And it's very much not about looking "academ-ish" -- it is about contributing to history's understanding of the music that I love, in a meaningful way, and in a way that has staying power.

That's why I've said "you could write what you want". From my viewpoint, a solid paper or a book devoted to a musical matter is better to be a "pop" one than an "academia" one, but if you prefer the latter, your work should have just enough of recognizable features like references to other such works, and the content which is the most important thing would be of your choice.

I can't understand your problem. There are already books on Brian that are academia or lean to academia - the Equinox one and the Philip Lambert one. You could write what you want and to slip in references to these books, and it would look academ-ish enough for everybody. And surely there must be some papers in the Jounal of the Popular Music Studies or wherever.

As a collector of pop-rock music books on a wide variety of subjects, I think I've seen it all: books where authors stated that their work is deliberately filled with mistakes so to catch plagiators; books where it was the same except authors did not warn of this; books by some well-known publishing houses which were dictated by authors to tape with the sad result of some clueless transcriber putting their false interpretations of people's names to paper and nobody responsible for checking the results; etc etc. So, if a noted author like Selvin made just several mistakes, even of this kind, over what is a typical "Selvin book" (chock-full of interesting information, that is), I'll happily take it.

-----------------------------------------
VERSE REHEARSALS [2]
BRIDGE REHEARSALS [4]
---
VERSE REHEARSALS [2]
VERSE/CHORUS – TAKES 1-7
---
VERSE/CHORUS – TAKE 7 (CONT.) VERSE / CHORUS –TAKE 8
VERSE/CHORUS –UNCALLED TAKE
(VERSE?)/CHORUS – UNCALLED TAKE
(VERSE?)/CHORUS – TAKES 10-13
---
VERSE/CHORUS – UNCALLED TAKES [4]
VERSE/CHORUS – TAKES 23-26
---
VERSE/CHORUS – TAKE 27
---
FREE JAZZ IMPROVISATION
---
BASS REHEARSAL PIECE
BASS/PIANO REHEARSAL PIECES [2]
BASS/PIANO/HARPSICHORD REHEARSAL PIECE
BRIDGE 2 REHEARSAL
---
BRIDGE 2 REHEARSALS [2]
---
BRIDGE 2 REHEARSALS [6]
---
BRIDGE 2 – TAKE 1
---
BRIDGE 2 – TAKE 2
BRIDGE 2 – TAKE 3
BRIDGE 2 – TAKE 4
---
BRIDGE 2 – TAKE 5
---
BRIDGE 2 – TAKE 6
---
BRIDGE 2 – TAKE 7 (MASTER), OVERDUB VARIATION 1?
---
VERSE/CHORUS  REHEARSAL
VERSE/CHORUS – TAKE 44 SLATED AS TAKE 9 (MASTER), OVERDUB VARIATION 1
---
BRIDGE 2 – TAKE 7 (MASTER), OVERDUB VARIATION 2?
---
VERSE/CHORUS – TAKE 44 SLATED AS TAKE 9 (MASTER)?, OVERDUB VARIATION 2
-----------------------------------------
VERSE – TRYOUT
CHORUS REHEARSALS [2]
VERSE/CHORUS REHEARSALS [2]
---
VERSE/CHORUS – TAKES 1-4
VERSE/CHORUS – TAKE 5
VERSE/CHORUS – TAKES 6-11
VERSE/CHORUS  TAKE 13
---
VERSE/CHORUS – TAKE 19 (?) (MASTER)
---
BRIDGE 2 – TAKE 1
---
BRIDGE 2 – TRYOUT
BRIDGE 2 – TAKES 2-7
---
BRIDGE 2 – TAKE 14 (MASTER)
-----------------------------------------
ORGAN TRYOUT
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 1 REHEARSALS [2]
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 1 REHEARSALS [5]
---
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 1 – PIANO BASS TRACK TAKES 1-5
---
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 1 – PIANO BASS TRACK TAKES 6-14
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 1 – PIANO BASS TRACK TAKE 15
---
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 2 REHEARSAL
---
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 2 REHEARSAL
---
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 2 REHEARSALS [2]
---
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 2 – THE SMILE SESSIONS BOX SET EDIT OF REHEARSAL PIECE AND TAKE 1
---
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 2 – UNKNOWN TAKE (TAKE 2?)
---
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 2 – TAKE 3
---
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 2 – TAKE 4
---
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 2 – TAKE 5
---
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 2 – TAKE 6
---
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 2 – TAKE 7
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 2 – TAKE 8 (MASTER)
---
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 2 – TAKE 8 (MASTER), HARMONICA OVERDUB
---
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 2 – TAKE 8 (MASTER), FIRST VOCAL OVERDUB
---
BRIDGE 2 VERSION 2 – TAKE 8 (MASTER), SECOND VOCAL OVERDUB
-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------
REHEARSAL
CHORUS REHEARSALS [2]
FIRST CHORUS – UNKNOWN SESSION TAKE
FIRST CHORUS – TAKE 21 (MASTER), OVERDUB VARIATION 1
---
FADE REHEARSALS [2]
---
SECOND CHORUS & FADE REHEARSAL
SECOND CHORUS & FADE – TAKE 1(1)
SECOND CHORUS & FADE – TAKES 1(2)-4(1)
SECOND CHORUS & FADE – TAKE 4(2)
---
SECOND CHORUS & FADE – TAKE 5
SECOND CHORUS & FADE – TAKE 6
SECOND CHORUS & FADE – TAKE 7
---
SECOND CHORUS & FADE – TAKE 8 (MASTER), OVERDUB B? VARIATION 1
---
FIRST CHORUS – TAKE 21 (MASTER), OVERDUB VARIATION 2
---
SECOND CHORUS & FADE – TAKE 8 (MASTER), OVERDUB B? VARIATION 2
-----------------------------------------
CHORUS – TAKE 1
CHORUS – TAKE 2
CHORUS – TAKE 3
CHORUS – TAKE 4
CHORUS – TAKE 5
CHORUS – TAKE 11 (?), EDIT
CHORUS – TAKE 12 (?)
CHORUS – TAKE 17
---
CHORUS – TAKE 18
CHORUS – TAKE 19
CHORUS – TAKE 20
CHORUS – TAKE 21 (MASTER, NO IDEA IF OVERDUBBED)
---
STUDIO TALK (from Best Summers Of Our Lives)
---
BRIDGE 2 – TAKE 1
BRIDGE 2 – TAKE 2
---
BRIDGE 2 – TAKE 3
BRIDGE 2 – TAKE 4
BRIDGE 2 – TAKE 5
---
CHORUS 3 – TAKE 4
---
CHORUS 3 – TAKES 5-6
CHORUS 3 – TAKE 7
BRIDGE 2 (MASTER TAKE 9) INTO CHORUS 3 (MASTER TAKE Eight), OVERDUB VARIATION 1?
---
CHORUS FADE – TAKES 1-2
CHORUS FADE – TAKE 3 (MASTER), OVERDUB VARIATION 1
---
CHORUS – TAKE 21 (MASTER), OVERDUB VARIATION?
---
BRIDGE 2 (MASTER TAKE 9) INTO CHORUS 3 (MASTER TAKE Eight), OVERDUB VARIATION 2?
---
CHORUS FADE – TAKE 3 (MASTER), OVERDUB VARIATION 2?
-----------------------------------------
PART C (BRIDGE 2) REHEARSALS [3]
---
PART C (BRIDGE 2) –  TAKE 1(1)
PART C (BRIDGE 2) –  TAKE 1(2)
---
PART C (BRIDGE 2) –  TAKE 1(3)
PART C (BRIDGE 2) –  TAKE 1(4)
---
PART C (BRIDGE 2) – TAKES 2-3
PART C (BRIDGE 2) – TAKE 9 SLATED AS TAKE 4, OVERDUB VARIATION 1?
---
CHORUS – REHEARSAL
CHORUS – TAKE 1
---
CHORUS – TAKE 2 (?)
CHORUS – TAKE 3
CHORUS – TAKE 7
---
CHORUS – TAKE 15
CHORUS – TAKE 16
CHORUS – TAKE 17 (MASTER), OVERDUB VARIATION?
---
FADE SEQUENCE – TAKE 1
FADE SEQUENCE – TAKES 2-7
FADE SEQUENCE – TAKE 8 (slated? as TAKE 15)
---
FADE SEQUENCE – TAKE 9 (MASTER), OVERDUB VARIATION?
---
PART C (BRIDGE 2) – TAKE 9 SLATED AS TAKE 4, OVERDUB VARIATION 2?
-----------------------------------------
BRIDGE 2 – FUZZ BASS TRYOUT
BRIDGE 2 – BAND TRYOUT
BRIDGE 2 – UNKNOWN TAKES (TAKE 3(?) and (?))
---
BRIDGE 2 – TAKE 22 (MASTER), OVERDUBBED
---
CHORUS 2 – TAKE 21 (MASTER), OVERDUBBED
CHORUS 3 – TAKE 18 (MASTER), OVERDUBBED
---
CHORUS FADE – TAKE 1
CHORUS FADE – TAKE 2 (MASTER; NO IDEA IF OVERDUBBED)
-----------------------------------------

Don't know if there'll be such a list, as we haven't seen one since 2011 - it takes a lot of research, and probably the folks who did this don't want to bother with publishing, because the amount of effort is huge and the reward is not ( and of course, people would be glad to buy such a book). Anyway, I'll start the ball rolling. Here's my interpretation of the session tapes sequence for "Good Vibrations", based on what's available. Does not include the mixes prepared from these tapes by anybody, as it's another can of worms - only the material recorded during the sessions and what we have of the masters made.

With thanks to the creators of "SMiLE Inventory" and the documentation on TSS. Both SOT UM Vol. 15 and TSS present the (cut) tapes in chronological order, with just slight deviations, so it's possible to create something like this sequence. However, this is not an easy task, and the placement of certain bits of studio talk and noises can be interpreted in different ways, because available tapes are cut. That's why I said it's my interpretation of the session tapes sequence.

All sessions are demarcated by the longer dashed lines. Short dashed lines demarcate "tracks" which are based in general on SOT UM Vol. 15, but in some cases not. "Overdub variation" means one cannot be sure that the complete overdub is presented on the known tapes, and different mixes are available - the idea is to present the undubbed master and the overdubbed (to whatever degree is possible) master. Take numbers are based on what's called on the session tapes. Many takes are false starts, or even worse, are cut on tapes. This sequence is a draft as I'd like to fine-tune certain things, otherwise I'd give the playing time.

GOOD VIBTATIONS - SESSION TAPES SEQUENCE

-----------------------------------------
TAKE 1
TAKES 2-9
TAKE 10
TAKE 11
TAKES 12-15(1)
---
TAKE 15(2)
---
TAKE 16
---
TAKES 17-19
TAKE 20
TAKES 21, 23, 24(1-2)
---
TAKE 24(3)
---
“INSERT”: REHEARSALS FOR THE CONCLUSIVE PART [7]
 (last one thought to be Take 25 by the engineer?)
---
TAKES 25-26
TAKE 27
---
TAKE 28 (MASTER)
---
PARTIAL TAKE 28 (MASTER), OVERDUB TAKE 1A
---
PARTIAL TAKE 28 (MASTER) WITH VOCAL AND INSTRUMENTAL OVERDUBS
-----------------------------------------
TAKE 1
---
TAKE 2
---
TAKE 3
TAKE 4
---
TAKE 5
TAKES 6-19
TAKE 20
TAKES 21-22
---
TAKE 23
---
TAKES 24-25
---
TAKE 26 (MASTER)
-----------------------------------------

Three at least.

The Doors - "Dead Cats, Dead Rats" (Jim Morrison) - "Absolutely Live" (1970), recorded on May 8th in Detroit.

Dead cats, dead rats
Can't see what they were at, all right
Dead cat in a top hat, wow
Sucking on the young man's blood
Wishing he could come, yeah
Sucking on the soldier's brain
Wishing it would be the same
Dead cat, dead rat
Can't you see what they were at?
Fat cat in a top hat
Thinks he's an aristocrat
Thinks he can kill and slaughter
Thinks he can shoot my daughter
Yeah right! Oh yeah!
Oh right! Yeeah!
Dead cats, dead rats
Think they're an aristocrat
Crap, now that's crap!

There is a book by Dick Heckstall-Smith, the saxophonist from Colosseum, "The Safest Plece in the World", which has the first-hand account of a working musician; it includes some BB-related anecdotes like having to rely on a battery from a Soviet tank for their PA, and a rather huge section on a socio-political analysis - but it must be said that he was a "tankie".

Thanks so much!  I had never heard of this so will check it out. 

The latest edition from 2004 is called "Blowing the Blues: Fifty Years Playing the British Blues".

There is a book by Dick Heckstall-Smith, the saxophonist from Colosseum, "The Safest Plece in the World", which has the first-hand account of a working musician; it includes some BB-related anecdotes like having to rely on a battery from a Soviet tank for their PA, and a rather huge section on a socio-political analysis - but it must be said that he was a "tankie".

I think these are available for some years now. There are 5CD and 4CD sets of Spector's sessions which are different. The 4CD set of Captain Acid's remasters is recommended, if only because it's from a lossless source.

I became aware of The Beatles' music about 40 years ago - they were, like, my father's generation. It was obvious to me right from the start that their early music, even not as advanced as the later works, had that electrifying quality. In fact, that word is astutely mentioned in the subtitle of some North American LP of theirs, The Second Album (I am used to the UK discography). As for The Beach Boys' music, much as I love them - my first experience of them was about 10 years later, Carl and the Passions / So Tough album, and my first thought was, "What is that sh*t?", but amazingly, I got sucked into that album, knowing already it was their weakest from the early era - it does not have that innate electrifying quality, even though, of course, it has many other most splendid qualities. For the early rock, The Beatles simply were IT.

I don't know if this has been proposed here, but in my opinion, Brian lacked a strong chorus, and whatever sequences there may be, they do not resemble a proper hit song because of this. IMO he should have worked on the "Bicycle Rider" thing.

Another thing - probably he did not want to build up anything resembling a hit (with a proper chorus in place) because of the problems with Capitol. So he worked on the song, but he wasn't working on the hit.

Are there other books, or recordings similar to the ones above, that you could recommend?

Any info would be appreciated!

Thank You!!

This thread:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,11250.0.html

LOL. I think a band which had appropriated a song by Charles Manson in the past can survive any association with Donald Trump.

I think I've found a good example of a most famous master recorded on a partially erased tape. The Doors, "Light My Fire". At the very start, roughly 5 seconds in, a female voice says something like "appeasingly". It's heard most clearly in the single mono mix, and (less so) in the mono mix. Stereo mix has it as well, but it's really subtle there. This means, it's on the 4-track master. Though it was the mono mix that was paid the most attention by Paul Rothchild and Bruce Botnick, they weren't able to do much in mono.

There is also unique stereo remix from the 4-track master made by Steve Hoffman, on the Audio Fidelity 2014 release "Legends / Get It On". This subliminal thing is still there, but oh-so-subtly. (Haven't checked yet the "Perception" remix by Bruce Botnick, as I am aware that some subtle noises are cleaned there.)

We know now it isn't Carol, as she recognised the fact herself 

LOL. What's that saying about the opinions and that everybody has one.

Check out this thread, it has a useful link to such a book:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,27362.0.html

I invest in books heavily. The market for physical books is alive and well. Yes there are authors who went the e-book route, either for new editions or entirely (Stephen MacParland is the obvious example regarding the BBs, but otherwise he'd have to sell physical books from his native Australia, and this is pretty much a problem). But their number is few, while an amazing number of music books is being printed, either as HB or PB, both by renowned publishing houses and by the "self-publishing" outlets, the scope is amazing.

A month ago, I was not able to buy a deluxe edition of a book on Hawkwind. Numbered at 500, it sold out as soon as it was announced to go "live", within days - at 50 GBP, at that!
http://strangeattractor.co.uk/shoppe/hawkwind-days-of-the-underground/
The deluxe edition offered a very good value for money in the guise of a bonus book.

As for the music releases, it all depends on the mindset of band members / management. Like, The Doors passed at issuing the promised multi-disc of "L.A. Woman" sessions back in 2011, while during the same time The Velvet Underground issued each of their 4 studio albums as multi-disc set, and then even more.

It's good that we've got "The Smile Sessions". I remember some people were complaining back at the time that this box is too pricey for them. Yet, were this material to appear in the '90s, it'd have been snapped like hot cakes. In my opinion, the labels shoot themselves in the foot by steering off the '90s model when a multi-disc box sold at what, $60 for 5 CDs? yes those weren't "deluxe" but in no way less classy.

...

First, and foremost: The article clearly states VIDEO and cites people who have seen it. Quite literally, my reaction was WTF? Unless this was done and missed for almost 60 years by Beatles experts and everyone else including the band themselves, is this just a glaring king-size error in reporting to say video instead of audio? Why would EMI film an unknown band? I have to think it is *audio* of that first session. All the evidence points to it being only audio. But then again, who knew Geoff Emerick rescued such a tape from the trash for all those years? I have to think the Anthology producers including the other Beatles didn't know he had it, unless it was a well-guarded secret that stayed a secret among the true inner circle (including Neil Aspinall). Thoughts?

If there's video, it could be from the "Get Back" era, as they've played "Love Me Do" during those sessions.

Most likely, the Everlys tape was disregarded / binned / whatever, because it wasn't needed by them or their producer. Erased (incompletely, as it turned out) and tossed to the heap of other such tapes. Then somehow it got picked up. And even when the unwanted sounds got onto another tape, of a valued client, that was not a huge "crime". Worst things happen in the studios - valuable tapes get mangled, erased partially or completely, just because the machines or people sometimes malfunction.

Here's a scenario -- The Everly's and the Studio Musicians record You Got the Power of Love on February 3rd.  Brian is around, likes the track, and asks for a dub so he can cut a mono to bring home.  By the time the engineer who did Power of Love gets around to giving Brian a copy, it's about a month later.  Brian brings the reel into the mixing session for the intermediate IWFTD track mix, planning to cut an acetate after he's done, and that's how it somehow accidentally gets used without getting erased.

Just as speculative as the other ways, but leaves out the byzantine process and ham-fisted engineering of some of the other hypothesis.

Such things simply weren't done. That's a violation of the very thing you value, the intellectual property. Probably a contract violation as well. Most producers/artists were against the notion that the others may get ideas from their work, so letting somebody other than producer/artist to take a copy home was the gravest violation imaginable. The asker would feel himself a fool were he to entertain the idea.

The person who'd be able to make a copy for his personal use, other than the producer/artist, would be an engineer. But I doubt this would have been the case in the first half of the sixties - no general need for this and stricter workplace discipline.

Again, these are pretty evidence-less assumptions.  Do we really know what it would take for old tape to get reused?  I imagine there was some amount of tape recycling done, but on the other hand, depending on the situation, studios may not have had the right to do that with everyone if the record company claimed ownership of all materials.  That's not to say they always did, nor that intellectual property rights were always honored.  The Everly's are a pretty big act, as are the Beach Boys.  Would the studio really deem a Brian Wilson project "less important" and not worthy of a new reel?

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but we can't close the book on this without better evidence.

If the tape was erased - and it was, just not perfectly - it was marked for a "lesser use", say for a recording by an unproven act, so the act could've save a bit of the money on the tape which wasn't brand new, and the studio was efficient in saving on their expenditure. The only question is, how that binned tape ended up used not by nobodys, but the BBs.

The bleed-through is also present on the 8-track session tape for "IWFTD" - it's audible on the S.O.T. boot before the song starts, I just don't hear it in the final mix.

Like you, I wonder if the management allowed the engineers at Columbia futzing with the fuddy-daddy brand-new 8-track machine just to save somebody's mix...but most likely so in the case of a common 4-track one. Could it be the SOT bootleg represents the results before the Columbia session?

It could be that they caught the problem at Columbia, and an engineer did a temporary alignment change of the heads on a Columbia machine, the 4-track one, so they'd be able to rid of the unwanted sound.

Huh? The unwanted sound is there on the final mix, do I don't think they got rid of it...

Oh, I've meant, they caught the problem in time for "IWFTD". In what order were the songs recorded?