What If The SS Box Disappoints You?

[rab2591]

Well, at least the material will be mixed properly...which it isn't on any of the SOT discs. I look forward to hearing some of these sessions minus the various coughs, sighs, chit-chat, etc. and with well-balanced instrumentation and vocals.

This goes to personal preference: I like the random chat and noises as part of the audio verite experience of hearing the sessions as they unfolded without editing that stuff out later. Again, it's all personal preference. I could listen to raw, unmixed session tapes for hours while others would find that tedious and boring.

I can feel that. But we've got some of the material which sounds so lousy. The thing i'm looking forward to the most, apart from wishful thinking, is hearing Holidays in crystal clear sound! That's why the box can't really disappoint me. So much of this material sounds like ass on the bootlegs.

Couldn't agree more. 'Holidays' is my #1 reason for buying this. I can't wait to hear this stuff properly mixed.

I normally set aside an hour or two a week to listen to a few SOT sessions. I don't know why I like listening to them so much - I guess I just love hearing Brian guide the sound to what he wants.
_____
I wish Mr. Linett would do another interview - please give us something for us to chat about for the next couple weeks! Anyone at the Examiner want to call him up to snag some more info?

[juggler]

I definitely want the set and am anxiously awaiting the set but at the same time I need to be practical and think about the cost: If the set contains most of what I already know, I'll wait it out to hear the reviews and reports before waiting in line the first day for it, which I thought I'd originally be doing.

I hear ya.  Part of me says, 'Hey, we're talking about an official release of Smile... the very thing BB fans have been clamoring for since 1967.  How can any fan even consider not buying it?"

But then I remember back to 1993 to when the "Good Vibrations: 30 years" box was released, and I didn't buy it... despite its treasure trove of previously unreleased Smile tracks.  Why not? Because it was $60, and I was in school and had no job and very little money... that's why.

It's 18 years later now, and I'm fortunate to be in a position where I can buy a Smile box without it impacting my finances.

But I remember where I was at in 1993, and I had to pass on the box... which gives me the chance to tell (or retell, as the case may be) one of my greatest BB fan moments. At some point a number of months after the box came out, I was browsing the used CDs at a now-defunct record store called The Wherehouse.  And what was sitting there with its chrome heart shining in the sun?  Disc 2 from the box... the disc with the Smile stuff!  Used and alone... for some ridiculously low price like $4.   How or why that one disc ended up for sale remains a mystery to me.  I mean, if you're going to sell your BB box, sell the whole thing, right?  And if you need to sell off just one disc from that set, dump Disc 4 with the late '70s through Kokomo, right?  You don't sell Disc 2 with California Girls/Help Me Rhonda/Pet Sounds/Smile.  You just don't.  But someone apparently did.  And that $4 disc found its way into the hands of exactly the nearly-broke fan who wanted it (i.e., me).

[Shady]

I wish Mr. Linett would do another interview - please give us something for us to chat about for the next couple weeks! Anyone at the Examiner want to call him up to snag some more info?

He checks out the board now and then so he's obviously interested in the fans perspective, why he doesn't chime in is beyond me.

Gag order?
 

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Probably

[Andrew G. Doe]

I wish Mr. Linett would do another interview - please give us something for us to chat about for the next couple weeks! Anyone at the Examiner want to call him up to snag some more info?

He checks out the board now and then so he's obviously interested in the fans perspective, why he doesn't chime in is beyond me.

Gag order?
 

Yeah - it's called "The Jardine Sanction". 

[Roger Ryan]

Well, at least the material will be mixed properly...which it isn't on any of the SOT discs. I look forward to hearing some of these sessions minus the various coughs, sighs, chit-chat, etc. and with well-balanced instrumentation and vocals.

This goes to personal preference: I like the random chat and noises as part of the audio verite experience of hearing the sessions as they unfolded without editing that stuff out later. Again, it's all personal preference. I could listen to raw, unmixed session tapes for hours while others would find that tedious and boring.

Oh I enjoy the random chat and noises, too. But I don't want the official release to only offer audio verite mixes when we now have the chance to hear some of this material in a more polished presentation. For example: I doubt we'll get a "Vegetables" that has two verses being sung at the same time simply because the multi-tracks are left unmixed/unedited - keep that stuff for the bootlegs. If that's the only way you want to hear these sessions, then maybe the official release won't sound better to you. But when I heard the nuances that Mark and Alan were able to bring out with the official mix of Dennis' "Fallin' In Love", I never wanted to hear the earlier unofficial version(s) again.

[Jason]

There is one "official" version of Fallin' In Love (Lady) - the version released as the B-side to Sound of Free, credited to Dennis Wilson and Rumbo, 1970, catalog number Stateside SS 2184 (got it off AGD's site). Summer Love Songs is NOT the first release of this tune.

[Roger Ryan]

There is one "official" version of Fallin' In Love (Lady) - the version released as the B-side to Sound of Free, credited to Dennis Wilson and Rumbo, 1970, catalog number Stateside SS 2184 (got it off AGD's site). Summer Love Songs is NOT the first release of this tune.

Right, I completely forgot about the 1970 single release (I don't own it, but I assume I've heard it from unofficial sources). I stand by my statement that the "remix" of "Fallin' In Love" on SUMMER LOVE SONGS is excellent and indicative of what Mark (and Alan) could do with presenting the previously unreleased SMiLE material in a way that significantly improves upon the boots.

[drbeachboy]

The Summer Love Songs version is a remix, not the original.

[Roger Ryan]

The Summer Love Songs version is a remix, not the original.

I think I just acknowledged that, didn't I?

[drbeachboy]

Geez, I posted within a few mins. of yours. Why even call me on it? I saw that someone posted ahead of me, but couldn't see what was there.

[bgas]

Just more of that SMiLE testiness coming out, methinks

[Shady]

Everybody needs to just  till SMiLE drops 

[hypehat]

Don't you start... 

These dudes can do wonders with session tapes, as The Pet Sounds box will attest. A Child Is The Father Of The Man, all nicely EQ'd, with some tasteful reverb, from the instrumental and vocal multi-tracks...  you can't say we all want that?

[Chris Moise]

Well, at least the material will be mixed properly...which it isn't on any of the SOT discs. I look forward to hearing some of these sessions minus the various coughs, sighs, chit-chat, etc. and with well-balanced instrumentation and vocals.

Owing to some of the recent Mark Linett remixes I don't think there is any guarantee the material will be mixed properly. For example, the "Shut Down" and "Dance Dance Dance" remixes on Sounds of Summer. The "Shut Down" remix is essentially fake stereo. I do like his work on the Pet Sounds Sessions box but many of his subsequent remixes are awful. His use of reverb on the 'Please Make Me Wonder" sounds closer to "Getcha Back" that what was used in the mid 1960's. Modern reverb, phasey/swishy sound, hard and bright EQ, very narrow separation. This is why I hope they use as many vintage remixes as possible for the Smile set..

[Chris Moise]

These dudes can do wonders with session tapes, as The Pet Sounds box will attest. A Child Is The Father Of The Man, all nicely EQ'd, with some tasteful reverb, from the instrumental and vocal multi-tracks...  you can't say we all want that?

I'll take Brian's 11/66 mix with no added reverb thank you.

[The Heartical Don]

These dudes can do wonders with session tapes, as The Pet Sounds box will attest. A Child Is The Father Of The Man, all nicely EQ'd, with some tasteful reverb, from the instrumental and vocal multi-tracks...  you can't say we all want that?

I'll take Brian's 11/66 mix with no added reverb thank you.

Agreed. I wouldn't accept a 'restored' Mona Lisa with some new paint strokes here and there, done by a modern art worker, either.

[Matt Bielewicz]

Boy, it sounds as though you guys are unsheathing the knives already. Or at least testing them to make sure they slide out fast when the time comes that you feel you need 'em... but to what end? What's the point?

I'm not being snidey - this is a serious question. What comes out on this release is not up to you, or me, or (I would guess) ANYONE who posts on this board. You have no say in its mixing, track selection, or sequencing. You'll have to accept what you're given, whether you like it or not, as we all will.

To the best of our knowledge as it stands today, there *AREN'T* vintage mix-downs for most of the SMiLE material. That's why Mark Linett mixes are mostly what we've got for all the stuff that's come out officially so far (on the '93 GV set, etc etc). Assuming that remains the case, and Messrs Boyd and Linett haven't unearthed a motherlode of 1966-7 era mono mixes in the course of their research, they have **no choice** but to create new mixes. As soon as you do that, you are using non-contemporary tools to create SMiLE mixdowns, or, as the Don has just put it above, having a modern art worker put new brush strokes on the masterpiece. That's inevitable. You can try to get close to the original equipment, intention, and artistic vision, and I'm sure Alan and Mark are the right guys to get as close as possible to that - but you cannot recreate the original art as it might have been in 1966-7. Not without a time machine. So why can't everyone accept that as their default starting position?

Art is *not* a democracy. Artists rarely consult their fans before taking decisions on what to do, and nor should they. But then people rarely get a chance to develop a sense of entitlement about a record before it comes out. Usually, the first thing fans know about it is when it's released. SMiLE, interestingly, is different. That's part of its charm, of course, but it also leads some people to be mighty self-righteous about it. If SMiLE *had* been released in 1967, and you'd been the age you are now in that year, how much influence would you have had with Brian Wilson about the final shape of SMiLE? How much could you have persuaded him, say, to include the False Barnyard fade or He Gives Speeches if he had decided not to on his release? Not one iota. To exactly no extent whatsoever. And so it is with this Sessions box set in 2011 (assuming it does make it out this year!). You can rant and moan all you want, but there is NOTHING anyone here can do to influence the form this box set takes. There is, in fact, just ONE thing you can do to express your displeasure in any kind of meaningful way. If you don't like it (and let's face it, there will be plenty of places you'll be able to hear the contents within a few days of release, unlike back when, say, the Pet Sounds box first came out), then don't buy it, and don't listen to it. Just stick with your existing boots, the recordings that first fired you up with a love of this music. Be happy with those, as you always have been. You don't *have* to buy the Sessions box set. Vote with your feet if you feel that strongly about it, because that's all you can do.

What gets me in these situations (like, say, following the release of a certain record in Autumn 2004) is the people that buy the release, spend the money (thus supporting the artist in all of the creative decisions he's made that the buyer has loudly made clear they're opposed to), and then continue to moan endlessly on about it not being 'right' (in other words, not in keeping with *their* vision of how it 'should' have sounded). There was some small justification for this kind of thing back in the days when it was hard to hear a record before it came out, and you often HAD to buy it before you could hear it... but not today. How long, with the best will in the world, will it be after release before it hits a file-sharing network?

So here's my suggestion, which I'm sure everyone will roundly ignore come the day. If you like the sound of the box set, then buy it and support the massive effort and artistic endeavour that went into its writing, performance, mixing and mastering, and all the creative choices that went into that combined effort. If you don't - well, then *don't*. Just keep listening to the mixes you've been happily enjoying for years. If everyone did that, THEN we'd have world peace. Just this once, everybody'd live... happily ever after.

But back from the world of dreams. The above is a recipe for a much happier life, but I have this funny feeling that there will be a lot of people that don't follow this advice come the day of the release...

Ooh, I *am* Mr Grumpy Face today. I really should let my breakfast go down before posting on here...

MattB

[Andrew G. Doe]

My main concern is that the original material could be - for whatever well-intentioned reason - somehow compromised by a questionable artistic decision. Of course the sequencing on CD1 of the two-disc set will provoke discussion and dissent: that's a given, the only unknown is exactly how het-up we'll get over it (my guess is "considerably"), but I'm more fussed about the original material being used in an unrepresentative way. Leave it be. No 2011 tinkering beyond mixing, mastering and editing. The very most I'll concede (yeah, like anyone in a position to do anything about it cares what I think !  ) is using Carl's 1968 vocal from "Cabinessence". I'm in a generous mood today: savour it, it won't last.

My secondary concern is that iconic Frank Holmes artwork may not be used, for whatever reason. The original articles didn't use it and that sets my spider senses tingling. I hope to be proven entirely wrong in this respect, as a project like this with his artwork is simply inconceivable.

[Loaf]

My main concern is that the original material could be - for whatever well-intentioned reason - somehow compromised by a questionable artistic decision. Of course the sequencing on CD1 of the two-disc set will provoke discussion and dissent: that's a given, the only unknown is exactly how het-up we'll get over it (my guess is "considerably"), but I'm more fussed about the original material being used in an unrepresentative way. Leave it be. No 2011 tinkering beyond mixing, mastering and editing. The very most I'll concede (yeah, like anyone in a position to do anything about it cares what I think !  ) is using Carl's 1968 vocal from "Cabinessence". I'm in a generous mood today: savour it, it won't last.

My secondary concern is that iconic Frank Holmes artwork may not be used, for whatever reason. The original articles didn't use it and that sets my spider senses tingling. I hope to be proven entirely wrong in this respect, as a project like this with his artwork is simply inconceivable.

That about sums it up. We're getting 4 CDs of Smile music. As long as it's not tampered with, we ought to be happy

[Chris Moise]

Boy, it sounds as though you guys are unsheathing the knives already. Or at least testing them to make sure they slide out fast when the time comes that you feel you need 'em... but to what end? What's the point?

I'm not being snidey - this is a serious question  

Here's a serious answer:

a) I'm not fond of the recent BB's remixes b) the same engineer is mixing the Smile set c) I expressed concern with how the new mixes will turn out.  

I'm not quite sure why this prompted such a theatrical, histrionic reply.

What comes out on this release is not up to you, or me, or (I would guess) ANYONE who posts on this board. You have no say in its mixing, track selection, or sequencing. You'll have to accept what you're given, whether you like it or not, as we all will.

For real? You mean the fans are picking the tracks? Thanks for clearing that up.

To the best of our knowledge as it stands today, there *AREN'T* vintage mix-downs for most of the SMiLE material. That's why Mark Linett mixes are mostly what we've got for all the stuff that's come out officially so far (on the '93 GV set, etc etc). Assuming that remains the case, and Messrs Boyd and Linett haven't unearthed a motherlode of 1966-7 era mono mixes in the course of their research, they have **no choice** but to create new mixes.

No merda? If vintage mixes didn't exist they had to remix? Thanks for the audio lesson  

Yes, I understand they (as you put it) "have **no choice**" but to remix. I just hope they mix in a way more in line with how they mixed things in 1967.
 

You can try to get close to the original equipment, intention, and artistic vision, and I'm sure Alan and Mark are the right guys to get as close as possible to that - but you cannot recreate the original art as it might have been in 1966-7. Not without a time machine. So why can't everyone accept that as their default starting position?

Why? Because most (but not all) of the recent remixes made no effort to get as close to the original equipment, intention, and artistic vision. Why does get your panties out of line?

[Chris Moise]

Art is *not* a democracy. Artists rarely consult their fans before taking decisions on what to do, and nor should they. But then people rarely get a chance to develop a sense of entitlement about a record before it comes out. Usually, the first thing fans know about it is when it's released. SMiLE, interestingly, is different. That's part of its charm, of course, but it also leads some people to be mighty self-righteous about it. If SMiLE *had* been released in 1967, and you'd been the age you are now in that year, how much influence would you have had with Brian Wilson about the final shape of SMiLE? How much could you have persuaded him, say, to include the False Barnyard fade or He Gives Speeches if he had decided not to on his release? Not one iota. To exactly no extent whatsoever.

Talk about being self-righteous! I don’t really disagree with any of that but it reads like a series of non sequiturs in this thread.

And so it is with this Sessions box set in 2011 (assuming it does make it out this year!). You can rant and moan all you want, but there is NOTHING anyone here can do to influence the form this box set takes. There is, in fact, just ONE thing you can do to express your displeasure in any kind of meaningful way. If you don't like it (and let's face it, there will be plenty of places you'll be able to hear the contents within a few days of release, unlike back when, say, the Pet Sounds box first came out), then don't buy it, and don't listen to it. Just stick with your existing boots, the recordings that first fired you up with a love of this music. Be happy with those, as you always have been. You don't *have* to buy the Sessions box set. Vote with your feet if you feel that strongly about it, because that's all you can do.

Matt, are you sure you aren't the one ranting and moaning here? Two one sentence posts speculating about the mixing based on prior work and you come back with the Magna Carta?

Also, has anyone talked about not buying it? Has anyone said they are happy with the boots? Are you really Mark L?

So here's my suggestion..

Here’s my suggestion. If you can spare the drama each time someone speculates about Smile on a Smile board I’ll buy you a set. Deal?

[Matt Bielewicz]

But, Andrew, and Loaf... it HAS to be 'tampered with', before we can hear it! It has to be mixed! And Andrew, you say 'no 2011 tinkering beyond mixing, mastering and editing'. Well, you can do an *awful* lot to a record just by mixing it differently - as I'm absolutely certain you know well. And editing and mastering can absolutely destroy or enhance a record, too.

To take a fairly insignificant example from the Beach Boys catalogue that I'm sure we're all familiar with: the Smiley Smile version of 'Vegetables'. Check out the lovely harmony tag near the end: "I know that you'll feel better..." etc etc. Compare the mono version of that with the stereo version of the same section from 'Hawthorne, California'. Just after Brian sings right up to a high 'A' on the line 'the... NAME of your...', the backing vocals create a slightly different chord in the two different versions, because one of the voices (my ears aren't the best, but I think it's singing an F sharp) has been mixed more loudly in the stereo mix than in the mono. It's absolutely lovely singing in both versions, and I wouldn't be without either version, but it goes to show what difference a mix can make. I'm sure the extra note is IN the mono mix, but to my ears, it's not obvious, whereas it is in the stereo mix, and it gives a fuller sound to the backing vocal chord. Sounds terrific either way, but they definitely seem different to me.

If that doesn't ring any bells with you, what about the 66 mono mix of Sloop John B versus the 96 stereo mix? When the lead vocal sings the line 'Sheriff John Stone... why don't you leave me aloo-o-one', there's a harmony vocal 'waaaaahhh' in the background which comes in just after 'Sheriff John...'. It's audible in the mono mix, but barely. I didn't really notice it when all I knew was the mono mix of Pet Sounds. But once you've heard the stereo mix or the acapella mixes from the Pet Sounds Sessions box, you can't miss it or forget it ever again - it's the most extraordinary harmony pad. Virtually lost in the mono mix - and very much a feature of the stereo version.

That's just what differences in LEVEL can do to a mix, let alone adding effects, compression or EQ. The mix can contribute hugely to how the finished article sounds. And with a track like the SMiLE version of Vega-Tables, for reasons I've explained in the 'Catbirdman's List' thread I started the other day, the choices made at the mix can hugely affect the sound *and* structure of the finished record.

Even without extra overdubs (and personally, I hope they steer well clear of those too), they could make versions of SMiLE tracks that we'd hardly recognise, just by changing the mix. I don't think we're going to get into that kind of territory on the box set, but we'll see.

My point is, these creative decisions have to be made before we can hear this music, as Capitol are NOT releasing flat multitrack transfers of original multitrack tapes (in a way, I kind of wish they were... but that's ME getting into 'coulda shoulda woulda' territory...). They're releasing tracks in stereo and mono, which means they have to mix, and so they have to take a lot of decisions that there often aren't any 1967-era guide mixes to help them with. And sometimes, the overdubs we hear on acetate versions we've become familiar with (like Dennis's vocal on YAMS) aren't there on the multitrack to mix from, so any new mixes have to be made with parts missing. If you know the Zombies 'Odyssey and Oracle', think of the stereo mix of 'This Will Be Our Year' without the trumpet. Sounds pretty different, right? Like a whole HOOK from the original track is missing!

So how can you say what's 'representative' of the original recordings? And how can we judge what the 'original SMiLE' (whatever form that might have taken) was intended to sound like? From the badly mixed bootlegs we've all heard? From poor nth-generation cassette copies of what were themselves unfinished acetate-derived test mixes? They don't necessarily tell us what finished product in 1967 would have sounded like, so what are we going to use as a basis for praising or condemning the new SMiLE mixes?

And as I said above, it doesn't matter what we think anyway, as we have absolutely nada influence on the final sound!

Like I say above... sit back and enjoy the new box. Or don't: sit back and enjoy the same boots you always did. But recognise that most of the Sessions box will probably feature new mixes, done this year or last, and it might not be quite what any of us are expecting. And that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

In fact, it could be very exciting, if we can open ourselves to that possibility.

MattB

[Andrew G. Doe]

There's tinkering, and then there's tinkering. That's all I'll say.

[Matt Bielewicz]

Fair enough, Andrew. I can't judge what you mean until this damn box set comes out. So let's save that discussion until the time comes!

Chris, to level with you - I'm bored and at a computer because I should be working, but I'd far rather speculate about the SMiLE box, because what I'm *supposed* to be doing is (relatively speaking) dull. So I get typing, and all this stuff comes out. I admit that it *isn't* necessarily the most well-thought-out pile of thoughts in the known universe. And there's lots of it, because I type fast. But my pants (under or over) aren't in a twist. I was just making some points I thought were interesting. Sorry you didn't feel the same way, and sorry there was, well... so much of it that you didn't agree with. It wasn't quite the Magna Carta, and I didn't sound, as you put it, 'theatrical' in my head as I typed it, but I can see how you got that from it.

Anyway, who knows. Perhaps, if this box set is TRULY great, we'll get new mixes AND all of the extant test mixes from back in the day that could be found. THAT would be a great thing, as then you'd have as much as is available of 67-era SMiLE as can be mustered, plus the new attempts to do something interesting with the raw tapes. The best of both worlds...?

And finally - I'm most definitely NOT Mark Linett. I often wish I was. But I was born four years after SMiLE was cancelled, in the East of England, in Great Britain, and there I remain as I type these words. Dammit!

MattB