Tempura? What kind of instrument is that of? I'm familiar with the fried breading only...

  I think the same thing, and it makes me hungry...

Here's how The Beatles used one in '67, isolated track: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJGBxtezwzo

As you'll hear with the BB's fellow travelers across the Atlantic...it's a totally different sound than what's on this BB's track/session.

I just wanted to say this and clarify that I'm only doing a friendly debate here as usual. I may come off in some replies as a contrarian but my thought process on some of these "what did they play?" questions has changed a bit through the years for various reasons.

In this case, as mentioned, I played in the past the Coral electric sitar and copies of it through the years. I know the instrument and what it sounds like, and thanks to one particular former private student of mine (now roughly 12 years ago), I got into studying and playing Indian music, specifically the sitar, thanks to his interest in learning it. He wanted a real sitar at the time, but considering anything at a real quality level would come from India and would be very expensive all around, he settled on a Coral copy that was available at the time. He had no idea how to set it up and whatnot, so I learned how to and did it. We went through the little details of how the sitar is played and adapted it to the electric sitar which he had bought. It was one of the most cool and educational things I ever did as a musician, and opened up a new world outside the usual 6-string guitar universe. When you hear players like Harrison, Mike Bloomfield, Robby Krieger...you know they actually devoted their studies to it too because the little inflections come out when you know what to listen for. It was not "Raga Rock" to use a popular phrase of the 60's and early 70's, but real musicians actually devoting themselves to learn and adapt.

So I hear this outtake with a sitar part. Any guitarist could play it. It's simple. Nothing even as complex as "Norwegian Wood" or "Paint It Black", which were of course real sitars.

I factor in who could have played it at the session. Do we know? Was it a session player, or was it Carl? Was it Al perhaps?

Say it's Carl - He's a very utilitarian guitarist, in a very complementary way to use that terms. Carl was not flash and chops and shredding bullshit...Carl played just enough to make the song work. Carl was also not a guitar fiend and collector - His own descriptions of his guitar arsenal show that he used instruments that served the music, and worked for his needs in studio or stage. He didn't have several hundred guitars in a warehouse like Steve Howe or Rick Nielsen or Slash or collector/players like that.

Ok - So what would the most obvious first, go-to answer be for a part like we hear on these tracks? The Coral electric...Again, in '68 and thereabouts, it was almost ubiquitous.

SBonilla is correct...As far as I've been able to gather, Mike Deasy was the "sitar guy" in the LA studio scene. He did indeed have an authentic sitar, and got tons of jobs because of it, similar to how in London Jimmy Page got called because he was the guy with the fuzz box for trippy sessions and sounds. Deasy was also the guy who would get called specifically for far-out, psychedelic sounds and fuzzed-out tones. That was his calling card...Need a trippy guitar sound in LA? Hire Deasy.  Listen to his Friar Tuck solo album for examples, haha...

In my mind, if this was a self-contained Beach Boys session, and we hear the very basic results of that "sitar" part, I'd logically say it was probably the Coral electric. Having played one and learned it and all of that myself, that's a different judgement set altogether, and in that case it sounds like a Coral.

But I go by chances of it being something over another, and those guesses based on everything point me to the Coral.


The funny part of it all is that someone will come along with proof that it was a real sitar from India, and at that point I'll gladly say "My bad, I was wrong and my ears were wrong too".  

But at this point, the specific part sounds more like a Coral than a real sitar based on what I hear on the track. And again, it's not arguing but just a healthy debate with reasoning offered behind the opinions and statements. It's not pulling stuff out of thin air.

And it could all be wrong.  

The tampura/tanbura is not on this track. That instrument is played as a drone instrument, no notes are fretted or played as melody like the sitar.

"And we come full circle returning to what was said a few pages ago: If Rocky and/or Stephen Love had the facts and the truth on their side when they were sharing details of various issues and lawsuits and whatnot involving Mike, there would be *no grounds to sue*. That's as simple as it can get. Or even more simply, the burden of proof for someone suing for libel or slander depends entirely on first proving that lies and falsehoods were told about that person or persons enough to damage them personally or in a business sense."

It's never as simple as that.  Even if the truth is on your side, the cost of defending yourself from a lawsuit is enormous.  Most people will give it up rather than face the time and costs of attorneys' fees in defending themselves from a lawsuit.  If you are sued and you win, you don't get your attorneys' fees back, they are down the drain.  And if a judge makes a decision that turns a case upside down, even if that decision is wrong, that is one of the risks of a lawsuit.  The road to good intentions is paved with all kinds of bad and incorrect outcomes in lawsuits, especially in sunny California.

Side note: this is also probably why the brand licensing issue will never be touched with a ten foot pole.

Also - I'm sure I've seen dozens tv shows/movies of people getting paid off and contracts drawn up in exchange for silence and photos/video to simply vanish, etc. Feels like we're in a Dallas or Columbo episode or something. We'll certainly never know the real story here, but it would seem that an about face and change of tone doesn't just happen out of the blue for no reason. I'll just have to assume the tape (and Rocky's original intentions/tone as stated in his messages on this board) went into the void of the "lost chapter" in Mike's bio where Mike -with great sincerity and conviction - talked about regretting filing the failed 2005 lawsuit against Brian and all the embarrassing details of that.

So the suggestion is, and it's no surprise for those who have followed this band's history, that anyone who might have something to share or publish or write in general has to walk on eggshells out of fear that Mike Love and his lawyers will start throwing lawsuits and c&d orders at them to try to stifle anything he doesnt want to have made public.

That's nice, isn't it? Avoid things by having an atmosphere of fear and discourage people from talking by threatening them through the legal system instead of dealing with the issues like a man.

Real class, there. Positivity personified.

Doesn't make it right, but it's actually quite common.

No doubt - But it's a shame to have such a tag attached to the name of "America's Band" who made music that heals and cures and makes people happy to have a member with the reputation of lawyering up and filing countless legal actions against fellow bandmates, former co-workers, and family for decades to where it becomes a threat hanging over anyone with a story to tell. Yes it happens a lot but it's a shame it does.

"And we come full circle returning to what was said a few pages ago: If Rocky and/or Stephen Love had the facts and the truth on their side when they were sharing details of various issues and lawsuits and whatnot involving Mike, there would be *no grounds to sue*. That's as simple as it can get. Or even more simply, the burden of proof for someone suing for libel or slander depends entirely on first proving that lies and falsehoods were told about that person or persons enough to damage them personally or in a business sense."

It's never as simple as that.  Even if the truth is on your side, the cost of defending yourself from a lawsuit is enormous.  Most people will give it up rather than face the time and costs of attorneys' fees in defending themselves from a lawsuit.  If you are sued and you win, you don't get your attorneys' fees back, they are down the drain.  And if a judge makes a decision that turns a case upside down, even if that decision is wrong, that is one of the risks of a lawsuit.  The road to good intentions is paved with all kinds of bad and incorrect outcomes in lawsuits, especially in sunny California.

Side note: this is also probably why the brand licensing issue will never be touched with a ten foot pole.

Also - I'm sure I've seen dozens tv shows/movies of people getting paid off and contracts drawn up in exchange for silence and photos/video to simply vanish, etc. Feels like we're in a Dallas or Columbo episode or something. We'll certainly never know the real story here, but it would seem that an about face and change of tone doesn't just happen out of the blue for no reason. I'll just have to assume the tape (and Rocky's original intentions/tone as stated in his messages on this board) went into the void of the "lost chapter" in Mike's bio where Mike -with great sincerity and conviction - talked about regretting filing the failed 2005 lawsuit against Brian and all the embarrassing details of that.

So the suggestion is, and it's no surprise for those who have followed this band's history, that anyone who might have something to share or publish or write in general has to walk on eggshells out of fear that Mike Love and his lawyers will start throwing lawsuits and c&d orders at them to try to stifle anything he doesnt want to have made public.

That's nice, isn't it? Avoid things by having an atmosphere of fear and discourage people from talking by threatening them through the legal system instead of dealing with the issues like a man.

Real class, there. Positivity personified.

  The only problem is that there's no room left in Mike's hat. It's been so full of sh*t for decades just like the rest of his stupid hat collection. 

Sigh ... Seeing moronic comments like the above makes me embarrassed to have been a part of this thread. I don't understand why the mods allow this type of immature nonsense.

There's not a rule against it.  I'd rather not go overboard in the name of censorship....if I canned a post just because I found it annoying or I didn't like it, there'd be a good portion of the board missing and a lot of people complaining.

Seconded.

I think it's an acoustic sitar.  Listen at 1:53, you can hear a little muffed entrance which suggests an acoustic instrument.

Also, not that the sitar sounding thing only plays like three different notes, I suspect they just tuned the open strings to the notes they wanted so nobody had to learn how to play it.  Could even be a tampura?

I said the same thing above, but apart from that one point, do you hear any bends, wavering pitches, or any stray open notes that would suggest a real sitar?

Also, if as c man said there is an obvious electric sitar on later attempts at this song, would it not make as much sense that one was used here as well?

And just an aside, here we go again trying to suggest how many changes were made to an existing instrument in order to back up a theory, versus looking at the most common and perhaps most obvious answer as of 1968...that it was a Coral electric sitar, an instrument that was at that time ubiquitous in studios from LA, to Motown, to Memphis, and New York where Vinnie Bell who was the face of the instrument was based. It was all over the radio , am radio, at this exact time and far easier to find than an authentic sitar from India.

And we come full circle returning to what was said a few pages ago: If Rocky and/or Stephen Love had the facts and the truth on their side when they were sharing details of various issues and lawsuits and whatnot involving Mike, there would be *no grounds to sue*. That's as simple as it can get. Or even more simply, the burden of proof for someone suing for libel or slander depends entirely on first proving that lies and falsehoods were told about that person or persons enough to damage them personally or in a business sense.

If the people being sued are telling the truth, there is no case. It's that simple.

So assume Rocky's claims are true, and he got the ubiquitous threats from Mike Love and his lawyers...If he told the truth, Mike and the lawyers could go sh*t in their collective hat for lack of a better term.

If Rocky was lying, then yeah - You can't publish known lies about someone without almost expecting legal action.

So where is that audio tape, what happened to it?

On the same shelf in the BBs vault as Wrinkles and Murry's Help Me, Rhonda rant.

  Nice.

I was thinking it could also be a 60's-style Mission Impossible scenario that played out somewhere in the Nevada desert:

And we come full circle returning to what was said a few pages ago: If Rocky and/or Stephen Love had the facts and the truth on their side when they were sharing details of various issues and lawsuits and whatnot involving Mike, there would be *no grounds to sue*. That's as simple as it can get. Or even more simply, the burden of proof for someone suing for libel or slander depends entirely on first proving that lies and falsehoods were told about that person or persons enough to damage them personally or in a business sense.

If the people being sued are telling the truth, there is no case. It's that simple.

So assume Rocky's claims are true, and he got the ubiquitous threats from Mike Love and his lawyers...If he told the truth, Mike and the lawyers could go sh*t in their collective hat for lack of a better term.

If Rocky was lying, then yeah - You can't publish known lies about someone without almost expecting legal action.

So where is that audio tape, what happened to it?

Are there any bent notes on the track? If not, that's one dead giveaway that it is *not* a real sitar because the nature and design of the instrument involves bending notes rather than "fretting" them straight-on, and unless you play all open strings on the instrument, you'll hear bent notes if it's a real sitar.

I hear no bent notes.

Do we think this is a real sitar, or either (a) the Coral electric sitar, which was really more of an electric guitar with sympathetic strings resonating in a sitar-like fashion, or (b) a setting or combination of settings on the Rock-Si-Chord?  

Man that is a tough one. I'm going with Coral electric sitar. I've played them - Hardly anyone uses the sympathetic drone strings. It's kind of a gimmick. The "sitar" quality is produced by a special plastic bridge that the strings lay on and which effectively buzzes and causes that faster buzzy decay, but other than that bridge it's a standard guitar tuned like a standard guitar. The bridges awhile back were going for high prices on Ebay because you could take any guitar in theory and jam one of those under the strings and have basically the Coral sound. Minus the drone strings which aren't used often and which can be a bear to tune (you get an Allen wrench to tune them if that gives an idea how temperamental and kind of pointless they are).

I'm hearing "All I Wanna Do (Early Version Track)", 2:24 in length, and at exactly 1:53 the person playing it flubs a note. I swear I hear a laugh at this point on the tape...which would suggest a close mic perhaps, and perhaps a legit sitar versus the Coral electric.

However - The rest of the part, all of those notes, are almost in perfectly straight intonation, no "bends" or bending of the pitches at all. That suggests a Coral with the guitar neck, and frets...Real sitars have the characteristic of bent notes, and when someone unfamiliar with the correct way to play one tries to play a sitar, it's all over the place with bends out of tune and whatnot. With the Coral, it's just like playing standard 6-string guitar.

Howard Stern should get all of the surviving members together and have them argue it out.

Would we see a repeat of the striped shirt debacle if they did? Or if they did a group Stern interview, Brian and Al should come in sporting those vintage "I'm A Fuckin' Genius" yellow T's...

Yahoo: "Where did the rumor come from that you didn't like Pet Sounds?"

Mike: "I think it came from the heavy drugs taken by some members of the band."

I'm not even kidding this is basically word-for-word said in the interview.

What he actually says is "I think there was a them and us thing that arose through drugs" and that a schism arose in the group that wasn't there before...which is absolutely true and I think that is a huge factor in why Mike resisted some of the Smile material, which eventually morphed into "he hated Pet Sounds too" (with the help of unsubstantiated quotes like "Don't **** with the formula").  

I still think it's weird that both he and Al continue to deny ever taking heavy drugs when we have the original session for "Our Prayer" released on TSS.  

He says, "I didn't get into all the heavy drugs and stuff like that, and some others did." I guess I'm failing to see the connection between Pet Sounds and Brian's cocaine addiction...As marijuana and LSD are considered soft drugs, and marijuana was the primary drug of choice during the making of Pet Sounds.

My point in highlighting him bringing up heavy drugs is that Mike continuously has to bring up the heavy drug use of the Wilson brothers in interviews when it literally has nothing to do with the question he is being asked.

Gotta stick to the narrative for all the uneducated "fans" watching this kind of thing who don't know the history. Show me one reporter or interviewer who would push back and challenge Mike on the usual talking points, just one.

Just received word that the photo came to the auctioneers like that, so poop.

The hope might be that the photo in full does exist, as in there had to be something to blur...what I'm getting at is maybe we can track down whoever was the source of that photo when the PS box and booklet was being assembled, because that too was cropped from the same larger image. And the larger image exists, at least we know that now after seeing the blurred version.

Thanks for checking!

Sometimes I wonder why photos like this - especially ones we know to exist - are kept so close to the collective vest rather than just allowing interested fans to see them before it's too late.

Same goes for the 47+ minute long Good Vibrations studio footage. No reason to keep that hidden. None.

I've asked Ron the same thing about the 180 degree flip multiple times - Maybe there is no "reasonable" answer or maybe it's something that got designated not fit for public consumption.

To be honest, Ron seems to be ignoring the questions about that specific topic, which for some of us is the most baffling and most obvious point of the whole saga. And it goes against everything Rocky wrote and said when he was posting here at the end of 2015 into 2016. We see a total, complete, 180 degree, Jekyll and Hyde style flip in roughly two years. No idea why these questions are being ignored, especially when they're asked respectfully and without name-calling and the like.

Ron? What gives?

He's answered it a few times. The publisher didn't want to go that route.

He did? OK - So the publisher forced a man to change and reverse a majority of his opinions on two of the major players in his own book-biography-life story in order to take a more acceptable "route"? Wow. That would be selling out, wouldn't it?

Either way, more specific questions were posed to Ron and are still unanswered. Such as, what happened to flip Rocky 180 degrees like this? If a publisher flipped him to get a contract to publish a book...is that a positive thing to be promoting? "Say this instead of how you've felt for decades and how you really feel, and we'll give you a deal...otherwise, no deal". Or maybe the Rocky back in 2016 posting excerpts from his earlier book manuscripts was full of sh*t? Which do you think it is?

At this point, which Rocky should we believe? The one who dictated and posted his memoirs and facts here back in 2016, or the one who dictated and is having his memoirs posted here in 2018?

We got two different versions of not only a man's opinions, but related facts as well. Not a good sign. Shall we flip a coin to decide which version (or which Rocky) to believe?

Reynaldo, I would be interested to read your book. Your take on BB history is rather different from my own, but so what. Rocky Pamplin clearly has some stories to tell, and I am very curious to hear them. So if it were available as an e-book, I would buy it in a heartbeat. Is that going to happen though? Because I'm afraid I'm not quite at the level of interest where I'm willing to shell out for an expensively imported paperback. Also, I'm not sure if this is particularly your fault, but the chapter you published clearly wasn't the best one to share with this particular board. It consists entirely of exposition, and readers of this forum already know the story backwards, and - you will have noted - aren't terribly tolerant of interpretations of it that conflict with their own.

ETA: Note that I wrote all this before seeing you acknowledge the very point I was making at the top of this page.

William, were you here and reading Rocky's own posts 2 years ago? If not, go back and read them. It's all there.

It's not a case of tolerance of opinion and whatever people choose to tag this board community with (intolerant? Haha. Compared to what? ) ...It's a case of the SAME GUY - ROCKY -  plugging a book called Wipeout and posting excerpts here previously, and now the "facts" and opinions offered by the same Rocky in this recent book totally contradict what he said and thought and wrote earlier! Not just contradict, but it's as if a whole new perspective took over Rocky in the past two years and his "fact-based opinions" completely changed.

We're wondering what happened.

I've asked Ron the same thing about the 180 degree flip multiple times - Maybe there is no "reasonable" answer or maybe it's something that got designated not fit for public consumption.

To be honest, Ron seems to be ignoring the questions about that specific topic, which for some of us is the most baffling and most obvious point of the whole saga. And it goes against everything Rocky wrote and said when he was posting here at the end of 2015 into 2016. We see a total, complete, 180 degree, Jekyll and Hyde style flip in roughly two years. No idea why these questions are being ignored, especially when they're asked respectfully and without name-calling and the like.

Ron? What gives?

I thought it appropriate to note that the Smiley Smile forum and community reached something of a milestone in mid-November, one which flew under the radar but one which deserves a mention and thanks just the same.

This forum on November 15th posted the most users online at one time in its history. The previous mark for most visitors at one time was the time Brian Wilson came here for a live Q&A session with members, in early 2015. Even since November 15th, the numbers have been staying high. There is a lot to be excited about, for sure.

I just wanted to take this moment to thank everyone who stops in as part of their regular online routine to read the latest news and conversations, and especially those who contribute and post whether it be once or multiple times daily.

It's the people posting, reading, and sharing who make the forum and community a neat place to hang out for Beach Boys fans.

And in spite of what will soon be 13 years of naysayers and critics saying it won't last, it will collapse after so-and-so departs, message boards are dead, the place is a parking lot...It's still running. For all the various issues and squabbles and dust-ups and everything else that happens every so often, we're still here. It's not just running, it's running strong and posting the best viewership numbers we've ever had just in the past month.

And it's a cool place to be.

So thank you, everyone here, and here's a toast to even more years of talking Beach Boys and hanging out. 

Mike Love could (and would) file a lawsuit. Dennis and Carl can’t.

If Rocky and Stephen Love and whoever else tells the truth or gives factual accounts that can be backed up, and Mike doesn't like it, that would fall into the category of "tough sh*t" for Mike or whoever else. Unless telling the truth is grounds for a lawsuit. Or, unless some form of a contract were signed with a confidentiality clause, and going public with information would violate that contract, which in this case I doubt there were any contracts of the sort in place when Rocky and Stephen were writing publicly a few years ago.

So Mike could bark all he wants about threatening lawsuits, it's probably nothing new, but if these guys are telling the truth there would be nothing on which to actually sue them. The most critical standard for filing a lawsuit on either libel or slander is that the statements being made are false. If they're true...."tough sh*t".

Ron - I'm reposting this in case it got lost in the mix, or if you simply chose to ignore it and not comment that's fine too.

I have to say that I give a tip of the hat to Ron for coming in and joining the discussion, but after reading the excerpts posted so far, some of those statements are just completely wrong or out of line factually and otherwise.

As much as I respect the fact Ron is here taking the questions and comments about the book, some of the "facts" and statements seen so far simply do not line up with the actual facts and truth. And I wasn't going to go there, but some of the comments in the book's excerpts do indeed sound like either the nonsense written in Mike's 2005 lawsuit that got chucked out of every court that heard it, or even perhaps more blatant, some of the PR nonsense that has come from the Love group and his more ardent supporters and defenders in the past decade or more. Key phrases, comments, the wording, etc...it could be a press release.

And it's still baffling how a book could do a 180 degree flip in a few years to turn into a glowing praise of Mike Love. It's fine to praise Mike and his role in the band, but some of those quotes are the same kind of sycophantry that has been and usually gets debunked on arrival when it appears.

With that out of the way, I'd like to quote one excerpt you posted from the book with follow-up questions and observations if you'd choose to answer and dialogue on the topic:

Mike Love, the oldest Beach Boy, has a long and involved relationship with his younger cousin, Brian. They co-founded the Beach Boys, and for years cooperated on songwriting. Mike has his own variety of hardworking genius; he’s the invaluable mixture of glue and sweat that held the band together for decades.

Mike has always been the dependable Beach Boy, sober and present through thick and thin and thousands of gigs. As the frontman and lead singer, he embodied the Beach Boys image with his voice and mesmerizing stage presence. The Beach Boys would have folded in 1964 without him, and he’s kept the band on the road for well over 50 years.

My opinion: This is exactly the type of Mike Love hype that his PR machine (for lack of a better term) has been spreading in recent years, and which can be spotted in everything from local "weekender" type local newspapers promoting his gigs, to fan message boards, to social media, even onward and upward into published books and various bios and articles. In short, it's an overstatement to say the least. To say the worst, I won't go there - But it's easy to factually debunk this kind of PR hype and ballyhoo as exactly that. It's a shame because for all of the credits Mike genuinely gets and deserves, it's the overreaching and attempts to grab more credit and praise than might by due in reality that irks quite a few fans of the band.

With that said, Rocky was indeed here and posting actively around the end of 2015 into early 2016. While he was here, he even posted excerpts from what was then his manuscript of the "Wipeout" book, and would tease various parts of it and relate stories from the upcoming book. It was also connected to Stephen Love - Both in the concept and focus of the book, and also the sourcing so it seemed. Rocky even hinted that the upcoming book would be in part about how Mike Love screwed over his brother(s) and cousin Brian through the years, and Rocky teased several specific examples.

The case of Mike's songwriting lawsuit was addressed. Rocky said he had an audio tape of a conversation. He said the details would come out about what that was, and the implications on Mike going forward. That was one of the bigger teasers in the whole saga of Rocky posting here. Potentially explosive claims or even details about that case, we were told.

Most of Rocky's original posts focused on a very negative portrayal of Mike Love, especially zeroing in on the relationships and dealings with his brother(s)...and how Mike ended up almost ruining his brother by getting involved in bringing charges against him which were eventually dropped completely and a full exoneration was issued by the courts.

So all of that was in Rocky's initial posts and the excerpts of his book which he posted roughly three years ago.

And now it is even more than a 180 degree flip (if that's scientifically possible...) to where Rocky is spouting hype and ballyhoo and praise for Mike Love as all but the savior and messiah of the Beach Boys, the "glue" that held it all together amidst the shortcomings of the Wilson brothers and whatnot...and this is the same Rocky talking about the same Mike Love who he had little or no praise or very little in the way of positive things to say about him a few years ago in public posts.

So, what gives? What flipped Rocky? What changed? The publishers wanting to go another direction explains some of the current contents and focus of the book, but what could possibly have happened in the past 2-3 years to flip Rocky's opinions of Mike Love so drastically and obviously?

The proof of the flip is this is the same Rocky writing about the same people and topics on the record in 2015-16 versus this current book, for those interested in proof.

I have to say that I give a tip of the hat to Ron for coming in and joining the discussion, but after reading the excerpts posted so far, some of those statements are just completely wrong or out of line factually and otherwise.

As much as I respect the fact Ron is here taking the questions and comments about the book, some of the "facts" and statements seen so far simply do not line up with the actual facts and truth. And I wasn't going to go there, but some of the comments in the book's excerpts do indeed sound like either the nonsense written in Mike's 2005 lawsuit that got chucked out of every court that heard it, or even perhaps more blatant, some of the PR nonsense that has come from the Love group and his more ardent supporters and defenders in the past decade or more. Key phrases, comments, the wording, etc...it could be a press release.

And it's still baffling how a book could do a 180 degree flip in a few years to turn into a glowing praise of Mike Love. It's fine to praise Mike and his role in the band, but some of those quotes are the same kind of sycophantry that has been and usually gets debunked on arrival when it appears.

Also, consider if Barney were mic'ed up for the session you'd hear more than just the live feed going into the echo chamber, which is what we hear most on those session tapes. You literally don't hear anything but the strings, and if it were close-mic'ed it would be reasonable to assume the mic would pick up more noise and various sounds.

The description given for a long time of this session was that the guitars were plugged in direct and were in the control room cutting the tracks due to the limited space at Gold Star on the studio floor. That's the scenario replicated in the L&M film for what it's worth.

I really think whatever it is is plugged in.  Wouldn't be surprised if the two intro instruments were coupled and plugged in to the same input, actually.

As far as a pick-up for the mando-guitar goes, I did a little research today and it seems like there were mandolin pick-ups that you could clamp on without screwing anything in, and also guitar pickups that you could temporarily affix with putty.  So it being an acoustic instrument really isn't an issue, although it is one more little step in the process.

I agree - With the limited number of sends on that board, it also sounds to me like both instruments' signals got sent to the echo chamber together. The decay "bounce" around the chamber and whatnot seems to be hitting both the same way.

I agreed that a pickup would be possible, but again it sticks in my mind why would they need to do all of this (like putting a pickup on a mandolin) when a stock 12-string or a Bellzouki for example would be as simple as plug-in-and-play to get the part down. And I believe both Fender and Vox and maybe more had electric mandolins on the market yet you really don't hear examples of too many of these coming from the LA studios in the mid-60's.

I am a member - I'm not sure if they have a non-altered version available for the public due to usage rights and all that. I'm assuming the blacked-out version is what they received in order to list for the auction but could be wrong. Did you want me to drop them a line? Might be a longshot since the auction already happened weeks ago.

Can you post the direct link where you found it, or was it just in the general listing?

I found a way to contact them without signing up and did so.  We'll see if they respond.

Excellent! Keep us posted, and I could send them something too if needed. I'm curious to see the full shot, and always wondered why whoever sourced it for the '96/'97 PS box project wouldn't have the full uncut shot available as well or why it has never appeared publicly (unless it has). Fingers crossed.

Also, consider if Barney were mic'ed up for the session you'd hear more than just the live feed going into the echo chamber, which is what we hear most on those session tapes. You literally don't hear anything but the strings, and if it were close-mic'ed it would be reasonable to assume the mic would pick up more noise and various sounds.

The description given for a long time of this session was that the guitars were plugged in direct and were in the control room cutting the tracks due to the limited space at Gold Star on the studio floor. That's the scenario replicated in the L&M film for what it's worth.

I am a member - I'm not sure if they have a non-altered version available for the public due to usage rights and all that. I'm assuming the blacked-out version is what they received in order to list for the auction but could be wrong. Did you want me to drop them a line? Might be a longshot since the auction already happened weeks ago.

Can you post the direct link where you found it, or was it just in the general listing?