[That's]

The song didn't exist as anything other than several reels of uncomped tape until work started on the 1993 Box set, which is why it wasn't released back in the 70s. In 1992 it was assembled using the completed instrumental track and at least two tapes of vocals, including Carl's work vocal. That's when he vetoed it because of the "shunsine" flub. (FYI, the same holds true of "4th Of July" - Carl's scratch vocal is from a saftey copy, and the flute tag from yet another tape.)

Andrew--I realized it hadn't been assembled. My question, really, is more along the lines of why didn't they complete--and by complete, I mean assemble--it earlier? Does anyone know? It was obviously a very good song. One would think someone would have thought it was worth the work at some point in the 70s, when so much of the material started to be subpar, it was worth it to dig through those tapes and put them together, and finish if necessary (ie, overdub a single line, "shunshine"--by far the easiest part of finishing it). Have any of the guys ever discussed why they worked on it, then left it in the can unfinished?

The backing tracks were always interesting, large arrangements or small.

Plus, these days the less work is involved, the better.

Amen to that. Those are words to live by, in my opinion. BW = God in that regard. Good dinners, naps and the occasional couple of hours recording.

Brian isn't necessarily into huge productions, but he sure likes great production. Those are not the same thing.

The last post mentions "small, like 'Time to Get Alone.'" But a song like "Time to Get Alone" is actually a pretty impressive piece of production. Just because it doesn't employ 50 musicians, strings, horns and the Harlem Boys Choir doesn't make it a small production or a bad production. (I am not implying the last poster meant it was a bad production, obviously, but neither is it a small production.)

Read Desper's posts, for example, about recording TTGA. The three or so different keyboard textures used for each beat are pretty amazing. The reverb effect for "Deep and wide," of course, is also stunning.

The best thing about Brian's productions are that he has great instincts, sometimes weaving simple individual pieces into complex wholes, other times just making excellent decisions with arrangements, or using clever hooks and unexpected twists. To overdo production, to make "big" productions, is not a good thing. At his best, Brian has been a master of just big enough, always with a clever twist or two.

I must say, I read through a lot of that website and found it hilarious--even shared it with my friends. It is very, very sad that some people will, however, come across it and take what that dolt posts as gospel (lower-case "g").

... there was no "final mix" of sorts because the vocals were not considered to be finished "master" vocals (the sessions fell apart before Carl's "final" lead was taped). ...

If you listen closely, you can hear Carl mess-up a line -- he sings "Soulful old man SHUNshine."  Maybe this is one of the reasons it wasn't officially released sooner?

I'm aware of that flub, but to say that a simple, single mistake kept an otherwise great song from being released would be idiotic--even back then, to overdub a single line was simple. Carl may not have liked his vocals overall, but shunshine itself is no reason to cease work and not release a song. As others have said, there wasn't even a final mix of the song in existence until one was edited together, so that single flub would not be anywhere near the largest problem.

It lists Sufjan Stevens! Ahahah! He's a Christian, and somewhat vocally so. Apparently that's not good enough to keep him off the list.

My favorite two narrative voices of all time: Tom Waits and Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart).

Chance of it being either one: 0%.

Darn.

Do any of you who have been fans and/or researchers for decades happen to know when and how SOMS became known? As I understand it, there was never a completed mix of the sessions until the Hawthorne disc, and that was (obviously) the first time I heard it. But was it known to collectors and fans before that? Were there different mixes out there?

I have no knowledge, but the left hand of the piano during the verse sure sounds like a bass part Brian would write.

If Mike had half the business acumen and capacity for self-promotion that Jimmy Buffett has... 

AHAHAHA. I've never heard Jimmy Buffet used as a good example of anything, and I don't know exactly how to respond. So I won't. But...oh, it's funny. Next good examples: Kenny G, John Tesch, and some other boring, watered-down white-bread sh*t.

I know a lot of people liked Love, but I am really not interested in either that album or a similar Beach Boys project. Love isn't a Beatles album, but an album of someone mixing and editing Beatles music. This would be the same. And it might sell well (particularly to people into Vegas-y circuses, I guess), but it just doesn't do it for me. I'd rather have more archival releases, good stereo remixes and remasterings of Wild Honey and Smiley Smile, and new projects by Brian and his band (if he has them in him).

I don't--but I do occasionally poke fun at him, awaiting the inevitable backlash of "Mike Love is just as great / talented / etc. as any other Beach Boys." And really, I don't care much either way. It's just fun to watch the fireworks.

Not wanting to get into it here, but that isn't true. You're correct in saying that there are traditionally distinct emphases within the two, but that doesn't mean something can't be written in one or the other. It may be terribly, slightly or not at all cumbersome to do so, but it can always be done. And I think you're mistaken in trying to talk about where a snare hit goes, because of course that is misleading. In 3/4 time, the emphasized beat would traditionally be beat one, and so snare hits on two and three might make sense with a hard kick to emphasize one, for example. But by no means would that always be the case, as a person can write or arrange anything in any way s/he wants to.

Edit: I decided to remove that last line--made me out to be more of a jerk than I really am (and we mostly all know I am one). My real point, and I stand strongly behind it, is that notation is just a (to my mind) somewhat artificial (albeit very necessary) way to represent sound, just like language is a way to represent thought. And to try to affix rules about where the accent is in this or that, or to say that you MUST do this and CAN'T do that, is not altogether necessary. I am not anti-notation or anti-tradition, and anyone interested in music would be well-served to study it formally in some capacity, be it basic piano or guitar or more complex theory. But once a person knows and understands those basic traditions, it is just as important to understand where they fit into the overall music experience... The tradition of beat one being emphasized in 3/4 time is simply an interpretation. It isn't based on anything other than Western ears of the years in which notation was developed saying there was a natural emphasis on beat one. That said, there is no reason you can't write in 3/4 without emphasizing beat one. 4/4 time, in strict Western tradition, emphasizes one and three. Of course, rock famously emphasizes two and four in the same time signature. Is one wrong? One certainly was considered wrong by many backward-facing traditionalists, as well as sinful, sexual and whatever else. (And now to clap on one and three in a song in 4/4 is probably considered equally wrong by those who grew up entirely on rock.)

There you have it: Long, drawn out attempt to cool off my rant. But I stand behind my thoughts.

Re 3/4 v 6/8, sometimes there IS no difference unless someone wrote it down and thus made it what it is. PeteS and Chris Brown are both correct, but sometimes a person could notate the same thing either way without one being "wrong." (Of course, a person COULD notate anything in any way, but sometimes that would be ridiculous and isn't the point of this.)

There is a story that ex-Zappa guitarist and transcriptionist Steve Vai tells about FZ hiring him to transcribe (i.e., write out) recorded parts from concerts that had never been written before. Apparently, he and/or Zappa would be paid more if it were written with more or less (I don't remember which, or know anything about how such work pays)  measures, and the piece could have very reasonably been done in either.
 Zappa told Vai to do it so they would make less $, as he believed that was the more honest thing to do. Crazy. But illustrative of the fact that notation isn't an end-all, too. Sometimes the difference between 3/4 and 6/8 amounts to the numbers at the start of the piece and whether you're seeing quarter or eighth notes getting a beat. And that's about it.

(12/8 is a different thing altogether, in which you can pretty clearly feel 4 beats per measure, but each of them is divided into three equal parts.)

I wouldn't go so far as to call using 3 in rock as unusual (especially if you expand from 3/4 to include 6/8 and 12/8, at which point you could incorporate the entire swing/triplet feel, meaning almost all of it), but there is no doubt BW was writing in 3/4 quite a bit in those years. Perhaps it was the propulsive-yet-relaxed feel that a person can get when working in 3...it wasn't rocking, but it wasn't putting anyone to sleep (at least not in a bad way)--it maintains motion. I love his writing in that time frame, including those that are in 3.

(Cabinessence, btw, isn't exclusively in 3. The verses aren't, but the Iron Horse and Grand Coulee parts are.)

I think five hours wouldn't be enough. Seriously, I believe they'd need double that. And to be clear, I think Mr. Boyd did as good a job as could be done. But, well, I want the whole world: more details on every album, discussions about the unreleased/rejected albums, the hard times, such as the near break-ups and break-ups...all of it. Is that too much to ask (he selfishly asks knowing the answer is obviously and clearly YES)?

Good call, The What of Whom. If nothing else, I think most music fans would like the story of the documentary. And Brian fans might relate to certain aspects of Daniel's illness. But you're right about the part when they discuss BBs/BW...

Agreed. It is pretty clearly a commercial of certain aspects of the band as much as (or more than) a great documentary of them. But to be fair, to cover 30+ years in the kind of detail we would want would require (something I have suggested on here before, but of course over which I and you all have no power to change) a multi-DVD set, something at least along the lines of the Beatles Anthology DVDs. It would be great if someone would independently do such a thing, interviewing everyone separate, album by album, and incorporating as many people as possible.

Won't ever happen, probably, and of course if it didn't happen soon we'd lose more of them. Desper said something similar in one of his more recent posts--they're not getting any younger...

Daniel Johnston IS just as much as musical genius as Brian Wilson... at least his early stuff. "Living Life" is classic! =)

Honestly, I never heard of the guy. But, when I read things like the above post, maybe I oughta find out!

If you are looking for well-performed and well-produced music or anything in the style of Brian Wilson, you'll be disappointed. I am a semi-fan of D.J. and not trying to dissuade you (although I strongly would disagree with the DJ is a genius idea); I'm just warning you, it has nothing musically in common. Daniel sings mostly out of key, plays piano/keys or guitar in uneven time and basic (although catchy and clever) progressions and writes simple songs. They are sometimes very effective and catchy, and are done with all the heart DJ has been able to muster at any given moment, but they are a far cry technically from what many fans of Beach Boys music might be looking for--hence the various posts on this thread and others we've done about his work.

You might want to go to allmusic or something and listen to some of the preview snippets before buying.

Try ignoring Pete, too. He is not very clever.

(Sorry Pete. Also, just talked to Kyle, who is pretty interested in the idea of a Sept. London trip...can the city withstand it?)

I'm thinking the issue may be more with your player(s) than the file extension. I have burned many cds using mp3 and wma (as well as several other formats) without trouble. But I do know that some players--particularly older ones--have trouble with some formats. Or perhaps you aren't finishing the burn completely? (I'm not questioning your ability here! Just making sure.) Can you see that you have burned anything at all onto disc--for example, can you see the line on the bottom of the disc that indicates information has been burned to it, or can you see that tracks are present on the disc when you put it in a player?

Actually, I wrote the song about 7 years ago, as I was discovering the post-SMiLE BW music for the first time. I rewrote a bit of it yesterday and recorded it yesterday and today. Enjoy or hate or sorta like or whatever it is you want to do. You'll find it at www.myspace.com/thebeaumondes as the first song, "Wintercoast."

I'd like to know what you think.

... people trying to pass off lyrical discussion as musical discussion.  "Would you still like the music itself if everything was sung using wordless vocals?"

That is actually a very interesting idea. To me, the two must be joined when you're dealing with songs, because they are two elements of a song. To ignore one or the other is the same thing as saying you like the notes, but not the rhythm, or you like the melody, but not the arrangement. It is entirely possible, of course, but the entirety of the song includes all of the above. Each element of a song carries some weight, and a song that is perfect other than its lyrics, but features terrible lyrics, can't be "the perfect song" for me. It is perfectly legitimate to criticize either the music or the lyrical content, but I suppose it is just as important to realize that a song can have brilliance in one part or the other with its complement a piece of sh*t.

On an entirely different level of the same topic, I think you could argue that lyrical content is a valid part of musical discussion when you are discussing songs. Songs are a form of music. And lyrics are intrinsically part of songs--songs are by definition words set to music. If they are an essential part of the musical form, then I don't see the harm in discussing that part of the form as "musical discussion." (This argument only carries weight with the formal definition of "song," not the commonly used version of the word, in which we call pretty much anything that is music a "song.")

Allmusic.com has posted its review: 4 stars. Here is the text, by Scott McClintock.

After an impressive showing with 2004's Satanic Panic in the Attic, and a jubilant follow-up in 2005's Sunlandic Twins, Of Montreal captain Kevin Barnes fell on some peculiar times. The birth of a daughter, alienation and depression in Norway, and subsequent separation from his wife and new child gave him plenty to mull over, work out, and serve up on 2007's Hissing Fauna, Are You the Destroyer? At first glance, longtime Of Montreal followers might throw up their arms in dismay as Barnes moves well away from the usual slice-of-life character studies he's made such good use of over the past few years. No pop-challenged London cabbies or paranoid senior citizens here. No, sir. In fact, it's all about him -- every stitch of it. It's Barnes trying to woo himself out of a deep funk ("Suffer for Fashion," "Sink the Seine," and especially "Heimdalsgate Like a Promethean Curse"), lashing out ("She's a Rejecter"), or taking a dip in the self-pity pool (the epic wallower "The Past Is a Grotesque Animal" is nearly 12 minutes of drone-dance affirmations). It's an alarming listening experience at first. Where's the self-assured, polished pop maestro who made such a fine showing on the past two albums? He took one hell of a beating, that's for sure. The Barnes heard here has a bone to pick, issues to work out, and a big ol' chip on his shoulder -- and, man, does it show. The music and production reflect this as much as the lyrical content. Barnes throws every trick in his book at every arrangement, lending every track a definite "I'll show you!!" vibe. And show he does. The explosive opener, "Suffer for Fashion," exceeds every over-the-top anthem he's ever penned in one 2:58 ejaculation, and the alternately swaggering and smooth "Cato as Pun" melds a gutsy guitar riff with a gorgeously fussed-over verse. In terms of production, it's quite an achievement -- the whole thing -- and, coupled with the bile and bitterness of the lyrics, makes for an exhausting experience in the headphones. There may be stray moments of whimsy, in the tunes and verse, but they are scant, and they hardly provide the lighthearted breathing room that fans are used to receiving from the man. "Light" is not a word useful in describing any portion of this excursion, and the serious tone of this record may cause some hand-wringing among even the dedicated. It's a challenging yet ultimately rewarding album -- and one that definitely requires some thoughtful attention of the listener.