Meh. File me under cautiously optimistic. Collaborations like this don't inherently bother me -- that they're performing at all should be great news. I'll whine after I've given it a chance.

"And that was the moment, right then, when I knew we had 'Winds of Change' in the bag".

I think we have a winner.

Great news. Thanks, Jon -- I look forward to reading it.

Nice little feature.

And, wow, what I'd give to hear a 70-year-old rapping Brian.

Go take a look at some tutorials: http://support.apple.com/videos/#imovie

I don't know what version of iMovie you have, but the last few years of releases look largely the same, so you should be fine.

Welcome. And I like your avatar.

As a whole, Hawthorne is a much brighter album than TSS. I thought the 2001 mix was a nice change from the original mono, but now I prefer the TSS mix. To these ears, it sounds less harsh, meeting nicely in the middle between the previous two mixes.

(You may have to give it time to adjust, too -- I thought the TSS mix sounded a bit flat at first, but my ears adjusted quickly after that.)

I think they got around the fact that multis were missing for the organ overdubs in the chorus and the second verse in the wrong fashion, some of it sounds like it's going through a phaser.

Yeah, there's definitely some Duophonic-ness going on there. And I always thought the delay added to the harpsichord was sort of...interesting?

There is a big difference between making a digitally-extracted stereo mix listenable versus going above and beyond to present it respectfully and without removing any musical content. Lots of people here complain about the lack of a stereo Smile, as if it's some sort of grand mystery and oversight on part of the producers. I find this amusing: like the experts who have worked with this stuff for years, who do this for a living, are going to receive revelatory technical advice from anonymous message board users, most of whom have zero experience at professional audio engineering.

Whether you realize it or not, the expectations we have for fan mixes are profoundly different than what we (and the general record-buying public) have for professional releases. Speaking as a big, big proponent for investigating digitally-extracted stereo and someone who has made contributions in this regard, I have never heard a fan mix that I preferred over the professional release, including my own. When you clear your head and pull yourself back from the excitement, they just don't sound as good.

Record labels are't perfect, and I'm sure compromises were made, but the fans here who antagonize Capitol are viewing the company through the narrow lens of the Capitol from 40 years ago. What evidence is there that Capitol is demanding a stereo release of Smile? Why pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into such an effort for results that will only cater to a very small market, some of whom will hate it anyway? Whether it was the producers' decision, Brian's decision, or whoever, going mono was the smartest thing the company could have done to find a balance between sound quality, market appeal, money, and getting it released on time -- all factors that fans never have to consider and conveniently ignore.

I bet they'd sound like "Back in the USSR": a slightly harder version of the BB garage rock sound.

Also, this doesn't exactly count, but I believe the Beatles picked through a ragged "Lonely Sea" during one of the "Get Back" jams.

Since the hacking scare late last year I've been wondering: does anyone on the staff regularly back up the database(s) for this board?

Given the transient nature of most message boards, it's not an impossible thing for the site to just go belly up one day -- and given the information here, that'd be a darned shame -- but my understanding of the software is that it wouldn't be hard to preserve that raw info so long as you have the right administrative cred.

(Please disregard if some awesome force already has this covered.)

The Who has always been one of those stalwart musical interests for me since I first started listening to any rock music at all. I remember when I was 12 and hearing Baba O'Riley for the first time, which almost singlehandedly jumpstarted my love for hard rock.

Even though I've never had a period of obsession about them (and don't actually own many of their albums), over the last few months I've been very addicted to Live at Leeds. What a great, great show. The fact that the band could go make these more complicated or produced records, but then get up on stage and convert it back into an explosive three-piece hard rock sound, is just awesome. I don't know how many of you are familiar with the 15-minute version of "My Generation" that's on there, but it's such a cool jam, ranging from the quiet (introspective?) to the downright devastating. And it really gave me an appreciation for the musical themes on Tommy; it's a good record, but I'm content just listening to its best moments distilled down into that jam.

(and, holy carp, the rhythm section of Entwhistle and Moon? Killer.)

Lifehouse, is their best, BTW.

Who's Next is like "Lets just do a quick version of Lifehouse"

That's kind of a funny thing to say though, isn't it? There isn't a Who version of Lifehouse to go off of -- just demos and re-recordings of songs. I really love Who's Next, even if it's just a back-to-basics rock album. And: if you've never been somewhere where you can comfortably scream at the climax of "Won't Get Fooled Again," you are missing out. Reading about some of the synthesizer experiments on that song (and elsewhere on the album) is really fascinating, if you're into that kind of thing.

What else: those early mod-y, power pop singles are something to behold, and "Pictures of Lily" sounds like it almost takes a cue out of the Brian Wilson playbook. I always liked "Join Together" for the same reason. The Who Sell Out is certainly funny, if a little leaning towards novelty. And finally, I'm not familiar with Quadrophenia (or much of their 70's albums) beyond just a few songs, but as I write, that's my next purchase.

[all of Pet Sounds' complex backing tracks and vocals were mixed in a single nine-hour session]

Brian "slaved over" the sound, what was being recorded in the studio.  The mix? Nah...he couldn't care less if there were a few coughs/chatter/sneezes what not. 

An important distinction. Quoting AGD's Beach Boys guide (emphasis mine):

As was his habit, Brian spent much longer in the studio than Capitol deemed fit, with the result that, apart from the previously released "Sloop John B" and "Caroline, No," all of Pet Sounds' complex backing tracks and vocals were mixed in a single nine-hour session (which probably explains the chatter heard on some tracks).

I mean, I get that some people prefer the mono mix because they grew up with it. That's probably half the reason I prefer the stereo mix. And I'll bet some people don't want to admit they like the mono just because Brian mixed it. That's actually a perfectly valid reason too, among others -- but don't tell me that "more care" was put into it, or something similar, because a good amount of evidence seems to show that there wasn't.

EDIT: From the Mark Linett thread, talking about stereo remixes:

"inferior" is not the word I would use, and in fact Brian has asked that we use stereo mixes wherever possible on the most recent compilations.

That's enough Brian approval for me.

Well, Good Vibrations, but that's just filler anyway.

Edit: Oh wait, you listed Smiley, so I'm smart. Mind the cheeky comment.

as long as they're in colorado i don't care if they blow bubbles and do magic tricks while they're playing. as long as they're playing and i can go 

True that. And if they played at Red Rocks, I might die.

The issue is that, really, a stereo mix of Pet Sounds (an album created and released in mono) is very much like colorizing a classic movie like Casablanca or Citizen Kane.

I respect the opinions of people who prefer the mono mix, but the colorization comparison frequently trumpeted isn't exactly accurate. Colorizing films involves creating synthetic color information that was never recorded in the first place. The separation needed for a stereo Pet Sounds has always been there. The audio equivalent of colorization is more like Duophonic, or a mono mixdown passed through harmonic extraction.

Not really a BB-related question per se, just something I've been curious about: how did anyone here find this place? Carried over from a previous incarnation, or just through Google?

(Myself, I was looking up some detail about Sunflower and stumbled on the Desperpedia, which led me to here. I think I read Desper's entire thread in one night.)

Btw does anyone know if there is a fully stereo version of this song?

Not officially, I'm afraid. For what it's worth though, the version on Sounds of Summer sounds a bit better than the one on 20/20 -- clearer and tighter, for lack of less generic descriptors.

That said, am I the only one who thinks his vocals sounds better 99% of the time these days when single-tracked, well compressed, fairly dry and right up front? Brian practically abused double-tracking and reverb in the 60s, but it sounded wonderful in those days. Nowadays, not so much. I was very happy to hear such a dry vocal sound for TLOS, which I think suits his modern voice a hundred times better than when they cake it in reverb and double it in an attempt to replicate what he did in the 60s.

I think one reason he doesn't sound great double-tracked nowadays is because his voice is just much thicker. In the 60's a lot more processing worked well since his tone was very pure. Double-tracking, etc. complimented that tone well, but nowadays it just makes him sound too overloaded.

Also, I don't know how much Auto-Tune is ever on Brian's vocals, but I wouldn't be quick to blame it for that occasional robotic sound. The only references most people have are from a) consumer-grade pitch-shifting tools or b) modern pop, where the effect is intentionally noticeable. But in a professional studio dealing with super-high-quality multitracks and $600+ plugins, you'd have to push it pretty hard, on a note that was really botched, before it starts to sound synthetic. I'd venture to bet that most performances fans attribute to being marred by Auto-Tune are, in fact, marred by just not-good performance.

In some ways, the Beatles and Beach Boys are much more fun to compare on the strength of individual songs than entire albums. Both groups have an equal number of five-star songs, but I find the Beatles' albums more consistent and enjoyable to listen to in sequence, especially before 1967.

Not long ago I made three playlists for each group, divided into major changes in sound until 1970, with my guess at each group's best songs. That was a fun comparison: not to figure out which group is "better", but because it really highlights their similarities and differences.

I don't actually think the cover concept is that bad. You could do worse than a woodie looking out at the ocean. My problem is that it looks so damn artificial: all the drop shadows, gradients, grainy textures, and typography just looks very trendy. Compared to the more understated Gershwin cover, it's definitely not going to age well.

Well, what other criteria do the Grammys have?  They can't judge on the music because there is no objective standard for what is good and bad music.

True, but even if the Grammys' entire selection process is based on them being fed heavily-promoted albums by big record labels -- which wouldn't surprise me at all -- I still think they just pick their favorites among those selections. What irritates music fans (and for that matter, smaller record labels) about the Grammys is the fact that the organization is so massive that their sole opinion is subsequently regarded among the public, even just subconsciously, as definitive.

And what is it now, a case of if I say I don't care for him or his music I'm "close minded"? That's pure crap.

You're right, and it's also not what I said. You've heard his music, don't like it, and also happen to dislike the man behind it. That's perfectly fair critical thinking. But there are people who, on this board and elsewhere, think he's a jerk and a) judge his music solely on the basis of this fact or b) try to pretend the opinions of people who thought highly of his work don't matter. That's close-minded, and has nothing to do whether you personally like the music of Kanye West.

This is beyond the point, but after reading the whole thread I have to ask: so what if Kanye West, or any of the nominees, is a jerk? Does that somehow change the quality of his music? At the time of its release, I read a lot of positive, well-written reviews for My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. I don't care for the Grammys or Kanye West, but as far as I'm concerned, his nominations don't seem that blasphemous.

Do you listen to the Beach Boys because Brian Wilson has led a troubled life, or do you listen to them because it's good music? A sizable chunk of this board seems to just appreciate the music for what it is, separating it from the fact that the group were no strangers to Kanye West levels of utter jackassery.

It's hard to separate the artist from their work, and the Grammys tends to magnify the former. I'm not saying the backstory can't impact your appreciation of the music, but don't be so quick to channel a dislike for the person towards what they create.

But the same thing applies - Van Halen reunited in 2007, toured into 2008, have dropped frequent hints about a new record, just signed a deal for a new record -  anyone who is aware of Van Halen should be aware that they in the midst of a reunion already in progress.  There hasn't even been a period of prolonged inactivity, much less a break-up.

That the Beach Boys or Van Halen have never technically broken up or already reunited doesn't matter at all. It's just semantics: they could easily spin it as a reunion in the studio, or a "spiritual" reunion, or however you prefer it.

Again, I'm not definitively saying one way or another. If that Rolling Stone "source" is accurate (also a big if), then great. It's just that, given it's the Grammys, the evidence is skewed a lot more towards Van Halen or Black Sabbath than the Beach Boys.

Not to burst your bubble guys, but:

Who do u predict the reuniting band will be @ #GRAMMYnoms? http://grm.my/vH7p3Y Does this hint make u wanna “Jump” & “Dance the Night Away”?

Think about the audience for the Grammys for a sec. Do you really think an organization that now mostly caters to younger fans of modern pop/hip-hop/rock would be hyping the reunion of a band with very little exposure in that demographic?

I mean, I'd love to be proven wrong. But all the hints say it's either going to be Van Halen or Black Sabbath -- and the latter is a long shot.

Very interesting mix. Nice work. I'll just add a few things that stood out to me.

My favorite parts of any Smile fan mix are the unorthodox creative decisions, where there is less focus on technicals and more just on feel. It's hard to articulate, but sometimes the former has the effect of making it seem like a particular edit was only done for the sake of it. Above a certain threshold, I don't really care about sound quality or intent ("I'm using the draft tracklisting!" "I'm going to do the exact opposite of BWPS!") as long as I can pull myself back and still find it purely musically interesting.

For example, I thought having three extra-vocal choruses in CIFOTM was excessive -- it felt like it was repeated only because it was recently discovered -- but I absolutely loved the introduction, especially the insert of "Can't Wait Too Long". That's something I've never heard before, let alone even considered, and it fits great. One of the very few times I've ever thought, "Gee, I wish the official release had that."

There were other elements of your mix too that, even if I wouldn't have done it that way, were refreshing to hear in a new light. I'm normally not a "He Gives Speeches" fan, but that doubled melody was clever. And even though this could be considered filling something in, I was surprised at how much I liked the 2004 BW fly-ins. Not because they sounded exact, but because I didn't find it hard to reconcile the age difference. Especially on "Dada", it's not hard to tell it's the same guy.

Being the kind of person who is more than content with the official releases, and doesn't usually listen to fan mixes, there were sections of this one that were very eye-opening. Thanks.