The Smiley Smile Message Board

OK - so maybe it IS a daft question ... but how in the h**l do you actually get INTO the damn thing ! Don't wanna force it - or peel off any labels - but where IS the entry point  ??? ??? ???

Addition - OK, so with the wife's cunning guile I found my way into it (carefully lift off the top flap!) but was it worth the effort ? Opinions ?? Personally, the so-called picture book was a major disappointment and, as much as a Volume 2 may sound more interesting, I can't see sales driving a 1965-1969 edition ...
Onto the shelf it goes to gather dust ...

That pretty sums up how I feel about the box set and why I would never buy it. The fancy box looks nice though

I've got mine - yes, I experienced the same conundrum of how to open the damn thing. I'm really happy with it though, I'm pretty surprised at the amount of criticism the set has received here.

It's a specialty item, for collectors with bucks to spare only. I like it.

I Count myself as a collector, but this is way out of my spending range. Too much packaging, too much repackaging, not enough new content to make it worth the bucks. Sorry, quids.

Plus they used the LP mix of California Girls! That kind of ruins the whole idea of a SINGLES box set, doncha think? That being said, I like the box set. I think the little picture sleeves with the mini 45s look really nice! Also, buying this set relieves some of the guilt I feel for selling all of my Beach Boys picture sleeves a few years back.  ;D

Wait a tick: Is the LP mix of California Girls, as you call it, really a different MIX than the 45?  A top-to-bottom remix?  Or is it just a not-as-blistering mastering job as you would hear on a mint-condition 45?  I'm just going by the comparison with the single version in the "Good Vibrations" box set with the "Summer Days" HDCD two-fer.  Allowing for the HDCD they sound the same to me.  Now it was common practice in the 50s and 60s to cut 45 master disc "mothers" at a much hotter level than the original source master tape of the same song, which is why the LP versions may seem a little "flat" at first listen.   

Maybe Mark or Josh can elucidate.

I have so many duplicates of all this stuff (LPs, 45s, reissues, box sets) that I can't justify buying this new one, esp. with the new POB reissue and Brian's TLOS in the offing.  But feel free if you like this sort of thing, or don't have to contend with a house groaning under the weight of all that vinyl like I do.

It's a competely different, and many would argue inferior, mix. Not even used on the 'Good Vibrations' box (for whatever reason). It's surprisingly hard to find on cd. The 1999 'Greatest Hits, Vol.1' is one of the very few (and, by far, easiest) places it can be found...

I personally don't prefer it either, but if you're going to call something the US Singles Collection, you should use the single mix, regardless of whether it's the best version.

Got mine today at a quite interesting price (less than $80, shipping included). The picture book is disappointing, there are no liner notes, but you have to admit it'll look GREAT on the shelf.  ;D

...And I never knew there was a "45" mix of California Girls. I had always assumed the LP and the 45 had the same mix.  ???

Was the 45 mix on Made In The USA

No.  It's on the Japanese mono singles box and on the 99 Greatest Hits Vol. 1, but not the 95 or so Greatest Hits (with no Vol. number on it).

First I've heard of a dedicated 45 mix of "CG"... and having A/B'd the two 'versions' referred to below (GH 95/GH 99), I detect absolutely no difference in the mix. Care to list the differences for us ? All I hear is a different mastering job and a longer fade on the 99 release. Now, interestingly, on the new box, the mono mix is the same length as the 95 GH, while the stereo mix is the same length as the 99 release. So I'm thinking maybe the 99 GH track is a fold-down of the stereo mix from Endless Harmony.

AGD, I don't know if you've been there before, but head on over to stevehoffman.tv, where there has been some discussion of the different mixes. It's a really intelligent bunch of folks over there. I believe Steve Hoffman himself (who mastered the DCC discs which are still the best sounding Beach Boys CD's in existence) has mentioned that the two different mono mixes of "California Girls" are indeed different mixes, not just different fades. Admittedly, the actual mix differences sound to be very, very slight compared to the hugely noticeable difference of the longer fade. Of course, even if it was just the fade that was different, that still means that the longer fade as heard on the original 45 should have been included on the new singles set. They managed to include the mono single mix of "Fun Fun Fun" instead of the mono album mix (heard on "Made in USA" among others) on the new singles set, and they got the original mono single mix of "CG" on the '99 Greatest Hits CD, so it is surprising that it didn't make it on the new set.

As for the '99 Greatest Hits CD, Andrew Sandoval mastered that and I don't think there's any way he would have ever just added a fold-down of a stereo mix to substitute for a mono mix. I can't imagine any engineer or mastering engineer doing that, and Sandoval does excellent work, so I don't think he'd ever do that in a million years. That's the original single mono mix, as can also be heard on the now apparently pricey and obscure Japanese singles collection. Apparently besides those two CD sources, the only way to hear it from what I can tell is to find an original 45.

Know of those discussions, and respect Hoffman's views and expertise - my point is that according to mjd180 "It's a competely different, and many would argue inferior, mix". And it isn't "completely different" by any criteria. I can hear more difference in the LP/45 mixes of "Never Learn Not to Love".

Gotcha. I would tend to agree with you that the mixes don't sound particularly different; it seems to take some rather sharp ears to hear noticeable differences (again, apart from the fade which in and of itself is not even noticeable because of the actual mix/balance of instruments of course). I suppose it all depends on a person's ears to determine whether they feel it's a "completely different" mix. I believe those who hear significant differences tend to prefer the album mono mix's overall sound. I believe even Hoffman used the album mono mix of his excellent DCC disc of "Endless Summer." Nevertheless, it certainly would have been preferable to have that mix on the new singles set. The idea presumably wouldn't be to use the "best" mixes, even if somehow we could all agree on what the best mix is, but rather to use the mixes that would have been heard on the original 45's, especially considering the whole context of this new boxed set with picture sleeve reproductions and label reproductions and whatnot.

Keep in mind the context in which I made that quote. It was a direct response to someone who doubted it anything more than a difference in mastering...

That someone was me, and from what AGD says from his comparison, it sounds like a difference in mastering!

...which is not trivial.  Some mastering jobs can greatly alter the sound of the original mixdown tape - sometimes for the worse!  So you may be right about the inferiority of the 45.   Remember the mastering differences in the British Beatles LPs vs. the US Capitol pressings, with the Capitol's added brightness, compression, and sometimes reverb - so different as to warrant their own CD reissue box sets?

But now you've set me a homework assignment.  There's a used 45 dealer at the flea market down the road, guess I'll have to pay a visit, hope to find a not-too-beat-up copy of CG, and see what the fuss is all about.

On a related topic, who did the mastering for all the BB stuff in the Sixties? As Dr Tim says, mastering (the so-called 'dark art') can utterly change the overall sound of a song (I've often wondered about the 'boxey' sound of some mid-period Beatles and wondered why this wasn't corrected at the mastering stage, but I guess tastes were different 40 years ago).

Any ideas? In all the books on BW's fab production skills the mastering is virtually never mentioned, which I find strange. Maybe they weren't mastered at all? Some of them certainly sound that way (Wild Honey and Smiley Smile, for instance, as discussed in the WH thread started by Baker Man).

You're joking. Right?


It may surprise you to learn that "Steve Hoffman himself" is neither infallible nor an always-reliable source of factual information.

I always assumed it's the 45 mix on the boxset, because the fade out is a bit shorter than on Summer Days.

My definition of "a completely different mix": "California Saga: California" LP mix v. "California Saga; California" 45 mix. That is, differences you can actually hear (Brian's response vocals. the horns) without having them pointed out. Context in this instance is irrelevant: fact is, it's not a completely different mix. Exactly the same audio elements are there in both versions.

Fred Vail recalls Brian inviting him to the mastering of Pet Sounds and there being just the three of them in the studio - Brian, Fred & 'the mastering guy', who took his cues from Brian.

Thanks Andrew.

Sounds like mastering wasn't much of a priority for BW. If you read about the Beatles recordings of the same era in Geoff 'the 6th Beatle' Emerick's book for example, or George Martin's, mastering is treated as a pretty major part of the operation. I'm surprised that with all the wealth of information on BW and his work published over the years (and I think I've read the bulk of it...) the process of mastering doesn't really come up.

BJ

If you listen really closely, you can hear that the level of the keyboards is softer and the vocals are louder on the LP mix. The organ attack is more prominent and the bells are more present on the 45 mix. It's almost like the LP mix showcases the vocals more while the 45 mix has everything crammed together at equal volumes. That's what I hear anyway. After listening again, I can't decide now which one I like better. I think the 45 mix actually "gels" a little better.  ;D

Um, no. I don't agree with everybody on that message board, and I tend to feel some of them pay too much attention to very minute sonic differences that probably would not be able to be discerned at all under a double-blind test. But there are a ton of very knowledgable folks both in terms of specific bands and artists and the whole area of sound reproduction, recording, mixing, mastering, etc. Most of the people I converse with and read posts from on that board tend to be part of general discussions about music and artists rather than the nit-picky audiophile-type discussions that take place there.


Well, I didn't speak to anything other than what Hoffman said about the two different mixes of "California Girls." He's right about that, and while I certainly can't speak to every statement he has ever made, he seems to me to be a reliable and knowledgable source of information. In the case of the Beach Boys, he has actually handled and listened to the master tapes in question (not that that is even a requirement to tell the difference between two mixes of the same song). As far as I can tell, he is also one of the most well-respected mastering engineers around, and his work on the DCC catalog is almost always cited even to this day as the best sounding version of the individual titles he worked on by fans and "audiophiles" alike. His DCC discs of "Endless Summer", "Spirit of America", and "Pet Sounds" are the best-sounding versions of those songs/mixes available, and every other DCC CD that I own is the definitive version of those albums. I'm not a Hoffman aficianado or anything, I just think his mastering work speaks for itself, and most everything I've read that he has commented on has been accurate and informative.

You might want to check with Linnett about some of that.

He has stated (here, I believe), that Steve's info about Pet Sounds is mistaken at best, self-serving at worst.

I'm also not aware of a separate 45 mix of CG.  I've only seen record of the 45 master separate from the album reel in Alan's documentation.  But he'd be the final word on this, obviously.

Mastering is really a pretty powerful thing and differences in mastering can sound like completely different mixes, masking sounds that are apparent on another master, bringing sounds out, making instrument balances seem different.

I think some of the types who pick apart such things do hear differences in the two mono mixes. Nevertheless, as I've also alluded to in previous posts, even if the two mixes were the exact same mixes and the album mix simply chose to fade it much earlier, that means there is a mono 45 master or some sort of source out there somewhere (same or different mix) with that longer fade, as it's been used on a few other CD releases. So that seems like what should have been used on the new set, because it appears it was that longer fade that appeared on the original 45. The fact that that longer fade recording was used on a 1999 mastering suggests the tape is out there available to be used, and I can only hopefully assume that the versions we're hearing with shorter fades were not simply using that longer fade tape and fading it out artificially or anything.

I don't want to lead the thread into any sort of Hoffman-themed debate here since it would get pretty far off topic of this thread, but he has apparently indicated that the mixes are different, and he would understand as well as anybody and probably more than most what the difference is between what mastering will do to the sound of a recording versus an actual mix difference. As I said, in many cases he has listened to, handled, and worked with the actual tapes in question. He would be the last person in the world to just assume a mix is different because the fade is different or assume for any other reason.

The singles masters held by EMI are generally stored on compiled reels called "phono reels."  In many cases, when a single was later included on an album, that master would have been pulled from the phono reel to the master album reel, and replaced by a "dub" copy (and this is usually indicated on the documentation found with the phono reel).   The original mix tapes are flat, unmastered, and often will have a long fade.  The phono reel logs generally have fairly precise mastering and EQ notes indicating how the sound, the speed, the fade, etc was to be adjusted during mastering.  The album reels will also have their own mastering notes and instructions, but they're often quite different because they were handled by different technicians.

One thing to remember - back then, Brian mixed, and presumably mastered, his singles to sound as good as possible on a car/transistor radio.

Great, interesting info. In this case, it sounds like under this scenario, it would seem even more likely that the single and album mono mixes of "CG" are indeed different mixes that were not substituted for each other. If the version included on the original single (with the longer fade out) had been taken out and spliced into the album reel, then the album would have had the longer fade just like the single. The fact that the album has the shorter fade would mean either that the album used a completely different mix/source, or they would have had to dub a copy of the single version onto another tape for the album and in the process fade the track out earlier (assuming, as I mentioned before, that none of the "short fade" versions we hear on CD have been artificially faded for those specific CD appearances). In other words, if the album has a shorter fade than the single, then there's no way that the exact same physical tape that had been used for the single could have been added to the album master. The album has to have a different mix, and/or different tape, and/or at least a different dub in order to acheive a different fade.

As mentioned before, the fact that the longer fade version has been included on at least two CD's (the Japan singles collection, and the '99 version of the "Greatest Hits Vol. 1" CD) seems to indicate that that longer faded version (different mix or not) exists in some form somewhere, and exists on some tape other than the album master. The two cases where this longer fade version was used were both cases in which the compilers would have been specifically looking for the "single" version, which would seem to make it likely that the tape was found on some sort of source that indicates it is the "single" version.

I took the opposite from Alan's statement.  Can you lay it out explicitly for us, Alan?

 
That's not entirely true; I assume any fade decisions could be finalized at the mastering stage.  As Alan said, the phono reels tended to have long fades, and then the mastering engineer could presumably set the final fade length doing the tape-to-disc transfer on the lathe.  And therefore it's entirely possible that one of the "master fades" of CG exists only on disc, and not on tape.

I think I'm following what you're describing. I'm just looking at the end resulting material we have. We have the original 45 with the long fade, and two versions issued on CD with the long fade. So anything on the tapes used to cut the 45 or to master the track for those two CD appearances would have to be at least that long. In other words, if something exists "only on disc" and not on the tape, what is on the tape can't have a shorter fade than what is on the disc. So whatever tape was used to master to the original 45 single release had to be at least that long, or longer. So if that fade only exists on the original 45, the tape used to cut that 45 should be as long or longer, thus allowing a later appearance of the track from the same tape source to have that same fade (as heard on the two older aforementioned CD releases).

So I'm just looking at what appeared on the 45, and thinking that whatever that is or wherever it came from, it still seems to exist and could have/should have been used on the new US Singles set. It apparently was not, as the version we have on that set has a shorter fade as heard on the album.

We apparently have a longer mono version appearing on the original 45 single, and a shorter mono version appearing on the original vinyl album. In the CD era, we have appearances of both of these "versions", suggesting either two (or more) different tape sources are being used for these different CD releases, or the same source is being used and the versions with shorter fades are being faded out in the process of mastering those particular CD releases. Either way, I'm thinking the idea is for a US Singles collection to use the same "version", the same mix and fade as heard on the original single, and for whatever reason that has not happened. Whether it happened because the album master was used, or some other tape was used, or they simply took the same single master and for some reason manually faded it out earlier to match the album fade, I of course do not know. In most cases on these latter-day CD releases, I don't think any new fading is being done; they seem to transfer and master the source and maintain whatever fade is present (which I suppose in some cases could be detected if we hear the song fade but the level of tape hiss remain the same, etc.).

Honestly, I really enjoy discussing this sort of stuff. All of the mechanics of how these tapes were physically put together and exist are really interesting. :)

I don't suppose it counts, as its a new mix,  but I've just listened to about six different versions of Cal Girls and they vary quite alot, and the longest by some way is the version on Endless Harmony, which captures more of the great fills in the fade.

Not much info in the sleeve notes as to who was responsible for mix/mastering though...

The two different mixes on two different versions of the "Endless Harmony Soundtrack" are stereo remixes, so those are a whole different item altogether, as those were done by going back to the multitrack elements and remixing. The fades on those were definitely newly-performed for the purposes of those remixes, as they would be working from the raw, multitrack tapes that have no ending other than the cold endings that exist on the original takes. It would up to whoever is mixing to decide how to do those fades, and as far as my personal taste in concerned, they can make those fades as long as they want so we can hear as much of the take as possible. I would imagine every case of remixing is different. Some may string it out as long as they can before the take breaks down before fading, some will try to replicate the fade from a vintage mix, and in some cases I've heard remixes of vintage tracks where they actually don't fade it and just give us the cold ending. All of those variations are interesting and valid for different reasons.

The issue with the longer fade on some mono mixes/masterings of "CG" is not whether I think any fade is better than another, or whether any mix is better than another, but simply that that longer fade was apparently on the original single and seems like it could have been on the new set to replicate that original single. The fact that it may well be a slightly alternate mix seperate from the issue of the fade is only another reason why it would make sense to have that version on the set as well.

I'm a fan of Mark's stereo mixes and mean absolutely no disrespect to the man with my upcoming question/comment. He always does a nice job with the stereo remixes and I listen to his  mixes more than the old monos these days. BUT....it seems to me that whenever he remixes a track from the "Today" album it tends to sound....odd. I'm not sure what my beef is. Something about it sounds tinny or  thin. "Kiss Me Baby" is an exception. Whether it's "Dance DAnce Dance" from HAwthorne or "She Knows ME TOo Well" and "Grow Up" on this new set, they never sound quite as good as other remixes. I don't hold Mark responsible for this, for I suspect there is something wrong with the Today album.

Were there flaws in the original recording of "Today"? I mean, look at those new cuts remixed from Summer DAys that showed up on the Warmth of the Sun comp. Awesome sound. Just perfect. Heck, even the remixes from Wild Honey and Smiley sound heavenly. The man has the golden touch. But not 'Today' for me. What causes the discrepancy? Is it just me?

Realizing I might well be opening a whole new can of worms here, speaking as a modern-day professional engineer, I'm often sent untrimmed, completely unfaded master mixes to master for release. It's one of my jobs to "build in" the fade on the final production master, usually to the producer's specification. (I believe this practice started in the 1970s when parts of the industry embraced DBX noise reduction. DBX tends not to handle some fades, particularly those featuring dynamic percussion, that competently.)

While the recordings in question pre-date DBX by some years, could it be that some Beach Boys mixes exist without fades on their mixdown reels, with fade instructions in the paperwork? Just a thought.

P.S. Hello. It's nice to be around after several years of intermittent lurking!

I think we need Mark to chime in on this to find out why the single version doesn't appear on the new box set. So far, that's the only mistake I've come across.

Hi lupinofan!

At the very least, we know the mono master of 'Good Vibrations' has a much longer fade than what was pressed on 45. Steve Hoffman actually sought out B.Wilson's permission to extend the outro by an extra 10 seconds (Hoffman assuming that the GV fade was part of the song's "artistic statement...this appeared for the first time ever on the DCC 'Endless Summer'). Hoffman has relayed that Brian told him it was OK with him, because that fade (along with most/all of the BB single fades) was an arbitrary decision by executives at Capitol to appease radio programmers with concerns about play length.

In other words, Brian didn't care/have/want control over when his great singles faded. Which makes sense since, for no apparent reason, we've been getting the "shaft" on Hal Blaine's drum work on the end of CG for years. Despite the original 45 having at least an extra 5 seconds, all that ever seems to be issued is the almost too quick LP fade. Including on this new singles box...

It appears that the mono LP mix of "Don't Worry Baby" was also used on the new box set. The single mix has a more blended vocal and a longer completely different fade. I'd love to know what's going on here. They should have called it The US Singles Collection (and album mixes where we couldn't be bothered to use the correct mix) 1962-1965.

That would be too long a title.  :lol

I still don't believe that there are different mixes, since there's no documentation to back that up as far as what's in the vault (at my disposal, at least.)  I think that you probably just have really good, perceptive ears and are able to hear mastering differences, which can be shocking.  A fade is a fade, and may or may not have anything to do with a mix.

But if there were separate 45 mixes for the songs in question, EMI just made a mistake, which they've done before--including wrong versions of songs on a few different releases.  Despite having experts to call on for guidance.

Hello Josh,

did you listen to the different versions and conclude that they sound like the same mix (with mastering differences), or do you solely rely on documentation?

Is there any documentation about the known dedicated mono single mixes (e.g. Fun Fun Fun, Friends, Never Learn Not To Love, possibly Cotton Fields)?

The "Cotton Fields" single isn't a different mix, it's a completely different recording.

Consider this - why would Brian decided to (almost imperceptably) remix one track on an LP when he could just strip the single master into the tape ?  "CG" was recorded during the album sessions, released a week after the LP. I know this is The Beach Boys we're talking about here, but even so, makes no sense.

Hello AGD,

 I was referring to the version produced by Alan Jardine, recorded August 1969. So was Cotton Fields a dedicated single mix or not? Stephen Desper has argued that it was merely a fold-down of the (never released) stereo mix, but I don't know if that is true. I wonder if there is documentation.

In the case of "Fun Fun Fun", we have exactly what you say makes not sense: A mono single mix and a mono LP mix (in addition to the stereo LP mix). Or do you doubt that these are different?

Best of my knowledge, there never was a stereo mix - otherwise why did one have to be done for the Hawthorne CA compilation ? Plus the preceding three 45s were issued in stereo. I'm guessing Alan mixed it to mono.


Have to admit, the vocals on the 45 are more prominent than the LP cut, but I'd hesitate to call it a different mix. I'd need to know more about the technicalities of mastering to pontificate on that.  :-D

The indication is the instrumental break: The single mix has the organ prominently, while the mono LP mix has the guitar in the foreground. You can't have this effect merely by mastering. Both mono mixes were done independantly from the three track tape.

I thought the Fun, Fun, Fun single had a longer fadeout.

Yes the album version fades out incredibly early compared to the single one.

No, the difference is merely one second. The mono LP mix is 2:16 long, the single mix 2:17.

You are probably confusing this with the stereo LP mix which fades out several seconds earlier.

I suppose that it's possible that Brian (or someone else) took the single mix and copied it to another reel while shortening the fade. To me, it seems likely that there is a "single" version and an "LP" version in the vaults. The Japanese singles box set and Greatest Hits Vol. 1 both have the 2:47 version, which is the version that was originally released on 45. The version on the US Singles Collection is identical to the version on Summer Days (and Summer Nights), so regardless of whether the mix is different or not ( I think it is), technically there is a single version and an LP version.

Well from what Alan Boyd reports and the discussion here it sounds like the most likely scenario was CG was mastered and faded for 45 at the longer length, but when the copy of the original mix tape was made and the song inserted into the LP master reel,  it was re-EQ'd and faded somewhat more quickly.  That stuff happens.  I guess the EQs and fades to the tracks on the LP tape reels were set and then applied on the fly while the mother disc for each side was being cut?  Is that your understanding Josh and Alan?

Another good example of this (besides the bazillion Beatles record anomalies chronicled elsewhere in the world and the stereo vs. mono arguments on everything 60s-related)  is the recent reissue of Cream's "Disraeli Gears" with mono and stereo mixes.  For some reason the mono mixes are a couple of seconds longer.

Can you please give a link to where Alan Boyd discusses this?

Hope you don't mind if I change the topic just for a moment, but does anyone else like to hear the whole '65 Chicago (iirc) concert from which "409" and "Shut down" are now available? A complete '65-concert with Brian... would be a great release and probably even sell some units

Andreas:  Alan Boyd's report is reply # 29 in this thread, here is the quote:

"The singles masters held by EMI are generally stored on compiled reels called "phono reels."  In many cases, when a single was later included on an album, that master would have been pulled from the phono reel to the master album reel, and replaced by a "dub" copy (and this is usually indicated on the documentation found with the phono reel).   The original mix tapes are flat, unmastered, and often will have a long fade.  The phono reel logs generally have fairly precise mastering and EQ notes indicating how the sound, the speed, the fade, etc was to be adjusted during mastering.  The album reels will also have their own mastering notes and instructions, but they're often quite different because they were handled by different technicians."

Dude. Just make your own thread. This has nothing to do with what we're discussing...

Shows how much you know. 409 live in Chicago is on the first disc in this collection.

Shows how much you know - there's no live version of "Shut Down" on the whole set, nor was it ever the B side of "Surfin' Safari".

Try "409".

You know, I should've double-checked. I kept on going back and forth between 409 and Shut Down, trying to remember which one was in the set... it makes so much sense now...  :-X

No matter what mix is used it is still the SAME SONG! So why not use the best sounding mix available, be it the stereo mix from Sounds of Summer or another mix, instead of a muddy, crappy-sounding mono mix from the 60s?

I got a hold of the 1999 "Greatest Hits Vol 1" CD the other day.

"California Girls" on that compilation clocks in at 2:38, one second more than the track on the singles set.  It's the same mix, mastered a little differently.  The fade is almost identical.

But the whole idea of the US Singles Collection was to give us the US single versions, not the best sounding mixes available! ???

Aside from the packaging angle, the whole point of a "US Singles Collection" (as opposed to just a general compilation like "Sounds of Summer") is to present the original single mixes, regardless of whether some feel they are "crappy sounding" or "muddy" or whatever. The point is not to just use the "best sounding mix available" (even assuming we could all agree which mix is the "best sounding", which of course we surely all cannot).

In any event, this new set features both mono and stereo mixes where applicable and possible. So if one is inclined to prefer the vintage stereo mixes or latter-day stereo remixes, those are there on the set as well.

Do we have a definitive timing on the version included on the old Japanese singles collection, as well as a timing on the original mono vinyl 45? Comparing the version on the Japanese singles collection with the version on the new US Singles Collection, I would say that, conservatively, the version on the Japanese singles collections runs 6 or 7 seconds longer. I've read comments from folks who say that the Japanese singles collection matches what is heard on the original US vinyl 45, but I don't have one at my disposal right now to compare.

For whatever reason, somebody on another board says their copy of the 1999 Greatest Hits Vol. 1 has the longer fade, with "California Girls" running 2:45. Is it possible some 1995 masterings of GH1 were used in 1999 pressings or packagings or something? I don't have all of the different copies at my disposal (and certainly not alternate pressings if they exist!) to compare right now.

Hmmm...

My copy of the 1999 Greatest Hits Vol. 1 CD has "California Girls" clocking in at 2:45, with the music actually fading completely out at 2:43.

My copy of the 1995 20 Good Vibrations: The Greatest Hits CD has "California Girls" clocking in at 2:38, with the music fading out at 2:35.

Alan, is it possible that you got hold of the wrong issue of the set?  The easiest way to tell the difference is by the last four songs.  The 1999 CD ends with: Wouldn't It Be Nice/God Only Knows/Good Vibrations/Kokomo.  The 1995 CD ends with: 409/God Only Knows/Catch a Wave/Kokomo.

"California Girls" on the 3-CD Japanese Single Collection clocks in at 2:48, with the music fading out at 2:44 -- identical (for all practical purposes) to the version on the 1999 Greatest Hits Vol. 1 CD.

Unfortunately, the audio system to which my turntable is attached is out of commission at the moment (a blown amplifier), so I can't give you a timing on the original 45.

I must have gotten the earlier one, then...

If nothing else, this should illuminate the difficulty of figuring out what the "correct" version of a recording is for people that put out archival recordings.

I know what you mean, but on the other hand it could be simple in this case. I mean, if they got the longer version on "Greatest Hits Vol. 1" in 1999, then it presumably is not some sort of obscure tape hiding away somewhere. I suppose the easiest way to at least get some information would be to just find an original stock mono 45 single. Even if the debatable mix difference is set aside, one could at least check the length on it (the length it actually plays at as opposed to what is listed on the label, since those two things could at least conceivably be different).

For what it's worth, while I don't have an original 45 single at my disposal (I think I might have it packed away somewhere among a bunch of thrashed old Capitol swirl 45's I inherited at some point), I checked around on Ebay and the like and found what appears to be an original 45, and the picture of it shows the same running time as what is reproduced on the "US Singles Collection" CD label, 2:37. But I suppose an original 45 would have to be played to check what it actually runs to and at what point it fades out, and what the possible mix difference might be.

I'll dig out my 45 and time it at some point.

The length on the actual single could be shorter than the length on the single master.

One case that always surprises me is the song Good Vibrations which lasts a couple of seconds longer on the DCC Endless Summer CD than anywhere else (3:42 instead of 3:35). According to Steve Hoffman, he used the single master. What version is used on the US singles box-set?

If the song lasts 3.42, then it's self-evidently NOT the single master as released in 1966. Brian would have mixed the multi-tracks down to a mono master, but the fade is done during the actual mastering process, as I understand. For example, the version of (I think) "Surfin' Safari" on the box set is the 45 master, but it's not faded out.

I think there is some confusion of terminology. The single master is the product of the mono mixdown. What was released was the single, which was presumably faded during the mastering process. However, why are all other CD releases 3:35 long if they use the same master? Because the fade of the single was simulated?

FWIW, I just timed the 45 single that I have of California Girls. It's the 5464 and it does list 2:37 as the running time, but it clocked in at 2:42 when I timed it. It was played on a fairly recent turntable so the speed at which it was played isn't a problem.

Hope this helps.

It can sometimes get a bit confusing just timing the stuff out, due to speed variances in some cases when playing vinyl, but also just each person's idea of when the song is over in terms of fade and whatnot. It sounds like the vinyl 45 indeed features a longer fade out. Can you compare when the song completely fades out on the "US Singles Collection" to when it completely fades out on the 45? The longer fade-out I've heard from the Japanese singles collection carries on longer, well past that noticeable drum fill/riff that is barely heard before the shorter version fades out. That's the easiest way just by ear without a stopwatch to tell whether one is listening to the shorter or longer fade.

But the final mixes/masters for songs, whether they are on a master pertaining to singles or albums, usually don't all have completely cold endings as far as I know of. Tracks may well sometimes be faded a bit earlier than what is on the master mix/tape as they are mastered (compare the vinyl "LA (Light Album)" or the Caribou/CBS CD to the 2000 Capitol two-fer for instance to hear longer fadeouts on the 2000 CD that were actually on the album master; but note that they still were faded), but this isn't always left completely up to the person mastering the material. The person doing the mix usually wants to fade it when they choose. They don't do a mix without any fade and just leave a cold, often break-down ending and just let the person mastering it decide when the song should be faded.

There is a bunch of info about the work on the DCC "Endless Summer" and the other Beach Boys DCC material over on the Steve Hoffman message board. There apparently was no criteria on the "Endless Summer" set in terms of preserving the original single versions or anything else. They just chose what they felt were the best versions/mixes (i.e. using the single versions of "Be True To Your School" and "Help Me Rhonda" as opposed to what the original album used), so in the case of "Good Vibrations", I believe they found that the fade on the original tape was longer (but note that it's still faded; I don't think that final mix/master has a cold ending or anything) and used it just to provide fans with a longer version. Note that even though Hoffman has mentioned that the mono single version of "California Girls" is a different mix than the mono album version, he still used the (shorter) mono album version on the DCC disc, presumably because he felt it was the preferable one to use.

On the US Singles Collection box set, California Girls fades out right after that "triplet" drum fill (at 2:35), and on the Japanese box set, it fades out at 2:44. An easy way to explain it is that on the "LP" version, there are 6 "rounds" (I wish they all could be California Girls) at the end, and on the "single" version there are 8 "rounds" at the end.

Hoffman was preparing an expensive "audiophile" release and so was choosing the tapes that sounded the best - as you say no attempt at accuracy in duplicating the original vinyl release or choosing single vs. LP masters was made.

If there's a longer fade on the master and all (except for Steve's) releases of Good Vibrations have the same fade, either the mastering notes clearly state where the fade is to fall, and all engineers have followed that information, OR possibly a dub of the single master was made with the fade in place and that's been used for subsequent releases.  There are sometimes "LP masters" which are already mastered to specification for transfer to vinyl with EQ, fades, etc., that are one generation down from the master tape.  Perhaps there is a similar "single master dub" for Good Vibrations.

The abrupt fade on GV no doubt originated with concerns that the song was too long already, and shaving whatever they could off the fade could only help with shortening it to make it more radio friendly.  But the DCC version with the gradual fade fits the song and likely was Brian's choice for the fade.

Okay, let's get the mystery of the "long" GV master resolved once and for all.  This is from e-mail correspondence I had with Steve Hoffman almost eight years ago:

I asked him: "How did you get away with that longer 'GV' on ENDLESS SUMMER?"

He responded: "Regarding 'Good Vibrations', I made an edit using one of the BB's CD's that had the instrumental tracks from G.V.  I just spliced on the longer fadeout. I always thought that the thing faded out too soon.  Just my little jolly....."

Mystery solved.

Very interesting. I will have to check if the ending synchs with the instrumental track on the GV box set.

Indeed... and not Brian's fade after all.

Talk about playing God! ;D

That sounds so UNLIKE Steve, the "purist."  But that does explain it, and why every other version is the single/short fade version.

On the other hand, Steve remixed the song All Summer Long.

Huh ?  Thought that was Mark ?

Steve remixed it for the DCC Endless summer CD.

I've always assumed that boxy Beatles sound was mainly because of Ringo putting towles over his drums. That'll do it!

I thought Chuck Britz, then Jim Lockhart (with Smiley Smile and Wild Honey) and Stephen Desper did the mastering in the 60's.  In terms of the master mix down tapes.  Presumably Capitol staff engineers mastered (Eq'd and compressed) the vinyl from the master tapes.

Nope - mastering is a separate discipline. Those guys were studio engineers, not mastering engineers. I don't know who mastered Pet Sounds but Fred Vail would have said if it was Chuck... and he didn't.

Well, it's kind of a vague distinction...  Technically, "mastering" is short for "pre-mastering."  The Master is of course the sire whence all copies of a commercial record come.  So physically, mastering is the process of creating that final master.

"Mastering" in the artistic rather than the physical sense, that is pre-mastering, is just the art of producing to "tape" what the artist wants the public to hear.  So from that, the discipline has changed since Brian's day.  A mastering engineer at Capitol in 1966 would have been closer to a lab technician than an audiophile, and his duties more practical.  Getting the right EQ curve and volume so the stylus didn't jump &c. would have been the concerns, whereas now mastering engineers will do radical, artistic EQ, (rather than eq choices based on technical limitations of playback technology) multi-band compression, limiting, stereo-widening, etc, etc.

So in some ways, Chuck, Jimmy, Steve, et al were doing some things that might fall under the mastering umbrella today.  There are still guys out there like Dave Fridmann who records, mixes, and masters all in his own studio.

But more normal is for there to be separate recording/mixing and mastering engineers, if not three separate engineers for a whole project.  There are guys who do nothing but mastering like Vlado Meller, Brian Gardner, Bernie Grundman, Alan Douches, John Vestman, etc, etc, etc.

So then does anyone know who were the mastering engineers at Capitol in the 60's?

So, what's the consensus on this box set?  Everybody get it?  Some people, no people?  Stupid marketing afterthought?

To me -- and this is just my practical side speaking -- it would have made more sense to fit all these onto 3 or 4 CDs.  Include, not a stupid picture book of crap we've all seen before with annoying, just out of college, graphic designer fuss -- but rather a hefty book with full size, full color scans - front and back of the 45 artwork.  Also all the details and essays on the music -- including how things charted or didn't, the musicians used, and photos of the damn sessions.

That should have been priced sub-$50.  This thing, north of 100 clams, can't be selling.

It agree it is prohibitively expensive.  I can't really complain since I don't do anything to earn money, but something 75-99.99 would have been a little "better."

Still, if I had any money at all, it would go toward this.  I don't really care about the format or anything.  Sure, I'd sacrifice my life for better "un-seener" photos in the booklet, but at this point I've stopped being a Beach Boys fan and am just a junkie.  I need a fix at whatever cost, and without new stuff, I tend to lay about in a delirious, crazed state, mostly in dark rooms.  If nothing else, it would be nice to have my lifeblood, the new remixes, in the CD quality format rather than lossy mp3.

 :lol

Me too!  I'm a pathetic, soulless, steal-from-my-own-mama, junkie.  I guess I wouldn't be axing about the box, that I clearly understand is raping us shameless junkies, if I didn't need a fix too.  And damn it if it ain't still July.  I'm at my weakest in July for this nonsense.

Damn.

 :afro