It sounds great! It was fantastic to finally hear I'm in Great Shape with the vocal that it was more than likely meant to have in 1966. And the vocal over the Water Chant was surprisingly effective - to me, it always sounded like a circa-2004 Brian decision, but it actually ends up sounding like something that could have been recorded in the late sixties by the band. Thank you for that.

I do have a thought, but this is something you could dismiss because it's something that I am sure would take a lot more work, but I wonder if you could train AI to do other voices of the band. To me, for example, Barnyard would sound great with a Mike lead. I wouldn't want to pile on extra work for what is obviously already a massive undertaking, and one for which you have already done a great job, but it is something that I thought I'd put out there.

I haven't posted here in years but I did just want to add a note here to say that I think you're both doing a great job and, hey, if anyone wants to PM me to let me know what you are using to create these sounds, please don't hesitate! 

1. This isn't a film review thread
2. You didn't write a review because reviews don't give away the endings of movies

Reviews of movies in theaters don't give away the ending of the movie. Go to Rotten Tomatoes - find a single review that says what happens at the end of the movie. You won't be able to find one.

Because this is what they're seeing: a man who looks like he's in pain being helped on stage to barely sing through songs, then sit without much emotion while his band mates bounce around him, until the end of the show when it appears as if he couldn't want to get off the stage fast enough.

Except for the part about being helped on/off stage, the rest could describe how Brian was when he started touring 20 years ago.  I've seen Brian 29 times since 1999, and it was rough in the beginning - very "deer in the headlights".  He got more and more comfortable over time, but we were never going to get a Brian who was a traditional front man.  If you want to see Brian in concert, you have to accept the Brian that you get.  

I saw him for the first time in 2000 and he sang every song on stage, made an effort in singing the songs well (I still remember how the crowd cheered when he really held that line in "Don't Talk"), got up to play the bass at the end of the set, and was on stage until the very end of the show. I do think that's quite different from what is going on onstage now but that's not really my point. If you see Brian onstage and conclude that he enjoys what he's doing, that's fine. My point is that we shouldn't be surprised if people are reaching different conclusions.

Why IS it so hard to imagine that Brian probably likes some things about touring but doesn’t like other things? 

Because this is what they're seeing: a man who looks like he's in pain being helped on stage to barely sing through songs, then sit without much emotion while his band mates bounce around him, until the end of the show when it appears as if he couldn't want to get off the stage fast enough.

I'm not saying this provides proof that he doesn't like touring but you can't be surprised that people are reaching that conclusion based on appearances.

Something I’ve realized as I’ve gotten older is that basically our entire entertainment infrastructure in this country — music, movies, TV, theater, you name it — is built on the backs of desperately unhappy people. Normal, well-adjusted folks are not driven to seek out audiences at all costs.

Yes, I think there's a lot of truth to this.

I completely agree with the idea that as long as people pay to see Brian perform, then ultimately that is the marker.

Personally speaking, I disagree and I think most people would disagree with that as a principle. For example, if I produced heroin, there would probably be a huge and endless market for it. That being said, I wouldn't personally feel good about continuing to supply people with heroin, even if they wanted it and kept coming back for it.

Now, surely, someone will miss my point here and interpret this as me comparing going to a Brian Wilson concert to taking heroin, which I'm not doing. What I am doing is saying that we don't really accept as a principle that we should keep supplying a product as long as there is a market for it.

Sure, and I get what you are saying...and let's face it we encounter inferior goods and services pretty much every day of our lives, and some we continue to consume, and some we decide that no, there isn't any value for us in purchasing. And some still, are removed from the marketplace for legal, ethical and safety reasons. Some continue to exist in 'black' markets, obviously based on demand.

I guess my point is that since everything is subjective, there may be a lot of people who want to buy tickets to see Brian perform, regardless of the quality of 'his' performance: vocally or otherwise. A hardcore Brianista might be happy to shell out big bucks just to be in the same venue as Brian...and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Well, I know you didn't say otherwise, but again personally I do think it's a bit strange if people are paying money just to be in the same venue as someone else. Again, if I was doing that, I would seriously sit down and re-evaluate some things about who I am but I'm not going to put that on someone else.

Furthermore, in a very hypothetical situation, if I felt that my buying a ticket to see someone do a concert was preventing that person from dealing with their issues in the healthiest way possible, then I might actually consider there being something wrong with that. To give an example that some of you might know, there's a comedian named Artie Lange who is a very troubled person. I don't follow his constant activities so he might be in jail now or he might not be. For years, many people close to Lange told him that he had to stop doing stand-up shows because it was a big factor in him turning back to drug and alcohol abuse; however, for him, the money factor was just too great. To pass up these shows meant passing up big money. But I think it is absolutely the case that buying a ticket to see his shows was in some ways contributing to his issues.

You could make the same case about any number of entertainers through the years. Look at Britney Spears, who just had a very successful and profitable Vegas residency, after some very disturbing mental health related meltdowns, followed by even more of the same after the residency ended. Were people buying tickets to her shows contributing to all she was dealing with?

I'd also look further back to the 50's and 60's - Were people watching TV and laughing at Oscar Levant and Jonathan Winters, to name two, contributing to their mental health issues? These two were hilarious guests, however they also were dealing with severe mental health issues that required treatment at psychiatric facilities, and in some appearances viewers would watch and laugh at Oscar Levant literally zoning out on TV due to his issues, and laughing like it was his schtick or some kind of a comedy bit.

But maybe - and I honestly don't know - performing for the public was how they were dealing with the issues. The power to make people happy and make them laugh is a really, really strong emotion just the same, and I don't know how much I'd guilt audiences who would go see them no matter what their reasons.

I think that you could make that case with the people you mention, yes.

And I'm not trying to make people feel guilty about this - people can make those decisions for themselves. But I just want to put a bit of pressure on your point that "performing for the public was how they were dealing with the issues." In many ways, that's part of what I have been touching on. In fact, Brian Wilson himself has said that when he is on stage, he doesn't hear the voices in his head as much. Now on the surface, we can look at that and say, that's great! Being on stage is helping. On the other hand, I think some people might look at that and say that he (or, take whoever you want, Britney Spears, Rodney Dangerfield, etc.) is using the stage as a temporary fix and a way of avoiding confronting their demons. Indeed, someone like say Rodney Dangerfield probably did feel best when he was on stage but he was ultimately very unhappy throughout his life because and maybe it was because he used audience laughter the way other people use drugs and alcohol (also, he used drugs and alcohol the way other people use drugs and alcohol). So that leads me back to my initial point which is whether in any of these cases there were other things that these performers could have done that would have been helpful to them.

I completely agree with the idea that as long as people pay to see Brian perform, then ultimately that is the marker.

Personally speaking, I disagree and I think most people would disagree with that as a principle. For example, if I produced heroin, there would probably be a huge and endless market for it. That being said, I wouldn't personally feel good about continuing to supply people with heroin, even if they wanted it and kept coming back for it.

Now, surely, someone will miss my point here and interpret this as me comparing going to a Brian Wilson concert to taking heroin, which I'm not doing. What I am doing is saying that we don't really accept as a principle that we should keep supplying a product as long as there is a market for it.

Sure, and I get what you are saying...and let's face it we encounter inferior goods and services pretty much every day of our lives, and some we continue to consume, and some we decide that no, there isn't any value for us in purchasing. And some still, are removed from the marketplace for legal, ethical and safety reasons. Some continue to exist in 'black' markets, obviously based on demand.

I guess my point is that since everything is subjective, there may be a lot of people who want to buy tickets to see Brian perform, regardless of the quality of 'his' performance: vocally or otherwise. A hardcore Brianista might be happy to shell out big bucks just to be in the same venue as Brian...and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Well, I know you didn't say otherwise, but again personally I do think it's a bit strange if people are paying money just to be in the same venue as someone else. Again, if I was doing that, I would seriously sit down and re-evaluate some things about who I am but I'm not going to put that on someone else.

Furthermore, in a very hypothetical situation, if I felt that my buying a ticket to see someone do a concert was preventing that person from dealing with their issues in the healthiest way possible, then I might actually consider there being something wrong with that. To give an example that some of you might know, there's a comedian named Artie Lange who is a very troubled person. I don't follow his constant activities so he might be in jail now or he might not be. For years, many people close to Lange told him that he had to stop doing stand-up shows because it was a big factor in him turning back to drug and alcohol abuse; however, for him, the money factor was just too great. To pass up these shows meant passing up big money. But I think it is absolutely the case that buying a ticket to see his shows was in some ways contributing to his issues.

In terms of how much Brian “wants” to be touring, I’ve never understood why some folks find it hard to believe that it can kinda be both at the same time. That is, Brian likes some aspects of touring and not others. I’ve pitched this sort of rhetorical question in the past: Have you ever not wanted to do something, but know you should do it, or that despite not wanting to do it you’ll probably actually enjoy it and/or get something out of it? And have you ever had someone around you helping you decide whether to do it? Maybe someone egging you on or helping to motivate you?

Many folks in the know have often pointed out that when Brian *really* doesn’t want to do something, he makes sure that’s what happens.

That doesn’t mean he’s never had any doubts or apprehension about touring, or days when we’d rather be at home eating a steak and watching TV.

Yes - for example, I don't really look forward to reading a book like Les Miserables or War and Peace but I do because I think it will make me a more fulfilled person in the long run, intellectually and spiritually. Personally, I don't see this as the same thing as performing a concert. Even here, nobody on this page has suggested that reasons he is doing it is for a kind of spiritual or edifying fulfillment, but rather, he wants unconditional love from strangers and money. If those were the reasons I had for pushing myself into doing things that I sometimes didn't want to do, then I would hope I would re-evaluate my priorities and either not do those things or find what is actually important about doing them.

And if you're a neglected or abused child, as most folks in show business are, that unconditional love matters.

I do want to float something here but I'm not talking about Brian Wilson but rather the phenomenon that you have discussed. From a psychological point of view, do you think that these people who need that sort of unconditional love from an audience have properly dealt with the traumatic experiences that they had or are they in some ways deferring properly dealing with it? Obviously someone who drinks or takes drugs or something like that is trying to fill a sort of void that can never be filled in a way that is harmful both to themselves and to the people around them. Consistently doing concerts for thousands of cheering fans is not harmful, of course. But is it perpetuating the same sort of ways of dealing with trauma that allow for the more harmful patterns to come about? I'm sorry if this isn't making sense but I'm just trying to work through this.

EDIT: Like, for example, I think about the Endless Harmony doc where they are talking about Dennis and how much he loved adulation. And it seems to me that this was all wrapped up in a personality that also needed to drugs, alcohol, and sex to fill a kind of void. And psychologists tend to say that you can never quit just one addictive behaviour - like you can't expect to fully drop a drug addiction if you are still gambling all the time. So in order to properly deal with your issues, you have to give up all of it.

I completely agree with the idea that as long as people pay to see Brian perform, then ultimately that is the marker.

Personally speaking, I disagree and I think most people would disagree with that as a principle. For example, if I produced heroin, there would probably be a huge and endless market for it. That being said, I wouldn't personally feel good about continuing to supply people with heroin, even if they wanted it and kept coming back for it.

Now, surely, someone will miss my point here and interpret this as me comparing going to a Brian Wilson concert to taking heroin, which I'm not doing. What I am doing is saying that we don't really accept as a principle that we should keep supplying a product as long as there is a market for it.

I think of all the difficult questions that may arise about touring, this one might be the easiest to answer. I think BW enjoys that people want to see him and hear the music. The adoration and affirmation that comes from a crowd is magical.

Okay - but that brings me back to my other question which is, are there other ways for him to be fulfilled like that because there are certainly elements about performing that he doesn't like.

I don't consider Brian to be controlled and I believe that this is something that he wants to do. What I don't know is what it is about this that he wants to do and if there are perhaps more beneficial outlets for him to achieve what it is he's trying to get out of these experiences.

The way I see it: If people aren't satisfied with his shows they will stop buying tickets. Any consumer wanting to buy tickets can easily search youtube for recent shows and see if it's something worth going to. As has been mentioned in this thread, some of us go to these shows not to hear Brian sing a pitch-perfect show, but to see the man in real life and be apart of the magic. I think most of us have felt that at his shows regardless of how well Brian is singing. And thus people continue to go to his shows.

We can sit here and complain about shows or speculate about whether Brian should still be doing this stuff, but until ticket sales plunge I don't think it really matters what we think.

Okay, but that doesn't address my point, which is not about whether the audience enjoys it. That's a matter of opinion - some feel the magic while my partner refuses to go to anymore shows because the entire experiences makes her feel sad. My point is, if he enjoys the experience, what does he enjoy about it?

I don't consider Brian to be controlled and I believe that this is something that he wants to do. What I don't know is what it is about this that he wants to do and if there are perhaps more beneficial outlets for him to achieve what it is he's trying to get out of these experiences.

  As I walked out on cloud nine, I accidentally knocked over Brian’s Diet Coke and it spilled everywhere!

That's the kind of thing that makes Brian propose marriage.

"The "Little Do Scoop" is a great mis-transcription."


I'm going to use that for a song title

That's nothing. When I was about 10 years old, I was chatting with my friend about Beach Boys songs that we liked and we named "Little Deuce Coupe." Then his little brother who was listening got upset and went and told his mom that we were talking about "little loose poops."

Thoughts going out to El Paso, thoughts going out to Dayton. Where in the name of heck are we heading?

This is what happens when you disenfranchise people and create a system of massive wealth inequality and then mask the reasons why this is happening by offering up standard boogiemen: Muslims, Mexicans, women, liberals, PC snowflakes, deadbeats, welfare cheats, etc.

When you give exploited people with an already distorted view of the world another massive distortion, then inevitably bad things will happen.

I saw this a few nights ago and I can't believe how people get sucked in by this hack Tarantino. This film is all over the place and there's really no story. It's like people are afraid to critique him because he's so hip. He takes the worst elements of past moviemaking and thinks he's elevating them to art. His depiction of Bruce Lee is pathetic and dead wrong, from the hairstyle to the attitude. There are these long scenes on the set of Lancer, a sh*t show from the late '60's that are downright confounding. I know this period of Hollywood very well and there is a great movie you could make about it , but this isn't it.

Tarantino is not a documentary filmmaker. He's substantially re-written and revised historical events in three of his last four movies.

"All over the place" and "no story" are critiques that I've heard leveled at some of the greatest movies ever made, so I have a very difficult time with those kinds of remarks. I remember sitting with a group of people watching There Will Be Blood in the theatre and heard one friend turn to another after an hour and say, "Is there any plot here?" I thought, you are watching one of the greatest movies of the last ten years, and this is your reaction?

I can see that but I do think that this trailer which was given in this thread is a pretty good representation of the movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IilE3l2GeiQ&feature=youtu.be

Again, Manson barely appears as a character in the film but the Tate murders and the Manson family are still a big part of the movie and I do think they needed to impart that somehow in the ads. I don't want to say too much about that though because to discuss it too much would be to give away a lot.

Regardless of the amount of dialogue or limited screen time these characters have in the movie, they are integral to the idea of a shifting Hollywood, and the role that the main characters find themselves playing in changing times. Tate, and Bruce Lee especially are great characters to reflect the Hollywood structure - they are in the upswing of their careers, unlike Dalton and Booth, but like these guys, won't ultimately achieve their Hollywood dreams.

And the Manson tie in really does work, especially with the Ranch scene.

Great reading of the film!

I will say that it is true that the Tate character doesn't have much dialogue but she's a big part of the movie. She doesn't have quite the same amount of screen time as DiCaprio or Pitt but she is a major presence in the film.

Interesting that c-man should mention "catchy songs that don't appear at all in the actual features" because I was waiting for a long time for the Mamas & Papas "Straight Shooter" to come on, given how the riff was repeated in one of the early trailers. In the end, the song is featured later in the film but that recording isn't.

However, the music in the film is great. In fact, there are many scenes where people just drive and listen to the radio.

EDIT: And I commented after how it was great seeing that movie right after Echo in the Canyon, which was the previous film I saw in the theatre. They are great companion pieces.

There’s a song from Toy Story that I’ve never been able to find the name of that reminds me of the verses from H&V and maybe if there was a little Billy Joel mixed into it equals this Randy Newman song.

I'm going to guess that you are talking about Strange Things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_F2Fl17RX8

I saw the movie last night. I thought it was great. There is one passing reference made (by the Manson character) to Terry and Dennis Wilson here but that's it. Otherwise, there is no mention of The Beach Boys. There is also only one scene with Charles Manson in it. While the Manson family and the Tate murder plays a big role in the film, Charles Manson himself plays a very minor role. He's talked about a few times. But it's not a Manson movie.

I just had a listen - both to Somewhere Near Japan and the Melcher vox on the Symphonic Sounds version of Kokomo. Count me on the side of those who think Carl did the vocals on SNJ.