The Smiley Smile Message Board

When I see these announcements for archival releases as digital only, I feel let down. I am strictly old school, must have physical product, jewel case, booklet, and all. I have never downloaded anything, wouldn't even know how to go about it, my hard drive is empty with regard to music, it's CD all the way.

So I can't really get excited about a 68 set as digital only. But I am happy with anything physical, I buy all of that. I can understand going digital only for things that might incur a loss as a physical release, but really, how much extra would it cost to press a few thousand of the 68 set, print the booklet, etc.? I can't imagine anything of quality would lose money as a physical release. So what is holding them back? Some corporate decision?

I think it's a little bit greedy, if it turns out that anything they put out must make a substantial profit. If they wouldn't lose money on a physical release, there is really no excuse for not releasing a physical CD product.

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71fkFVOTuXL._SS500_.jpg)

Physical sets would be nice, but we are very, very, very, very, very lucky to have gotten what we have been getting thus far, and that's just the unfortunate nature of the industry these days.

What's far more important then a physical release is the quantity of mindblowing tracks. The more the merrier.

We are supremely lucky to have Mark and Alan getting this stuff in such great audio presentation for all times. Not saying I don't agree that physical would be nice… but I can't say that the band is "letting the fans down"…

It's strictly a business decision, and I'm actually very surprised that they have let as many "warts and all" tracks out as they have, so actually IMO they are doing quite the opposite of letting us down.

If it’s easiest to release stuff as digital only I say go for it.  I just wanna hear everything I can to be honest

It is not the choice of The Beach Boys or BRI to do digital only - any physical release has to be done through Capitol, and the final decision is theirs.

While I completely agree that having physical sets alongside a digital release would be ideal, I do want to say that there is a huge benefit to storing your tracks on a computer/cloud service: if you ever somehow lose your collection (be it burglary, house fire, etc.) you can still access the music that you paid for. And while I see your point about owning a physical product, in the end what we appreciate the most is the music - and hearing this either by CD player or in FLAC from your hard drive will give you the same experience when the music hits your eardrum(s). I just recommend that you back up your investment - some fans have lost so much because they didn’t do this.

And I’m not sure if it’s greed or just a logical conclusion the record company came up with: back in the 90s we got 2 box sets? We got some compilations but, outside of the GV set and The Pet Sounds Sessions we got nothing close to what the ‘68, ‘67, KAEOS set, Big Beat, ‘65 Live, ‘66 Live, etc sets offer. This last decade gave us TSS and MiC, but on top of that we got yearly copyright releases that fans could only dream of decades ago. Pumping out yearly CD packages probably would’ve cost more than the record company liked. But instead we are friggin blessed that digital music is a thing...because otherwise we wouldn’t have gotten all of these recent sets as we have them now...’67 Sunshine has 109 live tracks on it, not counting the other 2 sets associated with it for that year. I don’t see Capitol spending money putting 109 Live tracks on CD for few fans who would buy such a set physically.

The Feel Flows set is said to be released as a physical set, so you will definitely be able to enjoy that this year.

Obviously 109 live cut on CD is not viable , nor am I entirely sure I need all that. I didn't get the Sea of Tunes boxes either. Feel Flows as physical - that would be fantastic!

Probably to the chagrin of older fans, I was so thankful that the Sea of Tunes sets were made available digitally from some, uh, "blogs". I still have those stashed away on a hard drive.

Regarding Feel Flows, here is a quote that Wata posted last month:


Implying that a physical set will be released - which makes sense as the copyright release was snubbed this year. Fingers crossed!

I'm old school, too. Downloads and that stuff to me is like when I used to sit by the radio and push "record" when a good song came on. It's not something I would pay for. Our local libraries have a digital service, hoopla, where you can listen to or view digital media for a few days - you don't pay for it, and you don't "own" it. That's as far as I want to go with that. When it comes to buying music or movies, I want something I can hold in my hands. I want artwork, liner notes, the whole deal. But the industry is going the other direction now. People fell out of love with cd's.
The exception, of course, is the revival of vinyl, but new vinyl is outrageously priced. So I continue to buy cd's as long as they make them. When they're completely gone, I don't know what I'll do.

I also wish there were physical releases with these archival releases, especially with a huge concern about their availability in the future - If released in physical format, you can acquire a secondhand copy of the album even if it's out of print. In digital-only releases, on the other hand, the albums would be impossible to acquire legally once they were taken down from the online stores/streaming services. So when copyright extension sets came out in the last couple of years, I bought them as early as possible not to "miss" it in case of their being taken down (as well as the reason I state later).

On top of that, some of the digital-only releases are regional: "Big Beat 1963" was not released on online stores in Japan, making it impossible to purchase the album legally without a foreign credit card and VPN. Hence I have never got to listen to the album (and I hate to get it from, uh, you know, unofficial stores/sites). These are the biggest problems I have with digital-only releases.

That being said, I still think these releases are far, far better than nothing, and I really appreciate the fact that those fabulous pieces of music are now open to public, which I hadn't expected at all in 2016; thus I pay money for them gladly, even I feel a bit unsettling for buying downloads.

Plus, there's another strong incentive for me to purchase them: apparently the continuation of these archival releases are at stake. To quote Alan Boyd on this forum from 2018:


It appears that they might shut down the archival project for the Beach Boys if they deemed there weren't enough market for such releases. So, low sales for digital-only archival releases could shut down the chance of future archival releases, let alone physical reissue of past digital-only releases.

To stand the frustration of not having the music on physical format, or not to have these archival releases at all? I'd say it's no-brainer.

I agree with the OP, but it's worth noting how much commercial value a 60s band has in 2020 to justify physical releases. They weren't even selling well back then! Also, I really don't want this to come across as an "OK boomer" putdown thing, it's just that the vast majority of music consumpton are strictly digital download or streaming. I'm 28, and I haven't listened to a CD in....10 years?

I fully understand you though, the physical releases are the best. They might not very realistic anymore, unfortunately  :-[

Coincidentally enough, I sold nearly all of my CDs over the past week. I still have the Pet Sounds Sessions box, MIC box, 2-cd Smile sessions box, and the BWPS cd though. I was just tired of the physical space all the CDs were occupying, when I almost always listened to music though my computer. I only used CDs when in my car, but I can just get an ipod and car adapter for that now.

I burn my digital purchases to CD. Nowadays, we listen to music more in the car than anywhere else and are trying to find a way to put a 10-disc player in our new vechicle. We still buy a lot of CDs and, when we had our old vechicle with a 10-disc player, it was great to throw in a bunch of our new purchases and listen.

Most of my digital purchases are in Apple's m4a format and the new vehicle's system only plays mp3s. Converting things to play on the car system is a time-consuming pain-in-the @ss. We have Sirius for a three month trial and have no interest in continuing it (or getting any other streaming service). Anyway, CDs serve us best, and there is a single disc player in the car and multi-disc players in our home.

Now, if I can just find a Walkman-type tape player to patch into the new vehicle's sound system.  ;D

I was you, up until a year or two ago.   I needed my cds, liner notes, etc.   But really, it's almost over.  For true music lovers, it's time to adapt.   I've been in your place, and it's better beyond.

It's a matter of where your digital 0's and 1's come from.  A compact disc is made from MINING petroleum and aluminum, MANUFACTURING in China, paper probably from a tree farm but coated in protective chemicals and ink, ..more plastic for the case .   
Corporate decisions, greed, profit are why CDs exist in the first place, and why they are going good-bye.   

Digital file or CD,  they are both "corporate" formats.    There's no conspiracy, meanness, or insensitivity on display here.   They WOULD lose money on a physical release.   I imagine if you opened up Capitol's books, you'd find that either they have lost money on the last several physical products, or their accounting is trending in that direction.  There's not enough of us physical product likers around anymore.    Do you want human beings working at Capitol to get fired and lose their job for pushing physical product that incurs a loss? 

If we don't budge, it means we don't get to listen to any more new unreleased Beach Boys stuff.   Is devotion to a dying corporate manufacturing process enough to keep you from hearing an unreleased vocal performance from Carl Wilson? 

My head is harder than most people's.. but CDs are just things we're used to .... I'm doing what it takes to let Carl, Brian, Dennis, Mike, Al, and Bruce sing new tunes in my ear this year and next no matter what.

^ Well said

Its really not that big of a deal. If you need a physical copy, burn it on a CD

I don't understand why they can't do a limited edition run of physical copes. Print a could of thousand and they would easily sell out

^  Similar to the Grateful Dead archival releases.  I personally don't have any issue with digital-only releases since that's the way of the future in music.  I just want to hear more previously unreleased music from this group.  Some people are simply too materialistic.  Get with the times!

Media companies are greedy.

Continue to burn all the CD-Rs you want, but these days for listening in your new vehicle it's easiest to put your music on your phone and simply stream to your vehicle's audio head unit via Bluetooth.

But if you still want to go the disc route, since you mention that your tracks are in Apple's aac M4a format, it's easy to burn your music to CD-R as MP3s using iTunes or Apple's Music App. Just create a playlist for each desired disc, then Burn Playlist to Disc > Disc Format > MP3 CD.

Actually, I could just line-in my cd recorder to spotify or whatever and record the songs to disc - free of charge.
But i'm told that's stealing, even though streaming plays are counted in Billboard's chart listings.
 >:D >:D >:D

This is a very interesting discussion topic with many facets, and the potential for deep explorations and analysis and a few diatribes too. Maybe that will come soon.

But I just wanted to add some perspective that's been bugging me especially in the past week or two after a few pieces of info were made known to me.

First, and I've said this many times and people outside the innermost corporate bubbles of the music industry seem to agree and have for years: The music business in general f***ed up and missed the boat when digital formats first became legit. To avoid a long diatribe, the summary can be as simple as saying in the year 2020 the corporate music business entities are STILL trying to figure out how to properly account for and tabulate online music plays and streams. The companies who chart music are STILL trying to figure out how to tabulate sales in terms of plays and clicks versus physical sales and "needle drop" calculations of old.

It's a giant clusterfuck. Yet some artists are making huge amounts of money while others are getting royally screwed.

So the two events that came into my sphere are these:

A chart came out listing the top selling vinyl LP's (newly pressed vinyl, that is) of the past year and the past decade.

The biggest seller on both charts...drum roll, please...Abbey Road by The Beatles. Yep: A 50 year old album topped both the year-end sales chart and the decade's chart. And it's on Capitol - home of the Beach Boys who this discussion is all about - and even one of the Beach Boys' many greatest hits comps landed at #6 on the 2019 charts.

Since Billboard now requires a subscription to read articles you click on, follow the money again folks, times are tough in the music biz...here is a summary of the article from another source (at link), and I'll copy and paste the chart itself. Fortunately this one lists actual sales numbers as in units sold, unlike other charts where such info is a mystery.

https://consequenceofsound.net/2020/01/top-selling-vinyl-decade-2019/ (https://consequenceofsound.net/2020/01/top-selling-vinyl-decade-2019/)

Top 10 Selling Vinyl Records of the Decade
01. The Beatles – Abbey Road (558,000)
02. Pink Floyd – Dark Side of the Moon (376,00)
03. Guardians of the Galaxy Awesome Mix Vol. 1 (367,000)
04. Bob Marley & The Wailers – Legend (364,000)
05. Amy Winehouse – Back to Black (351,000)
06. Michael Jackson – Thriller (334,000)
07. The Beatles – Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (313,000)
08. Fleetwood Mac – Rumors (304,000)
09. Miles Davis – Kind of Blue (286,000)
10. Lana Del Rey – Born To Die (283,000)

Top 10 Selling Vinyl Records of 2019
01. The Beatles – Abbey Road (246,000)
02. Billie Eilish – When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? (176,000)
03. Queen – Greatest Hits 1 (139,000)
04. Guardians of the Galaxy Awesome Mix Vol. 1 (123,000)
05. Queen – Bohemian Rhapsody (Original Soundtrack) (108,000)
06. The Beach Boys – Sounds of Summer: Very Best Of (107,000)
07. Pink Floyd – Dark Side of the Moon (92,000)
08. Michael Jackson – Thriller (88,000)
09. Bob Marley & The Wailers – Legend (84,000)
10. Fleetwood Mac – Rumors (78,000)

In both cases, both charts, 9 out of the 10 are *legacy artists* with an average age of the album being around 40-45 years old. So that chart gives some added perspective to a point...yet you look at some of the so-called "official" reports on vinyl sales, as if Amazon is the only outlet to buy vinyl, and you'll see Harry Styles' LP sitting at #1. How many copies has Harry's album sold to hit #1? No info unless you dig really deep, and even then, it's not even a valid tally since most of the tally rests on Amazon orders.

Confusing, right? Consider this, the other facet of what I saw.

One of the students I work with showed me this YouTube video last week. It's called "The Duck Song". Watch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtN1YnoL46Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtN1YnoL46Q)

This YouTube video has as of this morning 415,181,341 views. That's 415 MILLION views. Was it just me saying WTF?

So factor in this video having over 400 million views, and Abbey Road, the top selling vinyl of the decade, just cracked 500 thousand.

*That* is the perspective to consider when talking about physical releases, downloads, streams, etc...it's not the same game being played. You can't expect a legacy release on vinyl or a box set package to go anywhere near the numbers and totals of the Duck Song, or even a video of Justin Bieber grooming himself in front of a mirror.

So why is there an issue of so-called "sales" hanging around proposed legacy releases from the likes of The Beach Boys? If success in the vinyl game as of 2020 is half a million copies sold over 10 years for Abbey Road, are there still industry folks balking at niche markets and niche releases, or are they seriously looking for Bieber and Cardi B type online numbers from legacy acts?

It's beyond frustrating.

The mindset has to be adjusted a bit, from the industry to the artists to the fan bases.

If someone opens up a taco stand type of food truck that becomes popular in its own area, to the point where people line up for their food daily and they sell out of their food regularly, that would be considered a success, especially if that food truck remains busy and in business over 5 years. Their numbers back up the success of that food truck business.

But if someone were to put those numbers next to the numbers of tacos and burritos and enchiladas and whatnot sold on a daily basis by big chains like Taco Bell and Chipotle...that food truck would look like a failure in comparison.

But it is not a failure within its own niche market and demographic.

See where I'm going with this? If Capitol as a company sees their label's albums placing in 4 out of the 10 "top vinyl sales" charts, and they have an entire division devoted to legacy releases in a genre that is now something like less than 5 percent of total sales overall by category, and still release regularly on that division's label...what does it serve *not* to release legacy material as we're discussing? I sometimes wonder how fans don't get that, and wonder even more why the corporate types don't seem to get that.

I could write pages and pages on this, but ultimately, as far as BB physical releases, there's a point where you have to jump off and absorb some new format.

We can't all still wait for new movies to come out on VHS. Heck, a lot of stuff doesn't even hit home video anymore, you have to stream it or buy it digitally.

So with music, it's clear the main thing that warrants budgeting for a physical set for the BBs (in terms of CDs anyway) are the album catalog, hits sets, and select archival projects. That's due to the overall market conditions for music, and also specifically to how well BB releases sell. Archival BB releases don't sell a ton of copies. 

The big "dumps" of archival stuff have to happen digitally. Complaining about not getting this stuff all on CD isn't going to accomplish anything. For whatever reason (and I think the reason is they make little to no money doing it), a lot of this stuff will either come out digitally, or not at all.

Not only does dumping this stuff to digital end up having less overhead costs, but it also probably lessens the amount of red tape involved in getting the stuff out.

That last paragraph is key. If this stuff being digital-only even amounts to one extra song being released (than if there was a Vinyl counterpart), I'm all for it.

What I mean to say is, even if there was going to be a big 5LP set that has every single track from the digital releases… the potential layers of red tape could jeopardize certain tracks coming out. At all.

It almost seems like some tracks just squeaked out, even though I would assume that everyone had to sign off on stuff. But the point is, the more stuff gets put under a microscope, scrutinized, thought about, options weighed etc., all of that could mean that a track which was going to come out gets second-guessed and nixed. In all formats.

I just think nobody should rock the boat. We should be grateful, and simply allow the current situation to just keep unfolding with more releases like the ones we've been getting. If we are lucky enough to get a vinyl release then so be it, but ultimately it certainly isn't my priority, and I think anybody who is a fan of the band should prioritize songs getting released at all over the preferred format. And yes, I say that even knowing that there is surely a niche market for this stuff on vinyl. But let's be grateful for what we have, which is a lot.

I just need to add this: I am not a fan who needs to hear 69 different takes of She's Goin' Bald, or every concert from a  given tour (i'm a Dylan fan, but I did not buy the 1966 tour box or the Rolling Thunder box - i'm fine with having just one or two shows to represent those tours). So if the digital dump is equal to five cd's  and the physical release is just 2 cd's of that stuff, I can live with that.
There's only so many hours in a day. I don't know where some of my friends find time to listen to all the stuff they buy. It's hard for me to fit that listening time in as I am working 2 jobs where I am not allowed to play music; and my third job is MAKING MUSIC.

I agree wholeheartedly. The gazillion sessions of a particular song are interesting and cool to be able to hear, but it's not something I'd listen to often. If there were a physical released, I'd want it to focus on the cream of the crop, the most fully formed tracks.

Going back to your Dylan analogy, they basically had two versions of the Basement Tapes: Bootleg Series boxed set. You could get the six-disc complete version with EVERY TRACK recored, or a two-CD (or three-LP) version with the "highlights." 

All of this is generally true - I don't often listen to the umpteenth live version of the same BBs song being presented in multiple live versions from the same era on a box set.

However, as fans, we should still take the side that the more, the better, and be grateful for it, and not get blasé about it, because I'm certain there are amazing versions, be it alternate mix #7, live version #5, whatever you want to call it, where something unexpectedly amazing and of historical significance will come out. Stuff like The Gong. Weird stuff that has no business being released, but got released anyway (thankfully). The expression "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" comes to mind here.

I'm convinced there's an element of truth to what HeyJude said earlier, that there's less red tape for digital-only stuff. And I think the minute the record company will have the mindset that "these copyright dumps all need to have physical counterparts", that will somehow result in less content coming out in any format. If it's even 1 song less, that's too much. Call me crazy, but I think that's a possibility. Who knows why certain songs get nixed from archival releases. Maybe at the 11th hour, a lawyer of 1 of the band members has some thought about something not being wise to release for whatever reason. Put more of a microscope on any project, as a physical counterpart will probably do to the *entire* project, I think you run the risk of that happening at some point.

In my mind, it's a bit analogous to the incorrect mixes that accidentally slipped out for the original CD release of MIU. In that case, it's better that the album wasn't popular, with a lot of eyes/ears on the release, and it's *good* that somebody dropped the ball and let the wrong mixes out of a few songs because we got some extra stuff out there which never would have been released. A bank error in our favor, Monopoly style.

I don't think I ever listened to the six-disc set all the way through. our local library has it, but I was happy with the 2 disc version.

While vaguely on the topic of physical media, I find it interesting that while there is constant talk and articles about the vinyl revival and vinyl sales increasing while CD sales decline, CDs still outsell them substantially, at least in the UK. https://www.superdeluxeedition.com/feature/saturday-deluxe-18-january-2020/

No. Physical only for me. Even a burnt CD-R with artwork is better. I don't collect "air". I do consider myself a diehard Beach Boys fan, with all the official stuff plus extraneous, but digital is where I draw the line. So I'll just have to go without. I had hoped they would do physical for most of the archival sets, and I still think they would at least break even on such things. Much of the work that goes into a physical release also applies to the digital only release. Really it is just the pressing of CD's and the printing of booklets that makes for added cost, I should think.

You have to pay a graphic designer to design the package. I’m sure you have to have meetings about how to package these things (jewel case vs cardboard sleeve). Someone has to think I about what pictures will go in the little booklet - also to make this worthwhile to fans willing to spend $$ on it, do they need to print a substantial booklet with detailed information? Or do they not include a booklet to save money (but will this action turn off some fans from buying it?)? If they do go with cardboard sleeves (to be environmentally conscious) then where does the booklet go? Etc etc. Then you need warehouse space to put the printed product, then you need to ship/distribute this all over the country (however that process may work).

I just think it’s a lot more work (money) than it would seem to be. And in the age of streaming would they even make a substantial enough profit on physical sales to make it worth it?

And what if this inadvertently helps enable there to be less chance of future releases of rare material? I understand having the preference for physical, believe me I do, but as certain point there's something to think of called the greater good.

I had a similar attitude for a while, until I heard the words of Alan - on this very board  if memory serves - who was kindly imploring fans to support these releases by purchasing them, because if sales dry up, the releases will dry up.

I'm not normally someone who buys MP3s, and certainly not large quantities of them, but I supported the band and these types of releases by purchasing the Friends and 20/20 digital archival dumps, and I'm very happy that I did that. Even though I have all of the songs readily available on Spotify, it's good to know that they are on a hard drive for me to access at any point, and most importantly that I am supporting such great music coming out in the first place. And hopefully for that to *continue happening*.

I just think people take this stuff coming out way way way too much for granted. If this band's music really means something to you on a profound personal level, it's worth investing in these releases even if the format is not your preferred one. Ultimately you will still have the songs, more songs will keep coming out of untold historical significance, and that's what's most important.

Please don't confuse "collecting air" with helping to support important releases to prevent future ones from simply drying up.
I don't mean to come off like somebody who is lecturing anybody, but I feel really strongly that we should be thankful for this stuff, very much so, and do what we can to keep it coming. It's very shortsighted to just be stubborn, it's not gonna work out for the betterment of future releases to be that way.

I take your point, Century Deprived, I really do. What I could do, perhaps, is ally myself with a tech-savvy and get that person to purchase and burn a CD-R for me. I'd then pay the cost. But I don't want my music on a hard drive. If such a move can in any way help future archival releases, I'd be happy to go ahead with that.

What’s kinda interesting is that a hard drive is basically a CD-R with more space. It’s all ones and zeroes making your sound when it hits the speaker. A CD-R is a small hard drive that has it’s own case with a piece of paper that identifies what is on the disc.

I mean, I totally get why you’d want a physical set and I get having a preference. It’s just interesting to think about those preferences.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you’re wrong on several accounts.
#1: a CD is Digital. It’s literally just a really really really small hard drive, music is stored on it the same way it’s stored on a computer, or an iPod, or an iPhone
#2: CDs cost way more than Digital. First of all, they have to make the decisions on how many CDs to put it on. then they have to pay someone to design the artwork. Then they have to pay people to design it right up to the booklet. and then they have to pay a company to produce the case. Then they have to pay another company to actually produce the CDs themselves. Then they have to pay someone to burn the music onto the CDs in bulk. If a five disc CD set cells 10,000 copies, thats 50,000 disks. Then, of course, the shipping costs.
Think that’s complicated? Vinyl is even worse.
Plus, all this is terrible for the environment.
With digital releases, once the track list is finalized, all BRI has to do is upload the files to iTunes and Spotify. Much easier. Also, they could probably get way more music, because CDs can only hold so much

The original 1967 - Sunshine Tomorrow that had a physical version was only 2 hours 38 minutes long.
The 2 digital only releases that came out later that year, if added together have 7 hours 3 minutes. I’ll take more content any day

Exactly, a CD is just your lossless downloads served on a silver plate. The artwork is too small to really appreciate. With a digital download they'll often provide a high res image of the album cover which can fill up a large computer screen... bigger than your vinyl covers if you print them out on some nice quality paper!

A nice physical booklet is probably the biggest advantage to a CD release, but so few releases bother with this nowadays. CD players aren't even that easy to find any more. None of the new cars are equipped with them. I ripped all my old CDs to lossless and now play them all with ease on my high capacity portable player.

I do collect vinyl, though. That's how I scratch my physical itch when the need arises. CDs have lost their luster and utility for me.

I have read that CD's have the best sound, better than your lossless. Wish I could find the source to bolster my argument.  At any rate, I don't want to switch on a computer to hear music. I don't want to rely on something like itunes or spotify, either. I bet I've got stuff in my CD collection they don't even have. I know I have an unpopular opinion, but I'd be willing to get a CD-R. Got some already for BB and Jan & Dean.

CDs do not have the best sound. It all depends on how the file is encoded.
And if you don’t want to turn on a computer, than get a iPod.

I'd like to know how you guys find the time to listen to all that stuff!
I might have 3 or 4 days - at the most, often less than that - during the week when I can sit down and do some serious music listening. The rest of the time, I am on the road going to work, coming home from work, eating dinner, doing stuff online...
oh, and working and sleeping.
2 hours and 38 minutes is about the most I can ever sit down and listen to music anymore.
I had so much more time for playing records, cd's, cassettes when I was a kid living at home, going to school, etc.

My suggestion, if you have a stand alone cd burner - get a patch cord and plug it into your computer or lap top, go to spotify or some similar service, and just record the music onto a cdr as you are listening to it.
I mean, if you  really, really have to have the stuff.

Thanks, I'll get somebody to burn CD-R's for me, I've never done any of that in my life. Well, what I have learnt from this thread is that digital only is the future, so I'll just have to get with the times. ;)

For a "hardcore fan," you're missing out on some tremendous stuff.  The collections last year were out of this world.  You don't need to be tech savvy to burn a CD.  It's been common stuff for over 20 years now.  Don't deny yourself.

I got my cd recorder back in 2002, when standalone cd recorders were very popular. I mainly wanted it so I could put my own music on cd to sell at shows. Back then, people were impressed that I had my music on cd. Now they don't care, some people don't even have cd players at home now. So I've had to get with the times and do the file sharing thing online for my own music; but for my personal listening, I still like the experience of sitting down with a cd or record and the packaging, setting aside an hour or so to just get into that album. I've even made liner notes and covers for a few of my personal cdr comps.

Bottom line is that if someone in the year 2020 insists on only physical media, then they’re going to miss out on tons of stuff.

Rather than trying absurd ideas like running a line out of a Spotify stream onto something, and then burning it to CD, or getting a friend to do this, that, and other thing, it’s about a BILLION times easier to just download the “download-only” stuff yourself. There are a ton of ways to listen to digital downloads without “switching on a computer.” Most smartphones play the stuff. There are various portable iPod-type music devices (my 160GB iPod Classic, the most recent/final iPod Classic ever made, is the only Apple product I’ve ever bought, but I use it all the time; and it’s ironic because using an iPod Classic at this stage is like antiquated/old school status!). Many modern home stereo receivers with HDMI, etc. also have iPod-type inputs and/or USB input for a USB device or USB flash drive to play music.

On most new releases (including most of the Beach Boys “extension” releases), going digital download actually can get you *better* than CD quality with the high-rez options. I don’t even bother with high-rez, but if you go that route, it’s better than CD/lossless.

And yes, you can also download whatever and then stick it all on a CD-R if that’s your thing.

I think most of us still like physical product and will snag it when available. But at this stage in 2020, insisting on nothing but physical CD releases is like insisting on only watching something on DVD even when you have an HD TV to play Blu-ray or 4K. It’s like back in the late 90s/early 2000s Laserdisc fans insisting on not switching over to DVD.

Seriously, “digital downloads” are now antiquated! Most people just stream off Spotify or Pandora or YouTube. Even physically owning a flash drive or hard drive with digital downloads is “old school” at this point!

I read a scientific article stating quite clearly that a good 20-24 bit CD remaster is the best, short of playing the mastertapes themselves. Wish I could find it, but it was fairly recent, like only a few years ago. Vinyl is not superior to CD.  And all that digital-download-streaming-smartphone talk - it's all Greek to me. No way is a smartphone's output going to sound better, I'm not buying it. It's all myth. I like technological advances up to a point, but my understanding from audiophiles is that music reproduction has gotten worse.

I have never even owned a simple mobile phone. I may have to, so that I can order from certain sites that need to text you. Also, yahoo mail is pestering me for a mobile number, they don't accept landline.

I thank you all for your input and advice, it's been informative and I will try to support the digital only releases in the way I explained earlier.

I looked this up for a little while, I came across an audiophile forum post from 6 years ago that talked about 24 bit audio:

“All CDs are 16-bit / 44.1 kHz. They are not "capable of handling" 24/96. SACDs are not standard CDs, and instead are encoded with DSD on the SACD layer...but if the same master is used, they still sound the same. If a CD has ever been released with 24/96, then it is a data disc containing actual 24/96 digital files instead of a standard optical compact disc that does not contain digital files on it.”

I don’t know if any of this information is correct, but it sounds logical that an optical compact disc would not be able to handle the amount of information of 24 bit audio unless it was converted to digital. Thus I wonder: why would the ones and zeros on a compact disc sound any different than the ones and zeros on a hard drive? When used digitally, a compact disc is merely a miniature hard drive. They are both being translated from digital form to audio through your speakers.

Okay, good point. Maybe it's to do with the hardware, then. A good stereo set vs. a computer or phone. I know you can hook up and all, but surely a good stereo set will be able to process the information better? I've read that mp3's are compressed.

Stop worrying about audio quality and listen to the music. I guarantee you wouldn’t be able to pick the difference in a blind test.

CD’s are compressed too.
Almost all music is compressed in some way. Even back in the 60s, when Brian would take 8 tracks and compress them down to 1. You still lost some sound quality.
Truth is, both CD’s and digital downloads are compressed. But the average person can’t tell the difference. And unfortunately, there is no logical way for music to be released completely uncompressed.
The formats that iTunes and Spotify have is basically on power with CDs.
And, you may find this difficult to believe, but most music that appears on a CD originates from a computer.

No way is music going to sound better coming out of the tiny little speakers on my laptop or smart phone. And I don't want my computer or phone being bogged down having hundreds of music files in it. I've got enough other stuff on it already - photos, resumes, applications, etc.
I like a physical music collection that I can see. I'm a very visually oriented person, and in the past, I have been swayed to buy this album over that album partly because one album had a more appealing cover. Some of that was lost when we went to cd, but the bonus was we started getting reissues with very detailed liner notes.
i'm not trying to talk anyone out of downloading or streaming (although with streaming, there's the chance that a song or album may be removed from your favorite site someday); if you absolutely have to hear every studio utterance of Brian, Dennis, Mike, etc, then go for it. Myself, I am much more selective. The Beach Boys aren't the only artists I collect. I am also a die hard fan of Elvis Presley, the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Rick Nelson, the Kinks, Chuck Berry, the Lovin' Spoonful, Paul Revere and the Raiders, Little Richard, the Everly Brothers, Fats Domino, Carl Perkins, the Monkees, Phil Ochs, America, Bread, Cheap Trick, Squeeze....I never have time to listen to all the music I want to hear, and that will be even moreso if I make it my goal to collect every cough, hiccup, and cuss word ever uttered by these artists in the studio and onstage.

I like mp3s.

I’m not even a huge connoisseur of high-rez audio, but this is all kind of overcomplicating the CD vs. high-rez issue.

A standard CD is 16-bit/44.1. That’s the maximum resolution that a standard CD can contain. This same resolution (and its equivalents) can also be sold as digital downloads. This is what we would generally call “lossless” quality.

Beyond that, there are high-rez (high resolution) options, available both on physical media and as downloads. SACDs (and, when they were available, DVD-Audio discs) contain high-rez audio, higher rez than the 16/44.1 standard. An SACD can either *only* have an SACD layer, or it can be a hybrid with a “standard” CD layer and an SACD layer.

Various high rez options can then also be sold as digital downloads.

You of course need certain types of equipment to properly hear high-rez files. 

Then, in the “lossy”, sub-CD-resolution category, you have MP3 or iTunes digital downloads (which sound at this stage pretty good usually), and then streaming. (There may be avenues to stream high-rez; but I think high-rez is already so niche that those inclined to listen that way would prefer non-streaming options that would be compressed).

It’s mostly as simple as that. Yes, there debates about the limits to human hearing and how many people can hear a difference at various higher resolutions. There are also sometimes allegations that unscrupulous companies might take literally a standard CD and then just encode it as a high-rez file.

But for instance, when the same team is releasing, day-and-date, something like recent Beach Boys releases, we can be as certain as is humanly possible that high-rez releases are sourced and mastered correctly.

For Beach Boys releases, there aren’t a ton of choices one has to make. If you don’t need high-rez, then when a release comes out on CD, that solves the decision problem right there. If it’s a “digital only” release, you can either stream, or download MP3s (or iTunes format, etc.), or download a “lossless” version that is CD quality, or download a high-rez version.

Once you have your legit digital download, there are then countless options for how to get that back onto physical media if that’s your choice.

Other than the truly muddy, iffy area of modern vinyl releases, this covers most scenarios.

If what you want to listen to is covered by physical CD releases, then you're set. If there are items you want that are download-only, then you gotta download (or stream). It's pretty simple.

I'd say you don't have to be like the hardest of hardcore Beach Boys fans/scholars to find some download-only tracks pretty indispensable. So yeah, I'm guessing if you refuse to download anything, you're almost certainly missing out on substantive, key Beach Boys material that you'd absolutely enjoy. It's not extraneous studio chatter and whatnot.

The original post in this thread seemed to imply that someone *wanted* to hear all the takes/coughs/hiccups, and that's where the rub is. That often requires engaging in buying/downloading/streaming non-physical music product. Further, those that want to see an opening of the floodgates as far as Beach Boys archive material *absolutely* have to be open to and support digital-only releases. It's the *only* way it's going to happen.

I think we have a shot at some select future physical releases for more prestige presentations. But if they ever open up the archives and put out like a dozen shows from 1971-1973, it's digital downloads or nothing at all.

Um... you don’t have to use the built in speakers

As convenient as digital and streaming music is, to this day the audio quality is still less than that of a CD what with compression still in play (at least if you're using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, etc.).   Which is why I welcome physical releases since I can rip them to my still-functional iPod Classic at lossless quality.  Alternatively at least these releases can also be purchased at HDTracks.com at 24-bit lossless quality if you're willing to pay for it.  It's kind of sad to see the slow death of the compact disc but it's totally understandable.  At least vinyl is still popular.  Although I'm at a loss at how audio cassette's are making a comeback... :shrug

Vinyl is for quality, cassettes are for nostalgia

And, a lot of vinyl sounds bad too. Some of it is mastered straight from 16/44.1 CD masters, and even when the vinyl is high quality and mastered well, a budget system will not reap the benefits of it.

The proliferation of vinyl in the last several years is mostly due to trend, not due to higher quality. If people were seeking out higher quality and not something trendy, they'd be downloading high-rez tracks instead of buying overpriced vinyl at Barnes & Noble.

Vinyl's cool; I've got nothing against it and own plenty of it. But high-rez easily has it beat, and I'll take a nicely-mastered redbook CD over vinyl at this stage.

I agree that high-res digital audio overall is going to sonically be superior.  That said I think there is a type of warmth that vinyl possesses which gives it its uniqueness. 

And with any kind of downloads, you don't get the packaging that comes with a vinyl album.
I might be swayed a little towards the whole downloading thing if they created online artwork, session notes, etc, to go with these digital only releases. Then I could just print it out and add it to my cdr.

Agreed on vinyl. The Billie Eilish album is a great example of an album sounding better on cd or even mp3 than vinyl thanks to some truly asstastic mastering to the point where it literally skips at some points. You can’t master the same way as you would for the cd format. Can’t blame the artist either...it was thrown together by the label. Not the only instance by far of course just one where I have firsthand knowledge

That might also be because, as Billie Eilish has said in the past, her music isn’t recorded very professionally. Most of it is recorded in her bedroom. So there’s probably not a lot of choices when it comes to mixing and mastering.
Also, her music is very bass heavy, and it’s usually noted that Vinyl isn’t the best at bass