Alone On christmas Day ... new single

[KDS]

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.  

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. 

[ruskalupagus]

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

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

[KDS]

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

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. 

[guitarfool2002]

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

[SMiLE Brian]

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

[drbeachboy]

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.

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

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.

[drbeachboy]

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.

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?

[bgas]

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.

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 ? 

[guitarfool2002]

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.

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?

[bgas]

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.

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....

[HeyJude]

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.

[The Shift]

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.

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

[SMiLE Brian]

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

[bgas]

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.

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.

[The Shift]

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.

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…

[bgas]

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.

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?

[The Shift]

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.

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?

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

[bgas]

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.

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?

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

[Pretty Funky]

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

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

[ontor pertawst]

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?

[bgas]

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

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

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,)

[guitarfool2002]

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.

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

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?

[Matt Etherton]

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).

[guitarfool2002]

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! 

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.