is something other than an insult.

Just so we have all the details.

Let's make sure to fill in these details:

Calling no one an "asshole" = banned
Calling someone an "asshole" = mod

Posting an exact quote is calling someone an asshole? Is that your definition?

No, just actually calling someone that is. Which you did. Which Runners did not.
Hey, man, maybe it was a misunderstanding. But, like, so what? I'm all confused by your arty way of posting.

There's a quote function for posting direct quotes. Really appreciate you going to the trouble of typing it all out again.

I'm late to the party (have taken a well-earned break from this board and actually online in general with a few rare exceptions), and I stumbled onto this thread quite by chance, not knowing what I would end up finding.

So here's my two cents, and if I've misunderstood anyone , feel free to correct me; I'm not posting this as a 'Billy the Mod' but rather as 'myself'...

I don't think ANYBODY was calling anyone an asshole, at least initially. I read the initial post from runners and didn't know what the f*** it was about. That post I made earlier (first one, not the second)? That was my immediate reaction after reading the thread for the first time. Now as for happened later....I'm not speaking for anybody, but how *I* took it was GF posted what runners said verbatim to prove a point, in that how easy it would be for someone to take the initial post wrong (or right?) way. And what happened after *that* actually proved that point. He wasn't calling John an asshole.

That's just how I see it. Again, I'm open to admit I may be interpreting it wrong.

Oh, okay, so because you understood, you were okay with it. What about the other people that didn't understand it? Should we be able to ban guitarfool because his intention wasn't clear to the rest of us?

So your interpretation of it is the way it is, right? Because you say so, I apparently called John Manning an asshole even after I went through explaining that whole thing. Because you say so, the original "asshole" post was a deep social commentary on the interactions between board members...because you say that's what it is. Ok, so putting up a statement to "no one" isn't insulting, but quoting that same statement in a reply to someone is an insult.

Are you sure you know?

Why not just try posting conversationally in the first place? Not using the word ASSHOLE, things like that...clears up a lot of misunderstandings before they even start. Just an idea. Oh, and posting statements that people can read and understand and not need a translation to help explain the deeper meaning behind the words...that helps things run more smooth as well.

How's that?

So your interpretation of Runners' post is the way it is, right? Because you say so, he apparently offended some people by being obtuse even after I went through explaining that whole thing. Because you say so, your "asshole" post was deep commentary on the nature of communications... because you say that's what it is. So putting up a direct reply and calling someone an "asshole" isn't offensive, but putting up one that is directed towards no one is an offense.

Sure.

Great, so are you banned, or is Runners coming back?

Send a PM to "Diet Pepsi - Uh Huh", ask him.

Okay, third option then: hypocrite.

Ok then.

If he thought he called you an asshole, wouldn't you be pissed and want him gone? So runners posted what he did in response to GF (the EXACT same way that GF did to John), and it honest to God looked like he was calling GF an asshole, until I read the proceeding posts. SO yeah, I didn't know what it was about. And really, I *still* don't. If he (runners) was making a point, the question is , 'why'? Why at that exact time? Nothing in the previous posts indicated that such a post was warranted. Completely out of the blue. It was either as out of place as the whole 'I farted' Brian-ism mentioned in the Wilson Project book, or a response to GF.  Or was he talking to Cam? If it was indeed a 'commentary' on attitudes here, it was a very odd moment to do so...nothing was out of hand at all! This is (or rather, was...) one of the mildest Mike threads I've seen on this board...why in the hell would he post that if not in direct response?

BUT IT'S NOT THE EXACT SAME. Runners directly quoted no one - he just happened to post after GF did. Is his ban upheld for poor timing? He posted that half an hour after GF posted his preceding post. In GF's later post, he directly quoted John Manning. The difference could not be more clear. And, as a matter of fact, John "took it personally". And guess what? He didn't ask for his removal.

How would I or anyone else reading that post know how or when he happened to post, how he meant to post, or to whom he was directing the comments at after that post appeared out of the blue? I thought he could have been calling Cam an asshole as much as me or whoever else had posted previously in the thread...it made no sense, either as a post to "no one" or as a commentary on the way posters were interacting with each other when there had been no disparaging remarks up to the point where the word asshole appeared in capital letters.

Then the way I quoted those same words, whether or not I used a certain reply function or quotation marks or something else...my quote of someone else's words, verbatim, was seen as a personal insult, but the original words were not...and I'm the hypocrite?

Sure.

Oh, well then, sure, when you put it that way: if you don't know, you might as well make wild assumptions and ban people because you feel like it. Sounds reasonable. Glad you're a moderator.

How often did runners actually quote anybody though?

Okay, here's the thing...I sure would like to know from runners himself what he meant. Not third-hand, not interpretations. If he meant it as a direct attack, then that's that. Now, if that wasn't his intention, then I'd like to hear it from him.

Ban lifted for the time being.

And with that, to bed.

I took it personally and still do but I'm not offended by it. What's the principle here though? A mod gets personally upset and hands out a ban wihout any right of reply/ investigation/ consideration of ambiguity? A mod makes a personally offensive post but everyone has to consider what the intended meaning behind its mysticism might be? Ban us all and have done wih it!

Your constant pushing and arguing this is really unnecessary. You don't even know what was going to happen, and you keep arguing for the sake of arguing. Enough already, don't you think?

Cool post.

YEAH! Welcome back Runnerz.

Yep, I'm happy with the results and now I'm going to bed.

Yeah, cool, even after you got an explanation, John.

Oh sh*t, here we go again…

Oh sh*t, here we go again again…

Keep it classy.

So "asshole" is classy?

As Billy suggested, I'm off to bed.

Just to get back on track - Apparently there is a new 'Christmas Single' slated, any one know anything about it  ;) ?

AND to lighten the mood 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but whips and chains excite me'

Oh hi.  I'm new here, and boy it looks like there's a lot of love around.

Thanks guitar fool for getting me on board.  Literally. :)

I think Rob just posted his Christmas wish list

Merry Christmas everybody.

Bubbly -  :beer :beer :beer
John - :beer :beer :beer
Billy -  :beer

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?

In the words of the immortal Ron Burgundy:

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

"Brick killed a guy." 

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.

But we're all in bed now and not monitoring the thread at all  8o


Well, I am …

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

Drink up!

(http://ddw.com/sites/default/files/05_BudLight_Lime_0.jpg)

The heck with this Christmas single. 

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

 ;D

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.

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.  :o

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.

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. 

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

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

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 golf kinda ruins his hell raiser image.

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.

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.  ;D

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. 

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. 

Let common sense be your facts, not opinions.   ;D

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

The producer's name is Michael Lloyd. Back in August when Mike and the band were in New England around the Cape for a series of shows that weekend, they went to Somerville Mass. and had that studio called Q Division linked up with producer Lloyd who was in California at a studio. Vocals were being worked on, if you believe the hype.  :)  There was a picture of Lloyd shown sitting at the board mixing "vocals" for that session, again linked up with the band in Massachusetts.

Prior to that, there was an interview with Mike where he mentioned going over older tracks with producer Michael Lloyd with ideas of how to update them, or words to that effect. Then the more recent interview was also where Mike mentioned working up a Christmas song.

So that's the pieces of the puzzle, connect them however.

I feel safe in saying that if Mike were able to do so, without strife, opposition, etc, he would gladly release a new recording of this (and other songs) under The BBs brand name. He probably feels like his hands are tied, because something like the NASCAR release with "Of The BBs" in large print with the true names of the musicians in small print just looked so clunky and frankly, ridiculous (content aside, I'm strictly talking about the cover art and the way they tried to brand it).  

Not to mention, isn't that non "BB" release of NASCAR (with "Of The BBs" in large print) release super similar to how Al tried to brand his live shows and got fingered by Mike as being in violation of how much he could promote using the brand name? I'm waiting for someone to say how that is not hypocritical in the slightest, and by golly I'm sure I'll find someone who'll say that in no time.

I'll bet there have been more than several Mike and company brainstorming sessions trying to figure out how to brand recorded material like this (in a way that goes beyond his own name) without legal problems, yet while still gaining the exposure/success that he desires by somehow utilizing the band name. Oh to be a fly on the wall...

That scenario doesn't bode well for this being an all-analog session 😃😃😃

I'm sure I will enjoy this song as much as 'Goin To The Beach' and 'Pisces Brothers'.  ;)

Ah, for those who asked, I don't have ANY inside info...I just read what Mike said, and to me it's obvious it can't be a Beach Boys recording!

That is a speed up version of the song you posted. Here is the version with it at the correct speed! I Think the correct speed sounds more natural smoother and better

https://youtu.be/-DSFn2ZU6q0

Try autotune on it.

Thanks Mike… I think I missed that though - can you provide a link to where Mike was quoted? Thanks in advance!

Here's the pertinent part from the Rock Cellar interview:

"In fact, Michael Lloyd who is producing this Christmas single for us and who is in Southern California while we’re in a studio in Somerville, Massachusetts – he was at the session and remembers Brian eliminating the words “we find” that rhyme with “she must be kind” and  that stuck in his mind. He was like, “Why did he cut off the rhyme?” (laughs) But I understand why Brian did it but that was the actual complete poem."

 http://www.rockcellarmagazine.com/2015/09/09/mike-love-of-the-beach-boys-one-on-one-the-interview-part-1/2/#sthash.yJFqZHwn.dpuf

Mike evidently also briefly mentioned the song, including the title, on the TV interview mentioned in this thread's first post. He also mentioned that it's an older song apparently, lending even more credence to the likelihood that "Alone on Christmas" is almost surely "Alone on Christmas Day."

Many thanks Hey Jude, great interview. I had read it before but had forgotten the bit about the Christmas single!

So producer Michael Lloyd was at the 66 'Vibes session? I find that remarkable.

Found his interview with him in which he recollects that and others:

From: http://www.taxi.com/transmitter/0509/record-producer-michael-lloyd.html