[It pervades the discussion of the album so much that it would be hard to review the album at this stage without mentioning that the issue itself is being hotly debated among fans.]

And...that it isn't used...primarily is JUST as important ultimately as Andrew's and Jon's [and others] quest to make sure that the right people are credited for their work playing the instruments on specific songs and albums...as opposed to the myths which all too often  seem to overtake the truth.

To keep this myth from being auto-turned into fact is just as important.  

Unfortunately, I doubt it will ever be as easy to “prove” the autotune issue one way or the other. It isn’t like looking up AFM contracts and listening to old session tapes.

I agree that an unsubstantiated allegation becoming the “truth” over time is troubling. But this could apply to either side of the autotune issue.

The evidence, all of it circumstantial, in my opinion largely points to it having been used to some degree in some spots. I would be troubled by any piece/work that painted the “autotune” issue dismissively, as if a few fringe weirdos made the accusation. If anything, and I’m facing this myself as I continue to think about my own full review of the album, the “autotune” issue in relation to reviewing the album has become an issue in and of itself. It pervades the discussion of the album so much that it would be hard to review the album at this stage without mentioning that the issue itself is being hotly debated among fans.

Yes, yes...THIS:
"It pervades the discussion of the album so much that it would be hard to review the album at this stage without mentioning that the issue itself is being hotly debated among fans."

This is exactly my pet peeve. A non-issue, more or less, has had the effect on at least one person (you, HeyJude) to where "autotune" gets implanted into the experience of hearing the album with open ears and an open mind.

That is the insidious part of it, the bullshit in other words. It's my big issue, this one. To have your experience as a fan affected in any way by such a "pervading" issue, I'd call it an intrusion, is perhaps *exactly* the way this was set up to do. Call it an agenda, call it trolling, call it Henry or Bill...

It's fucking insidious, pardon the language.

Heyjude, please ignore the pervading issues and go into it with a smile of expectation and excitement rather than letting this subliminal autotune whisper-campaign sort of bullshit interrupt your feelings as a fan and as a commentator. Because as much as you've made the case for fans reporting what they heard and perceived, there is the other less honest side of it at play too.

f*** autotune and those who may be pushing it in the negative/passive way to diminish or alter anyone's impression of it. Listen with your heart, not just your ears. That's how the album was designed to be experienced.

I appreciate the advice, truly. I can certainly only speak for myself, but I’m quite able to handle the issue appropriately. I’ve been on the interwebs posting about the Beach Boys for, wow, 20 years now. I trust my ears and deductive reasoning, so none of the opinions (which are welcomed and interesting) are going to impact how I feel about the album. Nothing has been “implanted” into my listening experience or analysis. That the autotune issue pervades discussion won’t impact my opinion of the album. It may only impact whether I take a detour and discuss the debate itself. If I do or did discuss that debate, it would only be because I find it interesting or noteworthy enough (or amusing or tragically ironic, etc.)

And...that it isn't used...primarily is JUST as important ultimately as Andrew's and Jon's [and others] quest to make sure that the right people are credited for their work playing the instruments on specific songs and albums...as opposed to the myths which all too often  seem to overtake the truth.

To keep this myth from being auto-turned into fact is just as important.  

Unfortunately, I doubt it will ever be as easy to “prove” the autotune issue one way or the other. It isn’t like looking up AFM contracts and listening to old session tapes.

I agree that an unsubstantiated allegation becoming the “truth” over time is troubling. But this could apply to either side of the autotune issue.

The evidence, all of it circumstantial, in my opinion largely points to it having been used to some degree in some spots. I would be troubled by any piece/work that painted the “autotune” issue dismissively, as if a few fringe weirdos made the accusation. If anything, and I’m facing this myself as I continue to think about my own full review of the album, the “autotune” issue in relation to reviewing the album has become an issue in and of itself. It pervades the discussion of the album so much that it would be hard to review the album at this stage without mentioning that the issue itself is being hotly debated among fans.

To HeyJude:
"I haven't heard the song yet, I am sure with Al's voice and hopefully no autotune, the song will be great."

It’s all about context. When you read that entire diatribe from Mike, it’s clear that the context of even mentioning autotune is to take a jab/swipe, whatever you want to call it. It read to me as well like somebody had fed that piece of information.

Conversely, while some fans have invoked the topic of autotune in a similar fashion, many other fans have simply pointed out that they think they hear it. Some might even lament its use. But it isn’t *always* intended as loaded term/topic full of a bunch of implications.  If someone writes a short, or even one-line, “review” of Brian’s album mentioning autotune, it’s probably meant as a loaded dig. If someone writes a long, thoughtful review of the album that includes the suggestion of autotune, I’m more inclined to believe they aren’t trying to use “autotune”  as some sort of “trigger” for defensive fans or something, or to just be negative about Brian for the sake of being negative.

Just curious to hear your reasons: For what purpose would someone have "fed" such a piece of information?

I don’t hear Mike often talk about the perils of autotune in interviews. I’m not sure if he had ever even used the term prior to that Beard interview. To me, the whole thing smelled like Mike was butt-hurt about a few journalists implying he (Mike) was the reason Brian’s album wasn’t a “Beach Boys” album. Then, surprise, Mike is tapped for an “interview”, and Mike mentions autotune in relation to a song *HE HASN’T HEARD*.

I’m not sure how or why this would have come up in a conversation Mike had with someone else. I just don’t think it’s far-fetched that *somebody* mentioned to Mike something like “Did you hear the track? It has autotune on it.” And/or, Mike read some commentary to that effect online.

I can only say it read as though Mike’s purpose for raising the topic was to make a passive dig. He doesn’t appear any longer to be a fan of Joe Thomas or of Brian’s working relationship with Thomas. It read to me like he was using a criticism often-discussed among fans as a way to make a little dig. He added the common twist of making it a passive theoretical criticism. Instead of saying “if it has autotune, I think it could suck”, it turns into “I am sure with Al's voice and hopefully no autotune, the song will be great."

As I mentioned back then, it would be like Brian commenting on a new Mike album, “I’m sure, assuming Mike doesn’t mention surfing or cars or the beach and assuming he doesn’t namecheck old Beach Boys songs in the lyrics, it will be great.” It’s an accusation without being an accusation. Without hearing a Mike album, you wouldn’t know whether any of that stuff is on it. But it’s an often-discussed criticism that *could* be there, and which may or may not negatively impact the work.

I have no problem actually believing that some of the stuff Mike does in interviews, such as bringing up decades-old drug abuse, is partly just a personality tick rather than an overt attempt to smear anybody. Some people are indeed just like that. They will continually bring up negative stuff from the past even if it has been resolved and everybody else has moved on. Mike does the same thing with the songwriting lawsuit topic. He STILL brings it up in interviews, even though he WON the case *twenty years* ago, and nobody including Brian ever disputed the legitimacy of his claims (outside of little things like Asher with WIBN). His name has been on the songs and he has been receiving royalties for twenty years (and was awarded damages when he won the case). It’s the textbook definition of a “wrong being righted”, yet he *still* seems disenfranchised about it. Track down that story Van Dyke Parks told about how, circa 1992, Mike was *still* asking Van Dyke about the “cornfield” lyrics.

That seems to be a common thread in some of Mike’s interviews. For a guy who is so successful, so freaking rich from this whole thing, has achieved success by any measure most could conjure (money, fame, houses, spiritual enlightenment by his own account, whole *gala events* in his honor), and who professes to be all about positivity, he also seems awfully disenfranchised about a list of specific things (songwriting, C50, Murry, Landy, “people around Brian”, Al in the 2000’s, “Smile”, etc.).

To HeyJude:
"I haven't heard the song yet, I am sure with Al's voice and hopefully no autotune, the song will be great."

It’s all about context. When you read that entire diatribe from Mike, it’s clear that the context of even mentioning autotune is to take a jab/swipe, whatever you want to call it. It read to me as well like somebody had fed that piece of information.

Conversely, while some fans have invoked the topic of autotune in a similar fashion, many other fans have simply pointed out that they think they hear it. Some might even lament its use. But it isn’t *always* intended as loaded term/topic full of a bunch of implications.  If someone writes a short, or even one-line, “review” of Brian’s album mentioning autotune, it’s probably meant as a loaded dig. If someone writes a long, thoughtful review of the album that includes the suggestion of autotune, I’m more inclined to believe they aren’t trying to use “autotune”  as some sort of “trigger” for defensive fans or something, or to just be negative about Brian for the sake of being negative.

On the issue of charging the card prior to shipping, I don’t think that in and of itself is problematic. I’ve ordered many items where they charge immediately but still take days or weeks to ship out.

But the lack of response to e-mails is unfortunate (I’ve sent a couple myself). I did get the e-mail confirmation once I placed an order. The confirmation had very little info. As I mentioned previously, the item description was very general and didn’t match any description on the website. There also wasn’t, as far as I can tell, any order number associated with the order.

It all seems pretty consistent as far as how that website operation seems to be run. I’ve sent four or five e-mails and only one time got a response (and that response was to a general e-mail I sent before placing an order; the two e-mails I’ve spent asking about my order have not been answered). Also, keep in mind that it was only in the last few days that Brian’s Facebook page alerted fans that the Soundstage site was up and running and selling stuff. The website has probably received much more traffic and orders in the days *after* some of us on this board placed orders. They were already barely responding to e-mails before that potential deluge of orders.

Excellent point. The truly positive people I know don't make it a practice to point out the negative.

Agreed. I wonder if the irony is lost among too many on this board after reading all of the autotune bullshit.

I don’t think the little swipe at Brian’s voice in that interview can be equated to fans suggesting Brian’s new album might have autotune on it.

One is indeed pretty much a statement of fact, and also *clearly* a negative swipe. The other is merely speculation, and ironically is not necessarily intended to be wholly negative.

The two scenarios are actually kind of opposite. I actually will buy that at least *some* of the people pointing out autotune on Brian’s music are really just pointing out something objectively as a “statement of fact” (or more a “statement of what they believe to be a fact or strong possibility”). Many who think autotune is on there still like the material. On the other hand, I don’t buy that Mike is just stating an objective fact for the record in that interview, given the context of the comment. It has a clear negative connotation.

As I’ve said before, I’m skeptical of any scenarios where someone is unceasingly positive about a huge, complicated topic. That’s true, for me, whether it’s Mike talking about himself or fans talking about Brian’s new album.

As someone else pointed out, there are tactful ways of not being 100% positive about everything all the time. There are even ways to politely say Brian’s voice isn’t what it used to be. Mike’s words were, I suppose, more blunt than they were hyperbolically scathing or anything. And, as I’ve touched on before, a lot of his comments about Brian (and C50) read more negative because of their context. The more negative something is, and the more *unprompted* those negative comment seem, the more they seem inflammatory. A good example of that would be the infamous David Beard “interview”, which appeared to take the most innocuous question imaginable, with an easy opportunity to make a very quick neutral or positive comment, and turn it into a an uber-defensive diatribe.

It's not like people have to go out of their way to find something to complain about. The one fueling the Mike Love negativity here is Mike Love himself. If Mike or Scott or anyone on this board want the criticism of Mike to stop, they should consider convincing him to be a bit more diplomatic and gracious in his interviews. This thread didn't get started out of the blue just to bash Mike. It's a discussion of Mike's statements in an interview, and yes, he seems to take some backhanded swipes at Brian for no reason.  And, since he's been doing this in quite a few interviews lately, he's going to come under fire.

The backlash from the majority would be the same if Brian or Al went into interview after interview talking about what a law suit happy dirty old man Mike is. They, however, don't spend their interviews trying to build themselves up by tearing Mike down. Mike hasn't learned this lesson. He needs to.

You hit the nail right on the head. I guess for some people, negative attention is better than no attention at all. I'm not sure if that's what fuels Mike, but I agree, you would think he would learn the lesson this is presenting to him, especially since he seems to be a pretty smart guy. I guess we all have things we are blind to.

The thing is, Mike is perfectly fine at being the frontman, and of being the shiny, happy PR guy in interviews. He can masterfully take sometimes even pointed questions and turn it into an advertisement for whatever he has going on now. There was one interview a year or two ago where he was specifically asked about C50, and he immediately just started talking about his current, post-reunion lineup.

Avoiding those questions and/or just doing the happy PR "fun fun fun" thing is not exactly admirable either, but it at least avoids any inflammatory, dick-ish commentary.

So, when Mike *does* shift gears in an interview from PR mode to saying something negative about Brian Wilson, if anything, it carries more weight. If a guy gives interviews and always talks s**t about everybody and anybody, that's one thing. But if a guy who gives the same PR schpiel and reads the same lines off over and over in interviews (<we're gonna have some fun fun fun tonight in "your city name here">) then breaks off and mentions an estranged bandmate can't sing in a certain range anymore, it sticks out even more.

Cyncie,

You bring up an interesting point with American Family.

I wonder if there will be a push to get that officially released onto DVD around the time Love and Mercy is due for release.  

I actually enjoyed the first half of American Family, not so much the second half where Brian turned into a cartoon character.  

They would have to pay both the publishers and the owners of the recordings pretty expensive "sync" fees to put a DVD out of that miniseries. Considering that, and the fact that it got pretty lukwarm reviews, was not well received by fans or some of the members of the band, and even Stamos himself seems to know the movie was/is a dud, I doubt we'll see a DVD release.

["Being able to get into the studio again to record with those guys was really good. Being on tour was I think a neat thing to do, especially for the longtime fans," Love said. "Al Jardine sounds fantastic. Unfortunately, Brian doesn't sing the range he once did."]

"Unfortunately, Brian doesn't sing the range he once did"

I don't see what's problematic about this line.  It's a statement of fact.  Brian has a different place, vocally, within the band and in the harmony stack.  He's not criticising Brian's singing in his current range.

There are a lot of things these guys could say about each other in interviews that are statements of fact, but would clearly not be intended as an objective statement of fact with no negative connotation. That goes for anybody. At the family's thanksgiving dinner, you can point out that Aunt Suzy has way more wrinkles and flabby skin compared to 20 years ago. Just because it's a statement of fact doesn't mean it doesn't make you look like a douche for saying it. The context of the comment does matter, both in terms of the band as a whole as well as the context of the comment in the interview itself.

Here's the pertinent part:

"Being able to get into the studio again to record with those guys was really good. Being on tour was I think a neat thing to do, especially for the longtime fans," Love said. "Al Jardine sounds fantastic. Unfortunately, Brian doesn't sing the range he once did."

Mike ironically bounced the negative comment off of a positive one about Al of all people. Guy A sounds good, but Guy B doesn’t. The implication is a negative one. He's allowed to make it, and Brian clearly doesn't sing in the range he once did. Nobody in the band particularly does anymore, accept for perhaps Al in certain scenarios. Brian's voice is nothing like it was in the "olden days." But that has been the case since 1976, and a guy who took perfect care of his voice probably wouldn't be able to hit the "Papa Oom Mow Mow" falsetto part in his mid-70's. In any event, Mike can say all this stuff. But he's going to come out looking like a dick. As most anybody would be if they criticized a fellow bandmate for their shortcomings, especially when the person saying the stuff has plenty of shortcoming themselves, and ESPECIALLY when they're saying it about a bandmate from whom they are professionally estranged.

Mike has in previous interviews mentioned that Brian’s voice isn’t like it was in the olden days. I think he truly laments that. We all do, obviously. But it sometimes seems as if he blames Brian for this completely, as opposed to the ravages of time. As if, even after singing professionally for over half a century, after having worked with numerous vocalists and falsetto singers who have aged, he doesn’t get that a voice in the higher range that does falsettos will, more than his baritone or mid-range voice, give out more noticeably to time itself regardless. News flash, Mike doesn’t sound like he used to either. They have to lower the key on some songs for him too, like “It’s OK” for instance.

I'm pretty sure people might suggest that Brian or Al was being pretty catty if they pointed out, say, that Bruce Johnston has hardly participated in live Beach Boys concerts in decades. That's as much a fact as the current state of Brian's voice.

Or if, say Brian pointed out in the last few years that his touring band has had as many if not more “Beach Boys” than Mike’s own band called “The Beach Boys.” That would be a statement of fact too, but would clearly be loaded with a clear implication and connotation. Or if Brian mentioned that Mike has developed an on-and-off rasp in his voice. That would be a fact too. Never mind that it could be the ravages of time and/or incessant touring year after year without significant breaks.

Also, Mike isn't one of those world-weary, crusty old timer rockstars who give entertaining interviews where they kind of roast and criticize anybody and everybody. That's another reason when he *does* go negative in some way about Brian or someone else in his own band, it comes across more like a pretty specific negative commentary. When you feel you are "Mr. Positivity" and instances where the interviews reflect on yourself you spout the same PR stuff over and over (bringing the music to the fans, sending out fun fun fun and good vibrations, etc.), when you tout how your current band of backing guys is awesome, but then shift gears and point out that Brian Wilson doesn’t sing in the range he once did, then that negative “it’s just a statement of fact” bit is going to come across as exponentially more pointed and loaded.

Those that are trying to stave off the small handful of truly troll-ish anti-Brian folks here (I still maintain the actual pro-Mike or pro-Brian folks who are actually trolling are very few in number) are doing the “cause” no favors by continuing to contort the clearly sketchy available information to try to contend NO auto-tune was even possibly used on NPP. A tiny bit of budging would go a long way towards credibility and away from the appearance of being overly defensive of Brian and his work.

There is largely subjective information, mostly aural in nature, to support the possibility of autotune. In addition, we apparently have one Brian quote where he says autotune *can* be used. While this doesn’t prove it *was* used, to suggest that Brian mentioning this little factoid in relation to how he works does not strongly suggest he probably used it at some point is pretty silly, especially when the resulting aural evidence also, in some cases, suggests its use.

“Brian corrects you and has you do numerous takes if you sing flat” is not evidence that, any number of days or weeks or months later, someone (whether Brian or another engineer) didn’t use a software plug-in that corrects/levels out pitch.

I doubt Al came in and took five minutes to record his lead vocal on “From There to Back Again” and then took off to ride horses in Big Sur. He probably took time to get it as good as he could. With Brian producing, it probably sounded excellent. But then at some point after that somebody made the decision to slather on beaucoup de some-sort-of-autotune type effect.

None of the “on site” reports about Brian recording disallow for the potential use of autotune. That Musgraves or Deschanel or Brian himself did a million takes of a vocal has nothing to do with whether autotune might have been used. Autotune doesn’t fix a vocal if you forget the words, or start a beat too late, or if you burp in the middle of the take. I have no problem believing Brian uses a very perfectionist ethos in the studio while producing vocals, and then *also* in some cases runs select material through various auto-tune type software plug-ins. Again, autotune is much more a stylistic choice these days than strictly (or at all) a tool to “fix” mediocre singers. It can also be subtle or in-your-face. Most of my frustration with any use of autotune comes from people using it when they don’t need it.

But, again with a few exceptions (the trolls), the suggestion of Brian using autotune on select tracks isn’t some sort of loaded accusation that Brian can’t sing, or can’t produce, or is selling out, or is being lazy, or whatever else I suspect some defensive folks are feeling. I can’t say what’s in every fan’s mind of course. But I can tell you that I’m probably not the only certified BB nerd/fan/nut who digs NPP and Brian’s work, but has no problem calling something when it seems possible. I’m fine admitting I don’t know for sure autotune was used. I’m more skeptical of elaborate parsing of terminology to somehow nearly “prove” it wasn’t used. It’s not terribly dissimilar, ironically enough, from the elaborate parsing done to try to take one of the a**hat Mike Love interviews where he makes some d**k comments about C50 or the Wilson brothers and try to stretch his words into something completely innocuous.

Brian probably has used autotune. Not always, maybe not even that often, and he’s talented and amazingly prolific either way.

Mike is a d**k in interviews sometimes. More often than not it seems, especially lately. He’s also talented and deserves a lot of credit, and I have no doubt he’s capable of not being a d**k in interviews.

This isn’t fence walking. This is, in my opinion, a realistic view of these guys. It doesn’t preclude enjoying their work and admiring their talent. It isn’t an exercise in “say one good thing and one negative thing about each member.” It’s just how I see it anyway. I tend to be skeptical of those who are unflinchingly negative or positive about these guys.

And ... now down to #21.

Follow along as the results come in here: http://hitsdailydouble.com/building_album_chart

Brian's doing pretty well considering that his competition includes the album at #46. Apparently, there have been 4,440 copies of "Nothing" sold. I would have thought that number would be higher. 

In all seriousness, considering Brian's chart history, the state of the industry, and so on, if Brian gets anywhere in the Top 20 or 30, that's pretty solid.

Considering the number of reviews and whatnot, and the fact that they're bundling copies of the album with seemingly everything imaginable (t-shirts, posters, concert tickets, the PBS Blu-ray, autographs, etc.), I figured he might slip into the Top 20.

Sympathetic, warm, often flat tape transfers of old material are often where the "audiophile" benefits become more evident.

It's more in the mastering than the resolution. I know Steve Hoffman is (for some reason) sometimes derided here, but his mastering work on everything I've heard is almost always the go-to mastering. His work on the 70's McCartney stuff, his forays into the BB catalog, those are all top notch. These are all at normal CD resolution. 16/44.1. They sound great because they are mastered well. No noise reduction, quiet enough, and in some cases absolutely flat or near flat (his mastering on ELO's "Eldorado" is a good example of that).

Much like the Beach Boys themselves versus Beach Boys fans, I think the perception of Hoffman in relation to overzealous audiophile wankery has more to do with others that frequent his board. There are some dubious things over that. That you can't ever discuss "double blind testing" is my biggest beef. But I find Hoffman's own words and ethos rather more sensible. I don't always agree with him either.

I think you're more likely to hear a more marked improvement in sound on the recent (and forthcoming) CD/SACD remasters of the old BB catalog stuff.

I've been following this band and enjoying their live shows since 1976.  Longer than many, not as long as many others.  I've seen them at their best (April 21, 1977, Edwardsville, IL) and worst (October 10, 1981, Terre Haute, IN).

I saw them in Temecula, CA in July of 2008, after Scott Totten took over as MD.  It was one of my top 5 shows I've seen.  And I told Scott Totten the same backstage.  It's also very obvious that whatever was undercutting Mike's voice the last few years is now gone.  He's sounding better than ever, with vocal quality reminiscent of his live work in the late 70s.

It's a damned fine version of the Beach Boys.

In all fairness, it's Mike who is, in this particular interview, opening the door to comparisons. He could have just said his band is a fine band. I get it, it's easier to get into that sort of hyperbole when the interview isn't face to face and wearing a "Brian Wilson is God" shirt or a "Save Al Jardine" shirt or something.

I credit interviewers who will at least raise the C50 topic with Mike.

It's also pretty apparent, *in my opinion*, based on this interview as well as that weird David Beard "interview" that there is some sort of weird passive aggressive thing going on with Mike continuing to mention negative stuff about Brian and weird backhanded compliments like <well, as long as it doesn't have auto-tune, wink-wink, I'm sure Brian and Al's new song is just fabulous, even though I can' t find five minutes to stop and listen to it.>

I've said before that I kind of dread Mike's upcoming book. If he's this way in the light and fluffy short pieces promoting his local gig, I can't imagine his book will be less inflammatory.

Joe lives near Chicago. Brian lives in LA. Joe visited Brian and cowrote most of the songs, and participated in some tracking sessions. But it is my understanding that Brian largely recorded and supervised the vocals for the album on his own, as well as the string overdubs and additional recording, such as the Scott Bennett songs that originated as an entirely separate project. Brian did some of his own mixing for the album, and directed many of the creative decisions – like the album cover art – on his own.

As for less credit and more work, Brian gets a sole arrangement credit on the album. That means something. It's certainly not unprecedented given his history either. After all, he produced several of the albums credited to the BBs in the late 60s.

I’d find it odd if Thomas was not present at numerous sessions, yet was granted a co-producer credit when he didn’t even get one on TWGMTR. Not unheard of in the strange world of BB politics of course. We certainly have some anecdotes that indicate blocks of session time spent without Joe present. 

Thomas’ big production stamp has always been more on the instrumental tracks and arrangements as opposed to vocals. I hear this on NPP as well. Other than possible use of auto-tune, I don’t think Thomas puts any particular stamp on the vocal side of things. But his production touch is all over numerous tracks on this album as far as instrumentation and its arrangement. I swear, I’d do anything to have a remix of this album that simply and solely mixes out the damn plinky wood sound (claves or wooden block or whatever it is) and all the plinky things with the percussion.

But it’s difficult if not impossible to blame any particular thing on Thomas. Not only do we not know who was where, and when, we don’t know whose idea any particular aspect was. Brian might tend to like certain stuff Joe does, so then Brian might use some Thomas-influenced bits here and there on his own. But the fact that Thomas co-wrote nearly everything on the album, and garnered a co-producer credit, leaves plenty of room to ascribe overt Thomas-isms as likely due in part to Thomas’ hand in the album.

For sure, I’d say Brian’s penchant for recalling certain 60’s-era studio techniques and arrangements starts to blur into Thomas’ AC/AOR style, and it’s hard to ascribe certain things to one or the other.

I agree this is rather innocuous, in the sense that it’s kind of mildly and typically inflammatory, but not any different from countless other pieces. It’s a typical promo piece that markets often do when Mike comes to town, full of the same questions and answers for the most part. The only difference in the last few years is that we sometimes get an additional subset of the same canned responses to questions about C50.

I don’t think it matters, but I don’t particularly read Mike’s comment as pertaining to the 1998 iteration of the band. He says "I think our touring band is in better shape, vocally, since I can remember, since the original group with Carl Wilson and Dennis (Wilson) and everything.” First and foremost, he’s just pumping his current band up because that’s the whole purpose of the piece. To me, it seems more like hyperbole and/or enthusiastic promo hype, more like the “sounds like 1965” stuff he was saying back during C50. I don’t think he has a particular year in mind in his comments here. To me, it kind of reads more like he’s referring to the “classic” 60’s iteration of the group. That’s why it reads as hyperbole to me. Or, as Wirestone put it, puffery.

Either way, I don’t put any stock in it. By all accounts, even cynics who’d rather not see him using the name, his band is tight and professional. At the same time, I don’t know much of anyone who would suggest the 2015 iteration is better than the 2012 reunion lineup. If anything, his comments kind of continue the pattern of downplaying the quality of the C50 tour.

I think it's all the reasons stated above. Plus, almost anytime anyone, whether the artist or fans, says something "sounds like" something else, I rarely agree.

I see the Chicago station is selling the blu Ray cd. Can you play a blu Ray on a regular DVDs player? Thanks! What a wonderful program that was. All of the new songs would have sounded great by the original Beach Boys with Carl and Dennis

You can't play blu-ray discs on a DVD player. But the thing they're selling is evidently a combo pack that has both disc formats, so you should be good.

I decided not to read any reviews of the album (and still haven't -- not even the long reviews offered here), for the same reason I avoid reviews of a movie I'm really interested in. I'd like the initial experience to be as personal as possible.

But does anyone know how these reviews in the media are done? Do the reviewers choose what they want to review? Or are they randomly assigned? Do reviewers generally listen to albums several times or merely give their first impressions? I assume it varies from place to place, and reviewer to reviewer, but does anyone know how it usually works? Or is their any pattern to it at all?

I somehow doubt these organizations monitor their reviewers and make sure they listen to the entire album. You never know what they have or haven't listened to, or how many times. I've mentioned this before, but DVD review websites are notoriously transparent in that some reviewers clearly aren't looking at all of the contents before they publish the review. You can even see some reviewers who use a clear template and just fill certain bits of info in.

It's harder to that with music reviews, since each album is pretty unique to itself. But I wouldn't find it hard to believe some reviewers have listened to the album once, or maybe even skipped forward to the next track early. I also *don't* think that just because a review is negative and doesn't mention every song it means they didn't listen to it enough. We would never know, other than a few total hack reviews with confirmable false information.

Odd, is it not, that less than three days after the album's release we're debating the reviews and not the music. What a strange bunch of people we are...

Debating the reviews actually makes even less sense than debating each others' opinions on the album. Nobody can even decide on what rating constitutes a "good" review. Is 6.5 out of 10 a good review? We're debating whether more good or bad reviews are being posted, but we have no measure of what a "good" or "bad" review is. As some others have pointed out, a review can "read" positive and then you'll see a 2.5 or 3 out of 5 or "C" grade or something. Another review will have a lot of positive and very negative stuff, and then it might still give the album a "B" or something.

I’m not sure I feel this is the “most polarizing” album since “Love You.” It just seems more like people are just grappling with how to review the thing, how to express opinions, how to interpret or accept others’ opinions or reviews, and when and when not to assume anyone has an “agenda.”

I’m still fascinated by how often negative stated opinions (much moreso than positive) are so immediately reduced to some sort of agenda/bias/ulterior motive.

Yes, as we keep saying, there are a few folks who we know are going to feel a certain way about something, and they will indeed pop up and offer exactly what we expected. But I don’t think that’s running rampant here on the board. There are a few people who will turn a conversation about the brand of bass Bob Lizik uses into an anti-Mike Love diatribe. There are also those who will automatically defend Mike Love no matter how much of an a**hat he comes across in some random interview. But few take these extremes.

When we start dragging non-fan reviews into this discussion of “agendas” and “perceptions” and whatnot, it gets infinitely even more murky. I’ve read negative reviews that I disagree with. I’ve read some I agree with. I’ve read some whose underlying premise I agree with, but whom I also feel arrived at that conclusion in a totally unwarranted, unreasonable fashion.

Mediocre or poor reviews of BB-related product of all sorts is nothing new.

Ultimately, how many times on this board has someone convinced someone else to change how they feel, in the moment, about an album? Sure, months or years later we may re-evaluate our feelings, sometimes substantially (I dig McCartney’s “Press to Play” a LOT more than I used to). But we sometimes try too hard to seemingly try to change someone else’s opinion. When that fails, we start getting people questioning the motives of others. I find motives behind opinions VERY fascinating. But it’s all speculation. Everybody has an opinionated, subjective side. But relatively few, in my opinion, are truly able to be substantially objective at the same time. People who write for a living are sometimes better about shifting gears into an objective mindset, an objective “literary voice” when writing a review.

Also, muddying the waters is the fact that, in my opinion, many folks find it far easier to write (or say) negative things about something than positive. I have myself found that I sometimes have more specific, detailed observations to make about, say, a bad movie, than a great movie. Maybe that’s why far more people go to “Yelp” to complain than to praise.

But you gotta just deal with it. You have to truly accept and live with the fact that an album YOU think is an effing MASTERPIECE is a piece of crap in the eyes of somebody else, and that somebody else *might* be as learned, knowledgeable, and thoughtful as you are.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.  If you like NPP, that's great - just, for me, personally, this one is a misfire.

I hear ya man, but I just want to illustrate from an outside voice speaking in, that your entire review perfectly presents that YOU are the reason you're not enjoying the album.  Your only critiques of it are that you don't like that whole sound, or that whole genre of music, or those type of guitars... 

I know it's hard because I do the same thing, but try listening to it with unprejudiced ears.  What if you decided to start liking (*gasp!) adult contemporary?  We might think you're old!  We might think you're soft!  We might think you're a poser!  Ignore all of that and just listen to the music for what it is, and see if you like it, regardless of what genre it's in or what the guitar tone is. 

I didn’t read Tomorrowville’s review as only focusing on the production or genre (although those things *can* impact one’s enjoyment, and can also go hand-in-hand with not liking the actual compositions).

I’m still working on my own review, but *very generally* speaking, I have similar thoughts to some of Tomorrowville’s. Some of the songs, the actual compositions, even after you strip away whatever the production style is, are not super memorable. One of the greatest things about Brian has always been his chord progressions and vocal arrangements. He almost *always* delivers the goods with vocal arrangements, regardless of the quality of the compositions or level of interesting chord changes. What I do hear on “NPP” is, in *some* cases, slightly pleasant but predictable chord patterns/changes. I think some of this may be down to Thomas’ songwriting involvement. I heard some similarities between the chord patterns on NPP and TWGMTR, in terms of how the chord progressions are resolved, and how long a song hangs on a specific chord. There are some moments when I can tell what the next chord is going to be before I’ve ever heard it. It’s never bad, but it’s sometimes a bit “not memorable.” Two of the most interesting songs compositionally for me are “Sail Away” and “One Kind of Love”, and it’s perhaps not a coincidence that those two tracks have input from writers other than Thomas. No, those two songs aren’t exactly “This Whole World” either structurally, but they do some ear-catching things with chord changes that some of the other tracks don’t.

This effect is why I’ve always had a “that’s good but it doesn’t *quite* hit the spot” feeling about something like “Summer’s Gone.” The song has a beautiful vocal arrangement and performance. Simple, but effective enough lyrics. Perhaps the best ending to a BB album outside of a few things like “Pet Sounds.” But the actual chords are just a bit bland. Unremarkable. Pleasant and constructed just fine.

I’ll have a no doubt rambling, epic review finished before too long. I dig the album. It has ups and downs, but certainly more ups. I do think that Thomas’ production/arrangement stamp on a good hunk of this album is *stronger* than TWGMTR. It isn’t to the level of “Imaginaton”, but NPP has a good amount of his touches: Oboes and woodwinds, plinky guitar plucking, plinky percussion, sparse percussion/drums. Some of these are also Brian’s hallmarks as well.

There are some obvious names where we can usually tell where that person's "review" is coming from. I don't know if "agenda" is always the right word; that kind of implies more effort and planning. I think it's more just engrained into certain folks to always be negative (or always positive) about certain things, for whatever reason.

But I do think some fans can come across as unwilling to acknowledge or accept criticism. Bad reviews are defamation? Really? Maybe that was just a vocabulary issue, or hyperbole.

I'm still digesting the album and working up a review. I'm enjoying it. I don't think it's Brian's all-time masterpiece. And, while everybody is (duh, obviously) entitled to their own opinion, I am a bit off-put by both all-negative or all-positive reviews. One line "this sucks" reviews are worthless. If a LOOOONG review of the album, going track-by-track, doesn't discuss one (substantial) thing the reviewer didn't like, I *may* come to the conclusion that they're predisposed to not write anything negative rather than truly LOVING every moment of the album. I'm not a big fan of those types of reviews either. I don't dig the reviews that read like a  "say something positive about each song" exercise. Nor do I enjoy those that read like a "say one positive and one negative thing about every song" exercise.

I know I'm stating the painfully obvious when I pose the question of why they didn't just include track-by-track credits. I would imagine it's probably just a space/design issue for the booklet. I'm curious if there was any flack for the TWGMTR credits being so odd (missing instruments, etc.), and if the more general credits are a reaction to that. Probably not.

Can someone just e-mail Joe Thomas and get track-by-track credits. It's fun but also weird that we have to do this process-of-elimination thing to decipher just a few of the credits.

Sounds like at least some of those issues might be with the local broadcast. The YouTube videos (available in HD) look and sound just fine. I even ripped the audio from the live YouTube clips to my iPod and have listened with headphones and they sound fine. Occasionally, the lead vocal dips a bit low in the mix on something like Al’s vocal on “Sail Away”, but overall it sounds fine.

The direction on the clips on YouTube also seems just fine.

If the editing is choppy, it *might* be because they did the sort of “Master Edit” for the Blu-ray/DVD (which clocks in at apparently around 103 minutes, 27 songs), and then cut that down to 59 minutes and 17 songs. They were probably trying to cram as many songs as they could into an hour slot, so they cut out some intros for guests and whatnot.

It’ll be interesting to see what the blu-ray looks and sounds like. If it’s like the YouTube clips, then it should be quite nice.