Finally finished the documentary tonight. In broad strokes, I didn't hate it, didn't love it. There definitely needed to be more complete songs... you could palpably feel the film 'lose interest' when a song started playing... and the last 20-30 minutes did feel rushed. Definitely needed some time in the 80s-to-present era and ideally more time with Carl and Dennis. FWIW, I didn't think the selling-of-the-songs subplot was that big of a deal. Overall, solid B/B-, but yeah, it should have been so much better.

The last 20-30 minutes of the film is truly strange. It just smells like 87 people had their hands in it, they kept trying to figure out where to stop and how much to cover, and at some point they just gave up, picked an arbitrary cut-off, and then rushed that finish line. Like, how do you sum up everything after "Holland" up into the 90s and beyond in like 60 seconds?

Regarding the songwriting and publishing issues, somehow this film manages to both understate and overstate it at the same time. It doesn't help conflating the selling of the catalog with Murry leaving Mike's name off songs (again, not wholly unrelated, but this film certainly isn't interested in anywhere near that level of nuance to explain THAT).

The whole deal with documentary films, well any films really, is that it has to have some kind of pace and flow. When this film *does* manage to get into "controversial" topics, it doesn't segue in or out of them well at all. It either screeches to a halt for Mike to complain about it with little other context from others, or it's so comically vague (e.g. the 90s lawsuits) that it defeats the purpose. Like, if you're not going to do the bare minimum to explain these things and provide a decent amount of context, then why bother?

This film has in some circles been called a whitewash. But it's messier than that. A whitewash would at least feel like a more clean, concise film. This is like a brown-wash. They start relatively streamlined, but then all the colors start being added at random intervals, and we're left with brown. Not happy or clean enough to be a whitewashed EPK, but not detailed enough to explain any of the sad/controversial/contentious stuff. So you're just left with not a lot of information, but a slightly icky feeling because they still bring up Murry and Manson and vague allusions to lawsuits.

It really feels like funding was cut, and they had 24 hours to figure out how to end it.

I read on Facebook that Al is supposedly working with Brian and Mike.

I think that the main problem with Mike is that everybody, when talking of him, talks only of money, lawsuits, litigations, quarrels, etc. Nobody seems to think of him primarily as an artist.
Not the Mike Haters, obviously.
Not the Mike Lovers.
Not the "neutral" observers.
Not the Beach Boys fans.
Not the other Beach Boys.
And sadly, neither Mike himself (and hence the Stamos travesty).
That's, imho, the real original sin about him.

Some posts above I posted a maybe too long message extolling his artistic accomplishments. No comments by anyone: I'm not complaining, I was expecting exactly that. But a stray joke about say, his having been seen with a glass of beer in hand, may generate pages upon pages.

Excellent point. I can think of a good example of this, regarding his song Ram Raj. I thought it(along with All The Love In Paris) was his best work since the 70's, but all anybody wanted to talk about was a dumb throwaway joke at the end.

I keep seeing vague hints at, and downright insinuations, that Mike has no right to bitch and moan about being ripped off at this point, because his children and grandchildren are multimillionaires. You aren't getting the point. It's not about money.  I don't care if they're all trillionaires. When Murry sold their life's work and legacy he may as well have stuck in a needle and drawn out each of their blood.

And yes, the rights may well have ended up being sold by now anyway. But guess what? It would have been THEIR CHOICE and right, being the rightful owners.

Mike said something specific regarding his feelings about the SOT sale that I don't think anybody has mentioned yet(I haven't read this whole thread), and I think it kind of gives a glimpse of the full extent of his hurt over all this. In selling off the songs, Murry not only screwed his children, but his children's children. Murry sold their life's work. Their legacy. Their entire identity.

I just watched this last night. I have many thoughts about it. I'm probably going to watch it a second time and actually take notes to do a full review. My first thoughts are that this is quite a bit better than it's reputation. Lots of details is given to the Al-David-Al again chronology, and the Brian-Al-Brian-Glenn and finally Bruce chronology. I really appreciated the archival interviews with Carl and Brian detailing the Nick Vinet battle with Murry over Brian's role as producer. These are just a few details that actually made portions of this documentary actually better than Endless Harmony for me, personally. I do agree that it kind of really fell apart in the last 15 or so minutes.

I wouldn't say it's "lots of details." They do lay out the chronology, including Brian's first break from the road. But there's not much substance or context given beyond "Brian didn't like the road." That isn't good filmmaking. It's like, "Congrats for getting a fact correct."

The "Endless Harmony" doc had a great interview clip from *Brian himself* discussing this moment. This new doc already cribbed tons of stuff from "Endless Harmony", so why not ahead and do it there too?

And they never addressed Bruce's departure (nor Blondie or Ricky's for that matter).

The new doc spends the first approx. 90 of its 106 minutes (not counting end credits) covering 61 to 67, so sure, they are able to slip a bit more detail on a few pieces of the story, including a brief interlude discussing Venet being tossed as producer.

If you have to wade through this doc to find a story here or there that isn't in "Endless Harmony", that's a pretty bad sign.

I think everybody should try this exercise: Review the new doc without mentioning any other doc. Pretend no other documentary exists on the band. Does this new doc do the job? I don't think so. Not even for the "general public." Is it a block of programming featuring BB images and music that gives them some sort of "exposure"? Sure. But this also could have been accomplished by dropping "Endless Harmony" on Disney+, or "Doin' It Again", etc.

This documentary was lazy. It isn't difficult, with cute visual aids to boot, to explain a series of personnel changes and the order in which they happened. It isn't so easy to explain "Pet Sounds" or "Smile" or Murry, or, if you're inclined to get into the Manson stuff, explain/contextual that correctly.

There are bits and pieces of the *production values* on this doc that are fine, and I suppose if one isn't trying to really pay too close attention, this might provide a bit of a smoke screen for how bad this doc is.

It went into quite a bit of detail about just how much was on Brian's plate and how it was taking a toll on him, and it went into detail about his writing and producing, so I think that's plenty of context regarding why Brian didn't want to tour. It honestly seems like some people are trying to find things to criticize....

 I just watched this last night. I have many thoughts about it. I'm probably going to watch it a second time and actually take notes to do a full review. My first thoughts are that this is quite a bit better than it's reputation. Lots of details is given to the Al-David-Al again chronology, and the Brian-Al-Brian-Glenn and finally Bruce chronology. I really appreciated the archival interviews with Carl and Brian detailing the Nick Vinet battle with Murry over Brian's role as producer. These are just a few details that actually made portions of this documentary actually better than Endless Harmony for me, personally. I do agree that it kind of really fell apart in the last 15 or so minutes.

And now for the $64,000 question: How does this compare to the 25th Anniversary show?

The implications of something like this are horrifying.

I found this interesting website. I'm not sure if it's been posted before on here or not.  https://omnibuspress.com/blogs/blog/the-viewing-listening-and-reading-list-for-god-only-knows-the-story-of-brian-wilson-the-beach-boys-the-california-myth

Both Carnegie Hall shows uncut and unaltered, and a high quality recording of River Song for starters.

That song is the closest they ever got to sounding like a real rock band.

While we're at it, who on earth does the "dom dom kindom" part? It sounds like Billy to me.

I always assumed it was Blondie (?)

Gotta be Billy. No?

Pay close attention to the way he sings/pronounces the "dom" in the word kingdom. It doesn't sound like any group members to me, except possibly Dennis.

That's cool. Is this the show that Carl had to apologize for the day after?

No, unfortunately. This was a few days later. He still looks quite rough though. Dennis looks great!

I've definitely never been shy about saying that "Make It Good", while truly interesting and impressive in its scope and willingness to diversify their sound, has always been somewhat difficult to easily digest. The stripped back mixes of "Make It Good" and "Cuddle Up" on this set  are revelatory and indispensable. I like "Make It Good" even more now, and certainly many other newer fans/listeners will be able to get at the song easier potentially, and it's also of course always interesting and instructive to hear stripped-back mixes.

Also, regarding a previous comment about wanting alternate takes of songs, I'm not sure how much of that stuff there is once you get into the later era, particularly the 70s. I don't think there's the same kind of full hours of take-after-take of backing tracks like with a lot of the 60s stuff, with an engineer calling out "Take 37!" So unless there's something notable and different about it, I'm not sure if there's much value in putting like a half-finished, aborted backing track take of "Hold on Dear Brother" that sounds just like the finished backing track, only with some stray note and then the whole take stopping. At that point, it makes much more sense, if one is inclined to present a backing track (or backing track with backing vocals) to use a finished take. 

That's pretty much what I was getting at. It just seems like a "just for the hell of it" decision that really doesn't have a point.

I get your point. I just think it would have been cool to hear a "take 1" or "take 2" of something. For example, I've always wondered if Marcella might have started out sounding more like the live arrangement in the early stages.

While we're at it, who on earth does the "dom dom kindom" part? It sounds like Billy to me.

I really don't understand the point of the 2022 "Saga Trilogy". They could have put on the other Mt Vernon home demo instead. I also think it would be cool to hear some actual alternate takes of songs, instead of just a few sessions highlights.

I just noticed that on both Youtube and Spotify the track "Marcella" from disc 1 is "Mess of Help", and that song appears on disc 1 twice.

Just had a listen to a couple of live tracks. Al's lead on "Don't worry Baby" is insane! 

It really is one of his best ever lead vocals.  Much better than the In Concert version, which itself isn't shabby.

I agree. This version should have been used instead.

First of all: I don't know how trustworthy this is. That said, this guy seems to be selling 8mm footage of the '78 show in Sydney:


https://payhip.com/b/OoBy

I just bought it, but my computer won't play MPEG. Any ideas/help?

edit: I got it to work! It's definitely real, and pretty cool! Shows Brian playing bass throughout.

Just had a listen to a couple of live tracks. Al's lead on "Don't worry Baby" is insane! 

That track really blew me away when I heard it! Damn near tear inducing!!

One thing I noticed is that "Steamboat" to me sounds distorted and a bit "overloaded" in general. The actual mix of it was great. I heard details I'd never heard before. But it sounded almost too loud  or something.

The tracks that do have both the Anthology and the new set in common aren't even 100% the same on each release . Take 1 of Tomorrow Never Knows on this new set is the entire unedited version, and is almost a minute longer than the version on Anthology 2.

I didn't know that Telecasters had a "whammy bar".

It's really strange how Dennis almost looked like a completely different person with and without a beard. It's also a bit strange seeing what I perceive to be "young Dennis" with a rough voice.

There is considerable controversy over the actual speed mix of take 5 of Rain on Facebook.

What’s the scoops?  Tried to find on FB but too much content. Giles go a bit overboard with his new mix?

I don't fully understand it, but the gist of it is that the original Rain master take was recorded with just guitar and drums at a very fast tempo. This track was slowed down, and then Paul overdubbed his bass on the now much slower recording. This was the master take, and what was officially released(once all vocals were added). The recording in it's original speed was released on the new box set. The thing is, Giles took the overdubbed bass and sped it up to match the speed of the original recording. A lot of people are saying the take should have been released without bass, as originally recording. But a bunch of people are saying that the sped up bass is in the wrong key, and that's the big issue.

Very, very well explained!  Very interesting debate. A little too much monkey business by Giles Martin. I wonder if Paul was consulted?

I've also read a few people questioning whether the original take as released is even playing at the right speed. Some are finding it hard that Ringo could drum at that fast a speed. This is the recording in question, with the bass from the released version added and sped up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3IuNGxGVXk