Do It Again- new version question

[the professor]

Yes, Dave added a rhythm and a lead track, and they are both gold. They establish the foundational musical authenticity of the reunion.

The Professor

[c-man]

Let's also be real here.....is David Marks really on the song? Cuz I've heard he ain't really.

David was definitely brought in to record new parts, hence the footage of him doing just that. Now whether a remix including his parts was ever released...all I can say is the final track as released sounds EXACTLY the same as the version used on the original, pre-David video that leaked out soon after the reunion announcement was made, meaning it's Scott Totten's solo, not David's. Whether Joe Thomas used the footage with Dave but didn't bother doing an audio remix, or whether he did but didn't use it for some reason, is unknown.   

[the captain]

Re: downloads, I tend to audition on Spotify. If I like it enough, I'll buy the CD. If not, just listen to Spotify.

Same basic process as I use for commercially available material: audition for free (legally), buy if I like it (either via download or occasionally physical copy). Gotta say RangeRoverA1, the idea that artists getting their name out there via free downloads, but not getting any income from them, doesn't really make sense, in that the artists need actual income to make a living. Being popular, but unpaid, doesn't get you far. (For touring artists, this can be beneficial through ticket sales, but not everyone tours.) I don't mean to get on a moral high horse--I've done my share of, ahem, acquiring music, and certainly this isn't the place for the conversation. But I do think that out of the principle of the thing, artists should be paid for their work. All the excuses--this is the 21st century, they make enough money already, they could make money through other means, they get free publicity, etc--strike me as just that: excuses, from people who want to steal instead of buy. What if your boss decided to quit paying you because after all, you were getting a chance to build skills and gain exposure in your field? Really you don't deserve or need income from him, right? Now I'll shut up.

[the professor]

Jon or Dave of one of the other BBs or musicians will have to weigh in. I no longer have the pre-marks version.  But if a side by side analysis reveals that they added Dave visually but kept all Scott's parts, fabricating the illusion of Dave's playing, then that would be disheartening, and I would want someone to produce the real David marks versions, since his parts must be in the can.  I will await definitive confirmation of all this. 

Let's also be real here.....is David Marks really on the song? Cuz I've heard he ain't really.

David was definitely brought in to record new parts, hence the footage of him doing just that. Now whether a remix including his parts was ever released...all I can say is the final track as released sounds EXACTLY the same as the version used on the original, pre-David video that leaked out soon after the reunion announcement was made, meaning it's Scott Totten's solo, not David's. Whether Joe Thomas used the footage with Dave but didn't bother doing an audio remix, or whether he did but didn't use it for some reason, is unknown.   

[HeyJude]

Jon or Dave of one of the other BBs or musicians will have to weigh in. I no longer have the pre-marks version.  But if a side by side analysis reveals that they added Dave visually but kept all Scott's parts, fabricating the illusion of Dave's playing, then that would be disheartening, and I would want someone to produce the real David marks versions, since his parts must be in the can.  I will await definitive confirmation of all this. 

I think Dave is awesome, and while not underused to the degree Al was/is, he was also underused, especially musically. But for better or worse, he didn't play a very audible role in the studio work they did for C50. I'm sure if you're super attuned to Dave's playing, you can pick out some of his guitar parts on the album. But he was there for unity (the other guys wanting him there), and for the live shows, and for marketing purposes to have five guys there.

Dave doesn't play a big vocal role in the studio, and the Beach Boys haven't been particular guitar-heavy since, well, Dave was in the band in the early 60's.

The fact that we can't tell whether he's playing on any of the mixes of the "Do It Again" that we have probably speaks to how integral his guitar work was or would be, Brian's desire to have David's "feel" on the recording notwithstanding. I'm sure he could have done a blistering guitar solo, don't get me wrong. But he's not super prominent on the studio work they did, regardless of his talent.

[c-man]

Jude - I think Dave's guitar playing on TWGMTR is rather prominent on "Strange World" - Gary Griffin's description of the sessons back that up. Too bad Dave wasn't credited on that song (nor was any guitarist)! He's also evident on "Beaches In Mind", playing one of the two surfy parts (Skunk Baxter presumably plays the other).

Professor - As for the 2011 "Do It Again" - based on Jon's chronology of events on the thread relating to Dave's participation in C50, it's possible his rhythm part is in the final mix used in both versions of the video, even if footage of him wasn't used in the initial video cut. But - and I have this on extremely good authority - it's Scotty T's guitar solo.

[HeyJude]

Jude - I think Dave's guitar playing on TWGMTR is rather prominent on "Strange World" - Gary Griffin's description of the sessons back that up. Too bad Dave wasn't credited on that song (nor was any guitarist)! He's also evident on "Beaches In Mind", playing one of the two surfy parts (Skunk Baxter presumably plays the other).

Professor - As for the 2011 "Do It Again" - based on Jon's chronology of events on the thread relating to Dave's participation in C50, it's possible his rhythm part is in the final mix used in both versions of the video, even if footage of him wasn't used in the initial video cut. But - and I have this on extremely good authority - it's Scotty T's guitar solo.

I can definitely pick David out. I was just making a more general point that he pops in here and there, and he's wasn't necessarily brought in to the C50 project for his guitar playing, but because he's a Beach Boy (and I don't mean that in a bad way).

[The Shift]

A minor point - but as long as we are setting the record straight, I played the solo on the Do It Again remake.  David was added later to the video, and Mr. Stebbins says the track as well, but the guitar solo remains the same.

I think the only way to legally buy the re-make is by purchasing the Japanese Edition of TWGMTR. It was included as a bonus track.

… and the 'zine pack as mentioned early in the thread.

[the professor]

Well, Scott knows what he played, and I, blinded by hope, was easily tricked. Disheartening....I had cherished that video as a comeback moment of some magnitude. They simply ought to have used Dave's version if they wanted his feel and if they were willing to construct his participation in the video. I will turn to the live version with Dave playing for my solace now.

Thank you all for working to research and clarify.

A minor point - but as long as we are setting the record straight, I played the solo on the Do It Again remake.  David was added later to the video, and Mr. Stebbins says the track as well, but the guitar solo remains the same.

I think the only way to legally buy the re-make is by purchasing the Japanese Edition of TWGMTR. It was included as a bonus track.

… and the 'zine pack as mentioned early in the thread.

[Al Jardine: Pick Up Artist]

TBH I have no qualms about pirating music from huge groups like The Beach Boys or the like, or software from huge companies from Adobe and the like.

It's the smaller artists / developers that really need the income.

Also, the "downloads kill the music industry!" argument is stale. It's not. Sharing tapes with your friends didn't kill the industry either.

Online piracy is the 21st century equivalent of making tapes for people.

[Please delete my account]

What if your boss decided to quit paying you because after all, you were getting a chance to build skills and gain exposure in your field? Really you don't deserve or need income from him, right? Now I'll shut up.

Or if you were a historian publishing books and articles about the Beach Boys, would you start giving away your knowledge and insight for free on the internet? You're right, the very idea is laughable.

But seriously, it's funny you should say that with more and more young people forced to do internships to get started on the career of their choice, thus shutting out the people who can't afford to do that.

[bringahorseinhere?]

hey c-man...

how come (in this day and age).... the credits for TWGMTR are 'all over the place'.. in this day and age?

this 'solo' and video thing is one thing.... then we have 'is dave marks singing on the album' situation

apparently the booklet credits are deeply incorrect...?..?

he is in the studio with them..... but not listed as a vocalist........ yet video implies otherwise...

so it is scott who does the solo on 'do it again' and not Dave?..?

what are the 'real' TWGMTR credits?


RickB

[c-man]

hey c-man...

how come (in this day and age).... the credits for TWGMTR are 'all over the place'.. in this day and age?

this 'solo' and video thing is one thing.... then we have 'is dave marks singing on the album' situation

apparently the booklet credits are deeply incorrect...?..?

he is in the studio with them..... but not listed as a vocalist........ yet video implies otherwise...

so it is scott who does the solo on 'do it again' and not Dave?..?

what are the 'real' TWGMTR credits?


RickB

Rick - I can't speak specifically as to why the "TWGMTR" album credits are as incomplete as they are (I don't know if they're actually "incorrect", or wrong, as such...just missing a whole lot of important parts). I have no idea who assembled them. But it's not the only time something like this has happened recently...I'm reminded of the 2010 deluxe release of the Rolling Stones' "Exile On Main Street" album: for whatever reason, those credits were horribly and demonstrably "wrong"...with MJ credited as playing guitar on Keith's track "Happy", and a Paul Buckmaster string section given a credit on the same cut as well! Obviously a case of credits from one track (not even from the same album!) being sloppily copied from a database and erroneously pasted into the credits for another track. I, like you, was astounded at how something like that could happen...then, when I found myself compiling the credits for the Boys' "SMiLE Sessions" box set a year later, and was faced with the dichotomy of newly-discovered research hitting up against the realities of hard deadlines and record-company pressure, I realized that these things can happen. As such, I've found a few glaring omissions in my own work there - which will be fixed online and perhaps in print, eventually.

[The Shift]

… I've found a few glaring omissions in my own work there - which will be fixed online and perhaps in print[/i], eventually.

Please!

Will pay…

[Stephen W. Desper]

Re: downloads, I tend to audition on Spotify. If I like it enough, I'll buy the CD. If not, just listen to Spotify.

Same basic process as I use for commercially available material: audition for free (legally), buy if I like it (either via download or occasionally physical copy). Gotta say RangeRoverA1, the idea that artists getting their name out there via free downloads, but not getting any income from them, doesn't really make sense, in that the artists need actual income to make a living. Being popular, but unpaid, doesn't get you far. (For touring artists, this can be beneficial through ticket sales, but not everyone tours.) I don't mean to get on a moral high horse--I've done my share of, ahem, acquiring music, and certainly this isn't the place for the conversation. But I do think that out of the principle of the thing, artists should be paid for their work. All the excuses--this is the 21st century, they make enough money already, they could make money through other means, they get free publicity, etc--strike me as just that: excuses, from people who want to steal instead of buy. What if your boss decided to quit paying you because after all, you were getting a chance to build skills and gain exposure in your field? Really you don't deserve or need income from him, right? Now I'll shut up.

COMMENT: I agree with you in that artists need an income and should be paid a royalty for their craft. However, the LAW allows you to make copies of any songs you buy AS LONG AS NO ONE MAKES MONEY.  If you copy from YouTube and then sell what you copied, that is illegal. As long as you don't financially benefit from your copy, the artist does not benefit either and no one losses.

From a technical point of view, every time you play a CD, DVD, or Stream Audio/Video you are making a copy.  In all cases, the raw data is copied into a file where it is error-corrected and then re-assembled for playback. In digital, you cannot just take the signal and hear it, as in analog. It must first be copied into a file -- and so every time you play a CD or listen to YouTube you are breaking the law -- technically -- that is if the law says you can't make a copy. However, I don't think the law says that. I think commerce has to be involved for it to be considered breaking the law. This is US Law, of course. Some other countries don't seem to give a damn.  

~swd

[the captain]

COMMENT: I agree with you in that artists need an income and should be paid a royalty for their craft. However, the LAW allows you to make copies of any songs you buy AS LONG AS NO ONE MAKES MONEY.  If you copy from YouTube and then sell what you copied, that is illegal. As long as you don't financially benefit from your copy, the artist does not benefit either and no one losses.

However, some (much?) of the music posted to youtube was posted without the artists' consent in the first place and presumably they aren't being paid for that, either. So downloading legally a copy of an illegally posted song doesn't seem exactly OK. And regardless of the technical legality, I guess I just believe in erring on the side of purchasing what is commercially available if I want to retain a copy for my own use.

[Jim V.]

Well, Scott knows what he played, and I, blinded by hope, was easily tricked. Disheartening....I had cherished that video as a comeback moment of some magnitude. They simply ought to have used Dave's version if they wanted his feel and if they were willing to construct his participation in the video. I will turn to the live version with Dave playing for my solace now.

Thank you all for working to research and clarify.

I'm sorry professor, but how does David Marks part not being audible change the fact that the unveiling of the new recording and video of "Do It Again" was a big fuckin' deal? I too think Dave's story is lovely, that he got to rejoin his old group, to hear the ovation of the audience for the great work he had done. And also most importantly, it was great to see him rekindle the magic that comes whenever they're together, like when they worked on Mike Love, Bruce Johnston & David Marks of the Beach Boys Salute NASCAR.

But the facts are it is still a comeback moment of some magnitude regardless of Dave, since ya know, Brian Wilson was reuniting with his group, the majority of the guys who made Pet Sounds together. And yeah, I think that's a pretty big fuckin' deal, regardless of whether the guy who was like nine years old* when he quit was actually playing on the introductory reunion track.


*Yes I know he wasn't nine when he quit.

[the professor]

my friend The dude. I agree with you completely. My comment was very narrowly focused on the specific participation of dave , as a moment of come back. If he's not really playing what he is apparently playing on the video then of course it diminishes the magnitude, the artistic integrity ,and the very historical reality of his role in the comeback. And of course as always, I was not speaking in the abstract about the diminished integrity of the magnitude of the reunion, but only as I, as a fan of my favorite beach boy, perceive it and process it emotionally.  they've more than enough compensates for it in scores of other performances of that song, but when u have been watching something and u think  your hero hit a homerun but then you learn that he was actually pinch hit for that day, it is disappointing.  Best and thanks.

[Stephen W. Desper]

COMMENT: I agree with you in that artists need an income and should be paid a royalty for their craft. However, the LAW allows you to make copies of any songs you buy AS LONG AS NO ONE MAKES MONEY.  If you copy from YouTube and then sell what you copied, that is illegal. As long as you don't financially benefit from your copy, the artist does not benefit either and no one losses.

However, some (much?) of the music posted to youtube was posted without the artists' consent in the first place and presumably they aren't being paid for that, either. So downloading legally a copy of an illegally posted song doesn't seem exactly OK. And regardless of the technical legality, I guess I just believe in erring on the side of purchasing what is commercially available if I want to retain a copy for my own use.

COMMENT:  You are correct. Downloading an illegally made copy does not make it legal. So much is going on to YouTube without objection by the artist that a presedence is being set. If you do something that is illegal and no one objects, then you do it again and again and no one objects, it becomes harder to call it illegal. Just look at what Obama is doing -- one action after another is considered illegal, but if Congress does nothing it becomes law of the land, even though illegal at first. The last ruling from the US Supreme Court reflected that sentiment . So having said that, the actions of Brother Records toward all the YouTube postings seems to give a general permission to the viewer that making a COPY is OK since nothing has been challanged by them.  I go into this in more detail on my website, http://swdstudyvideos.com.

You are also correct to say that unless we listeners pay the artist their royalty by way of buying their music, little can be expected in the future. You can't just take and take and take refreshment without expecting the fountain to run dry at some time.

~swd

[bgas]

COMMENT: I agree with you in that artists need an income and should be paid a royalty for their craft. However, the LAW allows you to make copies of any songs you buy AS LONG AS NO ONE MAKES MONEY.  If you copy from YouTube and then sell what you copied, that is illegal. As long as you don't financially benefit from your copy, the artist does not benefit either and no one losses.

However, some (much?) of the music posted to youtube was posted without the artists' consent in the first place and presumably they aren't being paid for that, either. So downloading legally a copy of an illegally posted song doesn't seem exactly OK. And regardless of the technical legality, I guess I just believe in erring on the side of purchasing what is commercially available if I want to retain a copy for my own use.

COMMENT:  You are correct. Downloading an illegally made copy does not make it legal. So much is going on to YouTube without objection by the artist that a presedence is being set. If you do something that is illegal and no one objects, then you do it again and again and no one objects, it becomes harder to call it illegal. Just look at what Obama is doing -- one action after another is considered illegal, but if Congress does nothing it becomes law of the land, even though illegal at first. The last ruling from the US Supreme Court reflected that sentiment . So having said that, the actions of Brother Records toward all the YouTube postings seems to give a general permission to the viewer that making a COPY is OK since nothing has been challanged by them.  I go into this in more detail on my website, http://swdstudyvideos.com.

You are also correct to say that unless we listeners pay the artist their royalty by way of buying their music, little can be expected in the future. You can't just take and take and take refreshment without expecting the fountain to run dry at some time.

~swd

You mean it's not an Endless Harmony?   

[Pretty Funky]

Hi all.. qq:

Is it possible to legitimately download the re-recorded version of Do it Again from back in 2011 or 2012? I remember seeing a video of it on a sizzle reel.

And if so, where?

Thanks

As noted its on the Japanese version and can be purchased off ebay.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/THE-BEACH-BOYS-THATS-WHY-GOD-MADE-THE-RADIO-JAPAN-CD-BONUS-TRACK-F25-/351107693425?pt=Music_CDs&hash=item51bfa63b71


or


http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/product/TOCP-71311

[adamghost]

Speaking to the credits question, it's not surprising in the digital age where you can cut and paste parts, notes, and even fractions of individual notes that there would be confusion about who plays what, and that's on top of whatever sloppy bookkeeping there might be.  I did an album a few years back where there was a bass track that person A played except one part wasn't right so person B played that section, and then I nudged the parts around to get them in correct time.  It's not a process I endorse, btw, but the point is, who "played" the track at that point?  Likewise if you fly in, say, a couple of drum hits to form a rhythm bed.  Did the original drummer "play" the track?  Not really, but you are hearing their performance in a way.

[petsite]

[/s]]http://www.amazon.com/The-Beach-Boys-Anniversary-Collection/dp/B007ZE38F8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404674873&sr=8-1&keywords=beach+boys+do+it+again+2012

[job]

It's only available on the ZinePak, of which I have two copies.

[Awesoman]

my friend The dude. I agree with you completely. My comment was very narrowly focused on the specific participation of dave , as a moment of come back. If he's not really playing what he is apparently playing on the video then of course it diminishes the magnitude, the artistic integrity ,and the very historical reality of his role in the comeback. And of course as always, I was not speaking in the abstract about the diminished integrity of the magnitude of the reunion, but only as I, as a fan of my favorite beach boy, perceive it and process it emotionally.  they've more than enough compensates for it in scores of other performances of that song, but when u have been watching something and u think  your hero hit a homerun but then you learn that he was actually pinch hit for that day, it is disappointing.  Best and thanks.

Isn't he playing the solo on the live version?