gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680597 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 03:50:39 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 Go Down Print
Author Topic: SMiLE: Bring It On, Fanmixers.  (Read 47997 times)
brother john
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 604



View Profile WWW
« Reply #125 on: December 01, 2011, 01:37:07 AM »

I'm still trying to figure out how an "official release" of the Beach Boys contains altered vocals that hardly even resemble the Beach Boys. I really think that in 5-7 years a lot of people, including the compilers, are going to have regrets about many of the decisions that went into this project--the sort of things that i think might have seemed like a good idea in the short term, with disregard to the long term effects. I think time will prove that a straightforward raw sessions (the very thing that Linett and Boyd said would have been the undesirable alternative if there was no BWPS) would have been the best approach. I think, packaging aside (and that's a HUGE aside because the packaging is of the highest quality), history is going to look at this set as a bit of a blunder and a great missed opportunity. In a few years, Joe Public, and the need to meet the demands/expectations of that market, won't matter in the least. The public has a way of "catching up" with things that went over people's heads initially. People would have eventually come around and caught on to a raw sessions sort of box set (or abridged version) without the aid of the disc 1 estimation. And integrity and accuracy would have still been intact. Mark my words.

I'd like to know what it is that you find so objectionable.


Quote
'an "official release" of the Beach Boys contains altered vocals that hardly even resemble the Beach Boys'
?

I just don't get it.

I agree that Mark Linnet or his assistants were guilty was some pretty sloppy editing (I do hear the things on your list on the other thread, but so far I'm not that bothered by them, though I agree its a shame) but I don't understand how you can love the box but hate its contents.

Please explain.  

Logged

Religion is a privilege, not a right.
Aegir
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4680



View Profile WWW
« Reply #126 on: December 01, 2011, 01:52:09 AM »

The key-changed "Whispering Winds" vocals don't sound like any Beach Boys blend I've ever heard. except maybe their version of "With a Little Help from My Friends", equally key-changed. But hey, all this pitch shifting was common practice! Caroline No, anyone?!
Logged

Every time you spell Smile as SMiLE, an angel's wings are forcibly torn off its body.
seanmurd
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 224


View Profile
« Reply #127 on: December 01, 2011, 02:09:17 AM »

I took a different (in some cases an entirely opposite) approach in my new mixes compared to many of you. Rather than "remaking" Smile (again) in my own image, I've just made some further "enhancements" to some of the disk one tracks to render it even more "complete" to my ears.

This is the approach I've taken too. After seven years, I've gotten used to the BWPS sequence, and I now find it hard to argue that (for example) "Wonderful," "Look," "Child" and "Surf's Up" belong together. I'll probably get around to re-doing my decade-old "personal" SMiLE, but for now I'm just tweaking the TSS disc one "album" to make it more to my liking. There are little changes (like restoring the original ending to "Worms" and cleaning up the fade to "Look") and there are the "heretical" changes, like adding the BWPS tag from "Child" to the BB version of "Child." What can I say? I really like how that bit of music "completes" the song and leads right into "Surf's Up" -- and now that it leads into the true BB version it's even sweeter. Don't knock it till you've tried it! I'll also be taking the BWPS musical intro to "Great Shape" and combining it with the "IIGS" demo and the finished BB instrumental track for that bit to make something resembling a complete song -- but that will take a bit of work. Once that's done, I'll jettison "I Wanna Be Around" (never saw the point of it, except when I used it in my own "Elements" suite) and pair "Great Shape" with "Vega-Tables" (I prefer the 45 version to the "album" version).

I may also graft the BWPS tag from "In Blue Hawaii" to "Da-Da" -- it's another example of how some BWPS versions sound more polished and "finished" to me. I'll probably also replace the "album" version of "Holidays" with an instrumental version from the sessions -- "Holidays" was (for me) the worst-sounding of the fly-in vocals, aside from "Great Shape" which just didn't work at all. But basically, I really enjoy the disc one "album" and I'll continue to listen to it as the official (albeit slightly tweaked) version. I'll probably go back and re-work my personal SMiLE at some point, but I'm enjoying the box so much it won't be a priority.
Logged

---------------------------
Sean Murdock
mammy blue
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


View Profile
« Reply #128 on: December 01, 2011, 04:53:17 AM »

I took a different (in some cases an entirely opposite) approach in my new mixes compared to many of you. Rather than "remaking" Smile (again) in my own image, I've just made some further "enhancements" to some of the disk one tracks to render it even more "complete" to my ears.

This is the approach I've taken too. After seven years, I've gotten used to the BWPS sequence, and I now find it hard to argue that (for example) "Wonderful," "Look," "Child" and "Surf's Up" belong together. I'll probably get around to re-doing my decade-old "personal" SMiLE, but for now I'm just tweaking the TSS disc one "album" to make it more to my liking. There are little changes (like restoring the original ending to "Worms" and cleaning up the fade to "Look") and there are the "heretical" changes, like adding the BWPS tag from "Child" to the BB version of "Child." What can I say? I really like how that bit of music "completes" the song and leads right into "Surf's Up" -- and now that it leads into the true BB version it's even sweeter. Don't knock it till you've tried it! I'll also be taking the BWPS musical intro to "Great Shape" and combining it with the "IIGS" demo and the finished BB instrumental track for that bit to make something resembling a complete song -- but that will take a bit of work. Once that's done, I'll jettison "I Wanna Be Around" (never saw the point of it, except when I used it in my own "Elements" suite) and pair "Great Shape" with "Vega-Tables" (I prefer the 45 version to the "album" version).

I may also graft the BWPS tag from "In Blue Hawaii" to "Da-Da" -- it's another example of how some BWPS versions sound more polished and "finished" to me. I'll probably also replace the "album" version of "Holidays" with an instrumental version from the sessions -- "Holidays" was (for me) the worst-sounding of the fly-in vocals, aside from "Great Shape" which just didn't work at all. But basically, I really enjoy the disc one "album" and I'll continue to listen to it as the official (albeit slightly tweaked) version. I'll probably go back and re-work my personal SMiLE at some point, but I'm enjoying the box so much it won't be a priority.

Interesting! I've decided not to change the "structure" of disc one and have only "flown in" a few different elements. Your approach sounds intriguing though. It sounds like you're a big fan of the orchestral interludes that were a feature of BWPS. I personally think they fit best in the live context, but I'd like to hear your edits just to see how you can get it to flow together. As it stands, the only element I took directly from the BWPS sessions (as I posted) was the clarinet line from the "Look" chorus.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 04:55:28 AM by mammy blue » Logged
Tristero
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


View Profile
« Reply #129 on: December 01, 2011, 05:04:54 AM »


I'd like to know what it is that you find so objectionable.


Do you like worms?  I think you just opened a can of them.   Wink
Logged
TheManchesterMan
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


View Profile
« Reply #130 on: December 01, 2011, 05:28:53 AM »

I'm still trying to figure out how an "official release" of the Beach Boys contains altered vocals that hardly even resemble the Beach Boys. I really think that in 5-7 years a lot of people, including the compilers, are going to have regrets about many of the decisions that went into this project--the sort of things that i think might have seemed like a good idea in the short term, with disregard to the long term effects. I think time will prove that a straightforward raw sessions (the very thing that Linett and Boyd said would have been the undesirable alternative if there was no BWPS) would have been the best approach. I think, packaging aside (and that's a HUGE aside because the packaging is of the highest quality), history is going to look at this set as a bit of a blunder and a great missed opportunity. In a few years, Joe Public, and the need to meet the demands/expectations of that market, won't matter in the least. The public has a way of "catching up" with things that went over people's heads initially. People would have eventually come around and caught on to a raw sessions sort of box set (or abridged version) without the aid of the disc 1 estimation. And integrity and accuracy would have still been intact. Mark my words.

I'd like to know what it is that you find so objectionable.


Quote
'an "official release" of the Beach Boys contains altered vocals that hardly even resemble the Beach Boys'
?

I just don't get it.

I agree that Mark Linnet or his assistants were guilty was some pretty sloppy editing (I do hear the things on your list on the other thread, but so far I'm not that bothered by them, though I agree its a shame) but I don't understand how you can love the box but hate its contents.

Please explain.  



I imagine he's talking about the Alvin and the Chipmunks treatment applied to the flown in vocals in Da Da. I think they were right to experiment and try such things but the results were so poor I don't know why they didn't discard them immediately. Flown in and manipulated to hell just for the sake of it.
Logged
seanmurd
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 224


View Profile
« Reply #131 on: December 01, 2011, 06:00:18 AM »

Interesting! I've decided not to change the "structure" of disc one and have only "flown in" a few different elements. Your approach sounds intriguing though. It sounds like you're a big fan of the orchestral interludes that were a feature of BWPS. I personally think they fit best in the live context, but I'd like to hear your edits just to see how you can get it to flow together. As it stands, the only element I took directly from the BWPS sessions (as I posted) was the clarinet line from the "Look" chorus.

Yeah -- as I mentioned, I got used to the BWPS sequence, and for the most part that was my "go-to" SMiLE since it came out, rather than my own homemade SMiLE. So when I heard the TSS version, in virtually the same sequence, but without some of those connecting interludes, it felt lacking to me (which was one of my arguments AGAINST them using the BWPS template, but whatever). I don't think I'd ever want to blend BWPS vocals with "real" Beach Boys vocals, but to me, the instrumental tracks are OK -- just like '66, it's music written and arranged by Brian Wilson, played by pros. So for "Child," I took the "tag" from the BWPS version (starting with the piano reprise/cello note) and just pasted right over the ending cello note of the BB "Child." I brightened the EQ just a tad to make the piano notes match the intro to the BB track better, level matched it and folded it into mono, and I have to say -- I love how it sounds. Now a track that always felt like it just kind of fell off the cliff had a "proper" ending -- and maybe more importantly, the majestic "Surf's Up" has a "proper" introduction. (Also, I removed that bit of the "Child" piano demo from the beginning and saved it as a separate "bonus track" -- it just didn't work there for me.)

Once I do the rest of these tweaks I'll collect them all and post them so anyone who's curious can have a listen.
Logged

---------------------------
Sean Murdock
seanmurd
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 224


View Profile
« Reply #132 on: December 01, 2011, 06:09:54 AM »

I'm still trying to figure out how an "official release" of the Beach Boys contains altered vocals that hardly even resemble the Beach Boys. I really think that in 5-7 years a lot of people, including the compilers, are going to have regrets about many of the decisions that went into this project--the sort of things that i think might have seemed like a good idea in the short term, with disregard to the long term effects. I think time will prove that a straightforward raw sessions (the very thing that Linett and Boyd said would have been the undesirable alternative if there was no BWPS) would have been the best approach. I think, packaging aside (and that's a HUGE aside because the packaging is of the highest quality), history is going to look at this set as a bit of a blunder and a great missed opportunity. In a few years, Joe Public, and the need to meet the demands/expectations of that market, won't matter in the least. The public has a way of "catching up" with things that went over people's heads initially. People would have eventually come around and caught on to a raw sessions sort of box set (or abridged version) without the aid of the disc 1 estimation. And integrity and accuracy would have still been intact. Mark my words.

I'd like to know what it is that you find so objectionable.


Quote
'an "official release" of the Beach Boys contains altered vocals that hardly even resemble the Beach Boys'
?

I just don't get it.

I agree that Mark Linnet or his assistants were guilty was some pretty sloppy editing (I do hear the things on your list on the other thread, but so far I'm not that bothered by them, though I agree its a shame) but I don't understand how you can love the box but hate its contents.

Please explain.  



I imagine he's talking about the Alvin and the Chipmunks treatment applied to the flown in vocals in Da Da. I think they were right to experiment and try such things but the results were so poor I don't know why they didn't discard them immediately. Flown in and manipulated to hell just for the sake of it.

That's interesting, because I thought the fly-ins on "Da Da" were the best of them all -- seamless, sounded great, and filled out the song a little more. The only ones my ears really reject are the "whispering winds" vocals at the end of "Holidays" -- too fast, too unnatural, and too bad -- because I love how it worked on the BWPS version. All the other ones I either love or have accepted -- even the ones in "Look." When I first heard them I thought they were totally pointless -- they made an incomplete song somehow MORE incomplete by adding them -- but after a few listens my brain was already inserting them when I listened to the sessions track, so I just got over it. The "Great Shape" fly-in is in a different category, because it JUST DIDN'T WORK; the "Barnyard" one, though, didn't bother me, and it's even better now after Bruiteur's excellent work. When the box first came out, I (and others) wondered by Mark Linett didn't use spectral imaging software (or something else) to remove the piano from the Humble Harv fly-ins, and a certain Beach Boys scholar and Phil Cohen nemesis scolded all of us for presuming that it could have been done any better. And then, like, two days later ... it was done better.  LOL
Logged

---------------------------
Sean Murdock
Tristero
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


View Profile
« Reply #133 on: December 01, 2011, 06:21:43 AM »

That's interesting, because I thought the fly-ins on "Da Da" were the best of them all -- seamless, sounded great, and filled out the song a little more. The only ones my ears really reject are the "whispering winds" vocals at the end of "Holidays" -- too fast, too unnatural, and too bad -- because I love how it worked on the BWPS version. All the other ones I either love or have accepted -- even the ones in "Look." When I first heard them I thought they were totally pointless -- they made an incomplete song somehow MORE incomplete by adding them -- but after a few listens my brain was already inserting them when I listened to the sessions track, so I just got over it. The "Great Shape" fly-in is in a different category, because it JUST DIDN'T WORK; the "Barnyard" one, though, didn't bother me, and it's even better now after Bruiteur's excellent work. When the box first came out, I (and others) wondered by Mark Linett didn't use spectral imaging software (or something else) to remove the piano from the Humble Harv fly-ins, and a certain Beach Boys scholar and Phil Cohen nemesis scolded all of us for presuming that it could have been done any better. And then, like, two days later ... it was done better.  LOL
Interesting.  To me, the Dada fly-in, while it may make sense on paper, sounded totally artificial and didn't really add much to the song, but somehow I was O.K. with the 'whispering winds' on Holidays, even though the pitch seemed off.  I think the Fall Breaks fly-in on Mrs. O'Leary's Cow was easily the most seamless and successful of these experiments.

I agree that Bruiteur's work on Barnyard was brilliant, but somehow I've really gotten used to that piano line on IIGS and it sounds a little bit naked without it.
Logged
runnersdialzero
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5143


I WILL NEVER GO TO SCHOOL


View Profile
« Reply #134 on: December 01, 2011, 06:24:43 AM »

The end of "Holidays" is a disaster. Not because Mark and Alan did a poor job of it, it's just not something that can be done well given the two very different keys of their sources. The "Da Da" fly-ins aren't much better - they just sound strange and distracting.

Monicker was pretty spot on with what he said. Less would've been a whole lot more, in cases like this. A handful of the editing choices seem too gimmicky, and the idea of there being regrets over a few of the decisions made considering this goes down as the official Smile album release by the Beach Boys (no matter what they name it) seems likely enough. A lot of well done stuff on here, do not get me wrong, but the previously named issues, the timing being off on several spots on the vocal of what I feel is the key track of the album ("Surf's Up"), etc. just won't do this material justice in the long-term.

For all a lot of these people know, this is how this stuff was meant to sound. They're listening to a comically slowed down vocal bit with timing issues and thinking, "Better than Sgt.Peppers my ass! This guy really did lose it after my precious, precious Pet Sounds was released."
Logged

Tell me it's okay.
Tell me you still love me.
People make mistakes.
People make mistakes.
runnersdialzero
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5143


I WILL NEVER GO TO SCHOOL


View Profile
« Reply #135 on: December 01, 2011, 06:30:51 AM »

Interesting.  To me, the Dada fly-in, while it may make sense on paper, sounded totally artificial and didn't really add much to the song, but somehow I was O.K. with the 'whispering winds' on Holidays, even though the pitch seemed off.  I think the Fall Breaks fly-in on Mrs. O'Leary's Cow was easily the most seamless and successful of these experiments.

I agree that Bruiteur's work on Barnyard was brilliant, but somehow I've really gotten used to that piano line on IIGS and it sounds a little bit naked without it.

The "Fire" fly-ins work too well, mostly because both recordings were in the same key. That's the very reason why some things work beautifully and some really don't on here. Everyone draws the line at a different point, though, I suppose.

On an unrelated note, even if it wasn't intended and is the result of working with limited sources, the piano on "Barnyard" always worked well on fanmixes, to my ears. There's this drunkenness to it that I think really suits the song.
Logged

Tell me it's okay.
Tell me you still love me.
People make mistakes.
People make mistakes.
seanmurd
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 224


View Profile
« Reply #136 on: December 01, 2011, 06:55:45 AM »

That's interesting, because I thought the fly-ins on "Da Da" were the best of them all -- seamless, sounded great, and filled out the song a little more. The only ones my ears really reject are the "whispering winds" vocals at the end of "Holidays" -- too fast, too unnatural, and too bad -- because I love how it worked on the BWPS version. All the other ones I either love or have accepted -- even the ones in "Look." When I first heard them I thought they were totally pointless -- they made an incomplete song somehow MORE incomplete by adding them -- but after a few listens my brain was already inserting them when I listened to the sessions track, so I just got over it. The "Great Shape" fly-in is in a different category, because it JUST DIDN'T WORK; the "Barnyard" one, though, didn't bother me, and it's even better now after Bruiteur's excellent work. When the box first came out, I (and others) wondered by Mark Linett didn't use spectral imaging software (or something else) to remove the piano from the Humble Harv fly-ins, and a certain Beach Boys scholar and Phil Cohen nemesis scolded all of us for presuming that it could have been done any better. And then, like, two days later ... it was done better.  LOL
Interesting.  To me, the Dada fly-in, while it may make sense on paper, sounded totally artificial and didn't really add much to the song, but somehow I was O.K. with the 'whispering winds' on Holidays, even though the pitch seemed off.  I think the Fall Breaks fly-in on Mrs. O'Leary's Cow was easily the most seamless and successful of these experiments.

I agree that Bruiteur's work on Barnyard was brilliant, but somehow I've really gotten used to that piano line on IIGS and it sounds a little bit naked without it.

Just so I know we're talking about the same thing ... the "Da Da" fly-ins I'm talking about are the "da-da-da-da-da-da"s from "Cool Cool Water." Is that what you thought sounded artificial?
Logged

---------------------------
Sean Murdock
Tristero
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


View Profile
« Reply #137 on: December 01, 2011, 06:58:20 AM »

The end of "Holidays" is a disaster. Not because Mark and Alan did a poor job of it, it's just not something that can be done well given the two very different keys of their sources. The "Da Da" fly-ins aren't much better - they just sound strange and distracting.

Monicker was pretty spot on with what he said. Less would've been a whole lot more, in cases like this. A handful of the editing choices seem too gimmicky, and the idea of there being regrets over a few of the decisions made considering this goes down as the official Smile album release by the Beach Boys (no matter what they name it) seems likely enough. A lot of well done stuff on here, do not get me wrong, but the previously named issues, the timing being off on several spots on the vocal of what I feel is the key track of the album ("Surf's Up"), etc. just won't do this material justice in the long-term.

For all a lot of these people know, this is how this stuff was meant to sound. They're listening to a comically slowed down vocal bit with timing issues and thinking, "Better than Sgt.Peppers my ass! This guy really did lose it after my precious, precious Pet Sounds was released."
I think that this is the issue that a lot of longtime SMiLE fans have been grappling with on the 'approximation' piece here.  I know that I went back and forth between acceptance and more of a purist line in the lead up to 11/1/11.  At the end of the day, acceptance won out because I'm just too happy to finally get an official release and for me, there was more good than bad overall, but of course, this is a highly subjective response and it will be interesting to see how this is all viewed years from now.  In an ideal world, I would have preferred a more restrained, natural approach to this material, but I can only imagine the kind of pressure Mark and Alan were up against here.  Will this stuff sour potential new fans?  I doubt it.  Anyone who has it in them to love this music will hear its brilliance despite a few odd effects and will seek it out further.

I'm still holding out hope for SMiLE. . . Naked somewhere down the road though.   Cool
Logged
Tristero
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


View Profile
« Reply #138 on: December 01, 2011, 07:01:40 AM »

Just so I know we're talking about the same thing ... the "Da Da" fly-ins I'm talking about are the "da-da-da-da-da-da"s from "Cool Cool Water." Is that what you thought sounded artificial?
Yeah, Carl's riffing there, though with the pitch change, I almost thought it was a woman singing at first!
Logged
anazgnos
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 384



View Profile
« Reply #139 on: December 01, 2011, 07:11:09 AM »

I cannot believe how much people grouse about the 'whispering winds' fly-ins.  They've been lowered like one step.  The intensity of some of the complaints about those vox, which are easily one of the more subtly and transparently deployed fly-ins/alterations on the box, kind of make these arguments seem less credible overall.

Da-Da on the other hand...yeah, those sound like chipmunk noises.  At least they're down in the mix.
Logged
seanmurd
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 224


View Profile
« Reply #140 on: December 01, 2011, 07:22:35 AM »

I cannot believe how much people grouse about the 'whispering winds' fly-ins.  They've been lowered like one step.  The intensity of some of the complaints about those vox, which are easily one of the more subtly and transparently deployed fly-ins/alterations on the box, kind of make these arguments seem less credible overall.

Da-Da on the other hand...yeah, those sound like chipmunk noises.  At least they're down in the mix.

What can I say? People hear things differently. To me, the "Holidays" fly-ins sound really bad, and the "Da Da" fly-ins sound really good. Different ears, different responses.
Logged

---------------------------
Sean Murdock
runnersdialzero
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5143


I WILL NEVER GO TO SCHOOL


View Profile
« Reply #141 on: December 01, 2011, 07:28:53 AM »

I cannot believe how much people grouse about the 'whispering winds' fly-ins.  They've been lowered like one step.  The intensity of some of the complaints about those vox, which are easily one of the more subtly and transparently deployed fly-ins/alterations on the box, kind of make these arguments seem less credible overall.


They sound awful, d00d. It doesn't matter that it's been lowered "like one step", the results are bad. The timbre sounds incredibly strange and artificial. Like, comically so.

Artificially altering someone's voice like that always really f*cks things up, especially when we're talking about a vocal band like The Beach Boys. The original recording is possibly the most stunningly beautiful sonic capturing of "the blend" that exists. The modified sounds like a team of Notorious B.I.Gs bellowing their parts through a gallon of ice cream in their mouths. It doesn't work.

There's nothing "subtle" or "transparent" about it in the least bit. It's blindingly obvious that it utilizes a totally separate recording and digitally alters the pitch and timing in the 2000s. I've nothing against digital altering if the results are good. These aren't. Bad timbre, bad timing, bad sound, bad results. The worst part is, I really feel like some of this stuff happened to be competitive with fan mixes.

"Fire" is almost seamless, "Holidays" is probably the least so. Honestly, I would've rather they had Brian, Mike, Al and Bruce re-record that vocal part in 2011 than what they did if they really felt it had to be there.

Regardless, I don't see how you can say, "STOP CRITICIZING SLOWED DOWN VOCALS, YOU IDIOT. I'M GONNA COMPLAIN ABOUT SPED UP VOCALS AND I'M NOT AN IDIOT!!!!111111" If one bugs you, isn't it understandable that the other could bug someone else?
« Last Edit: December 01, 2011, 07:41:54 AM by runnersdialzero » Logged

Tell me it's okay.
Tell me you still love me.
People make mistakes.
People make mistakes.
RadBooley
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


View Profile
« Reply #142 on: December 01, 2011, 07:33:07 AM »

Just so I know we're talking about the same thing ... the "Da Da" fly-ins I'm talking about are the "da-da-da-da-da-da"s from "Cool Cool Water." Is that what you thought sounded artificial?
Yeah, Carl's riffing there, though with the pitch change, I almost thought it was a woman singing at first!
Wait... it's NOT?
Logged
TheManchesterMan
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


View Profile
« Reply #143 on: December 01, 2011, 07:33:15 AM »

I cannot believe how much people grouse about the 'whispering winds' fly-ins.  They've been lowered like one step.  The intensity of some of the complaints about those vox, which are easily one of the more subtly and transparently deployed fly-ins/alterations on the box, kind of make these arguments seem less credible overall.

Da-Da on the other hand...yeah, those sound like chipmunk noises.  At least they're down in the mix.

The whispering winds vocals sound a bit odd. There's not much pitch shifting gone on, but it sounds a bit wooly. Only a minor gripe. The Da Da scatting has been shifted to such an extent that it sounds like a couple of schoolgirls, not at all like the Beach Boys. It should have been left off. I could handle it if the track it was taken off was in the same key or thereabouts, but it was way off.
Logged
anazgnos
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 384



View Profile
« Reply #144 on: December 01, 2011, 08:15:42 AM »

The intensity of some of the complaints...kind of make these arguments seem less credible overall.
The modified sounds like a team of Notorious B.I.Gs bellowing their parts through a gallon of ice cream in their mouths.

Anyway, like I was saying...
Logged
runnersdialzero
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5143


I WILL NEVER GO TO SCHOOL


View Profile
« Reply #145 on: December 01, 2011, 08:37:36 AM »

The intensity of some of the complaints...kind of make these arguments seem less credible overall.
The modified sounds like a team of Notorious B.I.Gs bellowing their parts through a gallon of ice cream in their mouths.

Anyway, like I was saying...

Was meant to be a joke. But hay.
Logged

Tell me it's okay.
Tell me you still love me.
People make mistakes.
People make mistakes.
Jeff
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 545



View Profile
« Reply #146 on: December 01, 2011, 10:35:06 AM »

I cannot believe how much people grouse about the 'whispering winds' fly-ins.  They've been lowered like one step.  The intensity of some of the complaints about those vox, which are easily one of the more subtly and transparently deployed fly-ins/alterations on the box, kind of make these arguments seem less credible overall.


They sound awful, d00d. It doesn't matter that it's been lowered "like one step", the results are bad. The timbre sounds incredibly strange and artificial. Like, comically so.

Artificially altering someone's voice like that always really f*cks things up, especially when we're talking about a vocal band like The Beach Boys. The original recording is possibly the most stunningly beautiful sonic capturing of "the blend" that exists. The modified sounds like a team of Notorious B.I.Gs bellowing their parts through a gallon of ice cream in their mouths. It doesn't work.

There's nothing "subtle" or "transparent" about it in the least bit. It's blindingly obvious that it utilizes a totally separate recording and digitally alters the pitch and timing in the 2000s. I've nothing against digital altering if the results are good. These aren't. Bad timbre, bad timing, bad sound, bad results. The worst part is, I really feel like some of this stuff happened to be competitive with fan mixes.

"Fire" is almost seamless, "Holidays" is probably the least so. Honestly, I would've rather they had Brian, Mike, Al and Bruce re-record that vocal part in 2011 than what they did if they really felt it had to be there.

Regardless, I don't see how you can say, "STOP CRITICIZING SLOWED DOWN VOCALS, YOU IDIOT. I'M GONNA COMPLAIN ABOUT SPED UP VOCALS AND I'M NOT AN IDIOT!!!!111111" If one bugs you, isn't it understandable that the other could bug someone else?

I agree with most of this.  To me, it's almost unfathomable that the same people who have been working with the band for years and years, and who did a great job on most of the rest of the set could have f***ed up Holidays so badly.  It's just unlistenable to my ears.  And to make it worse, they overdubbed the WW vocals over the start of Wind Chimes, so we have to go to the effort of replacing two tracks to correct one ridiculous mistake.  A minor gripe, but one that should not have been necessary.

I really, really wanted to just accept the 19-track Smile as is, and not mess with it--but I just can't.

Having said all that, I think the DaDa and Fire fly-ins are fine, and with Bruiteur's help, the Great Shape and Barnyard fly-ins are fine too.
Logged
Billgoodman
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


View Profile
« Reply #147 on: December 09, 2011, 01:04:58 AM »

Ok, we should have one page consisting of links to the fanmixes, maybe sticky this or put it in a new thread (but that's up to the mods)

Monicker's Conservative Mix:
320 kbps MP3: http://www.mediafire.com/?1uaucaibg3ts6xb
Apple Lossless: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YSP90RYN

Soniclovenoize stereomix:
320kps mp3s:
http://www.mediafire.com/?h8l3jk2d54jmfvn


SMiLE - soniclovenoize stereo mix 2.0
http://www.mediafire.com/?1i005d3ybr23sxq

Flacs:
Side A: http://www.mediafire.com/?6whwgib17b2ocuw
Side B: http://www.mediafire.com/?1ff6ngdu1gpzlr4

Barnshine's Stereo mix":

http://www.mediafire.com/?hwexk3pniol7ngd

Barnshine's Stereo Companion Mix
DL in FLAC:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ebohkga11j6psub
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?tpclawrtcy757ep
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?0wv63jeg8ftvyd0

3 fixed tracks (flac):
Heroes and Villains - improved stereo mix http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?kuardevwjr4flpx
Surf's Up - shortened silence before the track starts http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?jllddgtpvt39evg
Good Vibrations - fixed the dropout http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?0ukv08bfzo6w6a3

Mp3 version (including the fixed tracks): http://www.mediafire.com/?nteo6eopdleu71t



seltaeb1012002 A.D. Mix:

http://icreateification.blogspot.com/2011/11/smile-ad-stereo-mix.html



That's about it, what did I miss?
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 03:55:58 AM by Billgoodman » Logged
Bleachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 117



View Profile
« Reply #148 on: December 09, 2011, 04:26:14 AM »

Mine should be ready pretty soon
Logged
Billgoodman
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


View Profile
« Reply #149 on: December 09, 2011, 05:09:49 AM »

Looking forward to it!
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.701 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!