50th Anniversary live double CD up for pre-order on Amazon

[AndrewHickey]

http://www.amazon.com/Live-The-50th-Anniversary-Tour/dp/B00C7O8TSM
With a release date of May 21. Same release date is showing on Amazon UK, too.
Might this be one reason for the box set delay, to allow the live album to come out for the summer, with the box set being aimed at the Christmas market and coming out in the autumn? It'd make sense...

[Shady]

What's this now....

Boy, the board came back online just in time

[acedecade75]

 So, is this just an audio version of the DVD that was released, or will this have different tracks?

[HeyJude]

So, is this just an audio version of the DVD that was released, or will this have different tracks?

The DVD/Blu-ray was only around an hour, so if this is a 2-CD set, we can hope it's at least *most* of the setlist from the tour. I think all 61 songs done throughout the tour would be tough to fit on two 80-minute CD's, but I'm not sure. I doubt we'd get all 61 songs including "Summer's Gone", "Our Prayer", etc., but hopefully maybe at least the standard 45-50 song setlist.

[AndrewHickey]

So, is this just an audio version of the DVD that was released, or will this have different tracks?

We don't know yet -- no tracklisting's been released. But I very strongly suspect it'll be something more. The live DVD only had 21 tracks, which would easily fit onto a single CD, and this is a double one. And the costs of including extra songs on a CD are much lower than on a DVD.

So my guess would be that this would be a forty- or fifty-song collection, probably representing a typical setlist but taken from multiple performances. That's based on no information other than the Amazon listing, but it's what would make most sense to me.

[AndrewHickey]

So, is this just an audio version of the DVD that was released, or will this have different tracks?

The DVD/Blu-ray was only around an hour, so if this is a 2-CD set, we can hope it's at least *most* of the setlist from the tour. I think all 61 songs done throughout the tour would be touch to fit on two 80-minute CD's, but I'm not sure. I doubt we'd get all 61 songs including "Summer's Gone", "Our Prayer", etc., but hopefully maybe at least the standard 45-50 songs setlist.

I did some working out of this earlier when discussing it on Facebook.  The Albert Hall show was 186 minutes, and I'd read somewhere that the limit for a CD was 74, but I just checked and 80 seems to be the case now. That would mean they'd have to cut 26 minutes of music out, at a minimum.

My guess (again, just a guess) is that they'd be more likely to cut songs that don't have a Beach Boy singing lead -- Darlin', Why Do Fools Fall In Love, Let Him Run Wild, Don't Worry Baby, Betsy -- or that used pre-recorded elements (God Only Knows and Forever). Drop those and they'd only have to lose another five minutes.

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

...Or cut out useless banter...

[bgas]

So, is this just an audio version of the DVD that was released, or will this have different tracks?

The DVD/Blu-ray was only around an hour, so if this is a 2-CD set, we can hope it's at least *most* of the setlist from the tour. I think all 61 songs done throughout the tour would be touch to fit on two 80-minute CD's, but I'm not sure. I doubt we'd get all 61 songs including "Summer's Gone", "Our Prayer", etc., but hopefully maybe at least the standard 45-50 songs setlist.

I did some working out of this earlier when discussing it on Facebook.  The Albert Hall show was 186 minutes, and I'd read somewhere that the limit for a CD was 74, but I just checked and 80 seems to be the case now. That would mean they'd have to cut 26 minutes of music out, at a minimum.

My guess (again, just a guess) is that they'd be more likely to cut songs that don't have a Beach Boy singing lead -- Darlin', Why Do Fools Fall In Love, Let Him Run Wild, Don't Worry Baby, Betsy -- or that used pre-recorded elements (God Only Knows and Forever). Drop those and they'd only have to lose another five minutes.

Except that, unlike any other group,  this is the Beach Boys; they don't really care what WE WANT. Odds are they'll cut the songs most folks really want to hear and keep the banter and guest vocalists

[Justin]

This is really great news.  Can't wait for it.

But I'm NOT looking forward to hearing all the auto-tuned/overdubbed stuff they'll no doubt put on top of the performances.  Sigh....

[AndrewHickey]

...Or cut out useless banter...

There was *very* little banter at the Albert Hall show, which is where I got that timing from, or at the Wembley show, which had fewer songs and came in at 168 minutes.

Except that, unlike any other group,  this is the Beach Boys; they don't really care what WE WANT. Odds are they'll cut the songs most folks really want to hear and keep the banter and guest vocalists

Actually, I'd quite like to have decent-quality live recordings of Darian singing Darlin' and Scott singing Let Him Run Wild. I'm thinking more in terms of what they're likely to do -- none of the other live albums have ever had a non-Beach Boy lead vocal, the DVD last year didn't include any, and all the official live video footage, from whatever era, cuts away as much as possible so you can't tell someone else is covering the falsetto parts. I think they'll want to keep to just songs with Beach Boy lead vocals for their own egos' sake.

Though I could be talking rubbish, of course. I often do.

[the professor]

Link was useful. Thank you St. Andrew; it does not appear just by doing a BB search in Amazon. Great news: likely 50 songs and perhaps akin to the live in Japan show that one of our brother provided here long ago and that I listen to every day.

I can live with a little overdubbing.

I am hoping for Pet Sounds with Dave,ASMTYD, and many others more. In re-listening to TWGMTR (single love), Jeff is the weak link; he ruins every live performance of that song when he tries to sing way up top. I do like him on ATIT, however.

SO: a live album; what else it to come?  Perhaps this does not merit its own thread, so I offer it here:

http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/834326_The-surf-s-still-up-for-Mike-Love-and-the-Beach-Boys.html

Mike Love says in this interview that concerning the 50th celebration shows:


"he was happy with the music and the presentation of the Beach Boys' catalog of songs.
"I think there were too many guitarists and too many voices competing for parts for my taste, but it was a good experience musically," he says. "Brian has a good band and there were some good musicians there. We had a good time."
Asked about the possibility of working with Wilson in the future, Love says, "I'm not negative on it but there are no plans at this moment in time to do anything more. But Ian Fleming taught us to 'never say never.'"


Read more: http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/834326_The-surf-s-still-up-for-Mike-Love-and-the-Beach-Boys.html#ixzz2PkBgCW2s

[Shady]

What the hell is Mike talking about

[the professor]

What the hell is Mike talking about

I think he might mean that certain songs were a mess, where it was not clear who was singing what part: Kiss me baby is a prime example; it's a great favorite, but it sounded like they were throwing it together without a vocal arrangement. He might also refer to how Jeff doubled everybody all the time (well, it seemed like that). As for the guitarists: was it not an attempt to reproduce the records, demanding an orchestra of guitars at times? Or were there just too many? Al was never heard on guitar--not a note.
But from what Mike says, I see no plan for shows or for an album--at least he mentioned no album in the works, or he failed to distinguish that possibility from the touring plans. . . . .why grasp for straws, Professor?

You complain, some of you, that I refer to myself in the 3rd person, so I will move to the second.

best to all

[baseball95]

Looks like we should blame Foskett for the breakup since he made it "too many guitarists" , at least for Mike's tastes.

[tpesky]

In the article, "when he says it's not just Brian, that's all I care to say about that." Is he referring to Melinda or Al or both?

[the professor]

In the article, "when he says it's not just Brian, that's all I care to say about that." Is he referring to Melinda or Al or both?

Well, not Al, and I think not Melinda; I think he means the entire entourage that is part of working with Brian. As for an album, I can see Mike being asked, essentially, "Do you want to come in to sing a part that will pretty much be drowned out by 5 of Jeff's parts on a song you didn't write for the next album?" and Mike taking a pass.

Get the 5 BB together in a studio to plan an album, working together as loving brothers; that's never going to happen, but it's how I imagine an ideal future.

I apologize for injecting another topic--Mike's recent interview--into this thread about the live album.

[Jim V.]

What the hell is Mike talking about

What Mike is doing is the classic thing somebody does when they retroactively decide they didn't like something. It's like dating a girl, thinking she's the greatest thing around, no complaints. Then you break up, and you're like, well, she cut her hair too short, she talked too much, she sang along too loud to the radio in the car, etc. I think that's what Mike is doing. He likely doesn't have much of a reason to be upset about anything about C50, but he wants to go on his cheap-o "Beach Boys" tours without the extra baggage like that dude who wrote nearly all of the songs they play. So he has to invent reasons. Hmm, well....too many guitarists, Brian has an entourage, Al wants to do different songs, why the heck does Brian wanna do "Marcella" if it wasn't even in the top 40, etc. It's obvious. He's just making sh*t up so he doesn't look like an asshole. Little does he know, he then looks like more of an asshole.

Anyways, bring on the live album.


And that box set would be nice too.


And as far as a new studio album, professor, I think a new Beach Boys studio album this year is about as likely as Bruce Johnston declaring his support for President Obama.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Or he's just a guy with the right to his own opinion. Especially when it concerns a situation he's being raked over the coals for not continuing with.

BTW, aren't there reams and reams of threads on this board where many of us are bitching about the exact same things Mike is talking about? Oh, but he's the asshole?

Typical Beach Boys fan logic at work.

[Andrew G. Doe]

That's why I love this board - the barest minimum info and already folk are bitching.

[Jim V.]

That's why I love this board - the barest minimum info and already folk are bitching.

Who's bitching about the live set Andrew? I don't see any.

That's what I love about this board. People who love to bitch about nonexistent folk bitching.

[HeyJude]

What the hell is Mike talking about

I think he might mean that certain songs were a mess, where it was not clear who was singing what part: Kiss me baby is a prime example; it's a great favorite, but it sounded like they were throwing it together without a vocal arrangement. He might also refer to how Jeff doubled everybody all the time (well, it seemed like that). As for the guitarists: was it not an attempt to reproduce the records, demanding an orchestra of guitars at times? Or were there just too many? Al was never heard on guitar--not a note.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I think the amount of musicians/singers on stage gave Mike pause not so much because of any musical or performance elements, and more because of budgetary reasons. I think it was Howie Edelson's interview during the tour where Mike made a passing, very calm reference to the band being larger than he would like. While it's *possible* someone could have a musical/stylistic reason for wanting a smaller band (the band is needed for the mid-60's stuff, and for a lot of BB vocal stuff, but certainly is probably a larger contingent than is needed to perform "It's OK" or "Still Cruisin'"), I think Mike's eye for the financial bottom line (and accompanying logistical and political concerns) is what gives him hesitation as to the size of the 50th touring band.

[Paulos]

As long as the new live album has a better sound than the recent DVD I'll be happy. Thanks for the link and info Andrew (of the Hickey variety)

[Nicko1234]

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I think the amount of musicians/singers on stage gave Mike pause not so much because of any musical or performance elements, and more because of budgetary reasons. I think it was Howie Edelson's interview during the tour where Mike made a passing, very calm reference to the band being larger than he would like. While it's *possible* someone could have a musical/stylistic reason for wanting a smaller band (the band is needed for the mid-60's stuff, and for a lot of BB vocal stuff, but certainly is probably a larger contingent than is needed to perform "It's OK" or "Still Cruisin'"), I think Mike's eye for the financial bottom line (and accompanying logistical and political concerns) is what gives him hesitation as to the size of the 50th touring band.

I'm sure that budgetary concerns and the sheer scale of organizing the thing are a big part of Mike's comments.

I would also say that the band was bigger than it 'needed' to be. Not necessarily bigger than it should have been but if you were drawing up a touring band from scratch with half an eye on business then you could do it with fewer members on stage without really affecting the performance.

[Rocker]

Two discs! That's good news! Thanks for the link

[AndrewHickey]

I think he might mean that certain songs were a mess, where it was not clear who was singing what part: Kiss me baby is a prime example; it's a great favorite, but it sounded like they were throwing it together without a vocal arrangement.

Hardly! Everyone sang that perfectly...the arrangement was the same one that Brian's band had been playing for years.

He might also refer to how Jeff doubled everybody all the time (well, it seemed like that).

That, or something like it, is the one criticism of last year's tour I can see. Not Jeff, per se, but the number of vocalists on stage meant that the harmonies were dominated by the backing band -- for all people were talking about how great it was to hear 'the blend' again, it was in effect the Brian Wilson band with guest lead vocaists. Personally, I don't see that as a bad thing, though...

As for the guitarists: was it not an attempt to reproduce the records, demanding an orchestra of guitars at times? Or were there just too many? Al was never heard on guitar--not a note.

Well, Nick departed fairly quickly, so that meant the only guitarists were Jeff, David, Al, Probyn and Scott T -- and there were a lot of rumours that Jeff's guitar wasn't actually in the mix (and there were many songs where he didn't play it), while Probyn of course played a lot of other instruments. I suspect the main reason for Jeff and Al playing guitar was to make them more comfortable on stage rather than to add to the sound.

Oddly, Al's guitar *was* in the mix -- at the two Italian shows I was in the front row, and could see who was playing what. On a couple of songs, most notably California Saga, Al was playing parts that no-one else was playing, and that were clearly audible.