I am really surprised at how good Taylor's stuff is. Not that I expected it to be bad, but I wondered if she could carry a disc by herself as a performer. It seems she definitely can! She does a great cover of Scott Bennett's "Anything", and the other 3 songs on You Tube are real nice too. I definitely think she's fortunate to have Scott working with her, that guy is SO talented. I will definitely pick up her disc when it is out.

I haven't heard Nelson's yet - I need to check it out for sure.

BTW, do check out "The Dotted Line" by Scott - it's already out and it's really good!

What was so daring about Brian Wilson playing Smile live? Someone explain THAT one to me.

Don't bother preaching to me, I don't care what anyone thinks anyway.

EDIT - If Brian performs Love You live, then and only then will I rethink my post. Until then, no dice.

He played "The Night Was So Young" at the House of Blues in Chicago. In the same show he also played "Friends", "Busy Doin' Nothin'", "Melt Away", and "Hang On To Your Ego".

I am, out of nowhere, listening to this again now. And I am a bit, uh, in the holiday spirit, so to speak. And I can't help but say I think this is a really nice album. And the new songs are good. Nothing crazy, nothing about "the best songs ever" or anything. But it is a good little Christmas album. And I HATE Christmas albums.

I took it out a week ago and played it - every time I hear the acapella opening of WIRWFC I get goosebumps. To me, that one has made it into the "best songs ever" category. A lot of credit has to go to Bernie Taupin - those lyrics are fantastic. And the band... hearing them sing "Peace is more than just a sentimental card"... wow... Magnificent.

I view the BW band as a bit of a drawcard in itself. Well me and Paul McCartney.

Me too!

[VERY]

Yeah, sorry about that, my bad... Your post came across as patronising in parts.

No harm, no foul!

Thanks for the info on the tweeters. Fascinating stuff! I have no idea what 'bumping the supply rail' is.

When a solid state amp tries to pass a signal with an amplitude that exceeds the power supply rail voltage the amp simply "chops off" the peak.  For instance, if you fed a sine wave with a 30 volt peak into an amplifier's output stage with a 25 volt supply, the voltage in the signal above 30 volts simply can't be reproduced - the voltage of the signal cannot exceed the supply voltage. So that sine wave gets it's top section sliced off, and now the sine wave is more like a square wave.

Square waves have very large harmonic content (harmonic = multiple of the fundamental tone). So when you make a 1K sine wave into a square wave by chopping off the top, you generate a lot of high fequency energy - which fries tweeters. Surprisingly, it's not high powered amps that do the number on the tweeters (since they hardly ever clip), it's the smaller low power amps that get driven into clipping by some of the "hot" recordings. You'd think it would be the other way, but a 500 watt amp is much less dangerous for a tweeter than a 25 watt amp! The 500 watter almost never clips, the 25 watter does a lot!!

Things are different with transformer coupled amps (tube amps, essentially), but that's a long explanation. They clip, but they clip softly, without the sharp squaring of the solid state amps. So when tube amps clip the high frequency content is far less dangerous to tweeters.

What about dbx-encoded LPs?

It's sort of like Dolby NR or HDCD - 1970s style. 

dbx was a proprietary dynamic range enhancing system that was used on records. During the recording/mastering process rather than compress the signal to "fit" in the groove by peak limiting, gain riding, etc,, the signal was dbx encoded. The signal on the LP was not really listenable unless you played the record back through a dbx decoder. When played back through the decoder the dynamic range was alleged to be equal to what was on the master tape (it probably wasn't, but it was much better than a non-encoded LP!). A number of smaller labels (mostly classical) produced dbx encoded LPs.

There was an outboard dbx unit line too, the 3bx was the top of the line. It was simply a dynamic range expander, it didn't require a coded source. The 3 stood for 3 band - by separating the frequency range into 3 bands there was less of the nasty artifacts the unit could induce, such as noise pumping, etc.

BTW, this was all done in the analog domain, no A-D coversion - but lots of VCAs (voltage controlled amplifiers). Expensive stuff at the time too, a 3bx was about $600 if my memory is correct. And "dbx" was the name of the company, they were from somewhere in Massachusetts.

Congratulations on your amps. I wish I knew as much about that sort of stuff as you do.

Thank you VERY much for the kind words. I have so much to learn, but with 30+ years of experience I can't help but pick up a little here and there. 

Thanks for putting me straight there buddy. I'm glad someone knows what I was trying to say, cos I obviously didn't have a clue.

As it happens I've been running my own project studio for over three years, so I think I may be credited with some understanding of the issues.

Okay, you have some understanding of the issues. But your prior post seemed to have missed the point.

Overly-hot mastering is sloppy and lazy (IMVHO) because it seeks largely to compensate for bad songwriting, arranging, mixing or production (or even marketing...).

I partially agree. Sometimes it is used that way - but other times it's done for some/many of the reasons you listed below.

Its a fashion, or course, and once one artist/producer/mastering engineer etc. etc. makes his tracks louder than everyone else's then it starts to become a game of catch-up, or a competition even. You can take an average song, slap on a brick-wall limiter and instantly change the dynamic of the track from something 'gentle' or 'approachable' to something aggressive and attention-seeking. Its easy. And lazy. And sloppy.  Its a quick fix.

In that circumstance I agree. But when a well crafted song is subjected to that sort of treatment because the orders are to do it that way it's a different circumstance.

Maybe the 'suits' do insist on louder and louder mastering, but give a little credit to the engineers, producers and artists involved, as they may well be happy to have their tracks boosted in this way.

And others may well be quite unhappy about it.

Also, you should remember that there are many more artists these days who will be responsible for the whole process, from writing and performing to mixing and mastering. You don't need much cash these days to buy all the equipment you need to produce a recording, and right now there seem to be almost as many labels as artists, which means that it isn't always the big corporate hand on the shoulder that forces mixes into hotter territory.

Again, that's true, I agree. My point is that it wasn't/isn't a universal truth.

The fact that compression has been used on records for decades probably come as no surprise to anyone who reads and/or contributes to this board, but thanks for pointing it out anyway.

I don't know whether it will be surprising or not, I'm sure some know and some don't. For those who don't and read this - now they do!

As for mixes being produced specifically for headphone listening, wow! Another huge surprise. Darn! Where did that one come from!?

What is your point in making that statement? I am quite sure that many here did not know about those commercial recordings.  How was I supposed to know you did? I'm sorry you found it upsetting.

I almost mentioned dbx-encoded LPs in my post too - it's a good thing I didn't, it might have squashed your soul...

PS. Intersting story about the ferrofluid in the tweeters!

My uncle was the head of R&D at Acoustic Research in the late 60s/early 70s era - back before they were bought and sold so many times. I used to hear all about what was going on. AR did some great research into what was on recordings back in the day, and how it was going to affect their designs. He showed me a number of tweeters AR replaced under warranty due to either clipping by underpowered transistor amps (I'm sure you already know that when a solid state amp "bumps the supply rail" it squares off the waveform, and a square wave is extremely rich in harmonics - which meant the tweeters were exposed to excessive energy and would fail) or from consistent high power applications from overly compressed rock recordings. The voice coil in the tweeter would get so hot it would boil the fluid away.

Also, since we're discussing credentials, you might find it interesting that both Spence Chrislu and Dave Dieckmann (most recently both of the DVD-A authoring group at Warners, Spence has done a bunch of other work too so you may know him) both listen to vintage tube amps with my upgrade modifications done to them. Spence's father actually had me do the updates and mod work to his two amps; apparently Spence liked the result so much he bought my upgrade kits to redo his own amp, and Dave did too a short time later.

At the CES in Las Vegas last January one of my amps was exhibited in the high-end section. Here's a comment from one of the high-end exhibitors who heard the amp:

"This week, I’ve listened to a number of amps that are staggering in price. Beyond staggering, an extra zero after staggering… and I honestly believe that the (McShane)/Citation blows them all away. Couple that with the fact that you can run a passive (preamp) with the (McShane)/Citation, you get a $10k handicap to start!.. If you are in the market for an amp, talk to Jim McShane."

My McShane/Citation II amps sell for $2500-$3000 or so, BTW. The new amp I designed (due in January) will be about $600 in kit form, and the base model passive preamp will start at about $249 (as a kit also).

So I actually do have some idea what I'm talking about too.

I'm sorry you found my first post lacking.

I absolutely agree with the article... Its bothered me for  while that some good music is ruined by slapdash mastering - the terrible job done on Rufus Wainwright's Want One being a case in point: its just mush; hard mush, like a big brown overly-seasoned stew with all the meat and and potatoes and carrots blended together so you can't distinguish one from the other, if that makes any sense...

Its sloppy and lazy and epitomises the more, more, more quality of so much of comecial culture today. I guess there will come a point when the wave shapes just look like solid rectangles with no texture to them atall, and the music does become unlistenable to, so quieter, cleaner records will become the fashion again. But who knows, perhaps record companies will release both 'inside' and 'outdoors' versions of albums...

Just a few thoughts...

It has nothing to do with sloppiness or laziness. And it's not slapdash. You seem to have missed the point entirely. It is a deliberate process, carried out at the direction of the people in charge.

Combine the overcompressed source material with some really awful sounding electronics in the playback systems and you have a recipe for disaster. And digital clipping is truly an ugly phenomenon. It creates large amounts of high frequency energy, and really stresses a tweeter as well as your ears. I've heard of reports of ferrofluid (the cooling fluid used in tweeters) literally boiling away from the intense high frequency energy that is often caused by clipping.

Despite the impression left by the article, pop/rock vinyl LPs have been heavily compressed for a long time. Some of the compression was in the mix, some of it was the result of cutting procedures that were designed to maximize quantity over quality. Listen to an old Mobile Fidelity half-speed mastered LP versus the original and the difference leaps out at you. But even those LPs had some compression, since the dynamic range of even a really good vinyl LP is far less than what even a Redbook CD offers (less than 1/2).

When CDs first came on the scene one of the things people didn't like about them was that if they turned them up enough to hear soft passages over the ambient noise level, then the loud pasages were too loud. And if they turned down the volume to prevent to loud passages from being too loud they couldn't hear the quiet parts. So some compression isn't necessarily a bad thing if it is carefully and judiciously applied. But a dynamic range of 5 db is ridiculous!

FYI, there have been recordings specifically mastered and mixed for binaural (headphone) listening, so your idea of differing mixes has already surfaced.

Someone called "ICP" on the blueboard posted this :

Order my tickets yesterday from seetickets.com and they arrived today. Not bad less than 24 hours. Tickets states BRIAN WILSON Plus special guests who are they going to be.

Who might those guests be? Of course the first thing we're probably thinking of is Mike, Al, Bruce, but is that really possible? Who else might join him? His daughters?

It appears it just means there will be an opening act.

But it makes me uncomfortable, because there's no reason a singer, unless they are completely tone-deaf, should not be able to hit pitches within their vocal range.  It just takes a little practice and concentration.  So when autotune is used not as an effect, but as a tool to make up for a lack of musicianship, I find myself somewhat philosophically opposed to it.

My feelings too. I don't agree that digital recording is fake bacause it's zeroes and ones as someone posted. Analog recording is just varying magnetic fields, so it's just as "fake". But I do agree 100% with your statement above.

First you say that (paraphrasing) you're worried about how Brian's vocals will sound on the new album. Then you berate and demand information from another fan because he insinuates, with some factual evidence, that Brian uses autotune on his vocals when he's solo. It's all over the 1988 album, only Paley admitted to it being on only one track. Read AGD's book.

You're confusing me.

 

I am worried about how the vocals will turn out, that's correct. I think the vocals on WIRWFC, especially the new songs, are remarkable; and I believe one of the reasons is that the band was allowed to provide the BG vocals. Like many, I don't really want to hear vocals like much of GIOMH. And I really was hoping to hear more of the band, I think they are incredible.

As far as my reply to Roger's post, I asked him on what basis he came to the conclusion that autotune was used on BWPS and WIRWFC (nothing was said about BW88) since he didn't mention at all how he reached that point. He said it was his opinion, we then exchanged a couple notes about the topic. In one I mentioned my question came off as harsh when I didn't want it to be, so I apologized to him. There was no berating involved, although the tone of my question was too harsh.

As far as autotune/pitch corection is concerned, I would like to hear from someone who knows first hand (if that's possible) if it was used on BWPS and/or WIRWFC. Wrong second hand information has been posted too many times for me to trust it. I can't recall if it was here or another board, but at one time it was posted by someone who knew for sure that 2 guys in Brian's band had been fired. Of course there was no truth to that. So on the autotune thing I hope at some point someone will say that either they were there and knew it was or was not used or someone can say they spoke to a key player directly involved in the recording and Mark/Darian/Scott/Jeff (etc.) told them that it was or was not used. Just because it was used in the past doesn't mean it was still in use for BWPS and WIRWFC.

If you are still confused I don't know what else to tell you, sorry.

This ALWAYS comes up - I want to know how you KNOW FOR SURE that autotune was used? The source of your information please?

I guess you're not ill after all.

Jason,

Your two recent posts in this thread  - what was the purpose of them?

If you are trying to provoke a fight you won't succeed. But I do wish you'd quit trying, and also knock off all the garbage you post over at one of the other forums about me. It's unnecessary and uncalled for. You've made your dislike for me public enough times that I'm sure everyone who cares knows where you stand.

Thank you.

You're right Jim and please understand I didn't mean this as an attack. There is no evidence beyond what my ears tell me (although I vaguely remember Brian saying in an interview recently that he has no problem using digital technology to make vocals sound better). Brian's vocals on BWPS, and to a greater extent on the Xmas album, have that slightly processed sound that comes with autotuning. Mind you I think Brian requires less digital manipulation than a lot of top ten performers out there these days (check out Panic! At The Disco or almost any other big selling "alternative" rock band for extreme use of autotune). Actually, I don't know that Brian "requires" digital manipulation; I've thought his live vocals have sounded fantastic over the last couple of years. But my ears tell me that his vocals have been sweetened somewhat on BWPS and the Xmas album, a sense that I don't get from the GIOMH album. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I do a lot of voice-over narration in my job and I'm constantly "comping" takes together and manipulating my voice to sound better. I still sound pretty good when I'm speaking in public, but I want my recorded voice to sound a little better. It's possible Brian feels the same way.

First, my apologies for the tone of my post - it was too harsh sounding for sure.

I too think Brian made the statement about making the vocals sound better, but that doesn't mean autotune. It may mean it's easier to get just the mix/levels/timing he wants, it's easier to review what's already recorded, etc. Remeber, there's a lot to ProTools besides autotune/pitch correction.

After watching BWPS a number of times, the "sweetening" appears to me to be a lot of doubling/tripling. I see Darian, Jeff, and Scott almost always contributing to Brian's leads. Not all 3 all the time, but it seemed that Brian rarely if ever sang/sings solo leads. In the Pet Sounds Live In London DVD I even saw Mike D'Amico doubling Brian (that's not a slam against Mike, he has a terrific voice, it was just surprising to see). This jives with what I've seen in the live shows I've attended too. Brian gets LOTS of help from his bandmates with leads.

On the Christmas album it seemed the leads Brian sang were well within his best range, and to me they sounded very natural and un-doctored. The band sounded magnificent, I still get chills when I hear the opening notes of WIRWFC! Then Brian's lead begins, and it's right in his "wheelhouse" vocally, so he can drive it out of the park as they say in baseball.

I also go back to the interview on Chicago's WXRT radio station where Jim and Bob both laughed when that idiot from the Chicago Sun-Times DeRogatis mentioned Brian said all the vocals were "tweaked" (which that fat a** DeRogatis assumed meant autotuned). Bob Lizik replied "Brian said that??" in a disbelieving laughing tone, and both he and Jim Hines started laughing. They said Darian would know for sure, but they weren't aware of any autotune use in BWPS.

My opinion - no autotune. Just a lot of help form the band's voices. They help Brian sound a lot better to my ears than Brian sounds when he doubles/triples himself. Shoot, I'd sound great with Jeff, Darian, and Scott helping me out!

So we'll see what the new CD brings. I honestly was hoping for a CD from BW and his great band, but it appears that's not the case.

Anyway Roger, I again apologize for the way I phrased my prior post.

Regarding Brian's vocals: I think it's important to point out that BWPS and the Xmas album featured a bit more digital trickery (i.e. autotune) than GIOMH.

This ALWAYS comes up - I want to know how you KNOW FOR SURE that autotune was used? The source of your information please?

[But...]

Interesting...

Well, Scott Bennett is a one-man band, he can play darn near everything you'd want instrumentally from drums to guitar to keys to harmonica to who knows what else. And he's a VERY good vocalist. And the "No Wrong Notes In Heaven" collaboration with BW on Scott's "Dotted Line" CD is quite good.

But...

I just am afraid of the vocals. At first blush it seems it could easily be too much Brian. But maybe there are other bandmembers doing vocals as well, that would be a real plus.

Are you ill, gubb'ner?

What are you talking about?

For an example of how it might sound, check out "Walking Down The Path Of Life," which I believe was ALSO cut with basically Brian and Scotty.

I think that song is one of the most interesting things he's done in a while. It at least has a measure of creativity and passion and he sounds very engaged, and its a lovely melody.

I agree, I like the song - but don't forget the voice on top was Taylor Mills.

I was hoping that Brian would use other vocalists to round out the vocal blend.  Can Scott Bennett sing falsetto?

Yes, but not as well as Jeff or Probyn Gregory (or Taylor).  So maybe we'll hear Jeffrey on there too - assuming there are falsetto parts to be sung.

[But...]

Interesting...

Well, Scott Bennett is a one-man band, he can play darn near everything you'd want instrumentally from drums to guitar to keys to harmonica to who knows what else. And he's a VERY good vocalist. And the "No Wrong Notes In Heaven" collaboration with BW on Scott's "Dotted Line" CD is quite good.

But...

I just am afraid of the vocals. At first blush it seems it could easily be too much Brian. But maybe there are other bandmembers doing vocals as well, that would be a real plus.

Brian's shows present a composer performing his work in repertory.  Including "Smile."   Yes it's a lot of the same "oldies" as Mike & Bruce present but the organizing concept is different.  The idea is to replicate the original sound and arrangements of the records, and achieve what Brian wants the songs to sound like.  Sort of like "original instruments" performances of Mozart symphonies using the tunings, instruments and performance practices of his day.  The parallel with classical music is apt. 

Looking at the world of classical music is indeed apt. But I would describe the M&B shows as the equivalent of the "Pops" concert - lighter fare, presented more as "entertainment" than a serious performance (not that a shoddy performance is acceptable!). Even the code of audience conduct is loosened a bit in an attempt to make the music more approachable. Sometimes some great music is played at a Pops concert - you might hear Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue or Concerto In F, for instance.

Brian's shows are serious musical events, they are the equivalent of a subscription concert. They are presented in a way that certainly does not preclude an audience's ability to be entertained. But rather the goal of these concerts is a world class performance of the works being played from the conductor, soloist(s), and the orchestra - presented in a world class environment with an audience solely focused on the music. It's these concerts where you might find a bowl of cough drops at the door - coughing during the performance is a faux pas for sure. Talking during a performance? It'll get you ejected from the hall. Want to hear a great performance of the Rachmaninoff 3rd Piano Concerto? This is where you go.

Brian's shows are much closer to that level of intensity IMHO - the virtuoso musicianship, the deeply held respect for the performers and the pieces of music being performed, the more challenging repertoire, etc.

If you want to go hear some nice music and have a nice night out, you can go to a Pops concert and have a wonderful time. Want to do some serious listening? Then it's a different type of concert.  The M&B show is the equivalent of a Pops concert, whereas I see Brian's shows held in a much more serious vein.

BWPS may be a new release, but 90% of the material is old and has been known to the fans who go to see Brian Wilson shows for years. Hardly cutting edge in the temporal sense, anyway.

I will agree to a point. But look back at some of the posts of that period and there were a lot of people writing and expressing surprise regarding parts of it. It may have been partially known, but it certainly wasn't completely known. Nobody knew the sequence, nobody knew if it would be presented as songs or movements, a number of new lyrics debuted, and so on... And not everyone who went was a hardcore fan anyway. There were a lot of people there who hadn't heard but a few notes of Smile.

I've also heard GIOMH, Your Imagination, South American, Desert Drive, Lay Down Burden, Melt Away, Love & Mercy, City Blues, and other late compositions performed at Brian shows.

I think the public at large (and certainly the music critic community) look at Brian's shows much differently than the M&B shows. And it's not only the newer material (whether its new to you and I is immaterial if it's new to them) - it's the more offbeat obscure older works too. And finally, I believe the incredible quality of the live shows also have a big impact.

I'm not trying to start an argument here, but there is a very interesting quote in that article-

"To get that great pop sound, the vocals were fairly heavily compressed with the highs boosted then run through a desser before they hit tape."

Not that the Boys weren't wonderful singers, but this process Bob Rose describes is pretty much the equivalent of homogenizing. That's a significant addition to whatever blend the Boys themselves generated (along with the fact that there were SO many overdubs).

Not too many months ago I routinely posted that I felt much of the difference in "blend" between Brian's new band and the old BBs was in the recording process.  The de-esser removes much of the sibilance and therefore does reduce the high frequency content some. And the heavy compression along with all the overdubs is a major enhancement to blend too. I'm certainly not Mark L., but I doubt the same process is used in the recent recordings. If that's the case (it's not used) I feel very secure in saying the process is a significant contributor to the "Beach Boy blend".

And again, I am NOT saying they couldn't sing wonderfully. All I'm saying is that to compare the old BB recordings with the new band's and try to compare blend is very much an apples-and-oranges comparison.

[Grass Roots]

Cam, don't let the number of bookings or album sales be your guide. Most of the Beach Boys CDs that sell well are old material that's been repackaged. And according to my quick count the Grass Roots will have played more 2006 dates by year end. And I'd bet almost as many people go to see Papa Doo Run Run as the M&B show. I'm not knocking either band by any means, but I believe the Beach Boys (meaning the M&B show)  "respect" is a reflection of their past, not a recognition of their present.

Jim, perpetual popularity of their albums and the continual popularity for bookings across decades into the now do indicate the strength of their legacy to me, I don't see any other way to see it. Their legacy is respected, maybe not with a handful of the thimbleful of fans who frequent these boards,  but in the world imo.  Respect in the present for what has been given, what else is legacy?

Cam, I'm sorry but that has to be the most tortured, twisted logic I've ever seen.

A reminder - here is what you said:

The Beach Boys are still one of the most respected bands in the world as evidenced by their bookings and TV shows and tributes and album sales.

So are The Beatles - that doesn't mean they are doing anything good now. You didn't say people respect the BBs legacy, you said they "are still one of the most respected bands in the world". Not were - are. Quite a difference...

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of legacy is "something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past".

So if you want to say the BBs have a wonderful legacy, that's true and I think there would be near universal agreement both on and off this board. But having a legacy, a past, isn't the same as earning respect and adding to that legacy today.

Brian and his band are adding to Brian's legacy quite regularly, and they've earned a ton of respect based on what they've done in the last few years. The same can't be said about the M&B show - except to say the name "Beach Boys" has survived in some form or fashion for a real long time. Of course, so have Peter, Paul & Mary. 

[Grass Roots]

Who are you guys listening to? The Beach Boys are still one of the most respected bands in the world as evidenced by their bookings and TV shows and tributes and album sales. We may have to deal with the fact that the band is knowledgably respected for something other than what we think they should be, I don't know, I'm just sayin' we may not be the be-all and end-all in the judgement of their legacy. 

Cam, don't let the number of bookings or album sales be your guide. Most of the Beach Boys CDs that sell well are old material that's been repackaged. And according to my quick count the Grass Roots will have played more 2006 dates by year end. And I'd bet almost as many people go to see Papa Doo Run Run as the M&B show. I'm not knocking either band by any means, but I believe the Beach Boys (meaning the M&B show)  "respect" is a reflection of their past, not a recognition of their present.

Mike and Bruce's recent set lists are the best I've ever seen/heard by any major rock band.

You consider them better than Brian's Smile show set lists? Or the Pet Sounds tour setlists?

If given the opprotunity to see either Mike & Bruce, or Brian, I would definitely opt for Mike & Bruce. I'm not going to be spending all that extra money just to see some fanboys and a lead singer whose worst musical attribute is his singing. merda, at least plug in his keyboard.

Fanboys? Man, if that's all you can give that band credit for I think you're badly mistaken. And remember, many of them had no tie to Brian at all before 1999. Scott Bennett, Taylor, Paul, Bob, and Jim were all from Chicago, not LA. Hardly fanboys.

BTW, is there something wrong with really liking the music you play and the person who wrote it?

Sometimes Brian doesn't sing so well. But often his singing is still quite good, and he knows his limitations in most cases. As Luther pointed out, in a band with virtuoso musicians and incredible vocalists it means Brian is the weakest performer on stage.

half the time BRIAN DOESN'T EVEN SING HIS OWN PARTS! He sings Mike's!

Who sings Brian's parts with the M&B show? Who sings Carl's parts? Who sings Dennis's parts? At least Brian wrote or co-wrote most of the songs he sings on stage.

If you want to see what's left of the Beach Boys, see Al or Mike & Bruce.

Mark hit it right on the head. Mike would be playing 100 seat lounges with the "Mike Love Band". I guess what you say is true though, if you go see the M&B show that's what the "Beach Boys" have become. Sad...

Wow, you are entitled to your opinion. Maybe you like the ML lyrics better and that's why. But heck, even Sir George Martin called out Brian's band for being able to perform GV the way it's supposed to be done.

I don't think GV is supposed to have comatose lead vocals as we hear in Brian's Band version. This Martin dude don't know merda.    

Yeah! What makes him think he's qualified to open his mouth??