By the way, I guess you all have heard this before, but figured it was time for a re-fresh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIJOTmWabcY

Surely, they must have paid royalties.

If even if Brian is credited as a co-composer (which of course he should be), he wouldn't get royalties as the SOT publishing was sold by Murry. Anyone got the album know if there's any acknowledgement of the lift at all ?

I've got it (it's a single/EP), and no acknowledgement there at all. Who did Murry sell the catalogue to again?

By the way, I guess you all have heard this before, but figured it was time for a re-fresh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIJOTmWabcY

Surely, they must have paid royalties.

Odessey and Oracle in mono is magnificent. Listening to it in stereo was my first encounter with it and was the only way I had heard it for a while, but I came across a mono mix of Changes and it was like hearing the song all over again. I found O&O in mono and couldn't believe the difference (literally in some of the songs as AGD pointed out) and the overall sound and feel was such so much better. Butcher's Tale really stands out and is much more ominous.

Definitely with you on Butcher's Tale, and even though Changes sounds magnificent in mono, i still really love that song in stereo - it's a lot more psychedelic that way (specially with the left panned lead vocal reverb). I agree on 'This will be our year' too, definitely not only better in mono, but like Matt/Andrew said, different. But songs like A rose for Emily, I want her she wants me, Friends of mine and TIme of the season I prefer in stereo.

[BWPS]

You know one thing I am kinda bummed out about is that the 'definitive' CD version of Smile will be in mono. Hopefully we will get all the songs in stereo as well so we can make our own stereo version!

Whoa there. Not 'definitive'. Not even close. CD1 of the two-disc version will be an "as-close-as-we-can-get" approach using the existing (incomplete) 1966-67 material and apparently based on the BWPS template.

The sessions on all the other CDs, as far as I'm aware, will be in stereo.

Sorry, that ("as-close-as-we-can-get") is what I meant by 'definitive' (and also why I put it in quotes), Andrew.

In principle, that would be my wish too. But would it have been Brian's intention? I think not. For obvious reasons. What there is, was in all probability meant for a mono end result. Perhaps Capitol would have pondered the wretched Duophonic thing again.
All in all, mono AND stereo would be the optimum deal.

I'm with you Don. Both would be ideal!

I am incredibly glad it will be coming out in mono.

I LOVE stereo (nothing gets better for me than listening to the 2009 mix of 'Don't Worry Baby' or the stereo mix of WIBN) but there is a depth and warmth achieved with mono that stereo just can't compete with. There is a unity with mono whereas stereo can sound scattered. I enjoy both formats, but mono just seems right for SMiLE - considering the lack of instruments on many of the songs (Wonderful, Friday Night, You Are My Sunshine) I don't think too many of these songs would sound good in stereo. But that's just me. And please prove me wrong Mr. Linett!

For those of us buying the boxset I have no doubt that we'll be treated to both stereo and mono for the majority of the SMiLE songs.

Onkster, yeah, at least that's what I've heard.

I hear ya Rab. Mono can definitely sound punchier than stereo, and example being Odessey and Oracle. But I still prefer O&O in stereo even if it lacks a bit of punchiness. As for SMILE, I agree that songs such as Friday Night and You Are My Sunshine will definitely work in mono, but I really want Wonderful in stereo. Put the harpsichord to the left, backing vocals to the right, (give them both stereo reverb) and lead vocal in the middle, and that will sounds awesome. Or even spread the BG vox around in the stereo image and put the harpsichord behind Brian's voice - that should work too.
I just think the wackiness of Smile needs the potential wackiness of stereo . And we are talking about a psychedelic album, and to my ears psychedelia works best in stereo.

You know one thing I am kinda bummed out about is that the 'definitive' CD version of Smile will be in mono. Hopefully we will get all the songs in stereo as well so we can make our own stereo version!

you as excited as me about the deluxe version of 'Arthur' ?

Hell, yes !

!

I'm hearing talk of a 'Lola' re-issue too - we've got a lot to look forward to!

Your middle name 'Pollyanna' by any chance ?  

lol, right on Andrew.

And 18thofmay, actually my allegiance is only with myself, but I think right should be served when right is deserved. Btw, I see you over at the Steve Hoffman forum - you as excited as me about the deluxe version of 'Arthur' ?

My point was, having clarified your point of view much better since, your initial statement, due to very poorly thought out phrasing, resulted in the iron clad clanger that was "I'm happy Brian's life turned out the way it did and I wouldn't change it". Shall we all move on now? 

+1

Yeah, I don't get the whole witch hunt for Fishmonk here, he has over and over again tried to explain that he in fact isn't happy Brian suffered, but people seem to skip those posts and quote his initial one. What you say Andrew? Can you let it go?

I did - check out reply #1393.

I meant 'let it go' in a sense that 'can we all be friends, and leave no grudges behind'

My point was, having clarified your point of view much better since, your initial statement, due to very poorly thought out phrasing, resulted in the iron clad clanger that was "I'm happy Brian's life turned out the way it did and I wouldn't change it". Shall we all move on now? 

+1

Yeah, I don't get the whole witch hunt for Fishmonk here, he has over and over again tried to explain that he in fact isn't happy Brian suffered, but people seem to skip those posts and quote his initial one. What you say Andrew? Can you let it go?

As I said earlier: I could have done without SMiLE (and Pet Sounds, for that matter), had Brian been able to lead a stable and happy life as a trade-off. Everything else is egotistical, narcissistic fandom at enormous personal cost of another human being.

I think anyone in their right mind would say the same, but is such a pointless statement, even if it's a goodhearted one. It's like saying I wish the Vietnam war never happened, even if that meant no 'Forrest Gump'. We all would say the same, but it's an unfruitful and none-viable argument. The past happened, and in Brian's case a traumatic and sad one, but unfortunately there is nothing we can do about it now.

Well, it was in response to the attitude previously on display here (i.e. a morbid 'liking' of what happened to Brian, combined with the 'tortured artist' argument). So to me it's not pointless... (but well, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it). Incidentally, John Cleese (he of Monty Python) once stated, after successful psychotherapy, that he'd gladly have traded in his finest achievements, in lieu of peace of mind.

I know Don, but you already posted pretty much the exact same thing previously in this thread, which is why I commented on it now. And there is only person in this thread who 'likes' what happened to Brian, and I don't think even he really 'likes' it per se, but merely enjoy the music that Brian Wilson wrote, some of it perhaps due to some of his drug use/abuse, again leading to the said suffering.

As I said earlier: I could have done without SMiLE (and Pet Sounds, for that matter), had Brian been able to lead a stable and happy life as a trade-off. Everything else is egotistical, narcissistic fandom at enormous personal cost of another human being.

I think anyone in their right mind would say the same, but is such a pointless statement, even if it's a goodhearted one. It's like saying I wish the Vietnam war never happened, even if that meant no 'Forrest Gump'. We all would say the same, but it's an unfruitful and none-viable argument. The past happened, and in Brian's case a traumatic and sad one, but unfortunately there is nothing we can do about it now.

What a pointless discussion: "I would have stopped Brian from taking drugs"/"I would have let him take drugs". I would have bought sh*t loads of stocks in Apple 30 years ago or so.
None of the above have any meaning, because they are all impossible things to do, today.

And Andrew, seriously man, do you really think Fishmonk is evil and want Brian to suffer? Like really?
We're all fans here, otherwise we wouldn't be on this board - it says it self. I think people must be able to have their own opinions without being deemed less of a fan or whatever.

Also, I wonder, is there a difference between being fan or Brian Wilson's music and the man himself? Do they go hand in hand, or is there a distinction. Just curious.

Yes, it has been "documented" that drugs, or the memory of the drug experiences, made Brian more creative. But I don't think Brian's descent into exorbitant amounts of much harder drug use has anything to do with trying to recapture that "zeitgeist" (for lack of a better term), and everything to do with his bipolar disorder. Untreated bipolar disorder, especially when aggravated by previous/current drug use, is a serious problem. THAT is why I find it completely inconceivable that people can sit back and go on about Brian's drug use and then bitch and moan about the quality of his work lately. The drug use, or the memory of the experiences, POSSIBLY made him more creative (for one, he was already creative, drugs don't make an uncreative person creative), but I think the toll taken on him is far more upsetting.

I mean hey, if you want to glorify drug use you might as well glorify the effects! But I don't see the idiots on here who are glorifying Brian's drug use engaging in such use themselves (or maybe you do and don't regale us with your lovely stories). And you same people glorifying his drug use call yourselves fans? You're despicable; lower than whale merda.

Wow, really? Idiots? despicable? lower than whale merda? Let's not go overboard here.

Like said before, I don't think anyone is glorifying Brian's drug use, and again there is a difference between the drugs that mainly made Brian the man he is today (e.g. taking a toll on the man) - the cocaine and amphetamine - and the drugs that we are talking about, the LSD and marihuana. All some of us are saying is that the latter drugs were enhancing his perception and songwriting, and that sure as heck don't give you the right to call us idiots, and what not - or calling yourself any more a fan than us.

Drugs were a part of Brian's life, some of them having a good effect, and some of them a really bad effect - let's just be able to distinct between the two.

What did Brian say? something like "Marijuana gave me that extra creativity, but LSD added whole new colors to my palette."

Sounds to me like a quote from his pseudobiography, in which case, no, he didn't say it. 

The quote sure makes a lot of sense though!

What did Brian say? something like "Marijuana gave me that extra creativity, but LSD added whole new colors to my palette."

Brian himself believes that drugs added to his creativity - or at least gave him the extra push to find these songs in the recesses of his mind. I don't believe the man needed drugs - he created songs like 'Don't Worry Baby' without drugs - the man was/is a genius without drugs. However, without drugs, would he have wanted to find this new 'hip' sound and crowd?

I think he could have come up with the same melodies, but I don't think that the idea of SMiLE would have ever been conceived without drugs.

Totally agree.

+1

That's where i think you are wrong. Drugs did not kill Smile - drugs made Smile possible. I think Brian needed these new influences in order to create Smile in the first place. Maybe there's no quantum leap after his first trip to "California Girls", but the song is sure more complex than his previous material.

You what? If anything, it's less complex! A simple boogie riff, a fairly ordinary progression. Fantastic production, obviously (The arrangement mirrors Brian's piano style a fair bit - pounding chords), but it's not on a compositional par to, say, Please Let Me Wonder, In The Back Of My Mind, Guess I'm Dumb, or When I Grow Up. And the chorus, the most complex bit with those descending chords, is a trick he used before on.... Don't Hurt My Little Sister. It's hardly stepping off into the void...

Hypehat, totally agree. Compositional it's fairly ordinary, but I was thinking more about the production, as well as the feel of the song (if that makes any sense). And I do believe production style was a product of the culture of the those times (e.g. drug use for one).

And 18thofMay, may I offer you a 'lol'.

[Smile]

Used to be it was all very simple - drugs killed Smile and nearly did for Brian in the process. Now, it's all much less clear-cut, but one thing is obvious: post Smile, Brian's escalating drug use robbed us of maybe ten years of his potential peak, just as Landy's tender ministrations robbed us of another decade or so. Whether or not drugs were good for Brian's creativity in the short term is questionable: the first song he wrote after his first trip was "California Girls", and there's no huge quantum leap in his composing or production techniques. A far better scribe than I once pointed out that there was a steady upwards curve from "Surfin USA" to "Good Vibrations", and that's true. No sudden steps.

That's where i think you are wrong. Drugs did not kill Smile - drugs made Smile possible. I think Brian needed these new influences in order to create Smile in the first place. Maybe there's no quantum leap after his first trip to "California Girls", but the song is sure more complex than his previous material.

Read what I wrote again, this time properly. No, I'll save you the effort: I said "Used to be it was all very simple", as in "once upon a time, this was what we thought". Please don't pick me up on something I've not actually said.

In that case I apologize, I misread your post Andrew.

[Smile]

Used to be it was all very simple - drugs killed Smile and nearly did for Brian in the process. Now, it's all much less clear-cut, but one thing is obvious: post Smile, Brian's escalating drug use robbed us of maybe ten years of his potential peak, just as Landy's tender ministrations robbed us of another decade or so. Whether or not drugs were good for Brian's creativity in the short term is questionable: the first song he wrote after his first trip was "California Girls", and there's no huge quantum leap in his composing or production techniques. A far better scribe than I once pointed out that there was a steady upwards curve from "Surfin USA" to "Good Vibrations", and that's true. No sudden steps.

That's where i think you are wrong. Drugs did not kill Smile - drugs made Smile possible. I think Brian needed these new influences in order to create Smile in the first place. Maybe there's no quantum leap after his first trip to "California Girls", but the song is sure more complex than his previous material.

But what does that even mean? He doesn't owe his greatness to his influences? Without his influences who knows what would have happened.

Missed this one.

No, he owes his greatness to his own talent in assimilating and using those influences to his own ends. Acid or pot didn't suddenly make Brian Wilson a great composer or producer: he'd written the odd passable choon before that. Speaking personally, my writing style is based on an amalgam of Willard Price, Bill Bryson, John Tobler, Nick Kent (sorry, Debbie !) and - don't laugh - Hemingway. Do I write as well as any of them ? Well, merda no, or I wouldn't be wasting my time here trying to give rational, measured replies to people who plain don't want to hear something.  Have they influenced, or informed my innate writing ability ? Hell yes. When I started writing, at grade school, I didn't want to emulate anyone, I just enjoyed stringing words together in forms that pleased me. Later on, at highschool and college, I learned how to do it with more style and technical proficiency, but all these extra frills didn't add anything to my basic ability.

Andrew, there's no arguing that Brian had the talent and the basic abilities, but what some of us are trying to get across is that recreational drugs like marihuana and LSD will give you a completely different perspective - a perspective you most likely wouldn't get without it. Nobody is saying hard drugs were good for Brian, but some of the drugs I believe was a necessity for some of his creative output, that's all.  It's like Ken Kesey, don't you think he's way of writing, his style was influenced by the intake of LSD? Well, the same goes for Brian.

I think the drugs opened up Brian's mind, both in his writing, but also in his listening experience. In my opinion music is perhaps the greatest influence for a songwriter, and it is what forms an artist. So if Brian's drug use enhanced his listening experience, then that also ultimately enhanced is writing.

Drugs didn't make Brian talented but they influenced him and opened up new ways of thinking and new perspectives. Phil Spector records didn't give Brian his talent either, they just influenced him and showed him new things.

Very well said!

I'm not for or against drugs, though I do believe they should be legal and regulated with the stipulation that those who use them are responsible for the effects of those uses.

But the recent trend of glorifying Brian's drug use has become a disgusting and stupid happening in a fanbase already over-encumbered with ridiculous behaviors. And how ironic that those same idiots who glorify Brian's drug use are the same idiots who supposedly love him and his music the most. Bottom-feeders, the lot of them. I'm by no means saying I'm some kind of white knight who has never criticized Brian, as anyone who has read my postings on here should damn well know I'm probably the most critical and opinionated fan of both the man and his music.

These same sons of bitches who go on and on about "Brian made his best music while using drugs" should stop and take a hard look at the man nowadays. The same drug use that these alleged "fans" glorify have left a permanent mark on the man. To say he's lucky to be alive nowadays is a major understatement. I wonder if half of these alleged "fans" even know the extent of the damage said drug use did to Brian. He was already diagnosed with brain damage from the illegal drugs at the beginning of Landy's second term, and everyone knows how much worse Landy made it.

And you all sit back and say Brian should go back to the days when he was using coke and overeating because it led to stuff like Love You and Adult/Child yet piss and moan and whine and bitch and complain and drone on and on like a bunch of mindless drug-addled morons that Brian doesn't do anything worthwhile anymore. That same drug use is a contributing factor to his lack of consistent output, along with his general ambiguity towards his career now.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as brash or insulting but I think this needs to be said in these not-uncertain terms. I think if half of you so-called fans truly loved the man's music and the man himself (as so many of you probably erroneously claim), you'd reconsider and rethink these ridiculous posts you make on the topic of Brian's drug use.

Totally with you. I don't think anyone should 'glorify' Brian's drug use, but i do think we should acknowledge that some of it most likely (particularly the LSD and pot) made his songwriting more complex. And yeah, i think if he would have stayed away from the coke and amphetamine, his recent albums would be way more listenable.

I agree. Sometimes I'm not sure that the people glorifying Brian's drug use like to think of what happened to him.

If you think Salt Lake and Girl From NYC are complex, acid fuelled chord progressions, you need to be schooled in both acid and music!

Hypehat, you misunderstand. I could give you several several songs that are hundred times more complex and psychedelic than the aforementioned, but what I'm saying is that there is no doubt that you can hear a development in Brian's songwriting from around 64, and I think that is partly due to drugs. And i do think if you were schooled in music yourself, you would see what i mean

I suggest we go back to talk about hos much drugs influenced Brian's songwriting - and particularly on Smile. Definitely an interesting subject.
I was reading earlier how someone seems to suggest that songs like Salt Lake City and Girl from New York City were not products of Brian on drugs, but I have to say I disagree. The complexity of the chord progressions, the instrumentation, the melody- and counter melody-lines and not to mention the harmonies themselves definitely speaks for a man influenced
Lyrically, not so much perhaps, but nobody said drugs would make you a better lyricist.