Those that are trying to stave off the small handful of truly troll-ish anti-Brian folks here (I still maintain the actual pro-Mike or pro-Brian folks who are actually trolling are very few in number) are doing the “cause” no favors by continuing to contort the clearly sketchy available information to try to contend NO auto-tune was even possibly used on NPP. A tiny bit of budging would go a long way towards credibility and away from the appearance of being overly defensive of Brian and his work.

There is largely subjective information, mostly aural in nature, to support the possibility of autotune. In addition, we apparently have one Brian quote where he says autotune *can* be used. While this doesn’t prove it *was* used, to suggest that Brian mentioning this little factoid in relation to how he works does not strongly suggest he probably used it at some point is pretty silly, especially when the resulting aural evidence also, in some cases, suggests its use.

“Brian corrects you and has you do numerous takes if you sing flat” is not evidence that, any number of days or weeks or months later, someone (whether Brian or another engineer) didn’t use a software plug-in that corrects/levels out pitch.

I doubt Al came in and took five minutes to record his lead vocal on “From There to Back Again” and then took off to ride horses in Big Sur. He probably took time to get it as good as he could. With Brian producing, it probably sounded excellent. But then at some point after that somebody made the decision to slather on beaucoup de some-sort-of-autotune type effect.

None of the “on site” reports about Brian recording disallow for the potential use of autotune. That Musgraves or Deschanel or Brian himself did a million takes of a vocal has nothing to do with whether autotune might have been used. Autotune doesn’t fix a vocal if you forget the words, or start a beat too late, or if you burp in the middle of the take. I have no problem believing Brian uses a very perfectionist ethos in the studio while producing vocals, and then *also* in some cases runs select material through various auto-tune type software plug-ins. Again, autotune is much more a stylistic choice these days than strictly (or at all) a tool to “fix” mediocre singers. It can also be subtle or in-your-face. Most of my frustration with any use of autotune comes from people using it when they don’t need it.

But, again with a few exceptions (the trolls), the suggestion of Brian using autotune on select tracks isn’t some sort of loaded accusation that Brian can’t sing, or can’t produce, or is selling out, or is being lazy, or whatever else I suspect some defensive folks are feeling. I can’t say what’s in every fan’s mind of course. But I can tell you that I’m probably not the only certified BB nerd/fan/nut who digs NPP and Brian’s work, but has no problem calling something when it seems possible. I’m fine admitting I don’t know for sure autotune was used. I’m more skeptical of elaborate parsing of terminology to somehow nearly “prove” it wasn’t used. It’s not terribly dissimilar, ironically enough, from the elaborate parsing done to try to take one of the a**hat Mike Love interviews where he makes some d**k comments about C50 or the Wilson brothers and try to stretch his words into something completely innocuous.

Brian probably has used autotune. Not always, maybe not even that often, and he’s talented and amazingly prolific either way.

Mike is a d**k in interviews sometimes. More often than not it seems, especially lately. He’s also talented and deserves a lot of credit, and I have no doubt he’s capable of not being a d**k in interviews.

This isn’t fence walking. This is, in my opinion, a realistic view of these guys. It doesn’t preclude enjoying their work and admiring their talent. It isn’t an exercise in “say one good thing and one negative thing about each member.” It’s just how I see it anyway. I tend to be skeptical of those who are unflinchingly negative or positive about these guys.

And ... now down to #21.

Follow along as the results come in here: http://hitsdailydouble.com/building_album_chart

Brian's doing pretty well considering that his competition includes the album at #46. Apparently, there have been 4,440 copies of "Nothing" sold. I would have thought that number would be higher. 

In all seriousness, considering Brian's chart history, the state of the industry, and so on, if Brian gets anywhere in the Top 20 or 30, that's pretty solid.

Considering the number of reviews and whatnot, and the fact that they're bundling copies of the album with seemingly everything imaginable (t-shirts, posters, concert tickets, the PBS Blu-ray, autographs, etc.), I figured he might slip into the Top 20.

Sympathetic, warm, often flat tape transfers of old material are often where the "audiophile" benefits become more evident.

It's more in the mastering than the resolution. I know Steve Hoffman is (for some reason) sometimes derided here, but his mastering work on everything I've heard is almost always the go-to mastering. His work on the 70's McCartney stuff, his forays into the BB catalog, those are all top notch. These are all at normal CD resolution. 16/44.1. They sound great because they are mastered well. No noise reduction, quiet enough, and in some cases absolutely flat or near flat (his mastering on ELO's "Eldorado" is a good example of that).

Much like the Beach Boys themselves versus Beach Boys fans, I think the perception of Hoffman in relation to overzealous audiophile wankery has more to do with others that frequent his board. There are some dubious things over that. That you can't ever discuss "double blind testing" is my biggest beef. But I find Hoffman's own words and ethos rather more sensible. I don't always agree with him either.

I think you're more likely to hear a more marked improvement in sound on the recent (and forthcoming) CD/SACD remasters of the old BB catalog stuff.

I've been following this band and enjoying their live shows since 1976.  Longer than many, not as long as many others.  I've seen them at their best (April 21, 1977, Edwardsville, IL) and worst (October 10, 1981, Terre Haute, IN).

I saw them in Temecula, CA in July of 2008, after Scott Totten took over as MD.  It was one of my top 5 shows I've seen.  And I told Scott Totten the same backstage.  It's also very obvious that whatever was undercutting Mike's voice the last few years is now gone.  He's sounding better than ever, with vocal quality reminiscent of his live work in the late 70s.

It's a damned fine version of the Beach Boys.

In all fairness, it's Mike who is, in this particular interview, opening the door to comparisons. He could have just said his band is a fine band. I get it, it's easier to get into that sort of hyperbole when the interview isn't face to face and wearing a "Brian Wilson is God" shirt or a "Save Al Jardine" shirt or something.

I credit interviewers who will at least raise the C50 topic with Mike.

It's also pretty apparent, *in my opinion*, based on this interview as well as that weird David Beard "interview" that there is some sort of weird passive aggressive thing going on with Mike continuing to mention negative stuff about Brian and weird backhanded compliments like <well, as long as it doesn't have auto-tune, wink-wink, I'm sure Brian and Al's new song is just fabulous, even though I can' t find five minutes to stop and listen to it.>

I've said before that I kind of dread Mike's upcoming book. If he's this way in the light and fluffy short pieces promoting his local gig, I can't imagine his book will be less inflammatory.

Joe lives near Chicago. Brian lives in LA. Joe visited Brian and cowrote most of the songs, and participated in some tracking sessions. But it is my understanding that Brian largely recorded and supervised the vocals for the album on his own, as well as the string overdubs and additional recording, such as the Scott Bennett songs that originated as an entirely separate project. Brian did some of his own mixing for the album, and directed many of the creative decisions – like the album cover art – on his own.

As for less credit and more work, Brian gets a sole arrangement credit on the album. That means something. It's certainly not unprecedented given his history either. After all, he produced several of the albums credited to the BBs in the late 60s.

I’d find it odd if Thomas was not present at numerous sessions, yet was granted a co-producer credit when he didn’t even get one on TWGMTR. Not unheard of in the strange world of BB politics of course. We certainly have some anecdotes that indicate blocks of session time spent without Joe present. 

Thomas’ big production stamp has always been more on the instrumental tracks and arrangements as opposed to vocals. I hear this on NPP as well. Other than possible use of auto-tune, I don’t think Thomas puts any particular stamp on the vocal side of things. But his production touch is all over numerous tracks on this album as far as instrumentation and its arrangement. I swear, I’d do anything to have a remix of this album that simply and solely mixes out the damn plinky wood sound (claves or wooden block or whatever it is) and all the plinky things with the percussion.

But it’s difficult if not impossible to blame any particular thing on Thomas. Not only do we not know who was where, and when, we don’t know whose idea any particular aspect was. Brian might tend to like certain stuff Joe does, so then Brian might use some Thomas-influenced bits here and there on his own. But the fact that Thomas co-wrote nearly everything on the album, and garnered a co-producer credit, leaves plenty of room to ascribe overt Thomas-isms as likely due in part to Thomas’ hand in the album.

For sure, I’d say Brian’s penchant for recalling certain 60’s-era studio techniques and arrangements starts to blur into Thomas’ AC/AOR style, and it’s hard to ascribe certain things to one or the other.

I agree this is rather innocuous, in the sense that it’s kind of mildly and typically inflammatory, but not any different from countless other pieces. It’s a typical promo piece that markets often do when Mike comes to town, full of the same questions and answers for the most part. The only difference in the last few years is that we sometimes get an additional subset of the same canned responses to questions about C50.

I don’t think it matters, but I don’t particularly read Mike’s comment as pertaining to the 1998 iteration of the band. He says "I think our touring band is in better shape, vocally, since I can remember, since the original group with Carl Wilson and Dennis (Wilson) and everything.” First and foremost, he’s just pumping his current band up because that’s the whole purpose of the piece. To me, it seems more like hyperbole and/or enthusiastic promo hype, more like the “sounds like 1965” stuff he was saying back during C50. I don’t think he has a particular year in mind in his comments here. To me, it kind of reads more like he’s referring to the “classic” 60’s iteration of the group. That’s why it reads as hyperbole to me. Or, as Wirestone put it, puffery.

Either way, I don’t put any stock in it. By all accounts, even cynics who’d rather not see him using the name, his band is tight and professional. At the same time, I don’t know much of anyone who would suggest the 2015 iteration is better than the 2012 reunion lineup. If anything, his comments kind of continue the pattern of downplaying the quality of the C50 tour.

I think it's all the reasons stated above. Plus, almost anytime anyone, whether the artist or fans, says something "sounds like" something else, I rarely agree.

I see the Chicago station is selling the blu Ray cd. Can you play a blu Ray on a regular DVDs player? Thanks! What a wonderful program that was. All of the new songs would have sounded great by the original Beach Boys with Carl and Dennis

You can't play blu-ray discs on a DVD player. But the thing they're selling is evidently a combo pack that has both disc formats, so you should be good.

I decided not to read any reviews of the album (and still haven't -- not even the long reviews offered here), for the same reason I avoid reviews of a movie I'm really interested in. I'd like the initial experience to be as personal as possible.

But does anyone know how these reviews in the media are done? Do the reviewers choose what they want to review? Or are they randomly assigned? Do reviewers generally listen to albums several times or merely give their first impressions? I assume it varies from place to place, and reviewer to reviewer, but does anyone know how it usually works? Or is their any pattern to it at all?

I somehow doubt these organizations monitor their reviewers and make sure they listen to the entire album. You never know what they have or haven't listened to, or how many times. I've mentioned this before, but DVD review websites are notoriously transparent in that some reviewers clearly aren't looking at all of the contents before they publish the review. You can even see some reviewers who use a clear template and just fill certain bits of info in.

It's harder to that with music reviews, since each album is pretty unique to itself. But I wouldn't find it hard to believe some reviewers have listened to the album once, or maybe even skipped forward to the next track early. I also *don't* think that just because a review is negative and doesn't mention every song it means they didn't listen to it enough. We would never know, other than a few total hack reviews with confirmable false information.

Odd, is it not, that less than three days after the album's release we're debating the reviews and not the music. What a strange bunch of people we are...

Debating the reviews actually makes even less sense than debating each others' opinions on the album. Nobody can even decide on what rating constitutes a "good" review. Is 6.5 out of 10 a good review? We're debating whether more good or bad reviews are being posted, but we have no measure of what a "good" or "bad" review is. As some others have pointed out, a review can "read" positive and then you'll see a 2.5 or 3 out of 5 or "C" grade or something. Another review will have a lot of positive and very negative stuff, and then it might still give the album a "B" or something.

I’m not sure I feel this is the “most polarizing” album since “Love You.” It just seems more like people are just grappling with how to review the thing, how to express opinions, how to interpret or accept others’ opinions or reviews, and when and when not to assume anyone has an “agenda.”

I’m still fascinated by how often negative stated opinions (much moreso than positive) are so immediately reduced to some sort of agenda/bias/ulterior motive.

Yes, as we keep saying, there are a few folks who we know are going to feel a certain way about something, and they will indeed pop up and offer exactly what we expected. But I don’t think that’s running rampant here on the board. There are a few people who will turn a conversation about the brand of bass Bob Lizik uses into an anti-Mike Love diatribe. There are also those who will automatically defend Mike Love no matter how much of an a**hat he comes across in some random interview. But few take these extremes.

When we start dragging non-fan reviews into this discussion of “agendas” and “perceptions” and whatnot, it gets infinitely even more murky. I’ve read negative reviews that I disagree with. I’ve read some I agree with. I’ve read some whose underlying premise I agree with, but whom I also feel arrived at that conclusion in a totally unwarranted, unreasonable fashion.

Mediocre or poor reviews of BB-related product of all sorts is nothing new.

Ultimately, how many times on this board has someone convinced someone else to change how they feel, in the moment, about an album? Sure, months or years later we may re-evaluate our feelings, sometimes substantially (I dig McCartney’s “Press to Play” a LOT more than I used to). But we sometimes try too hard to seemingly try to change someone else’s opinion. When that fails, we start getting people questioning the motives of others. I find motives behind opinions VERY fascinating. But it’s all speculation. Everybody has an opinionated, subjective side. But relatively few, in my opinion, are truly able to be substantially objective at the same time. People who write for a living are sometimes better about shifting gears into an objective mindset, an objective “literary voice” when writing a review.

Also, muddying the waters is the fact that, in my opinion, many folks find it far easier to write (or say) negative things about something than positive. I have myself found that I sometimes have more specific, detailed observations to make about, say, a bad movie, than a great movie. Maybe that’s why far more people go to “Yelp” to complain than to praise.

But you gotta just deal with it. You have to truly accept and live with the fact that an album YOU think is an effing MASTERPIECE is a piece of crap in the eyes of somebody else, and that somebody else *might* be as learned, knowledgeable, and thoughtful as you are.

Your mileage, of course, may vary.  If you like NPP, that's great - just, for me, personally, this one is a misfire.

I hear ya man, but I just want to illustrate from an outside voice speaking in, that your entire review perfectly presents that YOU are the reason you're not enjoying the album.  Your only critiques of it are that you don't like that whole sound, or that whole genre of music, or those type of guitars... 

I know it's hard because I do the same thing, but try listening to it with unprejudiced ears.  What if you decided to start liking (*gasp!) adult contemporary?  We might think you're old!  We might think you're soft!  We might think you're a poser!  Ignore all of that and just listen to the music for what it is, and see if you like it, regardless of what genre it's in or what the guitar tone is. 

I didn’t read Tomorrowville’s review as only focusing on the production or genre (although those things *can* impact one’s enjoyment, and can also go hand-in-hand with not liking the actual compositions).

I’m still working on my own review, but *very generally* speaking, I have similar thoughts to some of Tomorrowville’s. Some of the songs, the actual compositions, even after you strip away whatever the production style is, are not super memorable. One of the greatest things about Brian has always been his chord progressions and vocal arrangements. He almost *always* delivers the goods with vocal arrangements, regardless of the quality of the compositions or level of interesting chord changes. What I do hear on “NPP” is, in *some* cases, slightly pleasant but predictable chord patterns/changes. I think some of this may be down to Thomas’ songwriting involvement. I heard some similarities between the chord patterns on NPP and TWGMTR, in terms of how the chord progressions are resolved, and how long a song hangs on a specific chord. There are some moments when I can tell what the next chord is going to be before I’ve ever heard it. It’s never bad, but it’s sometimes a bit “not memorable.” Two of the most interesting songs compositionally for me are “Sail Away” and “One Kind of Love”, and it’s perhaps not a coincidence that those two tracks have input from writers other than Thomas. No, those two songs aren’t exactly “This Whole World” either structurally, but they do some ear-catching things with chord changes that some of the other tracks don’t.

This effect is why I’ve always had a “that’s good but it doesn’t *quite* hit the spot” feeling about something like “Summer’s Gone.” The song has a beautiful vocal arrangement and performance. Simple, but effective enough lyrics. Perhaps the best ending to a BB album outside of a few things like “Pet Sounds.” But the actual chords are just a bit bland. Unremarkable. Pleasant and constructed just fine.

I’ll have a no doubt rambling, epic review finished before too long. I dig the album. It has ups and downs, but certainly more ups. I do think that Thomas’ production/arrangement stamp on a good hunk of this album is *stronger* than TWGMTR. It isn’t to the level of “Imaginaton”, but NPP has a good amount of his touches: Oboes and woodwinds, plinky guitar plucking, plinky percussion, sparse percussion/drums. Some of these are also Brian’s hallmarks as well.

There are some obvious names where we can usually tell where that person's "review" is coming from. I don't know if "agenda" is always the right word; that kind of implies more effort and planning. I think it's more just engrained into certain folks to always be negative (or always positive) about certain things, for whatever reason.

But I do think some fans can come across as unwilling to acknowledge or accept criticism. Bad reviews are defamation? Really? Maybe that was just a vocabulary issue, or hyperbole.

I'm still digesting the album and working up a review. I'm enjoying it. I don't think it's Brian's all-time masterpiece. And, while everybody is (duh, obviously) entitled to their own opinion, I am a bit off-put by both all-negative or all-positive reviews. One line "this sucks" reviews are worthless. If a LOOOONG review of the album, going track-by-track, doesn't discuss one (substantial) thing the reviewer didn't like, I *may* come to the conclusion that they're predisposed to not write anything negative rather than truly LOVING every moment of the album. I'm not a big fan of those types of reviews either. I don't dig the reviews that read like a  "say something positive about each song" exercise. Nor do I enjoy those that read like a "say one positive and one negative thing about every song" exercise.

I know I'm stating the painfully obvious when I pose the question of why they didn't just include track-by-track credits. I would imagine it's probably just a space/design issue for the booklet. I'm curious if there was any flack for the TWGMTR credits being so odd (missing instruments, etc.), and if the more general credits are a reaction to that. Probably not.

Can someone just e-mail Joe Thomas and get track-by-track credits. It's fun but also weird that we have to do this process-of-elimination thing to decipher just a few of the credits.

Sounds like at least some of those issues might be with the local broadcast. The YouTube videos (available in HD) look and sound just fine. I even ripped the audio from the live YouTube clips to my iPod and have listened with headphones and they sound fine. Occasionally, the lead vocal dips a bit low in the mix on something like Al’s vocal on “Sail Away”, but overall it sounds fine.

The direction on the clips on YouTube also seems just fine.

If the editing is choppy, it *might* be because they did the sort of “Master Edit” for the Blu-ray/DVD (which clocks in at apparently around 103 minutes, 27 songs), and then cut that down to 59 minutes and 17 songs. They were probably trying to cram as many songs as they could into an hour slot, so they cut out some intros for guests and whatnot.

It’ll be interesting to see what the blu-ray looks and sounds like. If it’s like the YouTube clips, then it should be quite nice.

Someone else reported in another thread that the hour-long TV edit consist of the following 17 tracks:

1. Our Prayer
2. Heroes and Villains
3. Good Vibrations
4. This Beautiful Day
5. Runaway Dancer
6. Don't Worry Baby
7. Wild Honey
8. Sail On Sailor
9. Half Moon Bay
10. Saturday Night
11. Hold On, Dear Brother
12. On the Island (studio w/She & Him)
13. God Only Knows (studio w/ She & Him)
14. The Right Time
15. Wouldn't It Be Nice
16. Help Me, Rhonda
17. Fun, Fun, Fun

But seriously, if the PBS website is accurate and they really do have the Blu-ray/DVD in stock, that’s the way to go. 27 tracks plus bonus interviews. I’m extra enthused about the potential for the Blu-ray, because it’s not airing for another week or so in my area, and it looks like it’s only initially airing on one of the “sub-channels” that isn’t carried in HD.

Ten years into this board, and 53 or 54 years into this band, and we're still trying to sort out what basically amounts to "everybody has an opinion"?

I've read glowing reviews of stuff I find totally vapid (cough*Avatar*cough), and I've read unequivocally negative reviews of stuff I think is brilliant, and yeah, sure, occasionally there is that momentary gut reaction where you want to tell the reviewer where they can shove their review. And yes, I do think some mainstream reviewers/critics have a bias/agenda/taste that is predictable.

But it's mostly down to opinion, which may or may not be informed. You gotta just live with it. And you can usually tell when a mainstream media review or fan review is a hack job by someone who isn't giving it enough thought or consideration or context. You can also tell when a reviewer doesn't seem to have any internal consistency or logic, either from review to review or even within one review. 

Jude,

If you click on the FAQ link at the order site, there's a picture of the back of the DVD (and obviously we hope Blu-Ray, as advertised, as well) with the included song titles:

Our Prayer
Heroes and Villains
Sloop John B.
Dance, Dance, Dance
Good Vibrations
This Beautiful Day
Runaway Dancer
Don't Worry Baby
Marcella
Wild Honey
Sail On Sailor
Sail Away
Half Moon Bay
Don't Talk
Saturday Night
Hold On, Dear Brother
Darlin'
On the Island
God Only Knows
The Right Time
Wouldn't It Be Nice
Help Me, Rhonda
All Summer Long
Fun, Fun, Fun
Guess You Had To Be There

Bonus Songs:
Pacific Coast Highway
Summer's Gone

(27 total)

Bonus Features:
She & Him Interview
Nate Reuss Interview
Kacey Musgraves Interview
Sebu Interview


FWIW, I ordered the combo pack early this morning, myself. And while my CC was immediately charged (coming through as "Paypal"), I never received the confirmation e-mail.

Thus, I'm hoping it'll be processed.

Thanks! Not sure how I missed that before.

Interesting, so it looks like the following are cut:

Then I Kissed Her (Al)
She Knows Me Too Well (Ike)
California Saga: California (Al)
God Only Knows (Ruess)
California Girls
Barbara Ann
Surfin’ USA


Cutting the Ike track isn’t surprising, and the extra Ruess track would be repetitive. Kind of a bummer they cut two more Al songs, especially since we don’t really have an officially released video iteration of those tracks. Surprised they cut those last three obvious “hits.” While I wish we would have had those extra two Al tracks, I have to commend them overall for not only the show’s setlist, but for keeping in most of the interesting stuff. Cutting “Barbara Ann” and “Surfin’ USA” but including “Hold on Dear Brother” and a trumpet version of “Don’t Talk” is pretty impressive.

Also interesting to see the two “Radio” suite tracks presented as bonus material. I’m curious if perhaps they used a rehearsal/soundcheck performance instead of the live show versions? I’m trying to think of why else they’d present it apart from the main program.

It’s also possible the deletions are to some degree arbitrary due to budget. It’s very expensive to clear the publishing for videos (rather than the flat rate for CDs), so the fact that they cleared this many is pretty cool. Though, I can’t imagine something like “California Saga” would cost more to clear than some of those classic BB tracks.

One of the e-mail and/or website blurbs mentions the Blu-ray/DVD includes 27 songs. It appears 31 were performed at the live gig. We know at least two of the 27 will be the in-studio Deschanel tracks, and there probably be another non-live Musgraves track. So we might be looking at 24 of the 31 live show tracks being used.

The 17 confirmed tracks from the TV airing are:

1. Our Prayer
2. Heroes and Villains
3. Good Vibrations
4. This Beautiful Day
5. Runaway Dancer
6. Don't Worry Baby
7. Wild Honey
8. Sail On Sailor
9. Half Moon Bay
10. Saturday Night
11. Hold On, Dear Brother
12. On the Island (studio)
13. God Only Knows (studio)
14. The Right Time
15. Wouldn't It Be Nice
16. Help Me, Rhonda
17. Fun, Fun, Fun

The following songs are also in the trailer:

18. Sloop John B
19. Sail Away

We also know that the two “Radio” suite songs should be on there:

20. Pacific Coast Highway
21. Summer’s Gone

Is it safe to assume we’ll probably get an in-studio video for the Musgraves track?

22. Guess You Had to Be There

That leaves five slots for the following 12 tracks from the live show:

Dance Dance Dance
Then I Kissed Her (Al)
She Knows Me Too Well (Ike)
Marcella
Don’t Talk (Put Your Head on My Shoulder) (Isham)
California Saga: California (Al)
Darlin’ (Ruess)
God Only Knows (Ruess)
California Girls
All Summer Long
Barbara Ann
Surfin’ USA


This all assumes the citation of 27 tracks is correct, and that all of the “bonus songs” they’ve mentioned so far are contained within that 27 track count.

My apologies if this has been covered before. As a guitar player, I've always been fascinated by the guitar choices in the band. Regarding Carl's Fender Jaguar, it seems as though after about '65/66 he stopped using it live. Around that point he's then seen more with his Rickenbacker and white Telecaster. Then in the early '70s, it's the Epiphones and Gibsons that he stuck with throughout the duration of his career.  Was he ever seen with his Jaguar after that point? I don't think I've seen any photos of him with it after around 1966.  What ever happened to it? Did he sell it? I loved the sound he got with it (though he sounded great regardless of what he was playing).
 
Something else I've wondered - what was the reason for the switch from Fender to Gibson in the early 70s? Was it to get a more modern (for the time) rock sound? Have any of them ever explained or acknowledged why both Al and Carl, seemingly around the same time, abandoned Fender for Gibson?

Finally, while we're at it, with the exception of the Grammy's (in 2012?), did Al ever bust out a Les Paul after the mid/late '70s? It seems like it was all his white Stratocaster after that.

One tiny bit I can add is that, especially in the 2000's, you can sometimes see Al with different guitars when he is just dropping in and doing quick sets. He played a sunburst Strat when I saw him in 2005 with Stevie Heger's band. I got the sense Al just came down for the show and played one of the other guys' guitars.

Al can be seen playing a Gibson ES guitar (can't remember if it was a 335 or 345 or 355) at the July 4th, 1984 televised show. I think he popped up with some random guitars here and there, but usually stuck to the white Strat (which I believe is his red one repainted white?).

I believe he *may* currently sometimes if not usually be playing a newer Fender repro of his white Strat. As Mikie mentioned, Fender took his white Strat and measured it and whatnot for a signature edition, but I don't think they ever released one. But when I saw Al in 2007 with Brian, his Strat had that "new but antiqued" look, so I wondered if they had run off a few "antiqued" repros and gave one to Al.

We treating the deluxe version as the standard album?  

No sir, this we is not. Are not. Whatever.

I'll be reviewing it was a 13 track album, and going over the bonus & super-bonus tracks separately. In one instance, very briefly as I dash for cover.

I gotta say, I disagree with you here. At least in the U.S., the deluxe album is being sold as the standard. It's the default album for sale on Amazon, and in practically all stores. Most people are going to experience the record in the 16-track form, so that's the only logical way to review it.

I wonder if anyone deep inside the inner workings of the industry can explain this "Standard" and "Deluxe" situation. "Deluxe" editions have been around for ages. But I'm seeing more and more cases like NPP, or McCartney's initial versions of "New" in 2013, where there are two versions that are pretty much identical except for the addition of three or so songs. In other words, you don't have a "Standard" version, say, in a jewel case, and then a "Deluxe" version in a fancy box/digipak with extra tracks PLUS a DVD, a booklet, postcards, stickers, whatever. The two products are largely indistinguishable (McCartney color coded his versions) other than one having more tracks.

I'm wondering if this is some sort of accounting trick or some way to impact sales or receipts or chart action or something. I admit I have no idea how this would be possible. The only immediate benefit I can see is that the "Standard" version is cheaper for someone who can somehow afford $12 or so but not $14 or $15, and Brian might see the sales numbers goosed a tiny bit by super hardcore collector fans that have to buy both versions.

Or it could be some sort of reverse psychology thing where the album is largely intended as a 16-track album but they label it "Deluxe" to make us feel like we're getting something extra special.

For all intents and purposes, the "Deluxe" version is the "Standard" version and the "Standard" version is like a day-and-date budget release with a few tracks stripped away.

I think the larger issues in terms of Brian playing keyboards are these two points:

1. We know Brian can play piano/keyboards.
2. Brian doesn’t often do a lot of keyboard playing at live shows

Seriously, the best Brian live performance I’ve ever seen was on the 2000 PS tour. No orchestra for the Saratoga Mountain Winery gig. But we got the full album. Anyway, after the admittedly awkward 1999 shows where he was “pretending” to play the keyboards (even though he actually could have; there’s a classic Beach Boys-style dichotomy there for ya), in 2000 he just sat there and sang. It was marvelous. He often sang with his eyes closed, like he was in the studio singing or something. I’ve gone back recently and listened to a really nice recording of the show (I didn’t make the recording, have no idea who did), and it’s the most “on” I’ve *ever* heard or seen Brian during a show.

Anyway, point is, the keyboard thing is a non-issue. It’s not a matter of ability. It’s more a matter simply of whether you’d prefer Brian to sit on a stool with no keyboard in front of him. I prefer the keyboard there, both visually and for Brian’s sake. Sort of like when McCartney sings with no guitar; it’s kind of awkward and weird.

And yeah, if Brian’s doing a live track where one of the guests is featured prominently, where it’s not a lead vocal trade-off but more a case where Brian provides more backing support, then Brian does kind of start to seem a bit superfluous. But I’m digging that Brian is willing to just do his new album tracks however he wanted. It’s still his album; a song he co-wrote. I’m glad, for instance, that after years of inner-BB politics where you had stuff like Al and Brian at the Hawthorne landmark thing but still not actually singing *together*, Brian could not only have Al on his *solo* album, but use a song as the first single where Al sings pretty much the entire song! Al Jardine doesn’t have a lot of name recognition outside of the BB fan universe. To me, that was Brian simply feeling Al sang the song well, he digs Al’s voice, and let’s just release a good track to kick off the album. Doesn’t matter who’s singing it.

I think Brian really likes the “group” format these days, both in the studio (writing for and assigning lead vocalists) and live in concert (not having to carry the entire show himself). It’s another reason why it was such tragic timing to shoot Brian down in 2012 about wanting to do more BB stuff.

I would say out of all of the ambiguities, the issue of what name will appear on the autograph isn’t one to worry about too much. That part is pretty implicit. Look at it this way; if it’s one of the *other* guest stars who sign it instead, you can probably eBay the autograph for a few bucks!

I think they’d be asking for a slew of complaints if the thing is only autographed by Craig, the intern who is stuffing the envelopes.

It is interesting that they continue to update the verbiage on the website in apparent response to fan questions. Those website people are probably uber-annoyed by us by now! 

[Wait:]

Thanks to HeyJude and others for your efforts.  By going the extra mile and sharing the replies you received, I was eventually reasonably assured enough to pull the trigger on the autograph package.

From the clips we've seen, the show looks (and sounds) fantastic.  The blu ray would have been a day-one purchase for me whenever it was released, anyway, so I'm happy to get it done. 

Even better, this will be my first BW autograph.  I know evidence has been shared in the past that suggests Brian doesn't sign everything that is purported to be legitimate, and it would be a real bummer to get a 'not-Brian' Brian autograph.  Fingers-crossed that these will be the real deal.  I'll share a photo of the signature when it arrives and hopefully we can reach some kind of consensus on that front.

Wait:  Looking back at the link, it just says "Autographed Brian Wilson and Friends: A Soundstage Special Event Blu-ray disc and DVD and No Pier Pressure CD."  It doesn't actually say "Brian Wilson autographed" or "Signed by Brian Wilson."

Uh-oh.  See, I should have been more careful before clicking 'buy.'

I think autographs from the "No Pier Pressure" promotions are more than likely legit. He signed some "NPP" CDs for "Looney Tunes Records" that were up for sale (mentioned via Facebook), and they showed a pic of that CD and it looked enough like a BW autograph to me.

You can also go back to a thread I started last year where I found a Gershwin CD with a really sketchy looking autograph in a used CD bin for like 10 bucks or something, and the actual consensus seemed to lean much more towards it being legit. One of the big takeaways from that discussion was that confirmed, in-person legit autographs can even look quite different. This one looked all spidery. Mixture of whatever was Brian's signing style that day, along with literally a bumpy CD cover to sign, and what appeared to be Sharpie running out of ink. 

The PBS e-mail response I got also mentioned that the signature is on a "card" (whether a white blank card, or the "insert" for the Blu-ray, or some other card, I don't know) inside the Blu-ray rather than on the cover of the Blu-ray or CD itself. Makes sense. They probably sent Brian bunch of the cards to sign rather than hauling boxes of Blu-rays for him to sign.

I also got a reply that the Blu-ray/DVD (which they re-confirmed is a combo pack) and CD are available now and shipping as they are ordered. (Although, as mentioned above, I'm assuming a few days of processing is likely).

I should also mention that aside from all the nitpicky stuff about the website, I'm really looking forward to this, especially now that they are putting this on Blu-ray. The clips of the show on YouTube look and sound great. I think this will be an awesome Blu-ray. I'm not always enamored with the Joe Thomas production ethos in the studio (oboes, plinky guitar, plinky bass, plinky percussion, low key jazzy guitar parts, etc.), but his work in the video realm is top notch. I have several other Blu-ray discs of his "Soundstage" show, and they look and sound great. Simple and effective direction too (I think Thomas usually directs the episodes too); not a bunch of quick cut crap.