The Smiley Smile Message Board

Anybody have the 2 newly recorded BB tracks by Mike Love form PBS. Willing To Share?
Thanks!

yeah, I'd be keen to hear them too, and maybe purchase if they are good.

I would love to hear them! I wonder if they will put them on Mikes new solo albums when it come oust?

I'd love to hear these too!  :-)

Ha! Mike's new solo album! Like that's ever gonna come out. No way.

And this coming from me, who would actually buy it! I've been waiting for a while for him to put something out.

What exactly are the two new tracks?

I got 3 new re-recordings that sounds great:
- do it again
- Sloop john b
- Surfin usa

Who sings the lead on Sloop John B?

Mike sings lead throughout.

The track is included in a video on the USB drive that accompanies the 2016 VIP tour program coffee table book.

Kind of like the later 60's version of Dean and ?'s Surf City are they?  Re-recorded but to what end?  To satiate the old rear-end himself?  And once again he participates in ripping the public off with his sub-standard 'take' on 'art'.  A pox on him and everything he supposedly represents.  [only himself]

I wouldn't buy his crap or even listen to it with YOUR money or your ears.  He completely disgusts me.  Ungrateful tub o' rat's  poop.

Where can you buy these at?

bit of a swizz having that as the only file when his shop/gumroad (https://gumroad.com/l/ukboysbook) described it as "a USB bookmark containing Beach Boys footage" -  technically true (it's overdubbed on the orig video - looks nice) but still.

Just listened and it's actually not bad.

They overdubbed Mike's solo recording onto the old Beach Boys promo film? That's pretty lame if that's the case.

No thanks with a Mike lead on that.

I'm surprised these tracks haven't popped up on YouTube yet. You can listen to Mike's 80s Hyatt Regency jingles on YouTube, but not these songs?  :lol

 :h5 :rock :happydance :pirate :thumbsup :listening :woot

I agree, weird inconsistent policy. If they were at Youtube, people could download them via clipconverter.

Why do you torture yourself? :lol :lol :lol :lol

http://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php/topic,46140.msg2973711.html#msg2973711 (thread nsfw for language)

Nice version,  many thanks!  Now I'd love to hear the other ones!

I was only able to listen on cheapie speakers (will have to try headphones later). The "Sloop" re-recording definitely sounds more faithful to the original than, say, the Adrian Baker-helmed covers from the 90s. The whole thing still sounds rather sterile and soulless, but it's certainly professional and workmanlike. Could have been worse I guess?

Mike's voice sounds relatively synthetic; somewhat like his voice on "Alone on Christmas Day" from last year. It's either pretty processed and/or there's a smidgen of autotune going on. The whole exercise seems rather pointless to me, and plastering the solo Mike recording onto the original BB promo film is pretty ridiculous. Does anybody really think Mike wouldn't have blown a stack if, say, in 2004, Brian had released a USB drive with the original Beach Boys "Good Vibrations" promo film, but with Brian's re-recording dubbed onto it?

I suppose Capitol may own the "Sloop" promo film rather than BRI; I can't imagine BRI would have signed off on that sort of misappropriation of a vintage Beach Boys film.

HeyJude: Me too. Not owning the product itself, is that clip exactly what came included with Mike's GV VIP package on the thumb drive? It's one thing to remake the songs, it's another to put it to the original Capitol promo film from '66.

I of course don't have the USB and just viewed the clip posted on Vimeo. But someone previously had described that the USB was supposed to have "footage", and what it amounted to was indeed the original promo film with Mike's solo recording pasted over it.

What a weird choice of song, and a weird choice of the context with which to present it. I guess the PS anniversary is the only tie-in I can think of to explain the song choice, and of the "well known" PS songs, it's the only song that Mike could feasibly sing the entire lead on.

Exactly what I was thinking when I saw this.

Remember Mike did blow a stack back in 2004 that kept blowing into years of legal filings, defeats, and appeals over a UK Sunday publication putting an archival Beach Boys photo showing Mike with the group, onto a giveaway CD featuring Brian that was exclusive to subscribers of that publication in the UK.

So this seems to be in line with what Mike objected to 12 years ago, it's Mike's remake recording of a Beach Boys song that is playing over 1966 footage of the Beach Boys, including Brian, Carl, Dennis, and Al who had nothing to do with this specific recording.

Odd.

It is.

OK, that's confirmed. I don't own this item as I said, but are there other similar examples and what are they? GV has been mentioned too...did they remake that one as well and put it on old film footage?

There’s only one file on the USB drive and it’s that “Sloop” video.

Is this the first BBs related USB Stick-Only release?

Sloop is the only file on the USB stick, that's confirmed.

The issue is also where does Capitol stand on this in general, not even limited to this one situation. Ultimately Capitol controls the release and reissues of a Beach Boys song like "Sloop" - Would they be on board with releasing something like this remake by Mike and have it for sale next to the original Sloop John B recording as a Beach Boys release? I have to think not. If fans who aren't as aware were to see this: "Sloop John B by The Beach Boys", they'd most likely think they're buying the Capitol single from '66 and from Pet Sounds, not a remake featuring only Mike.

I believe last year some of Mike's VIP packages came with what was described as:

"Autographed USB laminate loaded with 2 albums of exclusive VIP-only re-mastered content"

I would assume that Mike didn't record two exclusive albums two years ago that we don't know about, so I would imagine it's simply two BB albums or compilations or something (I guess ripping CDs to MP3 for a USB stick could technically be a unique, "exclusive" remastering).

I think releasing albums via "USB bracelet" was a fad for like five minutes around a decade or so ago. I learned this via Ringo releasing his "Liverpool 8" album in the format. I figured it might be "collectible" someday, but I think they go for dirt cheap.

(http://www.eurythmics-ultimate.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/080104_liverpool8wristbandpack.jpg)

I was unaware of that until HJ's post - Now the question for anyone who bought that previous "stick". What was on those two "exclusive" albums of re-mastered content? Were there remakes on that too? And where did the remastering come from?

My general understanding is that Capitol can repackage original BB albums and material (as in originally released under contract in the 60s) without any BRI approval, but release of outtakes from the 60s (of which Capitol still owns the recordings) does require BRI approval.

So I have no idea where this scenario would fall. It's a film, not an audio recording, and it has had a non-Beach Boys recording dubbed over it.

I would have to assume Mike's team got all the proper clearances. Capitol most likely owns the film, and perhaps if you pay to license the film from Capitol, you can dub barking dogs or a Hall & Oates song over it if you want.

That is hilarious. I guess that's the only "wearable" clothing article that doubles as a Beatles physical release. Mike too should try selling his new album as an article of clothing, via a baseball cap with the buckle at the back of the hat being a USB stick.

I'm sure Mike will use this idea for his 2017 tour, and the USB stick will come loaded with his solo re-recording of "Surf's Up" dubbed over the Bernstein special footage.  :3d

One can dream  :lol

But the brand and name licensing is for promoting and advertising the tours and live shows, it's not for recording. Otherwise you'd have "The Beach Boys" existing as anything other than the Beach Boys' recorded legacy, whether barking dogs edited to the GV promo or remakes of old hits being sold as Beach Boys hits. It's absolutely no different from Ringo or Paul releasing remakes of Beatles songs as "The Beatles" when it's only them, it has to be released under their own names as solo artists, not the band (and brand).

And I don't think Capitol would want remakes being sold under the band's name and identity alongside the actual band's catalog. I thought there were provisions in the agreements specific to what can be released under the name.

Sounds like a nightmare.

I think the issue would be whether the re-recording is clearly labeled as a Mike Love solo recording.

Being a USB release with a file on it as opposed to a CD single or other sort of "physical release", *clear* labeling and things not being misconstrued as being a "Beach Boys" product do indeed become more difficult to discern.

I would assume (or at least hope) something on the "USB bookmark" specifies that the recording is a solo recording, and that the file itself is labeled as such.

But certainly, I'd say pasting his *solo* re-recording over a vintage "Beach Boys" promo film is probably more potentially misleading and prone to cause consumer confusion than a lot of the things that have been complained about in the past (Brian's freebie CD with a BB pic on it, Al's touring in 1999, etc.).

I personally think even if the USB drive and file are clearly labeled as a Mike solo recording, pasting it onto BB footage is still misleading and inappropriate. But I would guess if he did label these things as such, he's probably not violating the license or BRI guidelines. Now, BRI is not a robot, and this would be a good example of something where BRI shareholders could step in and say "hey, I think that's going overboard and is misleading, please stop." But I doubt that occurs, unfortunately.

You can see, by the way, how Mike's tour merchandise is split between "licensed" and "doesn't need a license." Simply put, if it says "The Beach Boys" on it, it's licensed and BRI gets a cut.

But if he sells t-shirts that just have pictures of woodies or a newly-commissioned "Good Vibrations" art piece or whatever, BRI doesn't get a cut of any of that.

I guess it boils down to whether the BRI license puts any restriction on *what* Mike can sell at shows or via VIP packages, etc. I'm guessing he can sell anything he wants, and obviously he has to pay BRI for licensed material with the BB trademark on it. But I would guess he could sell candy bars, Nike sneakers, and Depeche Mode CDs at this stand if he wants. So technically, a Mike Love product is just another product. (Muddied in this case by use of BB footage).

If this is included in a "Beach Boys" book, and the audio in the package is not the original recording by The Beach Boys yet shows them in an archival video for that original single release...let's just say the waters are very muddy.

I'd think there are certain things in place to prevent this, otherwise the NASCAR album and even "Be True To Your Bud" in years past could have been labeled "The Beach Boys" and fans who didn't know better would think they're buying a Beach Boys recording when it was not. It's about the legacy of the records themselves, just like Ringo or Paul cannot issue solo remakes and label them The Beatles. It waters down the brand and the legacy.

You know, when I bemoaned the switch away from physical media, a freaking USB stick is not what I had in mind.

Maybe it'll eventually move to just downloading your "exclusive VIP" content at the show via the tour's WiFi hot spot.  :lol

I also think it's ironic to sell a USB stick and only put one thing on it, even though it could potentially hold more data than CD.

Exactly. This is sufficiently muddy.

A CD with a Mike recording labeled as the BBs? Easy, no-go.

A USB stick with a Mike recording labeled as the BBs? Also, no-go.

A DVD labeled as a Beach Boys promo film with a Mike Love audio soundtrack? Muddy, but unfortunately probably okay.

A USB stick under the same scenario as the hypothetical DVD above is also muddy, though I would argue that the USB stick being less of a "physical product" actually makes proper labeling more difficult.

I think it boils down to BRI needing to properly delineate what the "touring" license entails. If I were in charge of BRI, I would not allow a product such as this USB stick to be given away or sold in conjunction with the tour in any way. It's just too muddy. You're buying a ticket for the modern "Beach Boys", but you get a USB stick with a film of the old/original "Beach Boys", overdubbed with the touring "Beach Boys" that can't call themselves "The Beach Boys" on a recording, but can on stage. Pffttt.

Can we have 2016 Mike digitally inserted next to BW in the footage to complete the history rewrite? >:D

Somebody photoshop Mike into a bernstein video still ASAP!  :hat

Can anyone make a case that replacing the original song on a promo video from 1966 (which has been officially available with the actual 1966 recording) with a modern remake featuring Mike, then putting it into a "Beach Boys" package does anything toward forwarding and maintaining the legacy of the band's music?

Nobody with any sense could.

*cough* filleplage would.

Oh, and if that cough gets too bad, take a lozenge. :)

:lol

The subtext is Filleplage doesn't have any sense! :lol

(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/4d/4dc12df7fd9ddc1bb993173503f911bd9573ca4e22d528623fc3006257357c8d.jpg)

So what are the exact BRI brand rules? It seems like the brand is being muddled by Mike using it to promo solo material with the examples of Pisces brothers, sloop john B, and the other recent tracks.

Mike can use the trademark solely for touring. It appears this includes selling merchandise at shows and online as well. Whether Mike is essentially a vendor of "BRI merchandise" or if he's having his own merchandise made under license, I don't know. If it's the latter, then that would technically mean that his license extends past literally nothing but live shows, and would extend into some level of merchandise.

There are obvious things he can't do, including recording and releasing music under the BB name (this would presumably include live recordings of his band).

So if he made a solo album, or had a solo "Mike Love" CD single of "Sloop John B", that would all be allowed assuming proper labeling (and again, assuming BRI doesn't put restrictions on what merchandise he sells at shows; assuming they don't, he can sell Bubble Yum and pruning shears at the merch stand if he wants).

This particular little USB thing is certainly muddier. Solo Mike Love recording on top of presumably licensed silent BB footage. Allowed? Probably technically I'm guessing.

Let's use another scenario. Mike sells a DVD of home video he shot of the Beach Boys on the road in the 1990s. He dubs all solo recordings over the footage. Can he do that? Probably. In that case, he might have to obtain releases from anyone in the footage.

But those old Capitol promo films perhaps don't require any new releases being signed or anything. Capitol owns the footage. Mike owns the solo recording. He puts the two together, and labels it (hopefully/presumably) as a "Mike Love" recording, perhaps mentioning it's on top of Beach Boys footage. Is this allowed? I guess BRI has to definitively answer that question.

In my 100% armchair opinion, this sort of thing would seem to be as actionable if not more so than Mike's 2004 suit regarding the freebie CD with a pic of the Beach Boys. Then again, Mike's lawsuit was laughed out of court.

My guess is that the easiest remedy for this, if BRI had a problem, would not be litigation but rather a reworking or clarification of the licensing agreement (assuming it doesn't already cover such scenarios).

I really think that *if* there were anyone at BRI would would conceivably have a problem with it, that would only really come from Brian/Melinda. And truthfully, at this point, I don't think they even care enough to bring a suit. That's very much a Mike Love thing to do, when he feels threatened like Cornholio. "Brian, are you threatening me?" I just don't think that Brian would want to bring a suit to stop Mike from doing this, because so few people even know about the USB stick (outside of this board), and really, is it worth the aggravation to get embroiled in a legal mess with a known litigious person?

I could easily see Mike "getting away" with this type of stuff (despite it being laughably hypocritical compared to his 2005 lawsuit, which he likely wishes the non-mention in his bio could make any associated embarrassment from losing such a suit simply not exist) simply because nobody *cares* on the BRI side anymore. The brand name has been pimped out so, so, so much over the years, I really think it just doesn't really matter, or if it matters, it isn't worth the aggravation at Brian's age to deal with it legally. I assume there's an element of "let the baby have his bottle" to the inaction.

Actually, there are two videos on the USB drive.  One is the "Sloop" video, the other is the 6 minute video that has been played at the beginning of every show on the 2016 tour.

Not on my copy  :(

Best USB ever

(http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/funny_usb_flash_drives_27.jpg)

A question for the legal experts: couldn't taking the "we don't care enough to go to court" approach in such a small matter come  back to haunt Brian in the future?  Aren't there states or situations where not pursuing a lawsuit in one instance but pursuing it in a similar instance later on negates the latter lawsuit?  I am sure there is a name for this but I don't recall what it is.  Could this be such a case?

EoL

In the interest of sharing what information I have about how things were labeled, here’s what the USB drive looks like:

(http://i.imgur.com/3549mXc.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/evZZbLp.jpg)

Here’s how the drive shows up on my computer:
(http://i.imgur.com/4Srf1pd.png)

Here’s the contents of the drive:
(http://i.imgur.com/OiNnv8X.png)

Here’s the metadata on the video:
(http://i.imgur.com/XKkGDr6.png)

That branding of the BBs with Mike's music is confusing.....

So that hippie-style poster art for GV with Mike being the only visible BB was used as "album art" for this stick release. Yet the explanation might be that no other BB members are legally allowed to be present on the artwork unless it's an official BB release. But that doesn't explain using the BB members on the '66 video. Just confusing what the rules are, everything seems so contradictory.

Is "sloop New Audio" the actual out-of-the-box file name on the drive, and not a file name that was re-named by a fan?

Yeah, I didn’t change anything.

Man, the autotune on that Sloop John B recording is not subtle at all.  I suppose that's Melinda Wilson's fault though.

You mean SMiLE Brian?  ;D

Copyright and usage applies to audio and video, at least as a general rule, especially if the audio and video are presented and owned as a single entity. It means - to simplify it - if the original promo video to Sloop is owned by Capitol and is synced up with both video and the audio track in the form of a song with music video as one entity, it can't be altered, re-edited, and presented as a product without some kind of approval process and licensing.

In this case, still wondering if anyone can offer up either a positive to this, or a benefit to the band's legacy by replacing a classic original 1966 recording with a modern remake and putting it in a 1966 Beach Boys commemorative package, and attaching it to the original 1966 promo film showing the original Beach Boys.

Thanks to "Big Daddy" for posting those images, that's the first I'm seeing them. As another poster brought up, it is also worth noting the art print used for the cover here and sold at shows as a standalone poster print, only having Mike's image, as some said perhaps due to some terms and conditions regarding selling imagery of other band members or whatever the case, yet the music also seems to have only Mike and his current band doing a remake set to video of the original 1966 Beach Boys' promo video for said song featuring the original Beach Boys.

Muddied waters indeed.

Complete with a winky emoticon and a smarmy "it's all good."

:lol

I only heard it once, but isn't that the original '66 intro tacked onto the beginning?

The date on the properties on my USB flash is May 20.  Maybe later versions of this drive did not include the second video. 

Very interesting. Patricia (or anyone else), do you have the USB drive from last year’s tour? HeyJude mentioned it earlier in the thread and I’m still very curious as to what’s on it.

Sorry Guys! ;D

According to this thread:  http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,17758.0.html

All Summer Long and Shut Down Volume 2 were the two albums on the flash drive during the Club Kokomo era of the VIP meet & greets. I think Club Kokomo was discontinued after 2014??? They only reestablished the in-house VIP meet & greets in late-spring/early-summer of 2016. The price also went from $150 to $250, though to be fair, there was a lot more included in the package from this year.

It sure sounds like it. The flute and clip/clop percussion sound like the '66 track, the first 5 seconds before it goes into the modern remake.

Now the waters have gotten really muddy. ::)

(http://assets.teamrock.com/image/95428f9e-21a0-4d0b-bb31-f6e46dcd0e21?w=800)

It seems like there were two separate thumb drives with these 50th packages. Could one have been a UK package and the other a US package?

With the difference being the addition of a Noven Jaisi video which has been on YouTube...I can't see the benefit. Maybe someday the entire "Still Tourin'" documentary that Noven was teasing via YouTube will be on a thumb drive too.

Nor can I see where the benefit would be by including a modern remake of Sloop John B tacked to the '66 promo film. But I'm repeating myself.

Anyone else hear that intro as vintage '66 audio before it goes into the modern remake?

That definitely sounded like the 1966 intro.

I agree it sounds just like it. When I first heard it, I thought that Mike's band was doing a dead-on imitation, but maybe it's a lift of the actual track?

I guess the actual waveforms could be compared for a conclusive answer?

As tacky as I think that is to use the actual 1966 recorded intro (if that's what is in fact on here), I have to say that it comparatively didn't bother me (due to context) when the original Do It Again drum intro was used on the 2011 Do It Again remake. Probably because the point was for the band to be reunited, and it was more like a Free As A Bird type of lifting a deceased bandmember's part as an homage. 

Unfortunately, I didn't get last year's USB drive from last year.  I know that in 2014, the USB drive had the complete "Shut Down Vol. 2" and "All Summer Long" albums.

Aside from the mysteries discussed in this thread ... WHY IS MIKE'S TEAM SELLING USB DRIVES? What a weird thing to sell.

The difference is who was participating on "Do It Again" as The Beach Boys 5 years ago and the purpose of that, versus a remake of Sloop that's under a Beach Boys umbrella, cut to footage of the song's original 1966 promo film featuring the Beach Boys, yet only has Mike prominently featured on the track.

If the USB drive had featured the original '66 promo with the original audio track from '66, it wouldn't be an issue at all. If the track were billed as a Mike Love solo track specific to a Mike Love release and not "The Beach Boys", the issues would be far less muddy. But neither happened.

Aren't Mike and Bruce using the original Sloop intro when playing the song live? As a sample on Tim's keyboard? If so, it's not a long stretch to think that they used that for the rerecording, is it?

The stretch isn't that they used it, the stretch is asking what purpose does it serve to have Mike putting out remakes or what amounts to cover/tribute versions of 50 year old songs and putting them with the original film instead of just including the original package from '66 intact.

Question for "Fall Breaks" : What other audio samples from the original records are the band running samples of at their live shows? Some pointed out Good Vibrations based on a few video appearances where they played it live, are there others?

An even simpler alternative, if Mike was inclined to include video footage on a USB drive, would be to just put some footage from his live show on it. Even just take one of those lazy Noven Jaisi clip job compilations and set Mike's re-recording to that.

Or he could have even shot video of the recording session for the re-recording and used b-roll footage from that.

BRI should be concerned about how original BB footage, the BB name and trademark, vis-à-vis Mike's tour and solo recordings are being billed and marketed.

That concern would possibly be shared by both BRI and Capitol. The muddying of the waters between what is a Beach Boys recording versus a Mike Love recording wouldn't seem to do much for promoting the legacy of the original recordings, that legacy being a topic that came up even in the interviews with Jim Hirsch. There has to be a standard moving forward.

Surprised Mike missed the opportunity to market it as Surfin' USB.

 :lol

I would guess a fair amount of VIP package buyers never even do anything with the USB, especially if it has some other function (bookmark, etc.).

Who still sticks a USB into a computer to extract a video file?

The whole thing seems very late 90s, when audio CD's were "enhanced" with little pixelated Quicktime videos you had to extract via computer.

You'd think they'd just cut the manufacturing cost out and just e-mail people audio or video exclusives.

Winner! 

In all seriousness, I think if the shoe was on the other foot MIke would be all over this claiming the brand is being weakened. He went after Alan and Brian for seemingly less. I don't think Brian and Al want the fight at this stage of the game.  Capitol on the other hand might.

November 7th can now stand as the day when you won the internet with that post.  :lol

:D

Just listened to it, ugh. There's no reason to do that, Love. :wall
By the way, I'm 99% sure that the intro is a the original recording, but half-step higher and with some frequency filtering on it. If you listen carefully, you can hear a quiet thump in the background, on the last beat of the first measure in both the original and Love's rerecording. There's also some conversation in the background, something that is not very likely to be caught in modern recordings. The characteristic hiss in the intro also stops once Love's vocals come in.

https://vimeo.com/189864245

I'm honored :) Mike really should use that slogan!