Even better: http://www.tiptopwebsite.com/custommusic2/craigslowinskicom.pdf#page=42

Is NRBQ guesting on this?

Depressing to read some of these posts. 'Some Sweet Day' is fantastic and the Paley tracks blow away almost everything BW has done since.

That doesn't prove anything other than that they originally flirted with the idea of having two verse sections. You can hear it all over the Heroes and Villains and Good Vibrations sessions, sections that aren't supposed to be leading into each other and Brian inexplicably labeling something a "pick-up to second verse".

I sourced the vocal from US Vol.19 and the GV 1990 box set. Check out track 27 on US. The backing track (with overdubbed vocals) has only one verse section, exactly as on the released version.

Can't Wait Too Long to me isn't a song. It has two intros, a bridge and a fade

If we assume that the 1990 SS/WH mix of CWTL contains the full '68 tape (discounting the WH tag), then it would have run longer than almost everything on Friends, and had somebody simply recorded a lead vocal, it would not seem any more malformed than "Passing By" or "Wake the World".

>Proof of concept< (ignore that the last fly-in does not match the chords, and thus was probably superfluous)

It does make more sense to think of them as two different songs from '67 and '68. A complete 'definitive' version is impossible. The structure just can't accomodate multiple versions of the same two progressions repeated again and again any more than you could do it for Good Vibrations.

I have read once, from either BW or VDP, that VDP would occasionally suggest ideas like playing the song in a different key.

Too bad it was digitally removed from the new stereo mix. The backing vocals now have this weird stuttering artifact because of it.

And if LTWB wasn't a digital extraction mix, I can't understand why there's an arbitrary noise gate on the backing vocal stem.

Curious how you'd respond to this list.

The original post I was replying to appeared to suggest that Brian's tremendously poor artistic decisions should be validated or elevated by Mike's tremendously poor artistic decisions.

My response to your post: virtually everybody whose devotion to the Beach Boys lies above "casual" and beneath "diehard" considers NPP and DIA'17 to be equally disposable latter-day solo works recorded by septuagenarians. Only super fanboys think about any of the points that you listed. "At least Brian's music is newly written" is a total fallacy that I'm seriously not interested in engaging with. Bad music is bad music. The irony is lost on anyone who believes this new Mike Love single is something reprehensible but thinks NPP advances the case for Brian Wilson: Musical Artist. For the majority opinion of how NPP contributed to his legacy, consult the exceptionally honest Tiny Mix Tapes review. (For the record, I disagree with some aspects of the piece, but the general sentiment is dead-on.)

Every single person who criticized Brian for having She & Him, Kacey Musgraves, Sebu and Nate Ruess guesting on his solo album can now officially go heartily f*** themselves.

What is the difference, really? Are you really that much more happy to hear Robot Brian singing over a Kenny G. version of Summer Means New Love?

The only time throughout the whole set that I can hear Brian "in charge" is when he's instructing Dennis to play a tom on Let the Wind Blow.

I hear Carl counting off most of the tracks.

Although Mark could've used a few more limiters to match the Sgt Pepper's remix.
 

Good reminder of how this could have sounded like an overcompressed mush

This is nothing more than another piece of merchandising to be given out at the Pet Sounds shows. It would be silly to read this as "testing the waters" for further archival releases... They could issue a "rarities" comp whenever they want. And everyone knows it would easily surpass the sales of this.

Thanks for those quotes, HeyJude. Better than what I was looking for.

I've tried looking for a contemporary quote - from anybody - saying something along the lines of "Mike was jealous of Brian's collaborators." No dice. Makes one wonder!

[Anderle believes this quote has been taken out of context, as Mike was focused on the bottom line and less concerned with the “artistic” side of the business equation.]

I don't see anything stated by Anderle on that point. From the book Words and Music of Brian Wilson (2017) (the only other source I can find for the quote being "taken out of context"):

“Don't f*** with the formula,” a quote frequently attributed to Mike Love was a reminder that Brian should not forget what brought success, fame, and riches to the band: namely, a winning formula that encompassed themes of fun, sun, surf, cars.  Anderle believes this quote has been taken out of context, as Mike was focused on the bottom line and less concerned with the “artistic” side of the business equation.

So by "bottom line", "don't f*** with the formula" = "don't leave me out of royalties for this album"? Is that really what Anderle meant? Would like a direct quote to be 100% sure. From the Nolan article:

Mike Love was the tough one for David. Mike really befriended David: He wanted his aid in going one direction while David was trying to take it the opposite way. Mike kept saying, "You're so good, you know so much, you're so realistic, you can do all this for us — why not do it this way," and David would say, "Because Brian wants it that way." "Gotta be this way." David really holds Mike Love responsible for the collapse. Mike wanted the bread, "and don't f*** with the formula."

I'm still not sure how this is "out of context".

The quote was allegedly printed for the first time in the 1971 Nolan article. In the context it was invoked, Anderle seemed to have been talking about the business formula, not the music formula, although there was a mention that the other Beach Boys were "freaked out" by Brian's new music. In the other Anderle statements from 1968, there is no ambiguity on the subject. "Don't f*** with the formula" = "let's go back to boy-girl surf songs".

So why did Anderle say that the quote was taken out of context? In his belief, what was the "formula" that was being "f***ed with"?

(Almost all of the quotations in Mike's book were public statements. I don't know if "taken slightly out of context" was printed anywhere, but I assume it can be found in Leaf's book. How else would Mike know what Anderle said to Leaf?)

From Mike's book:

By the time Leaf's book was published, Anderle told Leaf that my quote “was taken slightly out of context.” It was still used.

When and where did Anderle say this exactly? And what was his full explanation?

Early 1967, I had planned to make an album entitled SMILE.  I was working with a guy named Van Dyke Parks, who was collaborating with me on some of the tunes, and in the process, we came up with a song called "Surf's Up," and I performed that with just a piano on a documentary show made on rock music.  The song "Surf's Up" that I sang on that documentary never came out on an album, and it was supposed to come out on the SMILE album, and that and a couple of other songs were junked... because... I don't know why... for some reason didn't want to put them on the album.  And the group nearly broke up, actually broke up for good after that. [With] SMILE, I didn't think that the songs were right for the public at the time.  I just didn't have a feeling... a commercial feeling about some of these songs, what we've never released.  Maybe some people like to hang on to certain songs as their own little songs that they've written, almost for themselves.  A lot of times a person will write... and will realize later... it's not commercial.  You know, what they've written is nice for them... but a lot of people just don't like it.  Maybe some people like to hang on to certain things..."

(obtained from http://www.angelfire.com/mn/smileshop/essaysprokopy.html)

In Fort Worth, Texas, there is a drug clinic which takes people off the streets and helps them get over bad [[LSD]] trips. They don't use any traditional medical treatment whatsoever. All they do is play the patient our ''Smiley Smile'' album and apparently this acts as a soothing remedy which relaxes them and helps them to recover completely from their trip.

(obtained from http://surfermoon.com/essays/quotes.shtml#carl_wilson )

Where were these first published?

Are all the WH stereo tracks new, or were the 2001~12 mixes recycled?

Newly mixed.

That's good. Hopefully this time it's more faithful to the mono than other stereo remixes as of late.

Are all the WH stereo tracks new, or were the 2001~12 mixes recycled?

Is Doe really that important of a Beach Boys historian? Has he done any kind of research comparable to Craig Slowinski or James B. Murphy? Or Ian Rusten and Jon Stebbins? His website seems to be just a compilation of info from other sources. Useful, perhaps, but not essential, and it could be done much better -- it's a badly-designed and a chore to look at, what with its garish colors and tacky wooden boardwalk backgrounds. I'm reminded of websites from the 90s. All that's missing is a "hits counter" at the bottom of the page.

The Beach Boys fan community can do much better than Doe. Indeed, others have contributed (and are contributing) much more to research on the band, and they're doing it without Doe's attitude.

Couldn't leave this one alone. I have no opinion on Doe, but in terms of providing a user-friendly compendium available to everyone, nobody else has come close, and it's doubtful they ever will. There are many individuals on this forum who have shelled out literally thousands of dollars collecting every piece of literature ever written about the band. With those resources, they could start a Bellagio rival, but nah, they'd rather bicker about Mike Love or fantasize about what the Beach Boys would be like if they were born female. Best thing we got is the 2 or 3 people who have been beefing up the Beach Boys Wikipedia pages for the past decade or so.

Honorable mention: The Beach Boys Fan Club's Liner Notes Archive. Wonder why they stopped archiving after 1999.

BWPS didn't exist in '97...

When does Brian talk about a "ringy-dingy" guitar on BWPS?

This one will never die...at least as long as people like me keep bringing it up...and forgive me if this was discussed when the book first came out, but in Brian's recent memoir, it's described as a Gibson mando-guitar (page 178). The way Brian refers to it as a "one-of-a-kind" guitar relates perfectly to how he described it back in '96 or '97 as being something really special - a"ringy-dingy" kind of guitar. We've discussed this at length over the past 5-6 years, but is it time to put it to rest with the knowledge that Brian has revealed the instrument's true identity? Or not...?

In the same book, he says that "He Gives Speeches" is on BWPS.

If he couldn't remember it in '97, then it's extremely likely that Greenman was just filling in a blank. Hardly a verification.

What precedent are you basing your predictions from?