I don't recall any alternate versions with Al singing the lead. There is an alternate mix or two, which are essentially "underdub" mixes with some stuff missing. But I think it's Mike singing those verse leads on all the versions; sounds like the same vocal take if I'm recalling correctly. But it has been awhile since I listened.

There's other stuff from that era with alternate Al leads, like "Love is a Woman"

Hi HJ! Jump to 7:11 for the alternate version of Roller Skating Child:

https://youtu.be/5E7y_TRkX1M?si=vzNf29P2bSe7NkJ6

There are bits of phrasing at the end of the vocal lines on verse 1 that are clearly Al Jardine to my ears.

Yet much of the rest of the Mike-esque verse vocal phrasings on this alternate version sound almost exactly like they do on the released version - which is what is tripping me out.

I don't think any of the vocal takes are the same between versions, but much of the early version vocals sound very very similarly sung between both versions, where it makes me think it's the same person singing both versions of the song.

The final version cut out some undeniably Al-esque verse vocalizings that were on the earlier version. Listen to both versions back to back and see what you think?

I'm having a similar whoah type of reaction that I did when I found out that Brian sang those high falsetto lead parts in Good Vibrations where Brian's vocals were spliced into the middle of Carl's lead. I'm pretty sure it was many decades before people really realized that. Or the few lead vocal parts in I Just Wasn't Made For These Times that are believed to be remnants of Dennis' voice.

I'm wondering if we might have a similar situation here with Mike/Al or if it's just my imagination.

Yeah, that compilation is made up from that "Brother Proposed Bonus Tracks" comp that leaked however many years ago. "Roller Skating Child" does indeed have a different vocal take (I had remembered it just being a sort of "underdub" mix, which it also is, but it is a different vocal take on that lead), but that's all definitely Mike as far as I can tell just as it is on the finished mix.

Cool stuff, although that's a very weird mix of "Roller Skating Child", it's like they couldn't decide whether to do a stripped-down mix or a mix with just a few things isolated, so it's a weird half-measure between the two.

I've experienced moments where just about every BB has sounded like another BB at one point or another, including Mike and Al. But I don't really hear anything on that particular "Roller Skating Child" alternate that isn't Mike in the same spots as he always has been.

In way later years when they started kind of over-compressing and processing their vocals, it would occasionally be a bit difficult to pick apart who is singing what. Like, try to listen to that "East Meets West" and pinpoint every vocal switch-off and who it is. It takes a bit of work. Frankie Valli, Mike, and Al cut through with such a similar tone that it kind of seems to negate the purpose of doing a big vocal hand-off type track like that. Carl and Brian stand out more. But there are other examples like that.

The band's vocals truly are chameleon-like at times.  I could come up with quite a list of vocals where for years I used to mistake one member's vocals for another's.

It's just your imagination.

Also, to be clear, no Dennis on IJWMFTT.  He did try it but was taped over.

Hi Joshilyn, I've been thinking all along that it might be my imagination, but the one nagging thing in particular is that "ribbon in her hair" vocal on the alternate version at 7:16 - The way the word "hair" is sung on the early version, I've never heard Mike sing like that ever, yet it's very much an Al type of phrasing. Don't you think?

Then again, Mike also surprised me with his Meant for You and Aren't You Glad lead vocals, where he showed other sides to his vocals that were otherwise rarely if ever shown on a lead.

RE: IJWMFTT, right on - I wasn't sure that experts analyzing it ever came to a consensus one way or another that it was in fact not Dennis singing in those bits. What a shame Denny's version was fully taped over.

I don't recall any alternate versions with Al singing the lead. There is an alternate mix or two, which are essentially "underdub" mixes with some stuff missing. But I think it's Mike singing those verse leads on all the versions; sounds like the same vocal take if I'm recalling correctly. But it has been awhile since I listened.

There's other stuff from that era with alternate Al leads, like "Love is a Woman"

Hi HJ! Jump to 7:11 for the alternate version of Roller Skating Child:

https://youtu.be/5E7y_TRkX1M?si=vzNf29P2bSe7NkJ6

There are bits of phrasing at the end of the vocal lines on verse 1 that are clearly Al Jardine to my ears.

Yet much of the rest of the Mike-esque verse vocal phrasings on this alternate version sound almost exactly like they do on the released version - which is what is tripping me out.

I don't think any of the vocal takes are the same between versions, but much of the early version vocals sound very very similarly sung between both versions, where it makes me think it's the same person singing both versions of the song.

The final version cut out some undeniably Al-esque verse vocalizings that were on the earlier version. Listen to both versions back to back and see what you think?

I'm having a similar whoah type of reaction that I did when I found out that Brian sang those high falsetto lead parts in Good Vibrations where Brian's vocals were spliced into the middle of Carl's lead. I'm pretty sure it was many decades before people really realized that. Or the few lead vocal parts in I Just Wasn't Made For These Times that are believed to be remnants of Dennis' voice.

I'm wondering if we might have a similar situation here with Mike/Al or if it's just my imagination.

For years I thought Mike was singing the lead vocals on the verses... then group vocals on the choruses, and Al on the bridge.

Then I heard the alternate early version of the song which I believe has Al singing lead on the verses in a somewhat more identifiable-as-being-Al type of way.

But this also made me wonder if perhaps some of the verse lead vocals are potentially Al on the final released version?

Al had the uncanny ability to sound like other band members' voices at times, and it wouldn't be the first time that I mistook who sung what. The final version - to my ears - sounds like a very good Mike vocal on the verses, but some words are just annunciatied with a hint of it sounding not like Mike. And maybe sounding like a touch of Al. It's been driving me crazy trying to figure it out...

For example on the final released version,"She gets my heart to beating When I see her there" sounds very much like Mike to me, while "She's such an angel I bet she's got wings" seems like it could maybe be Al. But maybe just my mind playing tricks on me after hearing the alternate early version.

Does anyone have any clarity on this?

Amazing stuff, thanks GF!

Truly, newspapers.com is a gift from the heavens above.

One thing I've long wondered, when it comes to newspapers.com, where are all of the original photos and negatives that long defunct newspaper companies had from way back when?

I'm guessing the majority of them were probably thrown out or lost, but I do wonder if maybe there's any sort of archive where newspaper photos like this BBs one would have gone to.

Perhaps as long of a long shot as it'd be turning up the inside pop 1966 uncut footage, but I do wonder nonetheless if the actual original BBs photo may exist somewhere in an archive waiting to be found. I remember reading about the length that Jim Murphy went to to find a photo just like this when he did his early BBs book.

Holy smokes this is amazing, thanks for sharing!
Good ol newspapers.com, just wow.

Oh yeah…👍

https://entertainment.ha.com/itm/music-memorabilia/memorabilia/the-beach-boys-brother-records-bronze-sculpture-from-the-santa-monica-office/a/7377-26006.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515#


The Beach Boys "Brother Records" Bronze Sculpture from the Santa Monica Office. Founded in 1966, by Mike Love, Brian Wilson, Carl Wilson and Dennis Wilson. Brothers Records came about due to Capitol Records perceived lack of support. They wanted more creative control so they started their own record company.

The company logo was chosen based on a life size bronze statue by Cyrus E. Dallin's in 1908. Carl Wilson was asked in 1975 why the group used this as their logo, he said "The Indian was chosen because the Wilson brothers' grandfather believed there was a spiritual Indian guide who watched over them from the other side." "Appeal to the great spirit".
Mike Love was also quoted "Their is no one more American than the American Indian."

This piece measures approx: 20" tall with a base measuring 8" by 16". The Indian hands are approx: 11.5" apart. Weighing in at approx: 47 pounds. This rare example was on display in the entrance to the Brothers Records' Santa Monica office. In overall Very Good Plus to Near Mint Minus condition.

We cannot stress enough what a sterling example this has become. It will be a wonderful and displayable addition to the collection. COA from Heritage Auctions. From the Gregg Oehlke Music Archive.

That is awesome. 

Back to Disney; I won’t compare ‘Get Back’ with this documentary in terms of story/narrative/etc. However, I was so impressed with ‘Get Back’ that I had high hopes that a Disney helmed Beach Boys documentary would be created with the same care and attention to detail.

I do think seeing how stunningly high-quality "Get Back" was would reasonably lead any fan of any other band into thinking "Hey, maybe we could get something on par with that!"

As I mentioned before, Irving Azoff being able to just call Bob Iger at Disney and make a sale on a BB doc is such a rarefied, high-level, bigwig sort of move, it's hugely frustrating that Azoff and Iger couldn't look at something like "Get Back" or even the "Beatles Anthology", and *insist* on something on par with that.

With the entertainment industry and in particularly Disney dealing with very difficult financial and business times, I think Bob Iger having the interest, time, or focus to push through an agenda to make this documentary as good as the Beatles documentary was would've been a complete impossibility.

The Beatles film was such a wonderful freak occurrence. 

That freak occurrence has a name: Sir Peter Jackson. He has the Midas touch.

And Peter Jackson is amazing! But also it was the perfect storm of everything lighning up right for that film to get made/released in the form that it did and timing is everything.

Back to Disney; I won’t compare ‘Get Back’ with this documentary in terms of story/narrative/etc. However, I was so impressed with ‘Get Back’ that I had high hopes that a Disney helmed Beach Boys documentary would be created with the same care and attention to detail.

I do think seeing how stunningly high-quality "Get Back" was would reasonably lead any fan of any other band into thinking "Hey, maybe we could get something on par with that!"

As I mentioned before, Irving Azoff being able to just call Bob Iger at Disney and make a sale on a BB doc is such a rarefied, high-level, bigwig sort of move, it's hugely frustrating that Azoff and Iger couldn't look at something like "Get Back" or even the "Beatles Anthology", and *insist* on something on par with that.

With the entertainment industry and in particularly Disney dealing with very difficult financial and business times, I think Bob Iger having the interest, time, or focus to push through an agenda to make this documentary as good as the Beatles documentary was would've been a complete impossibility.

The Beatles film was such a wonderful freak occurrence. 

[Bad Vibrations: ‘The Beach Boys’ Documentary Is Mike Love Propaganda]

Despite the fact that I still quite enjoyed watching the documentary, I can't wholly disagree with the statements from the article below. Perhaps the truth  is somewhere in the middle. It is interesting to have as many documentaries as we do about the band from different perspectives, and we can draw our own perspective.

 It's definitely such a complicated band and as I said before, it's possible for multiple things to be true at the same time.

 One interesting thing about Frank Marshall is that I really did enjoy the Bee Gees documentary that he directed for HBO Max a few years back.

Has anybody here seen that? I'm not nearly the Bee Gees historian that I am when it comes to this band, so it's hard for me to know if there are  legit complaints about how that film turned out, that I may have overlooked.  In that film as well I was able to definitely get quite an emotional response from the filmmaking.

As much as I love the Bee Gees, I'm ultimately a casual fan when it comes to their history, but I did quite love that film. I wonder how people who are huge superfans of the Bee Gees think of that film and Frank Marshall's contributions to it?

For whatever degree anybody wants to rag on Frank Marshall and him being the wrong person for this documentary, there's no doubt in my mind that the filmmaking on this film was influenced/handicapped by the politics of the current stakeholders of the band. There's no way that's not at play here.

Bad Vibrations: ‘The Beach Boys’ Documentary Is Mike Love Propaganda

https://decider.com/2024/06/03/the-beach-boys-documentary-mike-love-propaganda/

Some standout blurbs from the article:

"While the telling of this story deliberately minimizes the internecine tensions that would prove the Beach Boys’ undoing, its arrangement nonetheless channels and relitigates conflicts that left some members with evidently simmering, if unstated, resentments. To put it bluntly, this is Mike Love propaganda."

"This revanchist effort to elevate the other members of the band wouldn’t be all that objectionable if not for its flip side of moderate character assassination against Brian, smeared here as an egotist high on his own supply whose so-called “genius” (which was only ever a market construct anyway) actually held back everyone else’s brilliance."

"Love profiles Brian as a homebody unlaced by his fondness for drugs, missing the point that Brian only took the acid trips as a respite from the extreme anxiety and burgeoning schizophrenia that filled him with fear for the world."

"The main things we learn about [Pet Sounds] are 1. that it’s a real downer, and 2. that it was financially unsuccessful, nowhere near the depth of analysis or height of appreciation enjoyed by the sunnier early works"

"The chummy get-together closing out the film takes on a ghastly and exploitative quality in the hint that, between the lines, there’s an abler man taking advantage of a vulnerable one for the sake of grinding his axes to a finer point. If history books really are written by the victors, then it would appear that in life, the winner is the last one with the presence of mind to hold power of attorney."

I saw this in my news feed today. Haven't seen the movie yet, but thought I'd post it here to see what others think of this take.

I finally watched the documentary a couple nights ago.

I went into watching it with extremely low expectations after having read this thread, but I have to say I thought it was far, far better than I was expecting. Maybe that was because the bar was set so low, maybe I'm just a sucker for some of the documentary filmmaking tropes that were used, but it gave me the feels, and I thought it was very well done for what it was.

That said…

I can also completely understand why hardcore fans really don't like it, because it definitely omits so very much, and certainly the band deserves way way better and more comprehensive a documentary.

I think this is probably just the best that we were going to get considering the politics that are involved with the surviving members, and what I presume is the mission of financial stakeholders in the brand to make this a two hour long EPK to try to get more casual fans a bit more invested in the story.

It's definitely a missed opportunity in many ways, but I am able to hold two different truths in my head simultaneously and I can also say that I really quite enjoyed it nonetheless.

Very cool!

RIP Melinda. What a sad time.

I got to say hello to Melinda at the last Carl Wilson foundation show at the Roxy, and I thanked her for all she's done to help Brian. I hope many people got to tell her similar words of thanks over the years.

[this alternate version of reality.]

GF - I agree completely that so much of whether I can enjoy/accept recordings like these are due to the superior quality of the workmanship that went into them, and Dae Lims IMO is killing it in that department.

I guess a primary issue that people can have with these is the insertion of musical ideas from another person who is not the actual artist...Which I totally get why that bugs some people.

But that said, if the music is good, the music is good, and I'm not trying to pretend it's anything else than what it actually is.
As it sounds really cool, I'm not going to force myself not to like it simply because it's not an actual recording of Brian Wilson's voice, despite sounding like him very much.

I'm reminded of officially released modern creations such as the 2012 version of Sail Plane Song.

I thought that was a really interesting experiment and I'm glad it exists and it was released.
It's not trying to take the place of anything else, it's just a well executed alternate reality that perhaps shows what the track might've sounded like if Brian had added more production back in the 1960s.

Not everybody digs it, but count me in as one of the people who does.

 These AI creations are somewhat similar in my book. It's new artistic ideas being put into an old song, but if it's done well that's all that matters to me. I'm not going to enjoy it as much as Pet Sounds and other actual original recordings by the band, but then it's not a contest.

I'm just glad that "new" material by this band is being carved out in one way or another.

It's ironic cause most of the fan mixes there have used ai tools to demix/re-balance, and people are fine with that.
I think we need to get past using the work 'ai' as a blanket term for any new audio tech.

It's a rather indescribable experience listening to these songs. But it's very very cool. To me there's only any moral and ethical quandary if he is trying to pass them off as the real thing, or anything like that. I see/hear nothing of the sort here so I have no problem enjoying this alternate version of reality.

I think some of the key issues in this debate are found in these two quotes. I am admittedly a vintage audio type of person, I prefer the sounds created on older technology. Having said that, hearing some of the AI creations posted and linked on this forum have changed my mind regarding the use of AI technology in creating these tracks, due in large part to the superior quality and the obvious respect and attention to detail that went into making them.

This could get long, because to cover all the aspects and issues would perhaps be a book-length exploration. All I want to do is express some of my own opinions, shine light on some historical details and parallels, and perhaps open some minds and opinions for discussion and consideration.


Point 1, and perhaps the more important issue to consider, is that all audio recording of music since roughly the late 1940's is an illusion, an alternate version of reality. As soon as pioneers like Les Paul started to work with magnetic tape, which led to multitrack recording, and other pioneers like Bill Putnam started to create technology to electronically process audio signals and create unnatural sounds and effects on recordings, the doors were kicked wide open. Recorded audio became an illusion, and the process of recording musical performances became a process of creating those illusions.

Previous to these developments, a recording was essentially capturing a live performance on media to be reproduced and sold and/or broadcast. Whatever the musicians did in whatever room they performed was recorded as it happened, as if the listener were in that room with them. The only editing that was done would have been doing multiple takes of that continuous live performance in order to get the "keeper" take.

When Les Paul came along with his "New Sound" or what they used to call "Sound On Sound", most times he had only himself or he and Mary Ford playing and stacking all the tracks. Instead of hiring 5 vocalists, along with a drummer, bassist, and perhaps 10 guitarists to cut a "live" take, we instead got 12 Les Pauls and 5 Mary Fords stacking sounds atop each other, track after track, to create an ensemble recording out of two people's musical performances.

That is pure illusion, pure alternate reality. It didn't exist prior to 1947 or so in the popular music realm, and that technique forever changed music. At the time, it was also called a gimmick, a fad, a false reality, etc by musical purists. They wanted to capture a full group as it performed live, whether it be classical, jazz, country...and some still do in 2024. But the illusion created by new technology, specifically magnetic tape and multitrack recording machines moved popular music miles ahead of where it would have been.

And the issue of magnetic tape: Editing became possible. If you had a group, or even a single spoken word artist, who had recorded 10 takes of a song, but none of those takes was "the one", a skillful engineer with a razor blade, a cutting block, and adhesive tape could patch together the best segments from those 10 takes and create a continuous recording which the majority of listeners would be fooled into thinking was a single live continuous take. Again, technology created a false reality, an alternate reality, but that technology allowed the creators to make records which were more perfect than would be humanly possible.

Tape editing became not only a skill but an art form. Instead of doing a straight cut, engineers could cut and splice angles to create seamless crossfades and deliberate effects. Instead of just connecting the first minute of take 2 with the last two minutes of take 7, they could razor-blade individual tracks in and out of the performance. It was used by experimental artists but probably brought to the mainstream by way of Good Vibrations, where the tape editing became part of the performance itself and created a #1 hit record. It wasn't used as a gimmick or a comedy prop, but rather played an integral role in the performance captured on the recording. Add to that the ability to loop tapes continuously, which was probably codified in popular music by The Beatles and Tomorrow Never Knows, and seen through into the 70's when the Bee Gees unknowingly created the robotic, precise nature of dance music by using the same 2-bar drum loop on 3 smash hit disco singles in the mid-70's because their drummer had to leave the sessions due to a family emergency and they didn't want to halt work on the tracks.

I could go on, and move into digital sequencing, digital recording, DAW's, and all that, but I think those gaps can be filled into the story.

It's an illusion, it's creating alternate reality from the point where a musician performs a passage of music and that recording gets distributed to and heard by listeners.

As such, how is the AI technology in the timeline of recording technology development any different than those previous developments? People who I guess were considered "purists" also criticized Les Paul's recordings, Bill Putnam's effects, the techniques of editing tapes in general, and a whole host of other developments through the years. Claims that it was not natural, it wasn't pure, it would create "lazy" musicians or put musicians out of work, it wasn't reality...Again, consider that recording music and distributing it to listeners in a multitude of formats is in itself creating an alternate reality and an aural illusion.

It's all in how the technology is used, and what kind of art is created with the technology. Artists use tools to create a work: If you give different artists those same tools and turn them loose, isn't it foolish to assume each of those artists will create some form of "high art" with them? It's like giving a hammer, nails, and wood to 10 people and expecting all 10 to create something valid or useful with those materials. One of those 10 might decide to smash the foot of another with the hammer, Three Stooges-style, to get a laugh...how can that be controlled other than someone saying not to do it? And if their goal was to create a comedy skit, to get laughs at the expense of someone else's foot, isn't that as comedy a valid use of the tools as well?

So much to digest, I've already gone too far. But consider AI as used to create these tracks is only another tool in the development of recorded sound. If people choose to make high art, or create pure crap, it's not the technology creating the end result as long as a human is inputting the data and parameters into the AI generators. And if people like one use of it, but not another use of the same technology, that's their own hang-ups and tastes.

Now if AI turns into HAL, that's another story. 

Hats off to Dae Lims, the tunes he is doing are phenomenal and fascinating.

Like most people I am terribly afraid of AI for so many reasons, but that doesn't mean I can't compartmentalize part of my brain and completely enjoy this for what it is.

It's essentially somewhere between a cover version and BBs music from an alternate future universe.

It's a rather indescribable experience listening to these songs. But it's very very cool. To me there's only any moral and ethical quandary if he is trying to pass them off as the real thing, or anything like that. I see/hear nothing of the sort here so I have no problem enjoying this alternate version of reality.

 I'm very grateful to listen to them and I greatly appreciate the work that went into them. Bravo.

But undeniably this is uncharted territory for all people. I had a long in person discussion with a friend of mine yesterday who is a fellow superfan of this band, but he has a problem getting emotional enjoyment out of these types of AI versions. I find that fascinating, and understandable, and honestly somebody should write a thesis or a book about this new phenomenon. Different strokes for different folks.

I get an uncanny valley repulsion when I see a humanoid robot, but for some reason these versions don't give me those same negative vibes at all.

I dig the album version but I've never cared for the single version. Way too much like a novelty track, and over the top like it's trying too hard. The album version has a simplicity paired with some interesting chord changes that make it flow better to my ears.

But lyric-wise it's definitely corny, and perhaps the most emblematic of their songs which screams "we are conventional conservatives and not rock 'n' roll rebels", or it would be perceived like that to some listeners. I suppose it seemed extremely dated within a year or two of its release.

But like I said, I still like it myself.

As soon as I saw this thread, I immediately had a glimpse of Brian Wilson talking about this song in the "beautiful dreamer" SMiLE documentary.

Go to 46:30, where he somewhat pejoratively throws Be True To Your School under the bus a little bit when comparing its conventionality to the avant-garde sounds of SMiLE.

https://youtu.be/0SriaRRcA6w

Craig Breedlove just passed away. He was the inspiration for the Beach Boys song "Spirit of America".

With his passing, how many celebrities are left who were name checked in a BBs song lyric?


https://www.autoweek.com/racing/more-racing/a43521840/craig-breedlove-first-to-drive-500-600-mph-dies-at-86/?fbclid=IwAR2ANNy9Z0q-GJPXxeYQckYkjFaWRDh6X7kUg6MrQQavTpRU8I9S82SN_-I&mibextid=q5o4bk

Fantastic interview👍🏼

I imagine the lack of deep cuts, or even anything remotely approaching deep cuts, that were performed on the show probably speaks to the desperation of television ratings these days… The fear of audience tuning out is most likely the culprit in my humble opinion.

This is truly fantastic. Can't wait to see similar session info released for other BBs eras!

I find it interesting and curious that Al Jardine was involved with this considering it was when he was already no longer part of the BBs band via him quitting.

I have to refresh my memory about the history because I guess I do recall he was never completely out of Brian's circle during this timeframe, but it is rather curious to think he quit The Beach Boys but simultaneously had the interest to do this random side project.

 I wonder how that went down, maybe it was less of a commitment for Al to do something like this if he wanted to still stay connected to Brian and the music world a bit?

Thanks to everyone involved in the making of the set.

I am overjoyed, and cannot wait to hear it and to purchase it.

Take. My. Money.

Are there more existent photos of Brian in a hat or Mike not in a hat? The yin and yang of those two 

Appreciate the help!