SMiLE Sessions box set!

[The Shift]

All of those Good Vibrations outtakes were first heard on a radio special about the history of The Beach Boys, broadcast in 1976, called "The Best Summers Of Our Lives". It was narrated by Charlie Van Dyke and Wolfman Jack and was six hours long. This was also the first time I heard "Spiritual Regeneration" (Happy Birthday Michael Love) by The Beatles.

Could such a delve into the archives have been when the vocal tapes for GVs went walkabout?

[Andrew G. Doe]

All of those Good Vibrations outtakes were first heard on a radio special about the history of The Beach Boys, broadcast in 1976, called "The Best Summers Of Our Lives". It was narrated by Charlie Van Dyke and Wolfman Jack and was six hours long. This was also the first time I heard "Spiritual Regeneration" (Happy Birthday Michael Love) by The Beatles.

Could such a delve into the archives have been when the vocal tapes for GVs went walkabout?

Nope - no-one's seen the "GV" vocal multi-tracks since Brian mixed the single at Columbia in summer 1966. I think those babies are gone forever.

[The Shift]

Ah, more "chuck it in the skip, we need the space" Columbia Storage Solutions?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Ah, more "chuck it in the skip, we need the space" Columbia Storage Solutions?

That's what Bruce thinks, and he'd know.

[jonjameshall]

I am incredibly glad it will be coming out in mono.

I LOVE stereo (nothing gets better for me than listening to the 2009 mix of 'Don't Worry Baby' or the stereo mix of WIBN) but there is a depth and warmth achieved with mono that stereo just can't compete with. There is a unity with mono whereas stereo can sound scattered. I enjoy both formats, but mono just seems right for SMiLE - considering the lack of instruments on many of the songs (Wonderful, Friday Night, You Are My Sunshine) I don't think too many of these songs would sound good in stereo. But that's just me. And please prove me wrong Mr. Linett!

For those of us buying the boxset I have no doubt that we'll be treated to both stereo and mono for the majority of the SMiLE songs.

I really want Wonderful in stereo. Put the harpsichord to the left, backing vocals to the right, (give them both stereo reverb) and lead vocal in the middle, and that will sounds awesome. Or even spread the BG vox around in the stereo image and put the harpsichord behind Brian's voice - that should work too.

The the former option will sound like the Beatles remasters where the guitar is on the direct left, drums and bass on the direct right, lead vocals direct front, etc etc....the Beatles stereo remasters sound like rubbish. I'll agree with you on the latter though - a subtle stereo mix of Wonderful would probably sound really good.

Funny, O&O is one of my top 5 favorite albums and I've never heard it in mono - I must do that one of these days.

Odessey and Oracle in mono is magnificent. Listening to it in stereo was my first encounter with it and was the only way I had heard it for a while, but I came across a mono mix of Changes and it was like hearing the song all over again. I found O&O in mono and couldn't believe the difference (literally in some of the songs as AGD pointed out) and the overall sound and feel was such so much better. Butcher's Tale really stands out and is much more ominous.

If you havent heard the mono O&O you have not heard the missing strings on This will be Our Year then?

J xx

[guitarfool2002]

Ooo audiophiles! My favorite kind of people!

Do I detect a touch of sarcasm there? 

I'm not an audiophile, but someone who co-owned and operated a recording studio and production company for a bit of time. And a musician/ songwriter, too! I like talking shop and I think Brian's access to some of the best equipment and best facilities in the history of studio recording was a factor in how and why his records always sounded good.

The greatest thing about being involved in recording music in 2011 is access to many of the same pieces of equipment and gear which those classic studios used on a daily basis for Smile, Pet Sounds, etc. thanks to reissues and very affordable plug-ins and simulations. It's pretty neat.

[bgas]

Ah, more "chuck it in the skip, we need the space" Columbia Storage Solutions?

That's what Bruce thinks, and he'd know.

Check the LA landfills! Maybe they're still wrapped in plastic, inside the tape boxes? ( DYDW)

[tansen]

Ooo audiophiles! My favorite kind of people!

I like talking shop and I think Brian's access to some of the best equipment and best facilities in the history of studio recording was a factor in how and why his records always sounded good.

The greatest thing about being involved in recording music in 2011 is access to many of the same pieces of equipment and gear which those classic studios used on a daily basis for Smile, Pet Sounds, etc. thanks to reissues and very affordable plug-ins and simulations. It's pretty neat.

+1

[The Heartical Don]

Ah, more "chuck it in the skip, we need the space" Columbia Storage Solutions?

That's what Bruce thinks, and he'd know.

Check the LA landfills! Maybe they're still wrapped in plastic, inside the tape boxes? ( DYDW)

  yea mon! We could form a SSnet task force, travel to LA, and do a bit of searching... how many square miles of landfills are there in California?

[smokeythebear]

A quick comment concerning Pet Sounds and that it could have been released in true stereo 1966. Mark was and is right that it would have been close to impossible.
Imagine it like this the instrumentals was recorded on a four track machine. Even if mixed down to stereo on the 8 track that takes up two tracks on the 8 track.
That gives you 6 tracks left on the 8 track. We can use I just wasnt made for these times as an example, the "Quando sera" part would have taken up two tracks.
So now you have 4 tracks left. We have Brians overdubbed lead 2 tracks. Were down to two tracks and we still have the "aint found the right thing" and "People i know"
and the printing of the echo if that wasnt directly on tape. Plus concider the "Huu" vocals thats on there before the chorus.

There is a good reason why they added stuff while mixing the album on the fly and it wasnt because of time, like the overdubbed vocals on you still belive in me.

 

[smokeythebear]

I also feel i have have to clear up a general misconception when it comes to Brian's memory of Smile and what should be there.  I see people posting all the time that Darian did the card trick with Brian and he picked out Time to get alone as to have been included in Smile, and it´s a good reason for it. There is a smile part in that song, the middle march part is originally "Song for Children". I believe that part was very much inspired by Beethoven's ninth symphony's march part.

[Roger Ryan]

I also feel i have have to clear up a general misconception when it comes to Brian's memory of Smile and what should be there.  I see people posting all the time that Darian did the card trick with Brian and he picked out Time to get alone as to have been included in Smile, and it´s a good reason for it. There is a smile part in that song, the middle march part is originally "Song for Children". I believe that part was very much inspired by Beethoven's ninth symphony's march part.

I believe there is another simpler reason, too. At the time the list of songs was presented to Brian, the idea was to perform a selection of songs from the SMiLE era, not necessarily just the songs that would have appeared on the SMiLE album. This was a deliberate attempt to interest Brian in revisiting the more obscure material from this period in a live setting without insisting that something called SMiLE exist as a (live) entity. I suspect Brian felt that "Time To Get Alone" and "Diamond Head" were on the fringes of that era and were tracks that would fit in well. Eventually, of course, Brian warmed up to the idea (and/or was convinced by management) that the selection of songs needed to be presented as SMiLE live. By the time Van Dyke Parks was brought in to write new lyrics, the project officially became an effort to complete the SMiLE album as a live presentation and tracks like "Time To Get Alone" fell by the wayside (although this song was performed a couple of times during this period, reportedly none too well).

And you're right smokeythebear, the middle section to TTGA (edited out of the original Beach Boys version) does sound a lot like "Look"/"Song For Children".

[Andrew G. Doe]

tracks like "Time To Get Alone" fell by the wayside (although this song was performed a couple of times during this period, reportedly none too well).

You're being too kind. 2/20/04 at the RFH, it was just dire. Fortunately, the stuff they played after the interval - which wasn't half bad, as I recall - erased the immediate memory.

[smokeythebear]

I also feel i have have to clear up a general misconception when it comes to Brian's memory of Smile and what should be there.  I see people posting all the time that Darian did the card trick with Brian and he picked out Time to get alone as to have been included in Smile, and it´s a good reason for it. There is a smile part in that song, the middle march part is originally "Song for Children". I believe that part was very much inspired by Beethoven's ninth symphony's march part.

I believe there is another simpler reason, too. At the time the list of songs was presented to Brian, the idea was to perform a selection of songs from the SMiLE era, not necessarily just the songs that would have appeared on the SMiLE album. This was a deliberate attempt to interest Brian in revisiting the more obscure material from this period in a live setting without insisting that something called SMiLE exist as a (live) entity. I suspect Brian felt that "Time To Get Alone" and "Diamond Head" were on the fringes of that era and were tracks that would fit in well. Eventually, of course, Brian warmed up to the idea (and/or was convinced by management) that the selection of songs needed to be presented as SMiLE live. By the time Van Dyke Parks was brought in to write new lyrics, the project officially became an effort to complete the SMiLE album as a live presentation and tracks like "Time To Get Alone" fell by the wayside (although this song was performed a couple of times during this period, reportedly none too well).

And you're right smokeythebear, the middle section to TTGA (edited out of the original Beach Boys version) does sound a lot like "Look"/"Song For Children".

I agree, the part in TTGA is the same part, just have a listen to Hawthorne CA record to the alternate TTGA they even whistle close to the same melody. I never think Brian gave up the musical ideas of smile completely. Like all the bits he liked fanatically he kept molding them over the years to hear what they would sound like, Rio Grande is a perfect example of Smile stuff using "That same song" as a base. It´s almost like has been portioning smile stuff out in small bits under the radar over the years.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I also feel i have have to clear up a general misconception when it comes to Brian's memory of Smile and what should be there.  I see people posting all the time that Darian did the card trick with Brian and he picked out Time to get alone as to have been included in Smile, and it´s a good reason for it. There is a smile part in that song, the middle march part is originally "Song for Children". I believe that part was very much inspired by Beethoven's ninth symphony's march part.

I believe there is another simpler reason, too. At the time the list of songs was presented to Brian, the idea was to perform a selection of songs from the SMiLE era, not necessarily just the songs that would have appeared on the SMiLE album. This was a deliberate attempt to interest Brian in revisiting the more obscure material from this period in a live setting without insisting that something called SMiLE exist as a (live) entity. I suspect Brian felt that "Time To Get Alone" and "Diamond Head" were on the fringes of that era and were tracks that would fit in well. Eventually, of course, Brian warmed up to the idea (and/or was convinced by management) that the selection of songs needed to be presented as SMiLE live. By the time Van Dyke Parks was brought in to write new lyrics, the project officially became an effort to complete the SMiLE album as a live presentation and tracks like "Time To Get Alone" fell by the wayside (although this song was performed a couple of times during this period, reportedly none too well).

And you're right smokeythebear, the middle section to TTGA (edited out of the original Beach Boys version) does sound a lot like "Look"/"Song For Children".

I agree, the part in TTGA is the same part, just have a listen to Hawthorne CA record to the alternate TTGA they even whistle close to the same melody. I never think Brian gave up the musical ideas of smile completely. Like all the bits he liked fanatically he kept molding them over the years to hear what they would sound like, Rio Grande is a perfect example of Smile stuff using "That same song" as a base. It´s almost like has been portioning smile stuff out in small bits under the radar over the years.

I think it's simpler than that: as David Leaf once observed, "Brian never forgets a good riif". 'Specially if it's "Shortenin' Bread". 

[Peter Reum]

It is very true that Brian never wastes a great melody...

[Dr. Tim]

Tiny point on "could Pet Sounds have been mixed in stereo in 1966?"

As Mark Linett has said and as Andrew mentioned above, we know Brian's M.O. was to mix the instrumentals down to a one-track submix, then layer the vocals on the freed-up tape tracks.  Makes sense since only a mono mix was in his head.   That said, a plausible (but not really good-sounding) true stereo mix could have been done using the mono instrument track centered, and the vocal overdubs spread left to right.  Of course, anything added on the fly during the mono mixdown would be lost (see: "My Generation", the Zombies' 45's as well as "O&O", and of course GOK).

Some actual historical examples of how this would have sounded so you can judge: the stereo mixes of Lovin' Spoonful's "You Didn't Have To Be So Nice", the Association's "Windy", John Fred's "Judy In Disguise", and Herb Alpert's "Whipped Cream."  The instruments are centered, the vocals and lead instruments are panned.

Jac Holzman takes credit for Elektra being the first label to record singles with stereo in mind, like those by the Doors and Love.

[OBLiO]

Tiny point on "could Pet Sounds have been mixed in stereo in 1966?"

As Mark Linett has said and as Andrew mentioned above, we know Brian's M.O. was to mix the instrumentals down to a one-track submix, then layer the vocals on the freed-up tape tracks.  Makes sense since only a mono mix was in his head.   That said, a plausible (but not really good-sounding) true stereo mix could have been done using the mono instrument track centered, and the vocal overdubs spread left to right.  Of course, anything added on the fly during the mono mixdown would be lost (see: "My Generation", the Zombies' 45's as well as "O&O", and of course GOK).

Some actual historical examples of how this would have sounded so you can judge: the stereo mixes of Lovin' Spoonful's "You Didn't Have To Be So Nice", the Association's "Windy", John Fred's "Judy In Disguise", and Herb Alpert's "Whipped Cream."  The instruments are centered, the vocals and lead instruments are panned.

Jac Holzman takes credit for Elektra being the first label to record singles with stereo in mind, like those by the Doors and Love.

Maybe you could put the mono submix in one channel and the mono mixdown in the other channel. Depending on what was recorded during mixdown, it could be in sections and spliced in and mixed well enough to create a mono center with the mixdown recordings coming out of one channel. It depends on what was recorded during mixdown and where you want it. But you could even use a centered mixdown and then accent separations in each channel to widen the field. An idea anyway... so you don't lose the mixdown recording. But if you still have the original 4 track instrumental recording tapes... plus the 6 or 7 tracks for vocals/"or whatever else" and the "what was recorded at mixdown" track, you would essentially have a 12 track recording to mix in stereo, but the "what was recorded at mixdown" would more than likely end up in the center and you would accent everything else in the separate channels. 

[Dr. Tim]

Well speaking as an audio-fool, there is a semi-famous example of that: when Duke Ellington played Newport, there were two sets of mikes on stage - one set being Columbia's, the other one the Voice of America's.  Those separate recordings from separate parts of the stage were sync'ed up when the entire concert was reissued on CD, so you get a true (unintentional) stereo mix through both speakers.  Or you can isolate each separate mix by bridging one channel to mono.  Yeeg!

[smokeythebear]

Anything is possible i guess, but keep in mind that the studios were in those days not even setup to record stereo. If i recall correct they used a 3-way system of Altec speakers and they didn't have that with stereo in mind, more of a instrument volume control. For instance drums and bass in one speakers, horns and strings in another, and guitar and bongos for example in one.

Another good point is that stereo was so fresh that most people didn't have any idea how to get a decent mix out it, listen to early Beatles stereo mixes, drums and bass in one channel wtf? Also people at home really didn't know how to setup their speakers correct.

The proper way to have done it would have been to record all the stuff on an eight track machine giving maximum control to each instrument, that way you could dedicate it like this:

3 Channels for drums 2 overheads one for snare.
1 Channel for bass
1 Channel for guitar
1 Channel For keyboards
2 Channels for Horns or strings

This way you could have full control and true stereo while mixing it down to 2 channels on another 8-track machine. The thing is they hadn't even began to think in those terms in 1966.

So yes it could have been done if Brian had used Gwendelyn´s crystal ball to see into the future of stereo as we see it today, and if he did he wouldn't be able to hear it anyway.

[guitarfool2002]

Stereo even up to the time Pet Sounds was recorded was still an audiophile kind of thing: That's not to say there were not artists like Esquivel who were arranging music specifically for that upscale market of people who liked to show off their hi-fi equipment, and wanted something musical beyond the ping-pong match and a jet taking off to demonstrate the wonders of moving sound. Esquivel's arrangements were written specifically for wide stereo separation, up to and including remote linking of two separate studio rooms in order to have the most pure separation (I sound like a late 50's liner note writer there... ). This was the notion of plotting out the recording in the pre-production stage, which is what Brian would have needed to do if any of his projects in 66-67 would have been in stereo in a hypothetical sense.

And this was late 50's/early 60's. The technology was out there, the precedent had already been set, and studios like Atlantic were recording Coltrane and Ray Charles in 8-track at the beginning of the 60's in magnificent sound quality.

But Brian's market was still...and this is the crucial point of all of the related tech talk...the teenage market, and not only did they not hear stereo on their radios, or in their cars, or when their favorite artist appeared on TV, but they usually did not have equipment to play stereo records of their own at least a majority of the teen set. It can't be overstated how much of a radical shift the years 1966-67 were in the way music was mixed, heard, sold, etc.

The pop and teen market has to be separated from the upscale adult market, because comparing the way pop records were mixed with very basic panning and separation is apples and oranges when someone like Esquivel and various engineers were pushing the art of stereo mixing to its limits for their times.

[Sam_BFC]

It is great how this thread has gone from Smile, to drugs, to the issue of Pet Sounds in stereo!

Great insight by the way guitarfool.

[Shady]

It is great how this thread has gone from Smile, to drugs, to the issue of Pet Sounds in stereo!

I hope to be bored for a full day and read this whole thread front to back with a couple of bottles of miller

[OBLiO]

Well speaking as an audio-fool, there is a semi-famous example of that: when Duke Ellington played Newport, there were two sets of mikes on stage - one set being Columbia's, the other one the Voice of America's.  Those separate recordings from separate parts of the stage were sync'ed up when the entire concert was reissued on CD, so you get a true (unintentional) stereo mix through both speakers.  Or you can isolate each separate mix by bridging one channel to mono.  Yeeg!

I need to check that out... sounds scary... I like Pet Sounds in mono, anyway... just saying if someone wants to mess with they could potentially do it and sublety accent to widen the field... but just for fun or for learning.

[OBLiO]

radical shift the years 1966-67

I don't know if it was as much as a radical shift as it was a push into the stereo direction... I remember someone telling me that even into the early 70's, that someone's mother said "make sure it's mono" when going to buy her a record. Mom had a mono console. So the general public was definitely aware of the differences by that time. But I think the stereo stuff prior to 66-67 was more "special market"... it's hard to say unless you look at numbers... mono vs stereo recordings sold. Think about most people didn't hear Sgt Pepper in stereo until much much later. Or Jimi Hendrix Axis Bold As Love... as well.. love Esquival's work, btw. I saw a video of John Cassavettes driving around with his radio on and it was the Beach Boys... can't remember where I saw that... but radios in cars were mono.

edit: I think the White Album was the last dedicated mono mix the Beatles made in 68. After that I think everything was stereo first, mono fold downs, second. But they were still using four track in 66 while we had 8 track here. I saw a documentary on Tom Dowd and he talked about that stuff.