If by recently you mean 2016–17, then yes I've seen both bands live. Mike's band on October 5, 2016 and Brian's band on May 12, 2017, both in Houston. I pretty much enjoyed both shows equally; and they were quite different from each other in presentation and atmosphere, even though many songs were the same.

The first show I attended by myself. I sat about five or six rows from the stage. Unfortunately, it wasn't until two years later that I started recording every show I go to on audio. I sure would've liked to have both of these shows as a keepsake, and especially because they were in smaller venues and the sound would have been great.

The things I remember about Mike and Bruce's show were how fast-paced it was, but still intimate; Mike's vocals being great and he was in a good mood; how tight the band was; and the crowd was very enthusiastic. Some highlights for me that I can recall were Kiss Me Baby, Their Hearts Were Full of Spring, and I'm Waiting For The Day. Since I grew up watching Full House (and I will admit, my first real exposure to the band), I was hoping John Stamos would be at that one but unfortunately he wasn't, although Mike did namedrop him.

I really enjoyed mingling with the people around me during the intermission. Some of them seemed like big fans. I looked around to see if there were any people closer to my age there (I was 23 at the time), but I only saw one couple that were younger. I also seem to recall another younger girl that was in the same row as me but on the other side. She was there with her mother I think… and she sticks out of my mind because she was standing up and singing Kokomo really enthusiastically during said song.

After the show, an older woman that had been sitting a few seats down from me told me she saw me singing along a lot and asked me how I knew all of those songs. I told her I was a DJ (which is the truth), to which she enthusiastically replied, "well good for you!"

For Brian's concert, I went with a friend of mine who is a musician (who was also working backstage during Mike and Bruce's show). The Boys are far from his favorite band, but he does appreciate their music quite a bit. He actually sent me a picture of the setlist just before Mike and Bruce's show started, but I didn't look at it because I wanted it all to be a surprise.

I wasn't as close to the stage at Brian's show, but we were still on the floor. There were several people sitting around us who were also big fans and I enjoyed conversating with them before the show. One woman in particular I remember mentioned to me that Sunflower was her favorite album, so I knew she was serious.

I knew that Brian's mood and performance could be a hit or miss at concerts, but to me, he really seemed into it that night. I loved every minute of that show and it was a great performance by Brian, Al and Blondie. I'd be lying if I said that Brian is the greatest front man in the world, but I agree with an above statement that his show has a more genuine and authentic feel to it. Some highlights I recall were Wild Honey, with Blondie's extended guitar solo, Add Some Music To Your Day, and God Only Knows for which Brian received a standing ovation. I'll never forget that moment!

Well, that was over five years ago now; and I hope the bands are still delivering good quality shows for the most part.

Recently, Mike's band played two shows in Galveston that I considered going to, but couldn't get a ticket. As it turned out, I wasn't that disappointed, because upon viewing the setlist, it was just the standard fare with nothing real special added. However, Brian will be in town next month with Chicago and I'm definitely going to try and make that one! I have a couple of friends whom I turned onto the band, and they want to go with me. The Chicago/BB concert bill is a classic, and I'm really looking forward to it!

To echo another point made above, I agree that cell phone video is not the best way to judge a performance. For example, I recently saw George Strait in concert for only the second time ever and the first time in nine years. I have seen a few videos in recent years posted on social media by people I know who have attended his shows. Based on some of those videos, my opinion was somewhat that he seems to be getting old and his performing days may be coming to a complete end. However, that was not my opinion at all upon leaving the concert! He seemed just as young and vigorous as he ever has, and I'd bet that he has at least ten more years left in him! Even when I go back and listen to my (well-recorded) audio of the show, my latter opinion stands.

Nice touch of placing "(Wouldn't It Be Nice) to Live Again" after "Til I Die" and "Surf's Up", thus restoring the intention of that song being last in the sequence of SU songs, which Denny was denied.

Well, sort of. I think Denny wanted his song to follow 'Til I Die. And so far, these two songs have been my favorite part of this set! Why in the world was the extended flute solo on To Live Again cut on the Made in California set? Was that a final decision that Denny originally made? It gives the song a whole new flair! It took me several times listening to take it all in. I also love the a capella coda on the alternate 'Til I Die! Gave me chills...

I'm already working on some unique mixes with these two songs as we speak. 90% of the BB music I have came from Scott G's blog in 2016... (and he is personally responsible for me becoming a superfan; thanks Scott!)

Scott's mix of 'Til I Die with the a capella coda faded out creates the definitive version in my catalog! I'm also probably going to use the Made in California mix of To Live Again up until the coda, as the guitar solo is more audible in that mix.

So far, the only thing that has disappointed me a bit is the new mixes of the album cut. I haven't heard them all, just a few samples, but so far they're sounding a bit lifeless, even if there is more bass added. Then again, Scott was always able to breathe new life into his mixes, and that's what I'm used to hearing.

Other highlights for me have been the new quality mixes of Seasons in the Sun, It's a New Day, and Awake (wow!)

Brian may have wanted to use the extended bridge all along, but had to trim it down to first release it as a single; and keep in mind that the single was already long enough as it was.

At 3:35, it was the longest song to hit #1 in 1966. The next highest was Paint It Black which was 3:19; and coincidentally, the previous #1 single that was longer than GV was (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction at 3:45.

Most hit singles then were three minutes or less, and had the cut section been included, the song would have been closer to four minutes, which wouldn't have been feasible then. I actually didn't notice how long the song was for the time period until I read about it in Mike's book.

Had SMiLE been properly released back then, the extended bridge probably would have been included on the album version. But instead, the single version was slapped onto Smiley Smile (against Brian's wishes) and it basically became the official version at that point.

I've replaced the link in the OP which has been dead for several weeks.

Apologies if you saw this during that time and weren't able to download it. In the future, don't hesitate to send me a PM if you want a link.

I've been wanting to compile an edit of Lei'd In Hawaii since the official recordings were released, but never have. The only attempt I've made was a project a few years ago where I added applause to the studio tracks, but I never finished that.

Today I started from scratch and decided to only use the live tracks and see how good of an album I could come up with. Most of the tracks I used were full performances from the respective night, but a few were spliced from both nights. For the most part, the editing and splicing is very clean, but at the same time, I wanted it to sound like an album produced in 1968 so it isn't completely perfect.

There was one moment in particular when Brian missteps the final verse of Sloop John B. At first I edited this out (and the edit sounded fine), but then Brian's off-mike commentary right after that remained, so I decided to just leave the mistake in. It doesn't sound too bad anyway.

The splice in Surfer Girl turned out so well that I dare someone to point out where it is...  

Overall this album isn't so bad, and I don't think too many people would have turned up their noses at it if it had actually been released. To me, the unpolished live tracks are more enjoyable than the studio recordings. Not to mention the studio tracks probably wouldn't have fooled too many people if they had been on the album.

The Letter
You're So Good To Me
Help Me, Rhonda
Surfin'
California Girls
Surfer Girl
Sloop John B

Heroes and Villains
Gettin' Hungry
God Only Knows
Good Vibrations
Barbara Ann

https://we.tl/t-yAXocIWeGK

Enjoy, and let me know what you think!

On the list of the top 30 most played songs on my iTunes, coming in at #1 ahead of Something by The Beatles, Shoot To Thrill by AC/DC, and Black Dog by Led Zeppelin... is none other than Little Bird.

If I didn't have a computer counting how many times I've played each song, I probably would not have guessed that one was #1, but obviously the proof is in the pudding. 

Something about this song is very mesmerizing, and it's hard to describe why. I guess it probably comes down to the vocal harmonies of the group being some of the best ever recorded. It really is too bad the song isn't very well known outside of hardcore fans. I actually played it not long ago when some of my hippie friends were over and we were having some smokes. 

They actually really liked it. As a matter of fact, one of them asked me the name of the album it was on so she could stream it on Spotify. I also remember her commenting on how cool the album cover for Friends is.

But being a radio DJ myself, I've always wondered how this song ended up being the flip side of the single. At the time the song was released, the band hadn't completely faded into obscurity yet; and the previous single had been a top 20 hit (also reaching #2 in their hometown). With Friends stalling at #47, it kind of baffles me that some jocks weren't flipping the record over and playing the even more catchy flip side! Especially considering the band had pretty good amount of B-sides that became minor hits themselves (at least by '60s standards). Not to mention some stations treating the B-side as the hit side.

In LA for example, God Only Knows was the hit single instead of Wouldn't It Be Nice; and in Washington, Don't Worry Baby hit #1 in 1964 rather than I Get Around.

But even though the songs did not formally hit the charts, that doesn't mean it wasn't played at all back then. Does anyone remember hearing on the radio when the single was out?

1. Surf's Up (SMiLE Sessions Mix)
2. Good Vibrations
3. (Wouldn't It Be Nice) To Live Again
4. God Only Knows
5. Don't Worry Baby
6. Wouldn't It Be Nice
7. 'Til I Die (Scott G's Extended Album Mix)
8. California Girls
9. Please Let Me Wonder
10. Forever
 

They all of a distinctive ability to sound like each other if they really try to. All except for Dennis, I guess; he has the most different voice from the rest of them.

One example I can think of that I mistook one for another was Bruce during the coda of God Only Knows. I used to think that was Mike.

I guess if anyone on this board has Al's email address, they could ask him. 

The recent thread about God Only Knows reminded me of a similar question I've been meaning to ask...

Who sings the verses of Be Here In The Mornin'? To my ears, I'd swear it's Al on the verses and Brian in the chorus.

Al is not listed as a lead singer of this song in the Wikipedia article on Friends; Brian and Carl are. I actually added Al as the lead singer in that article last year because I thought a mistake was present, but it was soon changed back.

Anyone know?

I agree Brian probably would've followed up SMiLE with something similar to Wild Honey, although Mama Says most likely wouldn't have been on it. Friends would remain mostly unchanged as well, apart from perhaps the Child is The Father of The Man section from Little Bird. It does make me wonder what the SMiLE songs on 20/20, Sunflower and Surf's Up in this universe would be replaced with.

I have all my music on iTunes and it includes SMiLE. So for practical purposes I replace Our Prayer and Cabinessense on 20/20 with Sail Plane Song and Ol’ Man River, respectively. The rest of it is the same.

I’ve never noticed any references to Child is Father of the Man in Little Bird. Could you elaborate on that, please?

I certainly don’t think SMiLE would have flopped if released in 1967. There was both momentum and hype from word of mouth, numerous articles, and a #1 single. I firmly believe the album would have topped the charts.

As for Monterey Pop, I really don’t see how they would have bombed at that as some of us seem to think. Sure, if they kept up their usual on-stage antics and performed nothing but Fun, Fun, Fun-esque songs, it probably wouldn’t have gone that well at all.

But let’s for a minute speculate that SMiLE had been released or was close to being released around the time of the festival and a few songs from it were performed. Let’s also speculate that since the crowd was fairly mellow, Mike and Carl wouldn’t have acted as crazy on stage as they usually did, because usually those antics were being fed by the wild girls screaming.

Based on their regular repertoire at the time, the set could have looked something like this:

California Girls
Help Me, Rhonda
Surfer Girl
Wouldn’t It Be Nice
Heroes and Villains
You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away
God Only Knows
Surf’s Up
I Get Around
You’re So Good To Me
Sloop John B
Good Vibrations

I think it could have been a memorable gig (in a good way).

Excellent observations all around!

You’re right about the Little Deuce Coupe album. It kind of had a slow burn with sales, but ultimately charted higher than Surfer Girl. I like most of the songs on the album, and I like the car-themed concept, but ultimately I think it was a pointless release. Some songs on it could have been held over and reduced filler on the next album.

As for the compilations, like I said, I think Vol. 1 has mostly good selections, but the other two could have been better. A lot of bigger hits, like you said, were absent in favor a bunch of other tracks that were seemingly drawn out of a hat.

I know there are a lot of things that we look at with 21st century viewpoints and scratch our heads, but The Beach Boys are the only band I can think of (other than perhaps Elvis) in which you have to wonder if anyone thought they were being mis-managed even then. 

when Brian says "I've done only one or two tunes and I hate them" undoubtedly he's referring to In My Childhood, and about the other I wonder if it was what we now refer to as Trombone Dixieland

Right or wrong (or somewhere in between) the Wikepaedia site speaks of Best of BB Vol. 2  as being released in July '67 because the SMiLE album failed to materialize.  If the Best Of BB vol. 1 was planned even while pet sounds was being recorded (as Nick Venet seems to say above) then it stands to reason Vol. 2 was LP 'ammunition' capitol prepared similarly early-on (certainly before the SMiLE collapse it seems)

makes me wonder how much Brian was informed while he was recording pet sounds (of Vol. 1), and recording SMiLE (of Vol. 2).  Did capitol keep their compilation plans totally secret--that's a helluva thing

I know it's been written that their Party! album was a time-buying concoction for Brian to prepare pet sounds.  Ironically it also furnished the lead track to Best Of BB Vol. 2 later (Barbara Ann)

My conclusion, for the time being, is things stink as regards the you're-only-as-good-as-your-last-record confidence and album subterfuge capitol displayed during that timeframe

Volume 2 may have been prepared for release as early as January since that was supposed to be the original release date of Smile.

That's a pretty good question as to if Brian and crew were informed that the compilations were being prepared. I doubt they were a complete secret, but you never know.

Of course, the back cover of Vol. 1 clearly states that the selections were picked by the Beach Boys themselves, so we have to believe that right? 

But seriously, I'd like to know who really picked the songs for the "best of" compilations, because while a majority of the tracks are good choices, there were some real head-scratchers too. Vol. 1 doesn't contain any real stinkers, but Vol. 2 has Long Tall Texan and Little Saint Nick. The latter isn't a bad song, but a Christmas song tacked in with regular songs is not usually a good choice. Vol. 3 takes it a step further with Frosty The Snowman (are you sh**ting me??), 409 is repeated, and Surfin' is included (not a good choice in 1968).

"You've got to understand that Brian was so impulsive, compulsive, you never knew what was coming next. The 'best of' package was put together while Brian was working on Pet Sounds. There was a great love at the time of Beach Boys product ... There were [salesmen] out there that could sell Beach Boys product and the [customers]  were asking for it. The Pet Sounds album was supposed to be ready a long time before, and it wasn't going to be ready. The whole company was geared up to the 'best of' package. Everything had been locked in, magazine advertising, the separations for the cover had been printed and stacked in a warehouse."

Ah ha. There you have it. It was planned long before it was released.

I actually have not read the Heroes and Villains book, but it sounds like a must-read so I ordered it and it will be in the mail tomorrow. Can't wait!

However, what isn't mentioned is how the single actually did on the main vehicle of that era for a single release, AM radio. AM radio was still very regional, where a single could be huge in one market and barely dent another. Some DJ's (when DJ's were human could still play the records they wanted to play and were not robotically programmed) would push a certain record in a certain market in the US, and it would be a hit in that area. Sometimes, such activity led other markets and DJ's to follow suit, and there are many, many cases of one regional DJ "breaking" a record nationally from this.

It's all listed in the surveys, playlists, airchecks, etc. from that era. It's not as often listed in the official histories.

This, right here, is exactly right.

This might be a good time to mention that I have a degree in radio. I often study and archive little tidbits of history. One of the subjects I have archived is the #1 singles of the most popular AM Pop station in the biggest markets in the country (WABC in New York, KHJ in Los Angeles, ect). Right now I only have most of the '60s and '70s written down but I don't really plan to go further than that at this point.

Anyway, for each week, I have an indicator to mark if the #1 song matched the Billboard national charts for the same week. More often than not, the answer is no, particularly in the '60s. The '70s, though, showed more consistency throughout the charts. Now, just because the weeks didn't usually match does not mean the same songs did not reach #1 in the respective markets. They usually did, but at different times than they did nationally.

For example, let's take a song we're all familiar with... Good Vibrations. The song hit #1 on December 10, 1966. It also reached #1 in the markets of Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago, Cleveland, and Washington... to name a few. However, in every single one of these markets, the song hit its peak in early November and remained throughout most of the month. I know that the date of Billboard magazines is not usually a very accurate one. Typically the data within each issue is from a week or two previously... but still, there is a big difference between national and local.

By the way, Darlin' reached #2 in Los Angeles on KHJ, but Barbara Ann did not receive any airplay from the same station. Go figure.

First of all, I'd like to say hello to everyone on the board. Been a big fan of the boys for a better part of two years now and am looking forward to some great discussions.

It is well known that when Pet Sounds was released in 1966, it did not fare as well on the charts as the band's previous albums did; peaking at only #10. But I believe that the peak position isn't telling the whole story and there is a bigger picture that is often overlooked.

First, you must know that 1966 was sort of an odd year when it came to young people buying albums. In any given week of the year, you'd be hard pressed to find more than three "teen pop" albums in the top 20 on the charts. This seemed to be the year of adults buying albums; a stark contrast from the previous year, which saw young rock groups dominating the albums chart.

Let's take a look at the albums in the top 10 the week of July 2, 1966...

1. What Now My Love - Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass
2. If You Can Believe Your Eyes and Ears - The Mama's & The Papa's
3. The Sound of Music Soundtrack
4. Dr. Zhivago Soundtrack
5. Whipped Cream & Other Delights - Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass
6. The Shadow of Your Smile - Andy Williams
7. Lou Rawls Live
8. Going Places - Herb Alpert & The Tijuana Brass
9. Wonderfullness - Bill Cosby
10. Pet Sounds - The Beach Boys

As you can see, there is only one other teen pop album beating Pet Sounds, and it's at #2. Everything else is nothing that too many people under the age of 30 would have been buying. And like I said, the charts looked similar to this all year, particularly in the first half; dominated by albums like Ballads of The Green Berets, Frank Sinatra albums, Barbra Streisand albums, the aforementioned soundtracks, and Herb Alpert albums (five of which were in the top 20 on April 9).

Another thing to note is that, even though the album peaked at #10, it still remained in the top 20 for 12 weeks and in the top 30 for 16 non-consecutive weeks. It's not like it just sold a few copies the first month and then fell of the charts. It was a decent seller all summer long! Even though young people did not seem to be buying albums as much in 1966, Pet Sounds had pretty good run on the charts considering the circumstances.

I believe this pretty much dispels the myth that the album didn't sell well enough because of the "new direction" they were taking and it wasn't commercial enough. If this was the case, why did both of the singles from the album reach the top 10? And why did the follow-up, even more radical single, reach #1? That seems pretty commercial to me!

We're also forgetting that Pet Sounds reached a higher peak than the Shut Down, Vol. 2 album. That album peaked at #13, but nobody ever points that out...

Now... why Capitol released the Best of The Beach Boys so quickly is beyond me. The very week Pet Sounds hit its peak was the same week the compilation album was released. This means that Pet Sounds not selling well enough could not have been the reason for this quick cash grab. It's possible that Capitol had been planning for the compilation to be released at some point later in 1966, and it was rush-released after pre-orders were not as high, but past that, it doesn't seem likely that Capitol could have come up with the compilation after Pet Sounds had barely been on the charts for a month. It had to have been a pre-planned release.

Bottom line, plenty of stories get thrown around as to how Pet Sounds performed in 1966 and why, but the facts always tell the bigger story. I've just presented you with the evidence, and it does not lie!

Any thoughts? Anything to add or take away?