Craig, you are aware that McCartney is usually the least cool of the Beatles to like, and there's a whole slew of fans who think McCartney is now and always was pap?

"...You know.  Morons."
      -- Gene Wilder, "Blazing Saddles"

You're at least two reappraisals of Macca's hipness behind, I'd say.  I think the last of the cognoscenti gave up on the Paul-can't-rock bit somewhere between Glastonbury and "Nothing Too Much Just Out Of Sight"...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Context, please, context.  The point was that Craig was saying that no one would question McCartney as cornball, or apologize for a current release by the one who did Sgt. Pepper.  First off, the latter is not as sacred as he seems to think.  Second off, apologies happened a lot for his work.  What the current opinion is doesn't matter to my argument -- though I don't think McCartney is as rehabilitated as you do.

Time out. First, that was not my point. Please reread my posts and replies, they're pretty clear on their intent and the opinions being expressed.

Second, please refrain from making a point for me publicly and to another poster using something I never said or even suggested, especially if and when that wasn't my point to begin with.

If I need to clarify something I wrote or make a specific point, I'll do it myself, and if there is a misunderstanding of those words please ask and I'll try to clarify.

But I don't need or care to see someone else *assuming or claiming to assume* what I was saying then stating it as fact, especially when they missed the point(s) and misrepresented what was written three or four pages ago. The original posts and sentiments are still there to be read for the sake of accuracy.

Thank you. 

Obviously they aren't as clear as you think that they are, because that is exactly how I was taking your words.  It sounded to me like all the world like you were using McCartney as an example of how people should not criticize Brian Wilson as being uphip, because no one ever criticized Paul for that or worried about that since he made Sgt. Pepper or the White Album.  If that wasn't your point, I don't understand what you were trying to say at all.

Two words to sum it up: No asterisks. That's it. If I'm being too obtuse on that point, I'm tempted to say reread my posts from a few pages ago before going around telling others what I said or what I meant. Because in the words of Cosmo Kramer, "You're waaaayyyy off." And you shouldn't put thoughts or words in other peoples' mouths anyway, let them clarify or restate or explain or whatever in their own words. Less misunderstandings and hard feelings, right?

Again, just don't put words in my mouth or assume things if you really don't know or are unable to understand something. I'd appreciate that. And if more clarification is needed, I'm happy to provide it.

Craig, you are aware that McCartney is usually the least cool of the Beatles to like, and there's a whole slew of fans who think McCartney is now and always was pap?

"...You know.  Morons."
      -- Gene Wilder, "Blazing Saddles"

You're at least two reappraisals of Macca's hipness behind, I'd say.  I think the last of the cognoscenti gave up on the Paul-can't-rock bit somewhere between Glastonbury and "Nothing Too Much Just Out Of Sight"...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Context, please, context.  The point was that Craig was saying that no one would question McCartney as cornball, or apologize for a current release by the one who did Sgt. Pepper.  First off, the latter is not as sacred as he seems to think.  Second off, apologies happened a lot for his work.  What the current opinion is doesn't matter to my argument -- though I don't think McCartney is as rehabilitated as you do.

Time out. First, that was not my point. Please reread my posts and replies, they're pretty clear on their intent and the opinions being expressed.

Second, please refrain from making a point for me publicly and to another poster using something I never said or even suggested, especially if and when that wasn't my point to begin with.

If I need to clarify something I wrote or make a specific point, I'll do it myself, and if there is a misunderstanding of those words please ask and I'll try to clarify.

But I don't need or care to see someone else *assuming or claiming to assume* what I was saying then stating it as fact, especially when they missed the point(s) and misrepresented what was written three or four pages ago. The original posts and sentiments are still there to be read for the sake of accuracy.

Thank you. 

As another poster said a few weeks ago about autograph authenticity, anyone can print out a certificate and call the item "authenticated" if you take a cynical view of it, and you almost have to assume the worst with so many fakes and forgeries being sold as authentic by "reputable" brokers and dealers. The only authentication you can really trust in a dishonest world is having seen the person(s) sign it in front of you, having photo or video/film evidence of the signer with the item, or having some kind of witness confirmation from someone like a relative or family member who could say exactly what the item is or was.

Anything else is a leap of faith.

After dealing just a tiny bit with autographed cards in the baseball collecting world years ago, if the item is one of investment quality that has a high asking price, maybe having an autograph expert along the lines of that guy they call in on the show "Pawn Stars" to authenticate the item before agreeing to buy it would be a good idea. If you notice on that show and others like it, the people buying it never buy an autographed item before having it checked and confirmed, and they never buy on the word of the person selling it or the word of a certificate that came with the sale. That seems to be a good example to follow.

This idea that, "well, that's just the effect of the day" is a cop-out.  The Beach Boys have always been forward-thinking and innovative with their recordings.  Auto-tune is already totally out of date as an effect.

Trufax ^_^ People will look back at autotune and laugh or cringe, just as they do with the booming synth drums of the 80s.

Or as people do with backwards guitar solos, or slapback echo, or rythmn king drum machines, or phasing.........

The fact of the matter is the standards for record production that were developed in the '60s hold up better over time because they are generally natural and tasteful due to the limitations of the technology.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and when you are required to get creative, the results are ... more creative-sounding. and more exciting to listen to.

Keep in mind there were those folks criticizing Frank Sinatra when he started releasing albums on Reprise after leaving Capitol because of Bill Putnam's audio "gimmicks" like reverb and compression/limiting. Now we consider most anything that came from Putnam and UA back in the 60's not only legendary but also essential when recording certain sounds and styles, or recording in general. "Peg O' My Heart" was considered almost a novelty but got the reputation for being the first hit record to use that kind of reverb...which anyone can dial in and replicate today with a 50 dollar device. Ubiquitous.

Add to the list guitar effects...and there are multiple offenders here. The wah-wah pedal, the Digitech Whammy pitch-shifter pedal, onward to the modern trend of "boutique" pedal builders trying to make a better Tube Screamer than the original Tube Screamers and charging 300+ for the results...it comes down to the creativity of the person using it to create music.

These things like AutoTune are tools, and could even be considered gimmicks as they tagged Putnam's now-legendary creations when they were still considered new. It's not as much a case of critiquing their use but should be a case of critiquing how they're used. Ultimately the tool does nothing on its own - and if the song sucks and isn't compelling to begin with, it will most likely suck after being processed through whatever tools are used.

That Cher song that put AutoTune and its overuse on the map: yes it was a gimmick and a catchy as hell sonic hook on that vocal, but it was also a good song and a good production. So it became a hit and people liked it.

Just so this doesn't get lost in the posts, I want to re-emphasize one part of a previous post:

Consider what we are discussing in the context of age and era. Just a few quick ones to consider:

When Brian and the BB's had a #1 with I Get Around, when Beatlemania was in full swing, music that was 50 years old was music of the 1910's...World War One era. Wax cylinder Edison "talking machine" kind of stuff...can anyone name one of the more popular musical artists or songs from, say, 1916? Of course not.

When we were liking Appetite For Destruction or another of the benchmark 80's popular albums, Sgt. Pepper was 20 years old...yet didn't feel all that old. 50 years, though: 1930's big band, swing era, early Delta blues like Robert Johnson before the CD box set made him a rock star, rural Carter Family country...etc. It was a niche audience among record collectors, musicians, and whatnot who were actively into that stuff... but among people aged 13-19? Pretty much a rarity if not totally unheard of among that peer group.

Now in 2012 a new album and tour from a 50 year old group comprised of 70 year old men playing 50 year old songs is getting attention and positive feedback from audiences spanning at least three generations. The music is alive, the band is alive, and fans are coming to the shows and will buy (in lesser numbers) the new album.

Put into the context of my teenage years, and Brian's teenage years, this is mindblowing to consider. Add Beatles, Stones, VU, Doors, etc into the mix and it's still 50 year old music that remains vibrant across three generations of fans - numbering in the millions.

I think the longevity rules the day with a lot of this. Lesser music, lesser artists do not age that well and have not in the past, for specific reasons. If we're actively discussing a forthcoming album by a group of men in their 70's who are performing concerts featuring 50 year old music, that in itself makes an incredible story to tell. The fact that some of the new music is compelling, and some not-so...decorations on the icing on the multi-layered cake.

It feels like the responses are less about what I actually wrote and more about trying to address things that are already accepted knowledge. Of course this band out of any others has the artistic versus the commercial issue raging constantly no matter what they do or release. I do think listeners and fans usually find what they like or respond to and that gut reaction or connection is more of an issue than any explanations or backstories attached to the music, no matter how good or bad it may be.

To my McCartney reference: Did we go around telling people who liked Sgt. Pepper and the White Album similar things when his latest album of love ballads and songs came out? Maybe we did and I missed it, but I don't think trying to ease a listener into something is as good as just letting the music play, and if someone likes it or connects with it after hearing it, what difference does it make where it came from? Or how the artist has a corny versus hip side, or a rocker versus balladeer side, or a jazzer versus country side, or whatever else. The music really shouldn't have an asterisk next to it, no matter who the artist is.

All this may just play out where McCartney's Ram is now being deluxe re-released akin to The Smile Sessions, and we'll have the ability to see the experimental post-Beatles garage-rocker McCartney in contrast to his other musical incarnations of recent years. Do we place the asterisk on the Ram box set and say "This is the same guy that did Sgt Pepper" or "This is the same guy who did the album of sappy love songs a year ago"?  

Artists from the 60's still making music today exist in a much larger (and more inclusive) stylistic tent than even Perry Como, Sinatra, et al. Stylistically the tent is probably as big as it will ever be even for the next few generations of music fans, so the music becomes the ultimate basis for someone's opinion of it.

I remember being very pleased once to read that Brian was enjoying the latest Michael Penn album, which at the time was, I think, "Resigned".

Seriously? That is awesome, because "Resigned" still stands among my favorite albums of all time and contains some of the best songwriting of the past 20 years, in my opinion. The vocal sounds, recording-wise, are among the best I've ever heard, owing to a huge collection of vintage mics and a lot of attention being given the recording of the vocals.

I had never heard that about Brian's mentioning the album, but I am not surprised he would have enjoyed it. The album would have been "right up his alley".

I am surprised Michael Penn doesn't get name-checked more often among Brian's fans than I have seen through the years. He's among the more talented songwriters of the modern era.

One particular statement or theme in this review (http://www.letoilemagazine.com/2012/05/23/we-will-rock-you-the-square-sounds-of-the-beach-boys/), how Brian Wilson has always been a colossal cornball, doesn't hold up when you put his music and his productions from 1963-67 into that equation. At that time, he was one of the few producers who had the ears of most in the pop music business, had more clout than I'd bet 98% of people his age and background in the business at that time, and that point continues to be driven home every time another of his peers says in an interview how influential his records at that time were on other artists and producers making pop music. The driving force behind that clout and respect was mostly the way his records sounded and the way they were received by the public and the record biz types alike.

Cornball sells in very large quantities but it doesn't garner the same level of respect and the same aura as innovation.

It's not about hip, it's not about pop-culture iconoclastic imagery, it's about putting out songs that people heard on the radio and on record and considered to be at the forefront of pop recording at that time. Brian *was* competitive at that time and has admitted it, he *was* trying to outdo Spector and the Beatles and others, and he was making records that were cutting-edge for pop or teen music of that era. I'd suggest there was a different kind of drive behind those records and that music, a different kind of mindset that went into creating them which did not go into nearly everything the man released from the 70's onward with a few but very significant exceptions, and even those exceptions had a foot in the past rather than a start-from-scratch mentality. There was that competitive edge in that process which the man himself admits he discarded soon after the Smile era, and making that kind of music no longer appealed to him as much as making records which pleased him.

The statement about cornball would ring more true if the years from, say, 1963-67 were taken out of the equation.

I also think comparing anything from this album to something from the 60's classic era is a mistake, as shown by Brian's reaction when Al attempted to link it somehow to Pet Sounds during the PBS interview. The mindset going into this latest album was not 1965, even though some of the resulting sounds may have come out sounding like 1965.

The new album may be cornball, but to apply that overall to Brian's music from the 60's didn't feel right - not completely wrong, but not right.

Yeah, but Craig, Brian Wilson, even during the hitmakin' years was always way more about the Four Freshmen and Rosemary Clooney -- the epitome of pure corn, though of course awesome! -- than Chuck Berry. His roots have always been in music other people would consider corny/cheesy. The point is that he was able to transform his influences into great songs. But the corn was there -- always. It came out in his songs, too!

And yeah -- there's no point in comparing this record to stuff from the 60s, even though in terms of quality the last few songs are on a par with, say, a Pet Sounds or a Til I Die.

I see the points, but I also don't hear that cornball element near as much as the review would suggest in the final products, especially from the "Golden Age" which I'd list as 1963-67. Freshmen, Clooney, Gershwin...check. However, and I mean this seriously, do we as people who listen to a lot of music hear any of that in the truly great singles the man was making? I Get Around? When I Grow Up? California Girls? Wouldn't It Be Nice?

I could list more but I'd be tempted to say if you played those classic BB singles for people in a blind test next to a stack of Clooney or Freshmen records, the similarities would be threadbare at best. It reminds me of reading various City Paper type publications and 'zines in the early 90's where the music writers would hear a rock band doing a vocal harmony or a jazzy chord change and immediately trot out the "Brian Wilson" comparison tag.

Again, if we take the larger overview of the band's history, specifically the stage act which more fans have spent money on than any new record releases since the 70's, the cornball element is huge and yes, it should be celebrated and enjoyed because it is part of the band's fun identity, no problems from me on that point.

But to paint the recorded legacy of Brian Wilson with that broad of a brush, I think it does paint over what was a young man making among the best and most forward-thinking recordings of his time and among his peer group, and those recordings influenced and continue to influence those in his field. If the cornball element were that strong *at that time*, Brian's records would be in the same bin as Winchester Cathedral or They're Coming To Take Me Away - novelties that sounded interesting but were ultimately forgettable and disposable.

It's just a difference of opinion, not saying either is right or wrong. Reviews and articles should inspire debate and discussion, and this one did just that! It was hard to get past the word or the theme of "cornball" for me.

I don't hear it in the hot hit singles, no, but I surely hear it in some of the ballads. Listen to "Your Summer Dream" or "Ballad of Ole Betsy" and stuff like that, you don't hear that? Those aren't a little corny? I mean, they're gorgeous, sure, but also: a little corny. I could list like a million others, too, even some of the rock tunes. And no, it wouldn't have been "novelty songs." That's not true at all, I don't think. that's not the only "corny" music out there.

I do think there is an inherent risk if not danger in doing ballads: Ballads by their design are often considered corny, right or wrong. When the hair metal dudes in the 80's pulled out the Ovations, strummed an earnest G-C-Em-D chord progression, and got all the fans waving the Bics in the air, no matter how serious or heartfelt the song was, a lot of people's reaction was "F*ckin' hell, sellout...". And it was corny. But it did work for that scene.

Paul McCartney - this man has straddled so many stylistic lines in the past 20 years, from being the all-out rockabilly guy playing the Cavern again with various members of prog-rock bands, to being the arena rock touring workhorse, to being the new Paul with a hot new young band that knows and respects his music new and old, to being the "cutting edge" Paul who worked with various electronica-fueled DJ's, remixers, and hip producers on everything from trance to soundscapes worthy of a Radiohead production (hint, hint)...YET, where did he go on his latest album? He became Paul the sappy (corny?) balladeer delivering love songs to those love-drunk or lovelorn masses of fans that might still swoon over Yesterday and My Love on vinyl.

Did he embrace the sappy, corny balladeer image after running from it for a few decades? Did he do it with a wink and a nod? Or was it just the album he wanted to make?

Would we be able to label Paul "the sappy balladeer" on a future release and have it stick? Likewise, is Brian's music corny?

I think with Brian and the Beach Boys in general, there is a double-edged sword when they're labeled a certain way. They're called hip, you play a record like "Ballad Of Ole Betsy" for someone who you've told about their being hip, and the reaction may be "What?" Or it may be "Damn, that's great!". Then get someone who had their girlfriend dancing on their shoulders at an outdoor BB concert to "Fun Fun Fun" and play them an album cut like "You Still Believe In Me", and they might say "What?" or "Damn, that's great!"

The room is big enough for both, and both can and should be celebrated and enjoyed. However, I do think any "new" Beach Boys album has not in 30+ years nor will it match anything close to what was happening in, say, 1965, and I'm looking at Brian, thinking that this man realizes this and is comfortable with this.

I do feel that, like Paul, he has woven enough styles in and out of his music through the years from bad to truly magnificent and describing this in too broad of a term like corny works for some of his music but may also discredit when he was truly cutting-edge, and considered far from corny or sappy or whatever other adjectives we could use. This may again revert back to the image versus the music thing which will always rage...

This brings up a lot of issues which many of us in a certain age group never experienced. The Beach Boys were *huge* stars in 1964...48 freakin' years ago. Round it off to 50....now go back to when we were 16-17, whatever age when music became one of the most important things in our lives and existence...

Could you imagine getting this excited over an artist from 50 years ago coming out with a new album? In my time that was Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman, Glenn Miller...the big band era from the 30's and 40's. Most of them were not making new albums, and most of them were dead and gone. Now the Beach Boys, McCartney, Stones, etc are that generation time-wise to the teenage audiences today. Talk about cultural shift...Jagger just nailed a hosting gig on SNL, and compare that to the image of the tuxedo-ed older jazz musicians who would come on Ed Sullivan or Hollywood Palace alongside the "kids" playing rock....

That element is as culturally significant to a new Beach Boys album as almost anything I can think of. The fact that a record like Pet Sounds is to teenagers as old as Chick Webb or Bing Crosby was to me, yet is still considered "hip" and worth owning and enjoying is huge. Huge! I love it. In that way, the fact a new album is even being discussed across several generations makes it less corny by nature. Even though many of the new grooves on this album may be corny.

One particular statement or theme in this review (http://www.letoilemagazine.com/2012/05/23/we-will-rock-you-the-square-sounds-of-the-beach-boys/), how Brian Wilson has always been a colossal cornball, doesn't hold up when you put his music and his productions from 1963-67 into that equation. At that time, he was one of the few producers who had the ears of most in the pop music business, had more clout than I'd bet 98% of people his age and background in the business at that time, and that point continues to be driven home every time another of his peers says in an interview how influential his records at that time were on other artists and producers making pop music. The driving force behind that clout and respect was mostly the way his records sounded and the way they were received by the public and the record biz types alike.

Cornball sells in very large quantities but it doesn't garner the same level of respect and the same aura as innovation.

It's not about hip, it's not about pop-culture iconoclastic imagery, it's about putting out songs that people heard on the radio and on record and considered to be at the forefront of pop recording at that time. Brian *was* competitive at that time and has admitted it, he *was* trying to outdo Spector and the Beatles and others, and he was making records that were cutting-edge for pop or teen music of that era. I'd suggest there was a different kind of drive behind those records and that music, a different kind of mindset that went into creating them which did not go into nearly everything the man released from the 70's onward with a few but very significant exceptions, and even those exceptions had a foot in the past rather than a start-from-scratch mentality. There was that competitive edge in that process which the man himself admits he discarded soon after the Smile era, and making that kind of music no longer appealed to him as much as making records which pleased him.

The statement about cornball would ring more true if the years from, say, 1963-67 were taken out of the equation.

I also think comparing anything from this album to something from the 60's classic era is a mistake, as shown by Brian's reaction when Al attempted to link it somehow to Pet Sounds during the PBS interview. The mindset going into this latest album was not 1965, even though some of the resulting sounds may have come out sounding like 1965.

The new album may be cornball, but to apply that overall to Brian's music from the 60's didn't feel right - not completely wrong, but not right.

Yeah, but Craig, Brian Wilson, even during the hitmakin' years was always way more about the Four Freshmen and Rosemary Clooney -- the epitome of pure corn, though of course awesome! -- than Chuck Berry. His roots have always been in music other people would consider corny/cheesy. The point is that he was able to transform his influences into great songs. But the corn was there -- always. It came out in his songs, too!

And yeah -- there's no point in comparing this record to stuff from the 60s, even though in terms of quality the last few songs are on a par with, say, a Pet Sounds or a Til I Die.

I see the points, but I also don't hear that cornball element near as much as the review would suggest in the final products, especially from the "Golden Age" which I'd list as 1963-67. Freshmen, Clooney, Gershwin...check. However, and I mean this seriously, do we as people who listen to a lot of music hear any of that in the truly great singles the man was making? I Get Around? When I Grow Up? California Girls? Wouldn't It Be Nice?

I could list more but I'd be tempted to say if you played those classic BB singles for people in a blind test next to a stack of Clooney or Freshmen records, the similarities would be threadbare at best. It reminds me of reading various City Paper type publications and 'zines in the early 90's where the music writers would hear a rock band doing a vocal harmony or a jazzy chord change and immediately trot out the "Brian Wilson" comparison tag.

Again, if we take the larger overview of the band's history, specifically the stage act which more fans have spent money on than any new record releases since the 70's, the cornball element is huge and yes, it should be celebrated and enjoyed because it is part of the band's fun identity, no problems from me on that point.

But to paint the recorded legacy of Brian Wilson with that broad of a brush, I think it does paint over what was a young man making among the best and most forward-thinking recordings of his time and among his peer group, and those recordings influenced and continue to influence those in his field. If the cornball element were that strong *at that time*, Brian's records would be in the same bin as Winchester Cathedral or They're Coming To Take Me Away - novelties that sounded interesting but were ultimately forgettable and disposable.

It's just a difference of opinion, not saying either is right or wrong. Reviews and articles should inspire debate and discussion, and this one did just that! It was hard to get past the word or the theme of "cornball" for me.

It felt more like a simple misunderstanding of a quote that fans on this board may actually be more familiar with through LLVS and other sources than the band members themselves, which I think is the case with a lot of the trivia and minute details. It seemed like the quote was read and taken the wrong way. It was after all one sentence in one magazine published 45 years ago.

One particular statement or theme in this review (http://www.letoilemagazine.com/2012/05/23/we-will-rock-you-the-square-sounds-of-the-beach-boys/), how Brian Wilson has always been a colossal cornball, doesn't hold up when you put his music and his productions from 1963-67 into that equation. At that time, he was one of the few producers who had the ears of most in the pop music business, had more clout than I'd bet 98% of people his age and background in the business at that time, and that point continues to be driven home every time another of his peers says in an interview how influential his records at that time were on other artists and producers making pop music. The driving force behind that clout and respect was mostly the way his records sounded and the way they were received by the public and the record biz types alike.

Cornball sells in very large quantities but it doesn't garner the same level of respect and the same aura as innovation.

It's not about hip, it's not about pop-culture iconoclastic imagery, it's about putting out songs that people heard on the radio and on record and considered to be at the forefront of pop recording at that time. Brian *was* competitive at that time and has admitted it, he *was* trying to outdo Spector and the Beatles and others, and he was making records that were cutting-edge for pop or teen music of that era. I'd suggest there was a different kind of drive behind those records and that music, a different kind of mindset that went into creating them which did not go into nearly everything the man released from the 70's onward with a few but very significant exceptions, and even those exceptions had a foot in the past rather than a start-from-scratch mentality. There was that competitive edge in that process which the man himself admits he discarded soon after the Smile era, and making that kind of music no longer appealed to him as much as making records which pleased him.

The statement about cornball would ring more true if the years from, say, 1963-67 were taken out of the equation.

I also think comparing anything from this album to something from the 60's classic era is a mistake, as shown by Brian's reaction when Al attempted to link it somehow to Pet Sounds during the PBS interview. The mindset going into this latest album was not 1965, even though some of the resulting sounds may have come out sounding like 1965.

The new album may be cornball, but to apply that overall to Brian's music from the 60's didn't feel right - not completely wrong, but not right.

Its a subscribers only review.

Could someone copy and paste it here?

Hm. I see a hissing Jann S. Wenner, phoning his lawyers. He once was a hippie, I hear. Not so any more. He turned into what he once utterly despised.

Which happens very often, by the way.

Of course it does: Image sells more than reality, and once that image makes enough money, that person can transition back to reality and have enough money in the bank to cover it or simply not care. When those youngsters in the record business back in the 60's labeled the "kids", the idealists, and the hippies in some cases took over the record companies into the 70's and 80's, look what happened across the board.

Now that the interview has been pretty much available to those who want to see it, I was wondering if any knew why it wasn't announced officially as other appearances and interviews had been in the the recent past.

I don't recall seeing anything about it on the Facebook pages or bulletins, I don't recall anyone else mentioning it or advertising that it would be on at a certain time as happened with Fallon and others, and the most shocking thing was logging on here after catching it *totally by accident* that Friday night and hardly anyone had seen it where i thought it would have been a hot topic by the time I posted.

Overall it was a great interview, there was obvious "official" BB's-sanctioned video work done in the form of the 1966 studio footage and whatnot, and I really didn't see anything beyond what we saw play out around that table, except a few questions by Charlie Rose where he should have been more prepared as a veteran news-reader.

The silence around this specific appearance was deafening, I'm wondering why.

That's it.. I'm going to buy a copy of Uncut magazine and get a pair of scissors and cut it up....

A real hipster would use an old-fashioned straight razor, and shoot a stylized video of the cutting process set to the song "Stuck In The Middle With You", then post it on whatever upstart video host is seen as more "current" than YouTube in a Tarantino parody-tribute worthy of viral status.

Or if you were a staff writer at the Lampoon, you'd put the results of your magazine slashing next to a shot of the guy from Manic Street Preachers all cut to hell so the real music hipsters would be the only ones to get the connection, then proceed to tell everyone why it's relevant...

But I digress.

[don't have the kind of clout]

- look, for example, at The Beatles who frequently chose not only the running order of the songs but also the photographer of the album, the art design, the packaging, etc. I think it's a shame that The Beach Boys don't have the kind of clout to have that kind of control over their product and instead have the kind of control wherein comparisons to the pre-fabricated, company-controlled Monkees and the entirely fictional group, Spinal Tap are in order.

I'll bet it's not having "the kind of clout" so much as simply not caring. How many 50 year old bands do you know who want an artistic say in every aspect of the process? If the Beach Boys really wanted significant input on their album art, they'd get it.

I know this board is catered to people who like details, but much of this thread is over-analyzing things. I'm with guitarfool: their comments about the album, including the sequencing, strike me as totally normal.

And the bottom line is, it is simply not standard procedure for the majority of bands to get that deeply involved in every facet of an album's production from concept to recording to release. And along the way, through the various steps, changes and tweaks are a fact of life, and in some cases a project which looked 99.9% ready to go to the duplication stage one step shy of distribution is changed at the last minute. And some of those changes are a case where the artist never sets foot in the mastering studio, the duplication house, or the place where the artwork is printed. Unless you're some control freak singer-songwriter or something. Period, end of story.

I'm not suggesting anything other than what I know and what I have experienced having dealt with this stuff before. But I would suggest before trying to suggest something other than what is probably happening, do some research on what mastering is and what the post-production process really means, because even artists who we worked with who were on top of things and had a game plan ready to go had little or no understanding of what mastering actually is or what it means in the process.

That's just how it is, but the fact that an artist says "I have not heard the final version" is indicative of nothing beyond the way the process works for every band, unless you're a control freak singer-songwriter who might want to spend a day at the pressing plant watching over the workers to make sure all the labels are applied correctly on his/her albums as they roll through the line.

I'm not talking about mastering. So far we've had a case of one member not knowing what songs were going to be on the album, and which ones weren't. We have another member not knowing what the cover looked like until it was sprung on him on a talk show - while we here on this site had already seen it. We have another member saying he doesn't really know what's on the album at all. So, the next time I talk to a musician I will ask him or her, "So, it must have been surprising when you found out what songs were on your album" since obviously it is standard procedure for an artist to know nothing about what their album looks like, sounds like, or indeed what is on it at all.

You are talking to a musician right now in the form of me who got paid fairly well to record and co-produce (and mix) an album for at least two singer-songwriters, and granted they were not the Beach Boys and they were not a "band" per se, but when I heard the final version (the released version) of the album, it was in some cases so far removed from the mixes we had originally turned in, the sound was unrecognizable to the two people who spent hours on it and knew almost every note.

That's just one case of plans and everything else changing from completion of the mixes to what eventually shows up on an album. All the changes were made after the "final" mixes were turned in, paid for, and approved to the point where we as the production team, mixers, and performers assumed that was what would be sent off to post-production and what would be on the album(s).

I can only recommend having a bit of faith and taking someone's word for it that the information you're digesting about how little control the Beach Boys have in this new project is being taken several steps too far.

As far as the post-production, mastering, sequencing, etc way of doing things...perhaps it would be better to ask someone like a Linett, Desper, etc. or whoever else has a recognized name and experience with this particular band of artists through the decades and gauge their opinion of it.

I don't see anything suspicious when Brian said on Fallon he had not seen the final cover, or when Al said he had not heard the final version or whatever he said, because the process of actually releasing an album isn't quite what I think some are assuming it is. And honestly, it never has been.

I'm just saying the way it is described is nowhere near as nefarious or suspicious or even worthy of critique as some in this tread are trying to present it, and I hope they take a step back and get some more info before deciding the Beach Boys new album is some sort of a corporate ruse where the band were puppets or something. That's all...

If you like it, that's all that matters. Right?

These reviewers who get an advance copy...some of them have an ego-complex thing happening where they want their word to be taken as the standing opinion on the album, and they feel that way most likely because no one who is a regular fan owns the album at this point and no one can challenge that reviewer's opinion using the actual songs as the deciding factor. The reviewer holds all the cards, what they say is what you can think because you don't have it in your hands to judge otherwise until it is released.

I said all this in the other thread, I have yet to see the worth or the value of advance reviews in too many cases. I hope opinions are not shaped or swayed either way by them, because it's just too much faith to be placed in one writer's opinion without actually being able to hear it for ourselves.

I'm not saying this guy or any of the writers lavishly praising the upcoming BB's album are right or wrong, but it's not a level playing field until we can hear the album, and until then it's tough to take any of their opinions seriously. When the album is out and I have it, I can go back and read the reviews. Until then, I read them but they are ultimately disposable.

[don't have the kind of clout]

- look, for example, at The Beatles who frequently chose not only the running order of the songs but also the photographer of the album, the art design, the packaging, etc. I think it's a shame that The Beach Boys don't have the kind of clout to have that kind of control over their product and instead have the kind of control wherein comparisons to the pre-fabricated, company-controlled Monkees and the entirely fictional group, Spinal Tap are in order.

I'll bet it's not having "the kind of clout" so much as simply not caring. How many 50 year old bands do you know who want an artistic say in every aspect of the process? If the Beach Boys really wanted significant input on their album art, they'd get it.

I know this board is catered to people who like details, but much of this thread is over-analyzing things. I'm with guitarfool: their comments about the album, including the sequencing, strike me as totally normal.

And the bottom line is, it is simply not standard procedure for the majority of bands to get that deeply involved in every facet of an album's production from concept to recording to release. And along the way, through the various steps, changes and tweaks are a fact of life, and in some cases a project which looked 99.9% ready to go to the duplication stage one step shy of distribution is changed at the last minute. And some of those changes are a case where the artist never sets foot in the mastering studio, the duplication house, or the place where the artwork is printed. Unless you're some control freak singer-songwriter or something. Period, end of story.

I'm not suggesting anything other than what I know and what I have experienced having dealt with this stuff before. But I would suggest before trying to suggest something other than what is probably happening, do some research on what mastering is and what the post-production process really means, because even artists who we worked with who were on top of things and had a game plan ready to go had little or no understanding of what mastering actually is or what it means in the process.

That's just how it is, but the fact that an artist says "I have not heard the final version" is indicative of nothing beyond the way the process works for every band, unless you're a control freak singer-songwriter who might want to spend a day at the pressing plant watching over the workers to make sure all the labels are applied correctly on his/her albums as they roll through the line.

"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."   - Martin Mull

"Listen, writing about music is like talking about fucking. Who wants to talk about it? But you know, maybe some people do want to talk about it."   - John Lennon

"Rock critics like Elvis Costello because rock critics look like Elvis Costello"  - David Lee Roth

"Rock critics love Van Halen and hate me because rock critics look like me but want to party with David Lee Roth."  - Elvis Costello


So this chap doesn't like the album, who cares?

[Please try not to read too much into this stuff: A record needs to be sent away for mastering, and unless the band or producer specifically requests that they be present as it is being prepared, the artist and producer(s) and everyone else will not hear the final result until it is fully mastered, then it gets approved again.]

First: Very, *very* happy to see it finally posted on Rose's website. It's about time! This is a must-see interview for those who missed it Friday night.

Second: Having a true group interview like this is not only rare, but it will bring up and bring out certain issues that maybe not all members agree - but in the case of this interview, it was handled well and it seemed to be relaxed overall. I did get the impression several times that the other members looked to Brian several times on several issues, and he still seemed to have that aura of leadership. The man didn't need to talk too much or say too many words, but if you noticed several times when he did speak everyone was paying attention. So it seemed to me.

Third: Not hearing an album in full after the final mixes have been delivered to whoever gets them at the record company or the mastering house is *not unusual*, in fact it is standard practice.

Please try not to read too much into this stuff: A record needs to be sent away for mastering, and unless the band or producer specifically requests that they be present as it is being prepared, the artist and producer(s) and everyone else will not hear the final result until it is fully mastered, then it gets approved again.[/size]

One of the reasons is that most people in the music business including artists and producers don't have a clue on how to master or what goes into the process when done at a professional level. It is a different scene than mixing. And a lot of faith and confidence is put into the mastering engineer...because at that point, often the artist is out of the nuts-and-bolts work being done.

So, essentially, it is nothing new (remember Mike Nesmith first hearing his own band's album More Of The Monkees when he walked into a record shop on tour somewhere in 1967?), and the post-production process being what it is would make it very logical that a band having finished a group of songs and mixed them would still not have heard the end result until everything including mastering has been done.

Again, great to see the Rose show has finally posted it for all to see.

Now...where is the footage and questions they edited out to make it 30 minutes long? I want *that* stuff...

Third: Not hearing an album in full after the final mixes have been delivered to whoever gets them at the record company or the mastering house is *not unusual*, in fact it is standard practice.

Yeah, but they said they hadn't even heard the album in sequence. Al suggested he wasn't even sure what was on the album and what wasn't.

So, essentially, it is nothing new (remember Mike Nesmith first hearing his own band's album More Of The Monkees when he walked into a record shop on tour somewhere in 1967?)

Yeah, but the reason we know that story is because it was used as an example to show how The Monkees were different because they initially had no control over what was being put out with their name on it.

There is, however, a pretty good example, such as the Capitol versions of Beatles records. But the band itself didn't like the fact that they had no control over the US releases. It's lucky for Capitol that it was difficult to really mangle and screw-up a collection of Beatles songs but it's also the height of absurdity that they fancied themselves "creative" enough to tinker with what was coming from England.

Yeah, but everything I said regarding the standard procedures of post-production is more of a possibility than the alternative theories being proposed.

And in the past when I have produced and worked on a few albums, in some cases the mastering of the tracks was done and the sequencing was still being changed and juggled around up to and including the stage of the process where the mastered tracks go to the duplication stage, and same with the artwork.

I used the Monkees example as an example, that's all - I won't debate the reasons why they did it.

How about the scene in "This Is Spinal Tap" when the band is soundchecking on a stage and the manager shows up with a case of their new album, "Smell The Glove", and it was the first any of them had seen the black cover?

It's *standard procedure* for this stuff to have happened at various times to various artists, it doesn't mean the band is any less responsible for the content.

Damn.

First: Very, *very* happy to see it finally posted on Rose's website. It's about time! This is a must-see interview for those who missed it Friday night.

Second: Having a true group interview like this is not only rare, but it will bring up and bring out certain issues that maybe not all members agree - but in the case of this interview, it was handled well and it seemed to be relaxed overall. I did get the impression several times that the other members looked to Brian several times on several issues, and he still seemed to have that aura of leadership. The man didn't need to talk too much or say too many words, but if you noticed several times when he did speak everyone was paying attention. So it seemed to me.

Third: Not hearing an album in full after the final mixes have been delivered to whoever gets them at the record company or the mastering house is *not unusual*, in fact it is standard practice.

Please try not to read too much into this stuff: A record needs to be sent away for mastering, and unless the band or producer specifically requests that they be present as it is being prepared, the artist and producer(s) and everyone else will not hear the final result until it is fully mastered, then it gets approved again.

One of the reasons is that most people in the music business including artists and producers don't have a clue on how to master or what goes into the process when done at a professional level. It is a different scene than mixing. And a lot of faith and confidence is put into the mastering engineer...because at that point, often the artist is out of the nuts-and-bolts work being done.

So, essentially, it is nothing new (remember Mike Nesmith first hearing his own band's album More Of The Monkees when he walked into a record shop on tour somewhere in 1967?), and the post-production process being what it is would make it very logical that a band having finished a group of songs and mixed them would still not have heard the end result until everything including mastering has been done.

Again, great to see the Rose show has finally posted it for all to see.

Now...where is the footage and questions they edited out to make it 30 minutes long? I want *that* stuff...

how was the interview?

Very warm, very open - Brian seemed to disagree with Al when Al compared the new songs to Pet Sounds, Al told the story of auditioning "Their Hearts Were Full Of Spring" and "Surfin'" for his mother in order to get the 300 dollars to rent the instruments, Mike said he remembered Brian singing Danny Boy when he was 6 or so and Mike was on "Grandma Wilson's" lap, Charlie Rose had a goofy error when he asked Mike how did he and Brian meet... Charlie also didn't seem to know about Brian's Gershwin album, he had to ask about it. Brian mentioned Gershwin as his hero or idol, I can't recall, and Bruce told of going to see Gershwin's apartment with Brian on a more recent trip (never heard of that one...)

Bruce told of hearing "Surfin" on the radio after he had been surfing and was excited to hear that his sport had a voice (meaning lyrics and not just the popular instrumentals like Walk Don't Run), Bruce also compared Brian's work on Pet Sound (if I recall) to Sinatra and Riddle on albums like "...Only The Lonely" and marveled several times how much music Brian was making in 1965-66. Dennis' Smile quote was discussed. David was awesome, as he has been on stage, it was just a great interview overall. Mike was great, as he has been. He told of naming Pet Sounds outside Western Studio 3 as the sound of the dogs barking had just been played, and had some really insightful things to say about Brian's music, mentioning Warmth Of The Sun specifically. Charlie mentioned and asked Brian about LSD.

Hopefully everyone will get to see it posted online, I'm just answering a few questions until then. Above all, having them all together and seeming to be not only relaxed and candid but also having fun was terrific. Great television, even though Charlie missed a few obvious ones...

Charlie did say he gets many comments about an earlier interview he did with Brian.

I guess I missed it. Is it being repeated at all? When you said more of the GV studio film, you mean more footage that we haven't already seen?

If I said there were a few seconds more, I may be pushing it - just some shots of Brian and the Columbia engineer doing what looked to be a fade-out at the board, on those old-school rotary faders and I noticed the engineer was holding a stopwatch to time the fade or the track itself. I never noticed that - same with a bot more interaction between Hal and Brian at Western and a very tight closeup of Steve Douglas and his horn that I don't recall from the other clips. They did leave out a lot of Carl and the upright bassist, so we still don't have the full piece of film for some reason, just pieces.

 

The show is on at midnight here, but says no information so am not sure if this will be featuring the Boys or not.

Johnny Carson documentary on right now.

The Beach Boys *and* Carson on PBS the same night...where is my credit card and phone, I'm making a pledge! 

Watch it, the Boys should be on.

http://www.charlierose.com/