Good to see you, Stephen! I just had to think about you, 'cause "my" soccer team just lost against Kaiserslautern on the Betzenberg. If I remember correctly you mentioned that you was stationed around there.

I've nothing to add on-topic wise. Probably I mentioned it before, but this era of work ("Sunflower"/"Surf's Up" a.s.o.) feels so exciting and creative. To experience it in real time must've been something. And it's great to learn new things about the band's inner workings.

COMMENT to Rocker:  Indeed, Kaiserslautern was my military home for three years. The US Army operates a large film studio complex in that historical town where I was stationed. Thank you for stirring the many fond memories of those times ... traveling around Europe making movies at Uncle Sam's expense.
The band's inner working is a complex, multi-layered, series of interactions that will be over-analyzed and scrutinized by generations yet unborn, and long after the band's existence. Fascinating, for sure.   ~swd

Interesting you mention Mo Ostin.  Van Dyke Parks, who worked for WB at the time, was quoted as saying something along the lines of "If they include Surf's Up the next album will be a hit" in the 2 part Rolling Stone article that came out at the time (and fueled many a fan's interest in the Smile tapes, me among them).  So it seems likely Van Dyke was in Mo's ear about the song and that's how he came to request/demand the song be included.

So as far as you remember Stephen there's no truth to the story that Dennis wanted Wouldn't It Be Nice to Live Again to follow Til I Die as the final track on the album?

COMMENT to Bicyclerider:  VDP may have been a nudging Mo; can only speculate. I will tell you that it did not take Mo's suggestion for SU to be part of SU, but nevertheless, his endorsement, encouragement, and wishes cannot be overlooked. It is, after all, the title of the album. Reality Check -- at this time, the BB organization was broke. That includes everyone's benefits or salary and living expenses, so things continued via anticipated royalty payments being fronted by Warners. So even a hint from THE MAN MO carried much weight.  
As to your second question:  'live again was not finished or even close to being finished when the lineup question arose, if it ever did.  Such decisions were left to Carl. Dennis was, at this time, spending most of his time on his boat. If anyone was pressing Carl about song lineups, it would have been Jack R. But then, Jack and Carl were not be best of buddies.
I watched over time as Carl would be approach by many of the players with suggestions about the album lineup. He would respectfully listen, nod his head as if understanding, make a note ----- and then do whatever he damn well wanted to do.
And so you know . . .  when you say, "album lineup" it is not just a list of songs, written on a napkin or computer file, there is more to it. First a list is suggested. But to really understand (hear) how each song will play into the next you must listen, not in your head, but in reality. That means the list has to be assembled (edited together) into an actual playable collection of songs. Usually previewed by listening for a few days to a cassette containing the assembled playlist. I assembled several of these for Carl for SU, each list was quite different, as he evaluated the feel of the overall album as well as how each song segues into the next.
I should point out that on an LP there is only room for X number of songs. Usually about 10 or 12 songs . . . divided by six song writers' royalties, means that income for each group member will come from two songs. This is not all their income, but a substantial boost to the general income of each band member. So not only is the musical quality considered, but other factors must be included in this process -- including income from royalties. In other words, Carl had to make song decisions that were not only affecting how the album "played," but how the income from that album "played" income-distribution wise, as well.
As I have pointed out before, the producer of SF & SU was not Brian Wilson, it was a group effort PRODUCED BY THE BEACH BOYS, with equal production rights (read income) going to Brian, Carl, Dennis, Alan & Michael; Bruce was salaried but retained writer's royalties.
A track list with PRODUCED BY BRIAN WILSON would not take into consideration anyone's income. Everyone's income remained the same no matter the play order. The majority of writer's royalties went to Brian. But with individual writers and director/producers, calculating income has changed. Enter stage center -- Beach Boy Politics. Follow the money.
Using this viewpoint, Sunflower was Dennis heavy. Dennis felt he had rescued the group from financial disaster by having songs ready for inclusion onto an album before the other group producers were ready. But the fact remains, the record company was demanding a product, now! At that point you give over what you have ready and hope it is accepted. ...You know the history.
Dennis and I had many dinners together and spoke about many things. Among his feelings Dennis expressed how he felt it time for him to step aside and let the other producers have their vinyl real estate. This is good politics. Dennis was being fair. Fate had handed him a good hand, so now the karma must be returned. Dennis was big on karma. And besides that, he wanted to be apart, and to write. Internally Dennis was yielding to the inner call of harmony and song writing. No longer was that calling satisfied by drumming or even singing. It had to be more creative, coming, not from another author, but from his conception. Something from nothing. Notes evoking emotion from blank paper. So off he went, not with drumsticks, but with pen in hand.
 
I hope this lends a little perspective to the history. ~Stephen W. Desper

Unless we're talking about a certain 7 minute plus song.   (no tongue in cheek emoji I can see, so I've chosen a random one)

Jack and Carl decided Surf's Up needed to be on the album and to be the closer, and wanted to give the impression that Brian was more involved with the album than he was.  It appears this was felt to be what was needed to enhance the commerciality of the project.  I don't think Jack had a problem with Dennis' songs (he wrote the lyrics to 4th of July) and from everything he's said since he would much rather have jettisoned Al's songs or Mike's SDT than Dennis' songs, if he had a choice.  Dennis wanted more of a say and Carl and Jack had their own ideas of the track order.  Really it was kind of petty for Dennis to pull his songs, but there was definitely a power struggle between Carl and Dennis, and Carl won.

COMMENT to Bicyclerider:  From where I was sitting as all this swirled around me . . . As I recall:  (1) the song, Surf's Up's inclusion in the album was a directive issued by  Warners' Mo Ostin., not Jack nor Carl. (2) It was Dennis who insisted that other band member's songs be included in SU since SF was dominated by Dennis' efforts. There is only so much room on an LP and Dennis wished other band members fill the vinyl with their creations for this second album produced by The Beach Boys, not Brian. There was no power struggle between anyone. There was discussion, yes, but a power struggle? No. The understood and agreed upon pecking order was:  Record Company, Carl, everyone else. ~SWD

COMMENT:     Thanks to WestCoastSurf, Emdeeh, and Rocker for the Birthday Wishes.  Brian and I are about the same age (He's two months younger), but even at 80 I can still hear 10k, if the monitor is loud. It's been quite the ride, but hope to continue the journey for a while, the good Lord willing. Thanks again everyone. ~Steve Desper

Made you look. 😁

Anyway, anything known about this?

https://youtu.be/pfQj0SUIXCA

COMMENT:  This may have been the personal property of Dennis', but not used in recording. Pump organs used in recording have a motor driven air supply, which can be located outside the studio. One such organ (around 150 years old) was used in Day in the Life of a Tree.  ~swd

Thanks Stephen, but I was referring to 5.00 in the TT clip when he reaches into his pocket and actually brings out the memory holding those ‘every combination’ he talks about.

COMMENT to Pretty Funky:  Yes I know you were. This lawyer is rather dramatic in his presentation, singing and all that. But aside from his theatrics, his point should not be taken lightly.

Please read this short article (link below). It puts the issue in perspective, much better than I can.

>>> www.techdirt.com/articles/20200220/09561543951/attempt-to-put-every-musical-melody-into-public-domain-demonstrates-craziness-modern-copyright.shtml

~swd

You mean 3.50 in when he mentions 117000 words in the English language and the chances were minuscule? Fair enough, but that was probably the thought 50 years ago as well with music. Now this guy has every music combination known to man in his pocket.

Comment to Prety Funky:  Not in his pocket, but in the public's pocket. So now all the melodies are in public domain. You can download them all yourself if you wish to also have them in your pocket. Download all 78 billion from his website to a terabit storage device which will fit into your pocket. No longer is any melody exclusive. That's the tradeoff. If you wish to have the freedom to write any melody you wish without challenge, then you give up your right to own any melody you wish to write. You can still copyright any tune you write, but your right of ownership cannot be challenged nor can you challenge another songwriter for writing a melody similar to one you may have written.    ~swd

So, to take it another step hypothetically, someone could take every word available to mankind and copyright any combination?
Madness.
Hopefully goes nowhere but a quick Google search doesn’t appear to show any challenges since the story came to light.

COMMENT:  I don't think it will "go anywhere" until one songwriter sues another over copying a melody.  You can claim to own any intellectual property. It is when you must defend its uniqueness-to-you that a songwriter may find he or she has no defense, since now all melodies are now in public domain (not unique).

I have several patents. They are each protected by the government. BUT, anyone can challenge their uniqueness in court.  I spent (or my company spent) $10,000 to get my idea awarded a patent. We also spent $1,500,000 defending the uniqueness of my idea (we won). This is what these lawyers are so upset about. The cost of the challenge and the cost of a win in court.

And please, if you are going to make arguments such as you make in your opening sentence, watch the two videos I posted links for. Your argument is addressed by the lawyer. No further comment is needed here.
~swd

Not a lawyer but my job is in music copyrights. This is a fun and thought provoking exercise but very unlikely to have any impact in the real world (though I'm always very happy to be proven wrong - time will tell!).

What's much more likely to have an impact in copyright infringement cases is the outcome a few years back of the Marvin Gaye / Ed Sheeran lawsuit, which effectively means that there is now a legal precedent for copyrighting chord progressions, which really is lunacy.

COMMENT:  Most of us posting here are not lawyers, but I hope an attorney (hopefully dealing with copyright law) will comment.  Your posting is also interesting. It seems that, as usual, the law is behind technology -- remember Napster.  This development along with others, as you cite, must all face their day in court. Until then . . .  any songwriter may OR may not find protectiion in current law.
~swd

Thanks Stephen.
I see this was publicised in 2020. Has it had an effect yet?

COMMENT:  Don't know. Just posting information. I'm not a lawyer, but on the face it seems that it would be a game changer. ~swd

Friends in the music industry. YOU SHOULD BE AWARE !  of this development.

Basically, a lawyer and his programmer associate developed an algorithm that crunched out every possible combination of a 12 number sequence. or about 78 billion combinations. They then assigned each number to a note or half-note representing a musical octave. Using MIDI all of the melodies can be played on a synthesizer. These "melodies" were then download to a terabit memory. By doing that they meet the legal requirement of securing a copyright for all the melodies therein. Thus, these two guys now own every and any melody that can be written, going forward. However, their goal is not to corner the melody market, rather they have taken all the melodies, the algorithm used to configure the melodies and other probatory information and published them as public domain. Therefore, any melody written from now on will be in public domain. Can it be copyrighted? Under current law, no. This is a developing situation, but if you write songs or deal with the music industry, I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with all the details by watching the two videos made by this lawyer, following:

https://www.ted.com/talks/damien_riehl_copyrighting_all_the_melodies_to_avoid_accidental_infringement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfXn_ecH5Rw

~Stephen W. Desper

COMMENT:  Billy's passing . . . too, too soon. He had so much more to give -- damn cancer.  Memories of Billy go back 50 years. He was always around and involved in one way or another. Whether in the studio or on the road, we always had good times and laughs together, a good friend indeed. We were planning an Interview on his podcast, during which he never mentioned his health. That was how he was, always about the music, not him. Such a talent, his contributions to Beach Boy music are incalculable. That he will be missed is an understatement. Rest in Peace my friend.
~Steve Desper

Just wanted to offer my opinion. Sunflower sounds pretty damn good even with the couple of things that I miss (Brian vocal on Our Sweet Love as an example). Surf's Up is good but some of the sound is like washed up or dry, you know what I mean? It works sometimes but then again there are some mistakes (SDT).

COMMENT:  Over the years and since I signed-off on the release of SF and SU, I too have been disappointed at the many variations of masterings (like 20 or so for Sunflower) that have been released. Some are better than others, but none IMO can stand up to the original mastering by Carl and myself. This mastering was done for the LP format. I can take no responsibility for any disappointments resulting from the modification of the original mastering thereafter.

I do not want you to think I am disrespectful of your opinion, but to make some sound judgement and comment without specifying the listening conditions is meaningless.

Are you listening in digital? If so, any comments as to dullness or brightness is a function of the analogue-to-digital conversion. What type and make of speakers are you using? What are the acoustics of your listening room? Are you even listening over speakers?! What is your age?

Making a comment about the music does not require specification of the listening situation. However, judgements and statements about the mix, mastering, or sound, does -- to be a meaningful opinion.

But I do agree with you, depending on what format and release you are playing and listening to -- some of the product out there does sound dull, some I would even sound like crap. Even more reason to find an Artisan LP or listen to the study-video needle-drops.

We will soon find out if the FF re-mastering has improved conditions. Mark is a smart and able engineer with a good ear. I am encouraged and looking forward to the new masterings. 

~swd

COMMENT TO Greg Parry,   Over the years I have not only read your comments and found them interesting, but also I have learned details from your posts that I did not know.  That goes for your comments here and on other message platforms . . . you are indeed an informed and experienced fan.

As to the equal-distance-rule EDR;  we are subject to the EDR because of the anatomy of the human body. The engineering is based in physiology.  Head Related Transfer Functions (HRTF) dictate to the brain how to interpret inner-amplitude differences (IAD) and inner-timing-differences (ITD).  The manner in which signals from the tympanic membrane (including timing Cues from the ear Pinna) are analyzed once inside the brain cannot depart from the fact that humans are bilateral symmetric, not only having two ears, but two eyes, hands, feet, lungs, heart chambers, brain lobs, etc.  The brain is binaural. It does not hear stereo sound. Stereo sound is what we call two-channel reproduction wherein the two channels contain related information. Binaural sound is the name we give to how the brain works relative to sound perception. Binaural sound is subject to our physiology, whereas stereo reproduction and the listening position we assume can be anywhere relative to the speakers.

What all this means is that YES -- for the best stereo imaging a listener should be equal distance from each speaker, but this requirement is not some engineering rule set up by an AES committee on standards, but rather the rule has as its genesis in, and is bound by our human shape.  However we must also acknowledge that humans are social beings too. We live, eat, play, worship, plan, fight, together and have families. We also enjoy group entertainment, movies, sports, records, concerts. So at times, more than one person may wish to hear a stereo recording from one stereo sound system at a time. This group listening situation has produced the term "sweet spot" or the best seat in the house. When listening with our binaural hearing, but in a group, the sweet spot is defined as how wide the so-called best seat in the house will hold up with respect to imaging or the stereo image as we move off-center. Usually the sweet spot is about five people wide for a commercial stereo system.

In the case of the study-videos the sweet spot may narrow to two or three people wide. That is because HRTF play a major role in virtual surround reproduction. That is not to say that stereo reproduction also has a limited sweet spot. However, if you wish to take advantage of the virtual surround or resolved matrix presented in the study-videos, you will need to limit your sweet spot to about two to three people wide ... the best being centered; same as stereo. The reason I make such a big deal in each study-video about the EDR is that it has been my experience that many sound systems are not setup correctly, often due to room limits or furniture restrictions. So I wanted to make certain that it was well understood that each study-video was made to produce virtual surround only if the listener conformed to the EDR.  You can't get away from the HRTF phenomenon.

I hope that clears it up for you. 

These differences in terms may interest you:

Stereophonic Sound  -- playback using two related signals from spaced loudspeakers

Monophonic Sound -- playback using one loudspeaker.  (note: combining left and right signals while listening over two speakers is still stereophonic sound. It is monophonic when one speaker only is used for reproduction.)

Binaural Sound --  being aware of the differences in biometric pressure changes to the atmosphere as sensed by the two spaced ears.

Monaural Sound -- being aware of pressure changes to the atmosphere as sensed by one ear only.

     Thanks for the conversation, ~swd

Re: Brian's thin vocals - that's just how his voice sounded at the time, not a mixing issue but a performance one.

COMMENT:  I see. You mean his voice sounded thin on stage?  Of course, unless you are hearing the raw, unamplified voice of Brian Wilson  , any sonic issues could be the fault of electronics and not of his vocal chords. And having many times stood directly in front of Brian as he sang a part or previewed a solo to me, I can tell you that Brian's vocal delivery is quite consistent. Back when he traveled with the Beach Boys, I mixed hundreds of shows with Brian and never found his voice sounding thin.  Of course the man is growing older (as the same rate as us all) and along with that is loss of vocal control and breathing control. Can't hit all those high notes he once could and the lungs don't hold as much air as decades ago. Still the talent shows forth and we all love to hear him sing. ~SWD

COMMENT ON A COUPLE OF POINTS:

There are peer reviewed papers documenting research into the stereophonic field going back to the 1930's. The auditory illusion that stereo presents under the correct conditions has been fully explored. This research is still extremely pertinent today, insomuch that EVERY stereo recording you listen to has been mixed and mastered by someone sitting in exactly the position prescribed for correct stereo listening. Logic therefore dictates that in order to fully appreciate the recording, one must adopt the same position. This becomes even more true for a record such as Sunflower, which was really quite an experimental recording when it comes to stereo mixing. I know I am somewhat misrepresenting your argument now, but you should never think of such experimentation as flawed. That way lies the mass homogenisation of music in which we currently find ourselves!

To remark that Stereo Reproduction has been fully explored is paramount to saying, everything has already been invented, so let’s close the Patent Office.  Obviously you have not read my peer reviewed white papers, nor reviewed my four peer reviewed patents on the subject of Stereophonic Sound Reproduction. You may also find interesting technical reviews of the $10.000 ProSpatializer, a two-channel mixing tool that can place any sound within the panorama of the sound stage AND anywhere within the area of the sound field; in effect at any point in any room. This illusion is heard while sitting anywhere within a six foot wide listening space -- about the same as standard stereo. The point being that the field of Stereophonic Sound recording and reproduction advances are far from being finished.

Don’t think for a minute that sound engineers are stupid enough to only get the mix right while listening at the ideal playback spot. We know that our recordings will be heard over a vast variation of listening situations. As such, engineers monitor using near-field, mid-field, and far-field monitoring situations, both high-fidelity and small-speaker situations, and strive to make the stereo illusion as wide as possible. No engineer expects his or her listeners to sit with their heads-in-a-vice in order to hear a stereo recording. The idea in commercial mixing is to make a product that can be enjoyed by a wide variety of people listening in a wide variety of situations. The art of compromise is certainly in play, but remember . . . THIS IS THE MUSIC BUSINESS . . . and in business the goal is to make money. If your audience is limited it’s not good for business. So engineers strive to not limit their product to a small segment of the listening population – with the exception of special audiophile records.

Of course the best listening position is generally agreed to be as far from the speakers as they are apart. That is the standard; not a limit. The human brain is capable of much more than most engineers realize, but commercial requirements and industry standards are hard to advance beyond what already works and makes money.

I was hired by the Beach Boy organization to “take them out of mono and into the full capacity that Stereophonic Sound facilitates.”  That I did. I took them beyond the common everyday stereo sound into the world of virtual imagery. But the record company did not wish to move from the old amplitude stereo format in to the future. Thus, the Beach Boys could have been a major force in the development of Virtual Surround (or 3D sound as it later was called), but was denied that distinction by their parent record company, preferring to stay with the status quo.

But at the end of the day, like 99.9% of people listening to the stuff back then *AND* to this day are going to do so with some sort of standard set up to listen to stereo mixes. No, this stuff shouldn't be listened to (or at least analyzed) via smartphone speakers or something. But it also shouldn't require anything more than me putting a CD in and plugging some headphones in or listening on normal speakers. If something more than that is required, then that is, arguably, a flaw or at least "issue" with the original recording/mixing methods that is worth pointing out. I absolutely should *not* need a "study video" to hear this stuff as intended. I'm not saying such videos aren't highly interesting and welcomed.

I agree. You should not need to do anything special to get the full enjoyment from a virtual surround mix than a conventional stereo mix. And you don’t. This has been proven over and over, the most potent display being one summer Olympic sound, successfully broadcast using equipment of my design, in virtual surround, and heard by two-Billion people – that’s a thousand gold records in sales. Such technically successful technology together with sales of over 60 million channels of virtual surround IC's hardly qualifies as experimental.  Therefore I take issue with your statement that Sunflower was an experimental mix of an album. Maybe not common, maybe cutting edge, maybe an advancement, but not experimental. To hear Sunflower when issued in virtual surround or resolved through the matrix (as I like to say) you only need two normal stereo speakers placed some distance apart -- nothing else -- same as any regular stereo setup. Your brain does the rest.

But when the Beach Boy advanced technology format is rejected and the standard stereo format is released, this engineer was given no alternative but to offer the advanced or virtual surround version in the only format available, Internet streaming of the advanced format via The Study-Videos.  Granted, no one should need to go to a special website just to hear the original mix format, but if the record companies and stuck in regular stereo and refuse to release the preferred and sonically superior advanced format, what do you suggest I do if I want dedicated fans to hear what was actually produced.

Be aware too that I am limited in what I can provide to the fans by the Copyright laws. The study-videos all deal with copyrighted material and exist only by the good graces of The Beach Boy organization and the owner of their copyrights.  

Your comments are welcome.  ~swd

Perhaps Stephen Desper can chime in with information about the original mastering matrix, because there is some controversy regarding the  digital remastering of these post Capitol albums going back to the original set of Joe Gastwirt remastered CD's in 1990. I've always found there to be a world of difference between the 1990 CD and the original LP pressing that goes way beyond analogue 'warmth'. It wasn't until I heard about the mastering matrix that this made sense. So perhaps it is the lack of the correct mastering matrix which is impairing your listening experience? Try the original LP if that is the case.

COMMENT to Greg Parry,  The matrix is analog not digital.  If you wish to hear the correct and Carl Wilson approved release of SF and SU, the only source for this today are my Study-Videos. I am sorry that you must deal with passwords and other security things, but this is all required of Copyright Law in the United States. My book comments on these copyrighted recordings as they play and provides resolved versions, mastered by Carl and myself in the best fidelity I can provide. Most fan feedback is positive and comments reflect what I heard when I re-mastered all my recordings for use in the Study-Video series of explanations and experiences during my time as BB engineer.

The above release (via Artisan) and approval of the first pressing issues marked the end of my connection and/or control over any further modifications made to these productions by other mastering houses or individual engineers. Without matrix resolution, the whole (re) issue is kind of like DOA. All these productions were intended to be released in, what today would be called "virtual surround." It's all encoded within the original master, but no one seems to care enough to release the resolved version.

It's very frustrating as an artisan and engineer to create a work of art, but not be able to get it released as it should be. Like painting in color, but only being able to make copies in black and white. So at least you can find a source for these productions in their intended format, even if the record companies are stuck in stereo.
 
At one time the good folks here at Smilesmile hosted the series for several years. It is currently available at one of the other popular message boards. Registration is required there as it was here; part of the copyright law.

 abonnevillemariner -- look for a personal message for more details.  ~SWD

Pretty wild how they even accomplished making this ending. They must've had to go into the multi's and re-record a lot of the instruments to follow the new chords.

Sorry if it's been spoken about already, but Mr. Desper, if you're reading this, do you remember recording this bit? It seems like a lot of effort went into matching the original sounds.

The track at the end is not a re-recording, it's just what was on the tape after the master cuts off to go a capella.  There's a big drum fill without any other instruments (thus the opportunity for Bruce to reharmonize here) and then I think they actually play another verse, but I might be misremembering that part.

Yes and no. The track as recorded went into a drum fill and continued through another cycle and a half of the whole progression before falling apart, but that's not what was used here. They copied the tape, kept the drums and lead guitar, wiped other instruments, and added new bass and glockenspiel onto that second bridge/chorus section out.

The alternate lead vocal tracks were on the original tape, copied with the rest. I guess Mark used them in this mix to make it more of a full 'alternate' package.

There's apparently no Brian here - seems to just be Bruce (times three), Carl (times two) and Mike stacked on six parts (unless one of those is actually Al). Bruce has his arranging fingerprints all over this.

COMMENT:  I noticed your question to me.   I must say I don't know what release you are discussing, but you should know that if you have access to the multi-track you can pretty much make the song do anything. It's like editing of a movie; a love scene can be edited as romance or rape. In my book, I lead with the a cappella of Surf's Up followed in beat by the original song, but you could lead with a guitar lick or drum roll or any tracks or sub-mix of tracks within the multi-track. . . you can change the structure or architecture or personality or impression or etc. if you have access to the multi-track. ~swd 

Removed ~swd

So apparently no one wants to talk about the other track that just got released. I have a few questions though about Surf's Up - A Cappella.

Was the entire vocal track for the first movement recorded in 1971? Who, if anyone, sings on it apart from Carl? And where exactly did "bygone, bygone" come from? Does it appear on anything that was recorded in 1966/67? Could it possibly have been an idea someone came up with in 1971, and if so who?

Possibly fewer are talking about it because the recording data on the song has been known for a long time. Plus, a vocals-only track on this song did leak like 15+ years ago.

Not saying it's not worth talking about; it's one of the most amazing songs of their career, and this is one of the most impressive vocals one could possibly isolate.

COMMENT:  All these questions about the recording of Surf's Up are answered in my book Recording The Beach Boys.  Also an A Cappella of Surf's Up vocals in in the book/study-video that I made about 50 years ago, but put in the book about 15 years ago.
Bygone, Bygone is a multi-word overdub of 1971 (mind-twister) and is on the original lyric sheet. ~swd

COMMENT:   I don't know what all the fuss is about, but you will find an acapella version of Surf's Up in Part Two of my book Recording The Beach Boys -- first published 15 years ago.  It's a vocal-only mix I pulled many years ago. The book is still available for reading at another message board.   ~swd

Stephen
To what extent is the integrity of the properly decoded virtual surround versions at risk of being undermined by less than ideal acoustic conditions in the home ? (For example, imaging problems caused by undesirable reflections from surfaces, perhaps due to one loudspeaker being located closer to a wall than the other etc)?

COMMENT to Sam:  As long as you are approximately as far back from forward facing speakers as they are apart (forming a triangle) listening should be fine.  In other words, any average stereo listening setup, works. To the extent reflections cause a problem with normal stereo, the same applies to virtual surround.  

Thanks for the question.  ~swd

I see that Apple Music has adopted a spatial audio option:

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/05/apple-music-announces-spatial-audio-and-lossless-audio/

I don't recall reading a thread about this development, but thought it was worth giving a "shout out" to Stephen Desper. In some ways this is the fruition of his ground-breaking pioneering work, started over 50 years ago while he was working for the Beach Boys.

Thought it was worth starting a thread about this, to discuss this development and how it (a) might impact any Beach Boys releases in future, and/or (b) relates to / has evolved from what Stephen was doing back in the day.

 

COMMENT:  Thanks for the recognition of past work.  I was hired to "take the Beach Boys into stereo recording," which I did, but with technology too far ahead of its time for Warner7.  I took them into Virtual Surround, long before Dolby Surround Sound was created. In retrospect, if SF and SU and other songs had been released in Virtual Surround, as they were recorded . . . and if Brother Records had followed through with the technology, that label would have scored a major technological win -- perhaps giving them the boost needed to become another "apple records" of its day. 

After they went on to Holland, I formed a company, obtained patents, developed products, licensed many major equipment manufactures in Japan, Korea, and the USA -- and generally had a good run with the technology. But like all ideas, over time it became a commodity and was overshadowed by "surround sound in a box" with Dolby's development of Surround Sound using real (not virtual) speakers -- something the public could more relate to.  Apple's announcement is merely a way to take old masters and re-cycle them to get more money from the investment.  As I have often said, it is the music BUSINESS.

To me it seems both a triumph and a tragedy that all the songs I recorded can still only be heard in Virtual Surround (decoded through the matrix, as I call it) by listening to my Study-Videos.

Again, I appreciate your kind words more than you imagine. ~Stephen W. Desper     

[Student Demonstration Time]

COMMENT The Anniversary of the Kent State University Massacre, also known as the May 4 massacre and the Kent State massacre, were the killings of four and wounding of nine other unarmed Kent State University students by the Ohio National Guard on May 4, 1970 in Kent, Ohio, 40 miles south of Cleveland. The killings took place during a peace rally opposing the expanding involvement of the Vietnam War into neutral Cambodia by United States military forces as well as protesting the National Guard presence on campus. The incident marked the first time that a student had been killed in an anti-war gathering in United States history.
Twenty-eight National Guard soldiers fired approximately 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others.  (quoted from Wikapedia)
 
Two protest songs come to mind . . .

Student Demonstration Time (The Beach Boys, "Surf's Up" album – Mike Love)
[Based on "Riot in Cell Block Number 9" by Jerry Leiber & Mike Stoller]

Starting out with Berkeley Free Speech
And later on at People's Park
The winds of change fanned into flames
Student demonstrations spark
Down to Isla Vista where police felt so harassed
They called the special riot squad of the L. A. County Sheriff

Well there's a riot going on
There's a riot going on
There's a riot going on
Student demonstration time

The violence spread down South to where Jackson State brothers
Learned not to say nasty things about Southern policemen's mothers
Nothing much was said about it and really next to nothing done
The pen is mightier than the sword, but no match for a gun

Well there's a riot going on
There's a riot going on
Well there's a riot going on
'Cause it's student demonstration time

America was stunned on May 4, 1970
When rally turned to riot up at Kent State University
They said the students scared the Guard
Though the troops were battle dressed
Four martyrs earned a new degree
The Bachelor of Bullets
I know we're all fed up with useless wars and racial strife
But next time there's a riot, well, you best stay out of sight

Well there's a riot going on
There's a riot going on
Well there's a riot going on
Student demonstration time

Stay away when there's a riot going on
Student demonstration
Stay away when there's a riot going on
Student demonstration
Stay away when there's a riot going on
Student demonstration
Stay away when there's a riot going on
It's student demonstration
Stay away when there's a riot going on
Student demonstration
Stay away when there's a riot going on
Student demonstration
Stay away when there's a riot going on
It's student demonstration
Stay away when there's a riot going on
Student demonstration



Ohio  (Crosby-Stills-Nash-and-Young – Neil Young
from "Journey Through The Past" soundtrack)

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.

Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are cutting us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?

Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are cutting us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.
Four dead in Ohio (Four dead)
Four dead in Ohio (Four)
Four dead in Ohio (How many?)
Four dead in Ohio (How many more?)
Four dead in Ohio (Why?)
Four dead in Ohio (Oh!)
Four dead in Ohio (Four)
Four dead in Ohio (Why?)
Four dead in Ohio (Why?)

Yes, there are a few different things at play:
- the original intention/Spatializer mix (3D stereo) reflecting what the band heard in the studio - this was rejected by the label but encoded into...
- the master for the album as we all know it. The first pressing LP is based on the best available LP master tapes (and approved by Carl); subsequent reissues may have used later-generation copies (as happened with many albums of the era) OR, in the case of digital reissues, received different mastering. Any current issue of Sunflower would be based on the original LP MIX but may have a different mastering. The Spatializer would still be able to decode it, but it wouldn't be the exact same as the Carl-approved version unless it was the first pressing LP.
- 5.1 or quad mixes that have been released on various products over the years are not what was originally developed in the studio (enjoyable as they may be)
- any new stereo remix would not be what was originally developed in the studio (enjoyable as they may be). I don't know what will be on the set, but it's likely that there will be alternate or modern remixes of many tracks, if not a "remixed album" (a la Pet Sounds sessions).

I can't speak for Mr. Desper but from what I've seen, I get the impression that his frustration stems from the refusal/reluctance to release the "original intention", while other remixes (5.1, quad) with no Carl involvement have gotten the green light.


In movie terms it would be like:
- original Director's Cut (Spatializer) is unavailable
- theatrical version (original LP) is still available but with different colour timings depending on format/pressing
- various "Special Editions" with modern special effects have been made with no involvement from the original director

This box set represents another opportunity to "right the wrong" and get the "Director's Cut" out there but it seems that it may not be happening (I'm not following too closely).

It occurs to me that with the unique technology of Stephen's at the time of recording and mixing, coupled with the subsequent reluctance by the label to 100% completely realize that vision when it came time to releasing it back in the day, coupled with the new enhancements which will happen with the box at that I can't wait to hear, this is almost a SMiLE Part II type of situation with the band, where the fully original intent may never be completely, 100% known.

Obviously the originally-released mix on LP should constitute the "final word" having been approved by the band, but if there was a spatializer intent/desire by the band beyond that which never saw the light of day, it just adds one more element of unsolvable mystery to this album and the band's canon, an interesting parallel of sorts to the admittedly much more complicated mystery of SMiLE.

I remain grateful for the different versions that we will soon be getting to hear, it's always cool to hear these amazing works of art in a new light. It sure would be great to be able to hear what Stephen in the band had intended for the spatializer mix to sound like, but if that's not possible due to any number of political and business practicality reasons, I nevertheless expect to be fully satisfied with the upcoming varieties we have to look forward to.

And once again, I respect Stephen's opinion on these matters, as should most any fan. It's a complex situation that is not possible to make everybody completely happy, unfortunately.

COMMENT:  Let us be clear, "Spatializer" as a viable consumer and professional iteration did not evolve until a decade after SF and SU were released. So the earlier albums and the product that came along later should not be interchanged or connected.

I never claim that SU or SF were recorded using Spatializer. It did not exist at that time.  The matrix I used was a different animal.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that the multi-track for SU or SF is the same thing as you know today. I never envisioned remixes. Therefore, the multi-track does NOT contain all the information used to record the Master Tape. The multi-track has been cut up, emollition wiped, and the mixes themselves were derived from about 25% re-amping of both instrumental and vocal tracks while other tracks had expansion via matrix based expanders -- which both are lost forever.  I used the multi-track as a means to reach the final product, and not enable a repeat mix. Now you can attempt to remix any multi-track, but back in the analog days, the multi-track was expendable and not a vehicle for storing everything that went into the Master. Other words, not everything on the Master Tape is contained in the Multi-track. Some sounds were obtained at the time of mixdown and after the multi-track was made.  Don't apply today's definition of a multi-track to one over fifty years old.   Anyway, why would you wish to re-do a mix that was done with Beach Boy supervision and involvement. Especially taking the original out of the analog format for any changes would depart from the original sonic signature. Out takes and mixes of just vocals are one thing, but the final versions are so entangled with Beach Boy musical involvement, any attempt to re-mix would not include all the music of the original.  Certainly I have taken some Beach Boy songs and re-mastered them, but when I do that I always make certain the listener knows it is a departure from the original or I provide the original for comparison. 

Although no one on the "feel flows" team has contacted me about anything, which I find strange, I am looking forward to hearing and re-visiting the old sounds. 

The only source for hearing SF and SU as originally intended is by listening to the needle drop section within my book Recording The Beach Boys. This analog sourced version is mastered by Carl and myself while being resolved using the playback matrix formula for the realization in the study-video.  ~swd