I know I could be not lazy and google and look this up with more time, but does anyone know what formula is used to factor in streaming? I understand counting paid digital downloads. But it would seem to far more difficult to quantify how much someone streaming a song means either in terms of their own musical interests or how much revenue that generated.

Does Billboard factor in Netflix streams of movies on their video charts? I may click on a Netflix documentary on the migration patterns of lobsters, but I’m never going to actually pay for that on an individual basis.

I know they quite some time ago started factoring radio airplay into the singles charts (which is why old fogey artists have continued to sometimes do well on the album charts but rarely get “hit singles”).

Is there some sort of payola going on between Spotify/Pandora/iTunes radio, etc. and Billboard?

It's all described in the Billboard article I linked to.

Duh! Thanks. Interesting formulas for individual digital track sales (apparently if ten people each just buy “The Right Time”, Brian gets one more “album sale”) and on-demand streaming. So it apparently doesn’t include free (or I guess even paid) radio-style services like Pandora.

Subscriptions on-demand servies are awfully hard to quantify. A lot of people will watch a documentary on lobsters on Netflix, but will never buy a physical or download version of it. Free (even though a cheap paid subscription) is so different from paying *anything*, I’m not even sure 1,500 streams matches one purchase based on how I view the public’s attitude towards what they’ll pay directly for. People who pay $8 or $10 per month for Netflix seem to still feel they’re essentially watching stuff for free.

Weird question: Is the Blu-ray/DVD combo in a Blu-ray case (the shorter ones, usually with blue plastic), or in a regular sized DVD case? The media nerd in me likes to have Blu-rays in actual blu-ray cases, but I’m guessing based on the artwork on the website that it’s probably going to be a DVD case that houses both the DVD and the Blu-ray disc.

It's DVD-sized, but it's not in a plastic (is "Amray" the correct term?) case. It's a cardboard-based booklet-like design. Inside are two discs - one DVD, one Blu-Ray, nested on top of each other.

Ah, thanks. I hadn’t thought of the possibility that they would do a sort of digi-pak or cardboard sleeve sort of packaging. Makes sense I suppose as a cost-cutting measure. Too bad they couldn’t do with blu-ray case height so it would match blu-ray cases at least in height. I don’t say this as purely an aesthetic thing; some of my shelves are just tall enough for blu-ray disc cases.

Anybody here up to designing some appropriately-sized Blu-ray case artwork? I wish I was better with doing that sort of stuff. With this it would be relatively easy; resizing the front and back covers to match a blu-ray front and back cover, and then designing a new spine so it’ll work in a blu-ray case.

Yes, that’s how much I like keeping all the blu-ray discs together in one spot! If someone is really up for the redesign, that would be awesome!

I know I could be not lazy and google and look this up with more time, but does anyone know what formula is used to factor in streaming? I understand counting paid digital downloads. But it would seem to far more difficult to quantify how much someone streaming a song means either in terms of their own musical interests or how much revenue that generated.

Does Billboard factor in Netflix streams of movies on their video charts? I may click on a Netflix documentary on the migration patterns of lobsters, but I’m never going to actually pay for that on an individual basis.

I know they quite some time ago started factoring radio airplay into the singles charts (which is why old fogey artists have continued to sometimes do well on the album charts but rarely get “hit singles”).

Is there some sort of payola going on between Spotify/Pandora/iTunes radio, etc. and Billboard?

Did anyone get this yet? Mine just came about an hour ago. Brian's signature is there in a separate card tucked in a special slot in the sleeve just for it. The CD is the 13-track version.

Weird question: Is the Blu-ray/DVD combo in a Blu-ray case (the shorter ones, usually with blue plastic), or in a regular sized DVD case? The media nerd in me likes to have Blu-rays in actual blu-ray cases, but I’m guessing based on the artwork on the website that it’s probably going to be a DVD case that houses both the DVD and the Blu-ray disc.

On the “Target” issue, I can say that I’ve been to at least three or four Target locations in my area. Every single store had multiple copies of the “exclusive” version of the CD, yet the website still shows it as not available at any of these (or any other in my region) locations. While their website is often wonky with tracking this sort of thing, this is pretty excessive as far as a website fail. Stock is plentiful, and they are showing it as unavailable everywhere. Long story short, don’t trust the website at all. I’d call a store and just have them physical check the shelf for it.

At the location where I bought it, *more* copies have materialized than what I saw before. I’m guessing that while on release date some folks saw shelves with 2 or 3 copies while others saw seemingly 40 or 50, most stores probably have dozens and dozens of copies and most of them are in the back.

"Better sonically," huh?

In other words, you prefer Al's production decisions. That's fine, I guess, but I like my BW records to sound the way BW wants them to.

I guess it's kind of a complex thing to describe. But I suppose in the end, if I think something is better, it's just an opinion that something is better. But I think a dry, upfront vocal sound with less processing sounds better sonically; it has more of a natural "breath of life" or whatever one wants to call it. To me, sonically that's preferable. It's not any sort of value judgment on the people recording this stuff. *Sometimes*, the closer a vocal on a recording sounds to sitting next to someone singing it, the more sonically pure it can sound. Creative use of effects can be cool too.


Completely seperate from any autotune discussion, I've long said that I'm not always a big fan of Brian's 2000s production/mixing/mastering ethos. Way too wet to my taste more often than not. And it is just taste. I *know* Brian likes to arrange, record, and mix in a rather dense, wet style. I think this worked well earlier in his career. But stylistically and sonically I'm not as big of a fan of how he does it now. It's not a deal breaker or anything, just not my preference. As I've said before, I don't think Brian will ever record something that sounds like Tom Petty's "Highway Companion." I think, on the arrangement side, the bells and whistles (sometimes literally) have become excessive. A random example: I actually think "A Friend Like You" is a solid song. But it's adorned with WAY too much.

I see the pattern in modern day remixes of old BB tracks too. I often wonder if Brian is part of the decision making to add way too much reverb to some of the stereo remixes. Listening to the stereo remix of "Please Let Me Wonder" or "You're So Good To Me", and then going back to Brian's original mono mix shows that huge difference.

But I would definitely say that implicit in liking the sound of an Al record (or anybody else's) is NOT that I think Brian should make his records the way someone else wants them to sound. It goes without saying that he should do it however he wants to. I'm not even saying Brian *could* make his stuff sound different. He makes his music the way it is, and I digest it accordingly.

In the theoretical, I think a raw, dry Brian recording might actually be VERY interesting and tantalizing. A full album of Brian just playing piano and singing new songs. Maybe adorned with some other layers. A modern day "Love You" of sorts perhaps, but with less synths. But I don't expect him to do that.

Very good news! I'm on the west coast, so I'll probably waiting at least a bit longer. But good to know they are sending them out! Their fulfillment service quality may be better than their customer service quality!

Not going to open up this can of worms again, but I addressed this question a long time ago -- that people were using the word autotune to identify a more general type of vocal processing they didn't like -- and it seemed to rankle.  But the fact is, if something's bugging people, and they don't get the semantics right the first time, it does not invalidate their opinion.  It just means they didn't express it right - which most non-musicians (e.g. the audience, the people buying the records) are incapable of precisely doing.

So it seems a little disingenuous now that people have been better educated and are more properly labeling the things that they believe are hearing, to call them out for THAT too.  "See?  They don't know what they're talking about!"  Well, by that rubrick, nobody can have an opinion that isn't precisely and clinically stated from the outset.

I know from the past go 'round this isn't going to go over particularly well, and again I haven't heard the album in toto so I'm not making a statement about it per se, but my own, non personal attack-y opinion is that the above post is one of those things that's worded to sound like it's making a sound argument, but doesn't.

No opinion as to Brian's album, other than that I like what I've heard of it, but I personally think people have a right to dig or not dig a piece of work offered to the public, however clearly or not clearly they express those opinions.

Thank you. Well put.

I would add that some folks also do know enough about pitch correction plug-ins, especially how they sound when they hit a released record, that I still believe the suggestion that actual pitch correction software plug-ins were used on “No Pier Pressure” is not an inappropriate suggestion or open question. That’s what’s frustrating me, that such an opinion can be minimized. I haven’t seen anybody claim they can *prove* autotune was used, and nobody can prove it *wasn’t* used. The stretching and rationalizing to, I guess, try to prove it wasn’t used has seemed far more desperate, and has involved a lot more stretching, a lot more parsing of terminology and even Brian’s own interviews (“he said autotune *can* be used; that doesn’t mean it *was* used!).

Does anyone believe some sort of pitch correction is NOT on TWGMTR and the C50 live album (and was especially used in a ham-fisted way at a few early C50 shows?). To me, those projects are strong, and highly circumstantial, evidence of a pattern. When someone knows this pattern, and then hears some of the same artifacts, albeit more subtley, on the VERY NEXT project the same team works on, I don’t understand why there is such a level of incredulity when the mere suggestion is made that that same team is doing the same thing they’ve been doing up to this point.

This is hardly scientific and is completely subjective, but I would again encourage people to listen to Al’s vocals on some tracks on his “Postcard from California” album. There are many tracks (perhaps all of them), where Al’s vocal is not heavily processed, and is pretty dry and upfront. *Nothing* on Brian’s CD sounds like that. A lot of that has to do simply with how Brian likes to record and mix stuff (more dense, more wet, echo/reverb, etc.). But Al’s stuff sounds better sonically, and whatever you think of it, sounds *different.* Al ended up mixing much if not all of this stuff in Pro Tools as well as I recall. He did get the warmth of the analog tape and probably some older outboard gear. Who knows, maybe even he ticked the pitch correction box on a few items here or there. I don’t recall hearing any such anomalies, but as someone who thinks Al’s stuff sounds more organic and dry and who thinks he probably didn’t use autotune, I’m not prepared to say he never used it. In any event, give that stuff a listen again from a sonic point of view. Al’s stuff ain’t perfect either. The drums on “Looking Down the Coast” sound right out of 1989 (which they could be!). But his voice sounds much more pure. Listen to his “California Feelin’” for instance.

I think someone, perhaps AGD, made a passing reference to Mike (and perhaps Bruce) having heard enough of the live album to not be happy with the autotune/sound. I can’t find the post quickly here, though. Whatever the reference, I believe it was in passing. It wasn’t from a formal Q&A or anything.

The C50 live album was probably the weakest product to come out of the whole reunion project. The band didn’t seem to care, nor did Capitol. I don’t know how much of that was due to the dissolution of the reunion itself. Nobody hyped it at all. It was almost like somebody eventually mentioned “oh yeah, I guess we should do a live album from the tour.”

But yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if none of them actually sat down and listened to the whole thing from beginning to end. They probably rarely if ever do that with any of their albums, certainly in retrospect years later. Brian would have been the only one who possibly did anything hands-on for the live album. Other than possibly Brian, everybody else’s involvement probably consisted of being given a copy. I suppose it’s possible they helped pick the tracks. I dunno.

Maybe Mike is unhappy he sounds like a robot on the C50 live album?

We’ve heard some indirect reports, if I’m recalling correctly, that he did indeed express displeasure to somebody about that sound on the live album. But he’s not objective about anything to do with C50, so his opinion on it doesn’t carry much weight with me. The autotune is a mess on that album (on certain tracks much more than others), but if Mike otherwise felt better about all the other aspects of C50, I doubt he’d be hammering things that he, on some level, has negative feelings about. A lot of people do this in certain circumstances. It’s the same reason that stuff Mike has said post-C50 was not heard for him during C50.

I’m surprised he hasn’t specifically mentioned the autotune on the live album, as that would be an obvious thing to bludgeon Joe Thomas (and Brian) with. He seems more bent out of shape he wasn’t a bigger part of the studio album.

Some have also suggested that you can hear autotune on some of Mike’s non-BB products, such as some of the stuff from the “Mike Love Not War/Unleash the Love, etc” material. I haven’t gone back lately to listen to any of that stuff. But considering Mike is self-professed to be far less interested in studio work than Brian, I think it’s plausible that his stuff was autotuned without his detailed knowledge.

[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.

Agree wholeheartedly. I've found myself expecting pitch correcting / Auto tune… whatever… with every listen to NPP and still haven't been able to detect it - but listening out for it is detracting from my enjoyment.

Also, the line about Mike being "fed" the Auto Tune line… well I wouldn't be surprised if that did originate in something he or an acquaintance read here on this board. I've suspected in the past that some band principals (or their representatives here on Earth) come here to find out what they're supposed to be doing/have done, and this is another coincidence.

As for Auto tune migrating to this thread, well, maybe that's not a bad thing - if all the conspiracy theories are in one place, it saves the CIA the effort of having to search for them.

John Lennon, on the grassy knoll, with a machete.

I certainly think it’s a bummer if anybody’s enjoyment of the new album is being compromised in any way. But if *not hearing* the autotune is bugging people who don’t think it’s there or don’t care *more* than *hearing* autotune is bugging people who do care to some degree that it’s there, I’m not sure what can be done about that.

Either way, it seems like, as is sometimes the case of message boards/forums, it has become a rather “meta” sort of discussion. We’re not talking about autotune anymore. We’re talking about talking about autotune now. I empathize with and to some degree agree with the fears that some sort of misconception might turn into “the truth.” But I don’t think the autotune thing is one of those cases. It’s not one of those blatantly false things that needs to be (or can be) disproven. It’s a very open-ended, provocative topic.

Normally, I would have waited as well. But if they’re at least being accurate when they say this is the only way to get it until November (other than, I would presume, eventual pledge drives through PBS stations), then I would say it’s worth it since there’s no alternative and the wait will be same either way.

I certainly would have a very tough time biting the bullet on purchasing one of their “ticket packages” for $250-$300. That seems even more sketchy and vague.

Anybody tried calling the 800 phone number on the website? I haven’t yet.

Some of the “guest” tracks seem tailor-made for extra crossover appeal, as they are less “duets” and closer to full-on Musgraves or Ruess solo tracks penned and produced by Brian. Yes, he pops in on vocals as well. But I’ve been surprised how open they’ve been to marketing the tracks Brian isn’t heavily featured on. I’m still surprised the first track they pushed is essentially an Al Jardine solo track written by Brian.

Compositionally, I think “Saturday Night” is one of the catchier, easily accessible songs. Add to that the crossover audience, and I too am pretty surprised they haven’t pushed it more as a “single” so far.

Still waiting for someone to leak the Matt Jardine guide vocal version of the song!

Apologies if this was already discussed in one of the NPP threads, but I could swear I hear Al on the backing vocals on the song, at least on the portion of the backing vocals that come in in the middle of the guitar solo. I suppose it could be Brian or Matt sounding like Al.

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.

Just to clarify...

In my particular case, it really isn't a matter of me being concerned that my CC was charged; I'd expect that to be done automatically by their order software.

What concerns me is is that it might be a twofold process where the folks who are filling the orders need to *see* an actual order and that order's details from a customer -- independent of the auto charge process. And without any sort of confirmation on my end with the specifics of what I actually ordered or where to ship it  -- the autographed combo in my case as well -- I'm not positive that they have. That is, I just want to make sure that I don't slip through the cracks on the order fulfillment end of things. Unfortunately, and even though my CC was also automatically charged, that *has* happened to me in the past with another, unrelated company [And, in that case, by the time I pointed out to them that my CC was charged, they apologetically told me they were out of what was a limited edition item. For whatever reason, the order fulfillment department apparently had no specific record of my order and weren't even aware of the automatic CC charge.].

Not saying that's gonna happen this time, but the fact that some people got order e-mail conformation of their placed orders, however basic, while others didn't.....does concern me a bit. Hopefully, it's just a glitch in their software. On the other hand, the lack of communication following several inquiries kind of sucks.

Definitely all valid points. I can only hope that the longer the website is up and taking orders, and the more people place orders, the less likely it is that the whole thing is a big clusterfudge at least in terms of people getting what they ordered at some point.

The communication issue is the big issue. I’d be fine if they wrote back and said “Orders will take 1 to 2 weeks to process.” Even that would already be kind of misleading considering both the website verbiage and a personal e-mail I got specifically said the stuff is “in stock” and ships out as soon as it’s ordered. But some sort of communication would be nice.

[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.