It's kind of fascinating, and I'm truly not singling out anybody in particular, because I honestly don't keep track of how each person has come down on any given topic, but it's pretty fascinating to see so many fans up in arms because like the remix of a track has different sounding drums, while some fans are fine with a dude and computer algorithm trying to sound like Brian Wilson.

I brought up the idea of this tech bleeding out into more joke ideas (e.g. let's hear Dennis sing "Looking Back With Love"!), but I honestly think that might be the *best* use of the tech, where there's no pretense to making it, and it's just truly for a laugh.

To the degree this tech would ever be used to "fix" or "right" something, I'd say re-singing vocals the actual BBs actually sang seems pretty low on the list. Actual missing stuff (which means we're mostly talking about "Smile" and a few odds and ends like "Sail on Sailor") strikes me as the best of a list of not-so-great applications for this. But, like, when 1976 Brian sang a lead, *that* voice is part of the whole thing. That's part of what that recording MEANS.

And, as a total aside, I find subbing in younger Brian on "Matchpoint of Our Love" particularly bizarre, as he actually sounds good on that one on the actual original recording! It's kind of infamous for that.

It's interesting that just about every actual artist/creator really finds AI stuff to be pretty awful. It's easy to dismiss these people as all just s***ing their pants because they're going to be replaced.

But these are also people that know these mediums better than those who only consume it. I think that's worth something too. As are the ears of people who have been listening to these voices for 30/40/50/60 years.

Awhile back someone did a piece of AI art that was something like "Calvin and Hobbes if they were a Laika film", and some people looked at that and thought "holy s**t, that's amazing!", and then a bunch of people pointed out how *not* like that it looked. Actual artists (and just Calvin and Hobbes and Laika fans) were able to point out the 37 things that were totally off.

I played those Brian AI tracks to someone who told me "Wow, that *does* actually kinda sound like Curt Becher!"

I for one find the AI separation technology to be far more fascinating, with far more room to credibly potentially "fix" things or "right" things in a convincing way that can truly be enjoyed as a listening experience. Random example: Fix those two Beatles reunion tracks (which I actually love even as-is) so Lennon doesn't sound like he's singing from inside a toilet (Free As a Bird) or on helium (Real Love).

Again, I have to reiterate that, based on what I've seen from a broad number of reactions to AI stuff (pics, video, art/"paintings", sound), people need to accept that, setting aside examples of people who have ulterior motives in praising or panning this stuff, even among folks making good faith attempts to take this stuff in, there is a BROAD range of opinions.

We're seeing this right now. Some folks are hearing this stuff and are stunned with how amazing it sounds. Others think it sounds awful. Truly. I've played these recent recordings for a few people, asked for a few reactions. They've mostly been *not* good, and these are people who know their s*it and are not just old cantankerous fans who don't like change/technology.

As with many polarized things these days, this doesn't bode well for the future of AI simply from the point of view of reacting to it and gauging its quality. And I've definitely seen with visual art a bit of the Dunning-Kruger effect in play, where non-artists make AI art, and to them it looks *just as amazing* as something a real artist would make. Just like some people hear autotune and think that doesn't sound completely unnatural as far as what a human voice should sound like.

Do these AI recordings sound like Brian Wilson? It's a bit like being "pretty pregnant"; you either are or you aren't. A lot of new tech these days is being sold on "just you wait, it's almost there", and in some cases with AI I think that's almost certainly true. I think ironically that AI-ing a singing voice is going to lag surprisingly far behind any visual medium (especially photo fakes) as far as what can actually "fool" people, or what sounds so close or just like something to the point where one can listen to it and, like, enjoy it and think (or pretend?) it's the real thing.

["it's AI so it's not gonna be perfect - but I think it's damn close"]

Is anyone suggesting it sounds "just like" Brian?

While that precise verbiage hasn't been used, I think "it's AI so it's not gonna be perfect - but I think it's damn close" is something very near such a claim. "Damn close to just like Brian" as it were.

I think what I was generally trying to allude to in what I've seen from a lot of folks who use AI applications and are most bullish about it is that there often isn't much moderation in how they sort of self-assess the work (or assess the work of others using AI). The sensibility isn't so much artistic as it is trying "prove" the tech.

I don't see a lot of "this was just for a lark; I'm not sure how good it is, but it's just an experiment", and I see a lot more "this is amazing stuff and we're on the precipice of the world changing, and while I maybe can't claim it's 100% indistinguishable from the real thing, I think it's like 99% there", if not folks (and I'm referring in this case more to loud, AI people who are often also like crypto dudebros on social media, who think their AI art built off of Google image hits of other artists is perfect) who say they are just as much an "artist" as someone who actually makes the stuff for real.

Yeah, I mean, no one can say who would have been tricked had the stuff been leaked and presented as legit. My best guess is that those who have the knowledge and familiarity with the music/voices and also some overall analytical skills would have easily been able to tell some sort of fabrication was taking place, and that something was clearly off. I don’t know who would have been able to specifically say “that is clearly a present-day person singing, guided by AI software”, but there are so many circumstantial things about these recordings to poke holes in, I think only casual listeners who aren’t discerning would be incredulous about it.

On the tech side of things to the degree it’s audible, I hear auto-tune type digital jumps in the notes. I hear points where the notes are just sung/bent in a way the vocalist never would have (I don’t know if the like span of time one has been listening to the actual voices matters or not, if someone who is a huge fan but became a fan like 5 or 10 years ago can’t always hear stuff someone who has been listening for like 40/50 years, etc. can, all I can say is that it doesn’t take much for it to quickly *not* sound right). There are other auditory things not specifically to do with the AI tech that indicate something is amiss. The murky sound of the vocal and mix overall. The recording sounding like a pre-existing mix of something has had something grafted on to it (e.g. if a rough acetate mix of Brian doing a Mike vocal all of a sudden popped up, there would usually be other differences/anomalies in the mix to differentiate it beyond the vocal).

I’m not speaking to the intention of any given AI thing being created. I don’t know when or if someone would intend to fool people or not. But when we’re talking in the realm of “It sounds just like Brian, doesn’t it?”, then I think a lot of knowledgeable, detail-oriented fans are going to notice *everything* about a given recording/mix/presentation, and there’s no way it really can sound “just like” Brian if it’s 1970 Brian singing over a backing track that we know was recorded in 1976. I suppose then the task becomes, I dunno, re-recording a 1970-sounding backing track? That’s obviously going to not pass muster as well.

But if we attempt to pull everything out of the equation other than that actual voice, I think then we get into territory where it can quickly become difficult to have a constructive conversation, because I’ve seen this happen with other stuff where some people think it’s “just like!” whatever it is in question, while others genuinely immediately can tell it’s not that thing. It’s like colorized photos (which are often also done with AI), or colorized film/video. Some people look at some of those examples and think it’s uncanny. I’ve seen examples that have been so processed that they look like an oil painting of wax figures, but some people think it looks just like Technicolor film.

I suspect with these AI voices, there is a surprisingly narrow gap/line between “wow!” and “ugh, not even close”, and that’s just looking at folks who are presumably making good faith arguments/observations.

It’s important with this stuff to try to remain level-headed, and also polite and not dismissive. I think it’s important to note the obvious, which is that folks who are most enthusiastic about AI applications right now also not coincidentally seem to be the most effusive in claiming how close to seamless it all is.

It’s all undeniably intriguing, and I can’t claim it doesn’t strike an eerie and intriguing (and creepy, and….) chord. As I was just telling someone, I’m not sure how great I feel about the sort of “this may be unleashing something unholy on the world, but someone else was gonna do it anyway, sooooo….”, but the stuff is what it is and it’s happening.

I could tell immediately that someone was singing to guide this AI, as the phrasing and timbre and all of that was both not matching the original respective vocals, nor was it “nailing” Brian in any particular era either. I’m not saying it’s a million miles off. But we’re firmly in uncanny valley territory, and I suspect as long as a human being is used to guide the AI vocal, that’s going to introduce some noticeable anomalies to those who are super familiar with Brian’s (or whomever’s voice).

There’s also the anachronism of having a 1970-style Brian singing a 1976 song. In one way this is easier to not be as unsettled by, because it’s an obvious anachronism, like hearing a 90s Carl voice laid on top of the 1973 “Sail on Sailor” track.

Even just within the realm of goofing off in BB land, there are very different types of applications of course. There could be cases of trying to replicate something that *should have* existed (e.g. 1966 Brian and the other guys singing the missing vocals on the ‘66/’67 Smile tracks), or something that once actually *did* exist (e.g. a Carl or Dennis contemporary lead on “Sail on Sailor”), or something that at least *could have* existed (Brian singing, well, a ton of stuff). On the other extreme, I guess one could try to do a “What if 2023 Mike Love sang ‘Surf’s Up’?”, or “What is Dennis Wilson sang the lead on ‘Looking Back with Love’?”

I’ll stop giving people ideas….

Added an 8/4 show to the top post schedule.

Kudos to anybody that can pull this off for the BBs, especially if we're talking their entire career.

With the Beatles, while there is a ton of great research and reference work still being done, it's undeniably an easier task to catalog the track-by-track contents. It is (almost) entirely in one location, Lewisohn, Barrett, Winn, and others have done a lot of that groundwork, and there are enough latter-day remixes (pre-AI isolations) to help further deduce a lot of what could be on each track. And it spans 7-8 years.

The BBs are obviously a whole other ball of wax.

I'd love for there to actually be a day when we could know what's on the 24 or 48-track tape, and who played what, for like "Chasin' the Sky" or "East Meets West", etc.

Yes, yes, I know, many more folks are interested in the 60s stuff, and 70s, more so than like prying apart the ProTools files for "Summer in Paradise."

I find all of this stuff intensely interesting, though I guess wouldn't rank as my #1 wish specifically a break down of what's on which track of the multi-track tape. I think who played what, in what order, and how the recordings were made (and just *cataloging* all of those recordings in general) is more useful and interesting than specifically knowing that, like, vocals went on Track 7 instead of Track 8.  Obviously, all of this info goes hand in hand, and knowing what's on each track is of course less about knowing which track *number* a thing is on the multitrack, and more knowing which groupings of which instruments and vocals have their own track on those multitracks, which helps indicate recording method, order, etc.

I think "Sweet Mountain" and all of the "Spring" stuff is most interesting as a little "missing piece" of the Brian story from that era. I dig the album, and I can't say Marilyn and Diane are *bad* singers as such. But the vocals on that album vary from pretty solid to kind of wonky. Apart from folks looking for all the Brian-isms sprinkled throughout, it would be folks looking for I guess the closest thing we ever got to the Carpenters and Beach Boys smushed together.

I reiterate from my previous post that it's kind of absurd at this point that this stuff is not easily available. The participants and audience are only getting older and/or deader. And again as I mentioned, if it's some big corporate kerfuffle keeping this out of availability, then there's not usually a lot that can be done. But again, I've seen some of these ancillary figures on the periphery of the BB universe who keep their stuff and are waiting for some "moment" to release it (and/or finally "write their memoirs") that probably passed long ago.

Added a new 8/24 show to the top post schedule.

Thanks for the heads up. I've added that date to the top post schedule.

Well, I mean, they *did* use the single version of "Here Comes the Night", on the *single*, which is what would have received traction and had any chance of it being a "hit." The track wasn't hated (by those who hated it) just because it was on the album, or because it was 7 or 10 minutes long instead of 4 or 5. And most of the vocals on the track aren't even Beach Boys, with Carl, Mike, and Al only adding supposedly one layer of backing vocals on top of Becher and his guys.

I think most BB fans were at peace with the track decades ago. I don't think anyone is angry about it anymore. Which isn't to say that it would have or could have or should have been a hit. It wouldn't, couldn't, and shouldn't. It wasn't hit material on its face, regardless of the artist's name. It was clear, whomever was on the artist label, that HCTN was pandering to something.

The BBs could have had a sort of disco-adjacent success in that era, but it would have to be something more like McCartney's "Goodnight Tonight", where it's clearly a melodic McCartney track first, with flourishes/accents of disco.

Here's the YouTube link to the interview. Very entertaining:

https://www.youtube.com/live/mlejdJ5L3hQ

(And the question above about the '76 Anaheim footage was addressed as well).

Added the Family & Friends show to the top post schedule.

I dunno, didn't the '73 "In Concert" album go gold? Obviously, archival sets don't hit #1, and live releases often tend to sell less than studio releases.

But in a world where we got like 37 full shows from 1967 and 1968, with very similar setlists from night to night, I think a set from circa 1973, their arguable peak on stage, would be warmly welcomed.

I doubt we're going to set like multiple all-live huge sets in succession. I think the FF/SOS format where live stuff is mixed in has worked well, and then there are specific cases where a full live set is warranted (e.g. 1973, the 1975 "Beachago" tour stuff, etc.)

[EDIT:]

Man, Boyd and I have literally been talking about a CARIBOU TO CRITERIA (I coined that phrase as a joke a while back -- but it works. . . ) set since the day I met him.
In all honesty, I'm pretty sure the project would most likely need to be a CARIBOU TO M.I.U. box -- and ALL that entails. Boyd has said that going into '78 might be stretching too far and I agree.

There's AMAZING '75 live material in the vault (that "I Can Hear Music" from MIC is proof) and don't forget the multi-track of Anaheim '76. That said, there's so much studio material that needs to be aired, would another live concert take up too much space? There's a TON of different material that could and should fit within the next "major" box -- (EDIT: I'm talking BEYOND the sorely-needed '73-era live set.)

It's all an embarrassment of riches that most bands could only pray for 15 years into their careers.

Those live eras are all key (the bits and pieces from 73, 74, and 75 on the MIC set and elsewhere are all primo). I think they all need a release, whether separately or in a larger context.

I feel like the '73 stuff can kind of be a bit like (if not literally) an expanded, alternate "In Concert" album, and that could maybe even be part of the theming. As great as the '72 Carnegie stuff is, I think they got even tighter in '73 and I'd love to hear as much of that stuff from the vaults as we can. It's truly peak live Beach Boys. It's not like we're going to ask for or expect a multi-disc set for the 1987 tour.

'75 feels a bit different (partially literally because it's Dennis (and Bobby) drumming instead of Ricky), and that Beachago stuff (with or without the actual Chicago component) is a must to release.

And then the Anaheim '76 stuff fits in (whether literally or not) with concurrent studio stuff for 15BO and Love You.

Clearly we will continue to "agree to disagree." 

The objective of SOS was, according to the accompanying publicity, to make the Beach Boys "FM" and show that they'd become a singular entity deserving of that ephemeral notion of "hipness" that seemed to elude them during the post-GV/pre-Endless Summer era. It was sort of a "rear-guard" war being re-fought fifty years later, as if re-fighting it would enhance the band's long-term legacy. It was supposed to build on the sales success of FEEL FLOWS, but it doesn't appear to have done that. "New fans" among youth is what was being chased, and while the jury is still out, the evidence suggests that the verdict will not be a positive one.

I don't buy the notion that Amazon controls the pricing of items in such a monolithic fashion--clearly there were opportunities to buy the set for less at other outlets, which I was I did (and I'm sure I'm not alone). More likely there was some assumption that "market momentum" had been achieved with FEEL FLOWS, and that folks could be brought along to a higher price point. I think all of the entities involved in that decision made a serious miscalculation. It's trendy to blame Amazon for just about everything these days, but I suspect there were a number of factors that resulted in an unfortunate in-company decision to "over-deluxe" the packaging and jack up the price.

I really don't think there's much "pause" involved in holding off from a live set in '23 to revisit and rectify what was clearly a hasty approach to material that has a lot more potential to reach the audience that the reissue team wanted to reach--not die-hard fans, but new, younger fans. There was a hope that a mixture of tracks that featured more rock-oriented sounds would prove to be galvanizing to establish that "FM" thing, but it doesn't appear to have jelled. In contrast, there's a narrative in the SMILEY-to-20/20 period--"a band in transition/great music in troubled times"--that still has a chance to play out for newer, younger fans who can be caught up in the roiling events of the time frame--with tons of interesting details that can be summarized by the folks who've done an outstanding job of gathering that info.

I very much like David's idea (the "relationship" music--though "Honey Get Home" might work better as a title: a lot of "love-longing" in that material): it focuses on what was happening to Brian and how things changed over the course of 1968. It's a key part of the "transition" and it deserves some kind of official presentation in order to combine the human interest that exists in the story AND the music that was still flowing at an impressive clip from Brian right up to the flashpoints that David and others in the latest ESQ identify: the sale of Sea of Tunes, the commercial disaster of FRIENDS, and the frustrating anti-climax of "Been Way Too Long." One might suggest that focusing on this is a bit too "exploitive" of Brian, I suppose, but since it is being discussed in such an upfront way in ESQ, we're can probably conclude that there is a climate of acceptance from "the inside" that would support such an approach to framing that story via a more structured release of the material.

BTW, I never suggested that the live material from '67-'68 be part of such a set. And I think your idea of an era-spanning live set is one of the best ideas for how to handle live material--I'd be all for relocating most of "live Sunshine" into such a product. I think one of the counterintuitive setbacks of SOS stemmed from trying to combine live and unreleased in a way that they hoped would be synergistic. I think that what emerged was a sense that all of that was padding--even though the Carnegie Hall gig is undeniably excellent. It might have sold a lot more copies as a standalone release at a lower price.

Perhaps we'll find out if there is anything to my surmise about behind-the-scenes rumblings. Given the general track record, of course, it's certainly possible that I'm just whistling in the dark and the (in)famous words of Jack Rieley will still remain intact as a pronouncement about the band's latter-day efforts to rekindle their 62-66 sales success. But I'm more cautious in my optimism about how well the 74-77 studio material will do with the non-die hard audience. If such a project gets done and it goes nowhere, all bets may be off.

A separate live set for the 73-75 band is clearly a no-brainer--though a 6-CD set for it is just as clearly overkill. But if there's a digital market for that material at reasonable prices for those who want it all, that's great. That would be the "perfect" use of downloading, etc. Perhaps the earlier idea of finding as many live versions of the widest possible range of tunes is a way to go, either for an extra disk in the live set, or as part of the approach for a career-spanning compendium of live highlights.

It's clear that a lot of focus was placed on discussing the pivots that occurred in 1968 in this most recent issue. It's one of the most focused editions of ESQ ever in that regard, even given the "theme" approach that has predominated of late. That may mean something, or it may not. But the sales for SOS relative to its positive reception in the media suggests to me that a careening mashup of the the 74-77 studio material has a much greater chance of receiving a high preponderance of "WTF?" reviews in the media, similar to what happened to CATP when they made the still-baffling decision of releasing it in a 2-fer with PET SOUNDS.

I also don't know how many new, younger fans will be up for the mish-mash that is 15 BIG ONES, the LP that was the perfect example of Jack's statement about the band and whose album cover art could be used in a "illustrated dictionary of phrases" next to the entry entitled "Pyrrhic victory." I suppose the historians could concoct some added detail to spice up the context behind the LP, but it says something that all of that backstage drama was (and still is) more interesting than the LP that emerged from it. I see it as a problematic project even for folks who are as savvy as Messrs. Boyd and Linett.

I'll perhaps have more to say on a point by point basis, but I will say specifically that I don't think the "Relationship" themed compilation for '68 material is a particularly strong idea, and it doesn't really match up with the trajectory and momentum of where the reissue campaign is at. Even *if* the '68 material were revisited already in 2023 with a stronger push, I wouldn't go with that particular theming. That sort of themed playlist type of thing sounds better for the BB/BRI/Iconic social media channels to push via a Spotify playlist or something of that nature.

Also, I think as we get later into the band's career, we have to continue to balance out the "introducing the progressive lesser-known material to new, young fans" approach with the "putting stuff out for life-long, aging fans who have been waiting decades for the archives to be open, and who are continuing to literally die off." As we get later into the 70s (and 80s), a lot of that material (though not all, and Boyd and Howie know how to discern which is which) is going to have to be pushed primarily to hardcore fans. So, at the end of the day, the fact of the matter is that I already at least EIGHT discs worth of 67-69 archival material released in pristine quality (and programmed/sequenced quite well I would say), so the priority for me would be 70s stuff. 1973-76 live material (which could be presented in myriad of ways across different releases in different formats), and 74-77/78 studio material (and then hopefully also getting into the Criteria/LA through probably the '85 album maybe?).

I think it's still tough to get Capitol/UMG to push multi-disc archival sets, so I wouldn't really want to waste that capital right now on re-pushing sets that already came out. I suspect Capitol/UMG would potentially feel similarly.

As I’ve said, I’m not opposed to seeing the 67/68/69 stuff revisited. But given the momentum of what’s been released in the last couple of years, I think going back to that stuff *right now* when it was already issued in 2017, 2018, and 2019 seems perplexing.

Obviously, if *nothing* is planned for 2023 otherwise, then I couldn’t really complain particularly about a physical reissue of that stuff. But I’m pretty certain other projects *are* planned, and the sense I have is that doing a Feel Flows/Sail on Sailor-style, full-push, boxed set repackaging/reordering of that 67/68/69 material is not something that fits either with what seems to be the momentum of the archival program, nor obviously what I would want as a fan/scholar.

If you think people complained about the price of “Sail on Sailor”, a set of almost all entirely *new* material, then be prepared for some complaints and accusations of “double dipping” if they go back to that 67/68/69 material (which for the sake of brevity I’ll refer to as simply “the ‘68” material here on out).

The “red herring” you describe that is the pricing of “Sail on Sailor”, well, I think the obvious has to be stated that it would be the very same label issuing that ’68 material. (As an aside, I think the pricing on the SOS set is more complicated than a simple greed factor, and a lot of it comes down to Amazon US’s willingness or lack thereof to discount the set, which in part involves Amazon’s own internal decision-making, pricing algorithms, etc., in addition to the label’s pricing strategies concerning vinyl sets, a large hunk of which are being purchased by people *without turntables*, meaning they’re paying for the lavish packaging). I’m not sure why there would be an assumption that all of a sudden we’d see huge price drops in re-doing the ’68 stuff, especially if the idea is to put *all* of that digital-only stuff on the sets, including the multiple ’67 and ’68 live shows. Either way, a largely or fully “double dip” situation might well dictate an even lower threshold for what people are willing to pay. We’re talking at least six discs even if we’re only covering the digital-only studio material, and if it isn’t just a big jewel case with discs, but actually has a book/box packaging component, we’re talking easily over $100.

I don’t want to get too far into the weeds on David Beard’s takes on this material and turn the whole thing into a debate on his deal. I think it’s always a good thing to plug BB releases via all outlets including ESQ. I don’t think Beard’s idea is particularly interesting or particularly feasible. Obviously, it’s certainly logistically *possible* as just about anything is.

Regarding the idea that the Friends/20/20 material was “perfectly” handled, I don’t think that’s what I said at all. I did say the digital drops for the *live* material from ’67 and ’68 were the perfect venue for those particular groups of recordings. Any compilation of multiple shows from the same tour, usually with very similar setlists from show to show, is always going to work better as a digital-only situation.

My previous comments on the digital releases of the 67-69 *studio* material have always been pretty measured. I think most hardcore fans like having physical releases. So in that sense, digital-only is not ideal. But it’s also clearly the only way that stuff was going to get out at that time. And I do think the actual *content* of those sets, both in terms of what’s on them and how they are sequenced, are pretty close to ideal (and pretty similar to the FF and SOS sets). Maybe if it was all in one big box it might be presented slightly differently, but I’m not sure how much quality material was *left off* outside of doing a “Sea of Tunes” style like 6-to-10 disc dump of the everything on the session tapes.

In other words, if you just took “Sunshine Tomorrow” and “Sunshine Tomorrow 2” (and then “Wake the World” and “I Can Hear Music”), and plugged each of them into a book-style packaging to match “Feel Flows” and “Sail on Sailor”, I’d say that would be pretty darn close to ideal. (Indeed, I’ve seen fan-made artwork done up to do exactly that). At that point, it would just be nitpicks of personal preference that are going to go on with *every* release. Given all of that, I don’t feel a strong desire to pause everything just to get those digital sets in physical form, and I haven’t seen any compelling ideas for insanely alternate ways to sequence/present the material that would justify reissuing it *right now*.

As for releasing live material (e.g. a 1973-ish set of several shows, or several shows’ worth of material), I have to disagree. First of all, if we’re talking digital, I see no reason to not issue *it all.* Obviously, with a physical set, it has to be vetted somewhat. But if we got *multiple* shows from ’67 and ’68, I don’t see a reason to not also see a similar treatment for 1973 (or some sort of 72-73 comp, or something generally along those lines; I’m not going to complain if they drop some ’74 stuff in there, etc.), and I think a strong argument can be made that, for many fans and spectators, 1973 is one of, if not *the*, peak periods for the live band, and they also saw fit to capture numerous shows on tape during this time period. If any “era” ever called for a set of live shows, it would be this era.

I of course bow to no one (save a few folks like c-man, Ian Rusten, etc.) in my interest in *all* live eras, and I’d love to see a career-spanning set as well. I don’t think we’ll ever see a 6-disc physical set covering the 1980 tour. But 1973 is very special I’d say. A live set covering that era makes total sense.  

Certainly, if there are some new discoveries that are important to get released, I’m all for finding a good way to do that. If they find some new material that has otherwise already seen its respective era covered with previous archival releases, I’d be all for finding a release to piggyback the new discoveries onto, and/or simply do a digital drop. I have to say, the 67/68/69 digital drops were nicely done, with artwork that matched the “Sunshine Tomorrow” format, with proper track notations on each track, etc. For that matter, most of the digital drops have been okay. Obviously, the quality of the material on all of them are worth noting. It was only the first few years’ worth that had the wonky homemade boot-quality cover art (e.g. the ’63 and ’64 stuff mainly). And even then, that “Keep an Eye On Summer” set had some great material on it.
 

Just announced---

Al Jardine and his Endless Summer Band

Fox Theatre in Tucson, Arizona

Sat, June 17 7:30 PM

Excellent. I've added this to the top post schedule.

I know I’ve already gone on about this in other threads, but while I would have loved to have nice, lavish boxed sets (and/or “regular” physical releases) for the 68/69 stuff (and the rest of the ’67 stuff), I really don’t view that as a high priority right now.

The digital releases got the important job done; which was getting the material released and out there in high quality. In particular, digital drops for the live ’67 and ’68 material was the *perfect* venue for that material. I don’t have a strong desire for several more sets, which would surely clock in at several hundred dollars, just to get this stuff pressed on actual CDs.

While there will always be *more* archival stuff left on the cutting room floor that can be put on subsequent reissues, I think those sets did a pretty good job of getting a ton of the most important and interesting unreleased material from that era released.

What has *barely* been touched on in terms of archival releases is, at this stage, the post-1973 material. I absolutely think some sort of “Caribou to Criteria” set, or some sort of 1974-1980-ish set, as well as a live set focusing on ’73-ish material (and/or stuff later into the 70s), are all far preferably to *already* revisiting that 67-69 material.

I don’t think we have to wait until 2026/27 for like “Love You” material. I think it’s likely the formatting/prompt on the future studio sets would have to change a bit, with the knowledge that these things are going to appeal more and more specifically to diehard fans. They could, for instance, probably forego discs of the actual albums in a 74-80 type of boxed set and just focus on studio (and live) material.

I can’t speak to any specific person and their preferences, but I seem to run into some fans that really just don’t like and/or are unwilling to entertain post-60s material. And I think, at the end of the day, while there are a HUNDRED more archival ideas that could span their entire catalog, I think the 60s have been very well-served at this point.

I think a live ’73-ish set and then a 74-80 studio/live set would be the best way to go as some of the next releases (perhaps other specific things could be highlighted in individual releases, such as the ’75 “Beachago” tour stuff, or other holiday-related releases or other themed compilations, etc.). I think it would be great *eventually* to come back around to 60s material, perhaps revisiting those 67-69 archival digital-only sets and forming them around things like a new stereo remix of “Friends”, etc.

So no, I don’t think Beard’s ideas are particularly the way to go right now. I think the team currently working on this stuff have really knocked it out the park on multiple, consecutive releases. I have no interest in moving backwards and changing the plan/prompt on the reissue program at this point.

Added a new show for 6/16 to the top post tour schedule.

"Heroes and Villains" is on "Sounds of Summer", so I'd say it hews closer to "well known" than deep cut. "Caroline, No" is off of "Pet Sounds", which is by leaps and bounds their most well-known studio album. "Sail on Sailor" is the only track that at some point got the band any FM/Classic Rock radio airplay.

I honestly had forgotten that "Sail on Sailor" wasn't on the original single-disc "Sounds of Summer", which seems insane, but I know that single disc was jam packed about as much as it could have been.

Frankly, the three tracks above I'd wager are at least slightly *more well known* than a few of the songs that ended up on "Sounds of Summer." I'd wager more people know those songs than like "Getcha Back" or  the BB cover of "Come Go With Me."

Of course, the super-uninitiated that just know like "Kokomo" and "Surfin' USA" aren't going to know most ANY of these songs.

As I've said, I think the track selections make sense for this show; I'm not surprised. But I do think it was almost as conservative as a song selection could possible be, however it happened.

EDIT: HeyJude, was that in the new BeachBoysTalk interview with Carnie (that I haven’t yet been able to watch), by any chance?

I’m not Jude, but Carnie did talk about it. Wilson Phillips were invited to perform, but Chynna was in New York City and unable to get away.

And I'm sure many BB fans in their brain immediately then wondered why simply Carnie and Wendy couldn't perform, especially considering they've released multiple albums on their own (and perform with Al often to boot). It may well be that "Wilson Phillips" is the bare minimum name recognition the show was looking for.

Either that, or "scheduling conflict" was used to explain away some other reason. Not trying to bake conspiracy theories here. I would imagine it was a legit scheduling conflict. I do always wonder how hard it would be for these people to fly in and fly out of LA for one evening, though. They wouldn't need much rehearsal or anything.

Not to be cynical, but I think had Wilson Phillips shown, the best we could probably hope for as far as a deep cut would be like "You're So Good To Me" like they did at that show years ago. Clearly the producers of this show wanted almost everything to be lifted right off of "Sounds of Summer." I mean, I'm sure non-uberfan artists would tend towards hits anyway, so it doubly makes sense that the show would feature mostly hits.

On the other hand, these shows love brevity and "This Whole World" is very short.