Hmmm.  Those degenerate 'drug-addled' musician/amateur human beings also happen to be millionaires.
Some of them are arrogant, some of them aren't so arrogant.  So I guess having the millions (or talent) doesn't matter - you're either arrogant or you're not.  I think it has a lot to do with how you are brought up and what you are told is important...

63 today...
We shall celebrate by having - the flu.

Oops.  Kev upset some people...
http://blog.oregonlive.com/steveduin/2007/11/whiner_of_the_week_kevin_love.html

 
MBE... I've picked up some good downloads from you in the last couple of years.
Thankyou.

This really sounds like some sort of promo.  You've got to hand it to Brian, he has one helluva sense of humour, I quite like the tongue in cheek.  Possibly I'm the only one here...

"Women doctors, and lawyers too - can really make a man out of you."   

GET IT WHILE ITS HOT!!!!

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TWYYSSZL

 

The link still works.  try again...

 

Hi gang - could someone please repost the zip file with all the pics?  Sorry but I am just now .rar compatible and cannot locate the file.

Appreciate it!!

Go to pixletwin's megaupload link on page 2.  It still works.   

I think it is true to say that there is a good deal of underground BB cult admiration now and that it is considered quite cool among certain genres of the music biz to cite a BB or Brian reference.  It's a back-handed way of adding kudos to your own eclectic musical integrity.  It annoys me that media airplay is restricted to (mostly) Good Vibrations and occasionally one or two other Greatest Hits and never anything from the rest of the back catalogue.  That may have a lot to do with the touring playlists which, for a substantial number of years, kept to the more well-known tracks (rightly?, in order to please a paying audience).  The BB were cultivating their own un-hipness, knowingly or otherwise.

As for the Beatles comparison; the Beatles were considered to be, generally speaking, better looking, wittier, more articulate about their own music and influences and, of course, English which can be an asset in the American market (I'm not subscribing to this, by the way).  I've recently listened to some Beatles demos and studio work and marvelled at some of the lyrical intelligence and melodic content.  But they were not more progressive than Brian Wilson, IMO I think that their melodies were more accessible to a wider audience than Brian's, in his more off-beat moments.  Accessible, not better or cooler.

England has also been seen as somewhere more sensitive to musical progression and has a history of supporting the underdog, hence some BB support at a time when the American market all but threw them out of the water.  But even here there is a lot of ignorance of the back catalogue.  I wouldn't describe the feeling quite so much as hate, more like trying to offer coal miner a milk shake when he ordered a pint of ale.
 

I've speed-read through the book, and my initial impressions are:

For as much luck as the Beach Boys seemed to have had fatefully, Dave seems to have suffered the polar opposite.

While musically gifted, David seemed to drift a good while and didn't stick at anything for long, which pretty much meant he lost out on a good slice of history.

That David's musical integrity was undeniable, but I think that may have meant he didn't appreciate the BB legacy as much as he might have.  Maybe he does now?

How much like Dennis was he (lifestyle-wise)!   Personally, I'm amazed he's still here.

It makes very clear that the importance of bonds made very early on helped to shape events later, and how much of a wider community of people were involved in one way or another.  Ps.  I would have liked to have met Louie, he sounds great.

I don't think anyone (litigiously pre-disposed) is going to get too worried about what's written here, although it presents a nice little alternative history, and you sense there may be a good bit of truth in it.

I can't make it to meet David and Jon this Friday, and I would really have liked to - they aren't too many miles away from me.  I'm a bit gutted. 

OK.  I understand (and agree with, to a certain extent) the point you're making. 
Enough of the extraneous posts, and back to the  (I just wanted an excuse to use that emoticon...!!!)

Another thing is, I dont think anyone here is really complaining about the new production. A lot of these pages are just speculation that the coda sounds exactly like the original. I look forward to hearing the new version just to see if whoever sang it really nailed Bruce's timbre...(huhuh)

Also, people who come on here to just post about how they're tired of peoples complaining...youre not really adding anything to the topic of conversation, so why not just stay out of it? This is a thread of discussion of the actual music/production not what your opinion is on others peoples feelings of the matter.

That's a bit harsh isn't it?  It doesn't encourage people to want to contribute.  I don't agree with the slanging that goes back and forth from time to time, but there isn't any need for that kind of reaction.

Sorry to those who are trying to discuss music, folks...

Surely, there isn't anything wrong with Brian wanting to redo one of his own songs...?  The PS GOK version is beautiful - and you should see my 5 year old son singing it, mistakes and all (- even more beautiful), and that's the point I'm making.  It isn't the nuts and bolts finished production that makes a song (enhances maybe -sorry Mark Linnett), it's the soul, i.e. what place in your heart it is coming from.

I can't imagine this song coming from any place in Brian's heart other than the nicest, most heartfelt one...   

Quote: Forget Marie

Quote from: Lola Jane on October 23, 2006, 04:43:40 PM
Mills sound like a strong character and is going to fight.  Some of you are a little merciless in your opinions.  I don't think for a minute that she's an angel (nor is McCartney), and they have both allowed the divorce to become a public fight.
Quit giving her a hard time.

Why?  I don't see where Paul has matched what she's done, thus far, in terms of slinging mud.  The things that came out about her were from the press itself, and I have to believe they knew details of her past all along.  They held their fire prior to his marriage, no doubt out of respect for his contributions to music and the worldwide profile of Great Britain.  Once the marriage was over, the gloves were off.  The press never liked her.  That's not Paul's fault.  From most indications, he tried to make an amicable split.  That may have not been possible, but he at least tried (and to her credit, she seemed to before the merda hit the fan about her pre-marital life).  She's also the one that leaked all the info about him locking her out of his house in London.  But that lock-out came after contents were leaked of a taped, private conversation between Paul and his daughter, Stella.  A conversation that took place after the seperation.  Who taped his private phone conversation, and who leaked it to the press?  I'm sure that had something to do with why he changed the locks. 

What is she fighting about, anyways?  It's just money.  How much does she need?  How much does he need, for that matter, but he is the one that made it.  Plus, most of his money was made well before he even met her.  He doesn't owe her anything above half of whatever he made when they were together, and I don't see how trying her case in the court of public opinion is going to get her any more than that.  She's just making herself look bad, and if she hadn't taken this tack, she probably would have survived it all, received a nice settlement, and still could be a well-liked celebrity working for charitable causes.  If it's her lawyers' fault, she should fire them.  All of these things that have come out in the past few days are from a document she hasn't even signed, and contain statements that are contradicted by earlier public statements.  The rest is from so-called friends of hers, who are saying that Paul beat up Linda during that marriage.  How would they or Heather even know that? 

As I mentioned, neither Paul nor Heather are angels in this.  Even if what she is doing is in the public domain, and what he did is behind closed doors, that doesn't make one or the other of them more or less inculpable.  'Saint Macca' is an anachronism.  Respect musical contribution and cultural legacy; yes.  Assume all things bad are in Heather's ballpark; no.  I'm just trying to bring a little perspective here.  Divorces are immensely emotional and cause all kinds of decisions to be made.  And, why believe everything you read?  I don't "obviously believe" all that is said and I don't see why I should be blasted for giving a slightly differing opinion.

If someone else petitions for divorce against you, it is likely you will respond (as you legally have to).  Mills reponse is certainly detailed (the bit about never declining sexual intimacy in 7 years, except once - physical exhaustion - stunned me, I guess because I'm trying to work out how many 'headaches' I've had - more than one - but not because I didn't care for my partner).  In divorce cases like this, every bit of dirty laundry is going to be aired, one perception versus another.  Inevitably, there is always a little truth in it, we all do things to loved ones that aren't nice and marriages are hard to sustain anyway, let alone one under media gaze. 

Mills sound like a strong character and is going to fight.  Some of you are a little merciless in your opinions.  I don't think for a minute that she's an angel (nor is McCartney), and they have both allowed the divorce to become a public fight.
Quit giving her a hard time.

It's unfortunate when one person has a legitimate axe to grind from past misdemeanours and the only person they can take it out on is someone who may have been relatively innocent, although somewhat ignorant of their professional responsibilities.  I'm not sure on what grounds Brian won his suit in the SOT publishing saga?  I guess if you are claiming  compensation you thereby acknowledge your right to involvement, meaning if anyone else has credit issues with the company... you take the rap.
Or have I read this wrong?

Mr Desper should get out his isolated tracks and play them at parties... right before the strip poker.

That was a beautiful post, Peter Reum.

I posted this on the Blueboard some time ago.  It incorporates some of the more technical aspects.  Apologies if it has been posted before.  Enjoy.

http://www.indie-music.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3111

Strangely, there aren't even that many websites.  What happened to the forgotten Beach Boy?  Maybe it's a family thing - he was a private person and maybe his memory should remain the same.  Shame, though.

SMiLE would have had enormous resonance if it had been completed in the late sixties because of the context.

Sorry, I meant to say 'would not', IMO.

Posted by: Jon Stebbins

Quote from: Lola Jane on August 25, 2006, 07:18:02 PM
I usually subscribe to the opinion that original is best, and I know this argument has been going around ever since BWPS, BUT I have heard snippets of the original and possess the new version and I don't believe one is better than another.

The flavour is different on the original tapes but I have enormous respect for the renovating work that was done for the contemporary version.  I don't get why people want to put down updated material.  Yes, there is a difference in tone, resonance, feel etc etc.  Mono over stereo, overdubs etc.  Sometimes people are just too purist.

I like 'original'.  I like original Coca-cola (no adds), I like original oak beams, I like original when it's vintage designer clothing (can't afford it).  I got the chance to see the BB play with many original members.   But in this case, no.  Original members on SMiLE, nice but not necessary.  Even if Brian got bulldozed into doing it, it's still his babe, and as far as I'm aware, he's still the original Brian Wilson.

You're discounting the input of the other BB's on the project. The inflection of their voices alone. The vocals on BWPS were recreations, or facsimile of the original arrangements laid down by the BB's in '66/67. On BWPS they didn't try to come up  with something new or original...they copied the old arrangement as closely as they could. Instrumentally this was much easier because it's less of a human thing. But still even the instruments weren't all created by studio men on the orig. Smile. Carl was there on many Smile sessions adding his guitar and input. Dennis played drums or percussion on several tracks, Al was there on a few too.  The studio people's contributions and inflections in the moment of 66/67 were huge, beyond huge, and again they mimicked those on BWPS. It is by no means an original work. Brian didn't keep all of that info in his head for 37 years. They went back listened to the tapes, and copied what they heard as best they could. They filled it in and finished it, that's the best part about BWPS...it takes it to completion. I loved it. it sounds GREAT!!! It is great. It is Brian's baby. But it's no way as good as the potential of the original. It can't be because it's a partial forgery in a way. They say that about paintings that have been forged..."it looks better than the original"...yeah well some of Smile sounds cleaner or tighter than the original...but it loses something that can never be duplicated. It is recreating an original work by painting by numbers...and adding a minimal amount of new original creative thought to make it whole.  The problem is you can't say this without upsetting people because BWPS is so cool. I'm not at all trying to put it down. I'm calling it like it is...and giving the proper weight to context. Bottom line...the orig. was never finished so I'm happy to have the modern version. But I'd much rather have had a finished version of the BB's Smile...because it was the real thing. I like Coke too.

John, I wasn't having a go at you.  I understand what you are saying and maybe what we are talking about here is provenance.  SMiLE would have had enormous resonance if it had been completed in the late sixties because of the context.  It wasn't.  Brian himself has said it was ahead of its time so you could argue that SMiLE properly belongs here and now, inevitably minus the BB voices.  I agree that minimal rejuvenation took place to produce BWPS, but if that hadn't happened, it wouldn't be SMiLE, it would be something else.  Original composer, original art... brought into 21st century.  I would like to have heard the original voices, but that's an impossibility.
It's like imagining that Pepper had never happened, until McCartney stuck and pasted it together in 2005.  I would say, "wow, nice music but where does it fit in".  I think SMiLE does fit in 2004, maybe not commercially, but artistically.  I think that's the test of whether something is real.  Maybe we agree to disagree.  

I usually subscribe to the opinion that original is best, and I know this argument has been going around ever since BWPS, BUT I have heard snippets of the original and possess the new version and I don't believe one is better than another.

The flavour is different on the original tapes but I have enormous respect for the renovating work that was done for the contemporary version.  I don't get why people want to put down updated material.  Yes, there is a difference in tone, resonance, feel etc etc.  Mono over stereo, overdubs etc.  Sometimes people are just too purist.

I like 'original'.  I like original Coca-cola (no adds), I like original oak beams, I like original when it's vintage designer clothing (can't afford it).  I got the chance to see the BB play with many original members.   But in this case, no.  Original members on SMiLE, nice but not necessary.  Even if Brian got bulldozed into doing it, it's still his babe, and as far as I'm aware, he's still the original Brian Wilson.

To coincide with the current thread 'Mike Love is a jerk', here is a pic of the two in Rishikesh.  Sorry, quality not good.

Who is Bat boy?

This book feels more like a series of essays put together.  Parts of it are interesting, and I disagree with AGD in that some of it is nicely written and evocative.  It seems a bit scrappy, though.  I get annoyed with books that have only b&w photos - it feels unfinished.