[It's called the Excitations Mix and I edited nearly every part of the album to make it as cohesive and complete sounding as possible. Some tracks have different session takes, new vocal or instrumental overdubs, or freshly constructed sections altogether. He Gives Speeches and She's Goin' Bald are now one song! The coda of Surf's Up is now the ending to Child is the Father of the Man and it actually works pretty well! And more! I put a lot of work into nearly every track and the mix is full of new touches you haven't heard before.]

Hey guys,
I haven't posted here in like a dozen years, but I've still been thinking about The Beach Boys a bunch. I've listened to a load of Smile session material and fan mixes and finally made one of my own over the course of a few months. (Because hey, I have opinions and mental illness too.)

It's called the Excitations Mix and I edited nearly every part of the album to make it as cohesive and complete sounding as possible. Some tracks have different session takes, new vocal or instrumental overdubs, or freshly constructed sections altogether. He Gives Speeches and She's Goin' Bald are now one song! The coda of Surf's Up is now the ending to Child is the Father of the Man and it actually works pretty well! And more! I put a lot of work into nearly every track and the mix is full of new touches you haven't heard before.

Even made new stereo mixes of Good Vibrations and Cabinessence in lieu of using the old muddy ones!

I'd love if you gave it a listen-- I'm really happy with how it turned out! https://youtu.be/aezn8SqDqeA

I love Gettin' Hungry.

Vote for your 2nd favourite. Thought this might be more interesting and make for more diverse results than the inevitable Pet Sounds heavy results of a #1 poll

Fingers crossed for some diversity - early indicators aren't looking good tho' 

I threw in a vote for Stars & Stripes Vol 1 just to make you happy.

...not this again.

Rocknroll: we're dealing with extremists here. Nothing wrong with that and I can fully respect it, but it makes attempts at discussion useless. You can find any amount of literature, philosophy or thought to suit whatever view you choose to take. It's easy. But that's missing the point of literature, philosophy or thought. Otherwise, each book ever written would be the last.....

You're not dealing with extremists.  You're dealing with people with different viewpoints to your own.  

...in a country where our founding principles dictate that government should provide for the welfare of the people (and has been doing so for centuries0, I think the idea of having the government bow out and let corporations take over seems a tad extreme.

"Providing for the welfare" didn't refer to welfare programs. Welfare programs were called "welfare" programs in order to justify their constitutionality using that association.

I'm not talking about welfare programs. More related to the arguments in this thread against government regulation of things like food and drug safety.

Rocknroll: we're dealing with extremists here. Nothing wrong with that and I can fully respect it, but it makes attempts at discussion useless. You can find any amount of literature, philosophy or thought to suit whatever view you choose to take. It's easy. But that's missing the point of literature, philosophy or thought. Otherwise, each book ever written would be the last.....

You're not dealing with extremists.  You're dealing with people with different viewpoints to your own.  

...in a country where our founding principles dictate that government should provide for the welfare of the people (and has been doing so for centuries0, I think the idea of having the government bow out and let corporations take over seems a tad extreme.

They can be held accountable by the customers. It's as simple as that. Think like a class action lawsuit.

But who would be in charge of getting the information out there?

What good is a class action suit if you're dead?

But I do think we're getting somewhere here.

Who would be in charge of getting the information out there? Either people within the company or the customer base. The customer base can boycott the company until they come clean. The threat of going out of business due to no revenue will make any company cooperate. A class action lawsuit could be filed by surviving members of the families of the deceased.

How about we have someone set standards before a tragedy happens, hmm?

Honestly, I believe it is outside of governmental authority to regulate consumables. Food, water, alcohol, tobacco, drugs...you name it.

...but then we'd be back to the days of late 19th century patent medicine where companies could promise anything and everything. Without any safety or quality standards, how are people supposed to make informed choices? Waiting until a whole bunch of people are harmed by misleading advertising before the free market kicks in and makes the company go bankrupt is not an acceptable alternative.

It's not the government's duty to save people from themselves. If people are going to poison themselves no amount of government regulation will stop it from happening. The market can self-regulate and produce results. Read about Underwriters Laboratories, or UL for short. Classic example of the market self-regulating and allowing for quality control without government oversight. There's no reason a similar group can't regulate food, water, drink, alcohol, tobacco, or drugs.

...it's definitely the government's duty to keep people safe. That's... why we have a government. Y'know, that whole "promoting the general welfare" thing. Kind of a principle we founded the country on.

Honestly, I believe it is outside of governmental authority to regulate consumables. Food, water, alcohol, tobacco, drugs...you name it.

...but then we'd be back to the days of late 19th century patent medicine where companies could promise anything and everything. Without any safety or quality standards, how are people supposed to make informed choices? Waiting until a whole bunch of people are harmed by misleading advertising before the free market kicks in and makes the company go bankrupt is not an acceptable alternative.

Government mandates labels on harmful products like tobacco or alcohol. GMOs should not be in the same category.

While some GMOs are harmless to people, they do have the potential to be very dangerous. People have the right to know what they are eating. The information is out there, but the average American has no idea where to look. Giving Americans the tools to educate themselves about their own health will empower them to make better choices if they care to, which benefits the whole country in the long.

Besides, since the FDA doesn't allow any testing on humans, we really don't know what the long-term effects of GMOs (or basically, any other food additive) will be until it has already been introduced to the population. The changes that American consumers should be fighting in regards food labeling start with the loose FDA and USDA regulations and loopholes that put lobbyist interests in front of consumer concerns.

Your post also seemed to imply a concern for how GMO labeling would effect the market, and there have been studies that show that labeling GMOs do not either help or hinder product sales. About 5 years ago a study was published in the UK (where as Hypehat mentioned, they do label GMOs) where they actually overstated the dangers of genetically modified canned tomatoes and it had no effect on that products sales.

I dunno, when I see what we're still a country where half the population still doesn't support evolution, I find it hard to be optimistic about people going out of their way to spend time to find unbiased, scientific sources regarding the safety of GMOs.

We've been genetically modifying foods since the dawn of agriculture, albeit through more primitive cross-breeding methods. Genetic engineering of plants essentially accomplishes the same goals, higher yields and longer shelf lives, just without the hassle of having to wait many generations for results. We've been at that for decades now. I've eaten GMO-containing foods all my life with no negative health impact, as have many others here. I haven't read up on how the FDA regulates GMOs, but from a biological standpoint, I don't see how making a crop resistant to herbicides would ever impact its safety. I'm not against rigorous testing of GMOs, I just fear that labeling them would result in a knee jerk reaction from a public that so often doubts science (global warming, anyone?).

Want to label your food as organic? GMO-free? Sure, be my guest. I just see mandatory GMO labeling as doing more harm than good, especially in an era where GMOs may be necessary to tackle the rise of global hunger.

People like to know what they're eating? It's been standard practice for years over my end.

I can understand that, but virtually everything we've been eating here has been genetically modified to a degree. While I'm no fan of Monsanto or similar patent-happy agricultural conglomerates, the foods produced by GMOs have no negative impact on human health.  Mandating a label on foods that contain GMOs (which is a LOT of them) would send the message that they're somehow dangerous compared to organic foods.

Government mandates labels on harmful products like tobacco or alcohol. GMOs should not be in the same category.

[Sucks about the GM thing.]

It's nice to see that in some of the amendments and stuff the vote went more to the left too, what with that gay senator, the legalisation of pot, equal marriage in a few states. Sucks about the GM thing. Not bad, USA.

Gotta ask, what's with the support of labeling GM foods? I wasn't in a state that voted for it (cast my vote for gay marriage in in Maryland, though!) but I would have likely voted against it if given the choice.

Let them give Pet Sounds a go and if they dig it, tell them there's something out there EVEN BETTER _maybe. Then make them listen to the Sessions 2CD set or any number of fanmixes.

Abbey Road! Followed by Revolver and Magical Mystery Tour. Sgt. Pepper's ain't bad either, though I've never been able to make it all the way through the White Album.

I was going to buy a couple of these and then I saw that the Surf's Up album has a "Brian's Back"-era promo shot on the back. Makes it all look a little cheap and you'd think there really should've been enough early-70s shots of the group to choose from...

Yeah they probably should have used this one:

...Ringo? 

SMiLE has had more impact on me then anything by anyone.

I agree with this and I'dve totally voted for SMiLE in the poll... ...if not for fact it mentioned it was disc one only. SMiLE is this big, personal, uncompleted thing and just limiting it to disc one really limits that for me.

They're planning a 10-disc sequel. The Smile Sessions: The Real Story.

...I'd probably buy it too.

sigh.

As I said before all fans MUST buy the 50 Big Ones set , just for Darlin' its awesome
BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT can a fan please in future be given the job of proof reading the liner notes !  

David Wild mentions that 'Be True To Your School' is on the album ,  NOT !!!!
And I have yet to study all of it BUT the lead vocal on 'God Only Knows' is listed as Brian  

Shoddy work  to say the least

There's gotta be a line drawn somewhere for me, and it's here. I can't justify buying a 2cd set for two remixed songs. I'll gladly buy something that I feel gives me (a Beach Boys collector) substantially new product. The Beach Boys have been very good to us, and I don't fault them for putting out as much product as possible to cover each fan base. But to put those two tracks on there as bait for super mega fans to shell out more money for so little new....I just can't bring myself to go there. Hopefully the remixes will be on the new (big) box. I support The Beach Boys, when they support me  

Hey, I'm still tapped out from the Smile mega-box.

...does the fact they're remastering all these old albums in stereo point to a potential stereo Smile re-release one day?

Man, love those Beach Boys, eh?

A more intriguing question methinks: What if Brian Wilson had been shot instead of John Lennon?

(didn't someone do a rather interesting alternate-universe essay on Brian Wilson releasing SMiLE only to be assassinated or something? It was quite a fascinating read)

yeah it was..it was on the old Cabinessence site.

Anyone have that backed up somewhere? I'd love to read it.

I'm sorry and I will try to improve myself.

Anyone with a Mother 3 avatar needs no improving.

[this]

The autotune is clearly used for effect like on many modern records.

This doesn't seem likely. Not nearly blatant enough, while still sounding pretty darn bad.

Blatant enough to clearly not be there to hide anything imo

This likely went through the same people who were running the show and thought this was acceptable [/i]for weeks[/i]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZrIyFaPRTE

Good god, I never realized some of the early concerts had autotuning THAT bad.

I really dig the Darlin' stereo mix. I'm not quite sure how to get this point across but I like how you kept the... ... low-fi chunkiness? of the song intact. I think that's really integral to the sound of Wild Honey and was worried having all the songs in crisp stereo would give the album a totally different feel.

Good job! Your SMiLE mix is one of my favorites and the one I pass around to friends interested in giving it a listen.

I feel like Bowser right now 

I thought you were a spectator.

I only listen to SMiLE A.D.

Same, as well as the Alternate Brian Wilson version. I bought the five disc set of The Smile Sessions and only tend to listen to the session material instead of the "completed" album.