Melbourne gig = a blast!

Many classic BW moments, my particular fave telling us all to stop clapping as the GV bridge started to wind down.

Touching standing ovation for GOK and Al & Blondie on fire, smokin' percussion and drum solo during PS (the song), and Paul Mertens certainly wailin' that sax.  Matt Jardine had Brian's back throughout and nothin' but high praise for the entire band, as expected.

Great to see Moz and meet Bringahorseinhere (RickB).

Should be a pretty sharp show by the time it returns to the USA.

As long as all of those who broke Rule 2 on the Rocky and Steve threads are subject to the same moderation, then so be it.

.

Loved Ronnie's turn in Extras, funny funny stuff.

Fond memories of "The Worm That Turned".

And it's goodnight from me...

Can't stop him I guess.  I agree, I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for the man, even as I think he is revealing himself to be a pretty big sh*t at the same time.  But yeah, I would guess even in his delusional state, the reception he got relative to what he expected - starry-eyed peons hanging on his every word - had to have been a pretty brutal shock to what probably was a pretty cushioned ego.

Here in Los Angeles, in dingy little apartments all over the San Fernando Valley (where I dwell), there are literally thousands of lonely people slowly aging into solitary oblivion because they hitched their life wagon to the idea that they were, or were associated with, someone important.

Wise observations, Adam, and my thoughts exactly.

I tend to think Rocky lives, thinks and breathes as per the following prophesy:

I'm just a gigolo and everywhere I go
People know the part, I'm playin'
Paid for every dance, sellin' each romance
Ooh, what they're sayin'

There will come a day, and youth will pass away
What'll they say about me?
When the end comes I know they'll say just a gigolo
And life goes on without me

Oh, PLEASE.  Give me an effing break.  To be clear, I'm actually with you on the sexual things - I haven't gone there - but the attempted bullying and condescension started with one Rushton Pamplin.  He was given a fair hearing - I was one of the ones who called for that in the beginning - but past a certain point, some goofball posting in a patronizing way attempting to make *you* his biotch, when he's got absolutely no call to, deserves exactly what he gets in return.  I actually think he's kind of enjoying it too.

I haven't noticed Mr. Pamplin being in any way deterred from his posting - nor you from reading those posts - by the hilarity that has gone on on the sidelines.  Which is totally, absolutely, completely justified.  

Oh, PLEASE.  Give me an effing break, too, Adam.  Funny, I agree with most of what you say - but, I must protest; go back to the start of the thread - the attempted bullying and condescension was started by members of this board before Rocky came here.  Bit of a monkey see, monkey doo situation.

Good Mourning SMILE  My AWARD WINNING manager said I can GIVE YOU GIRLS another CHAPTER... We added a NEW chapter... Its called like I always told MAGNA CUM LAUDE Steve about Mike LOVELESS... STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES...  its about MY TIME after I SAVED BRIANS LIFE!!!  when I was a MILLIONAIRE CAMEL MAN!!!

- - -

OK, who's next?

So, what? Are you all just going to leave me hanging?

gosh, i sure hope so....... yack yack yack yack yack. give your keyboard a long rest, PLEASE.

+1

I recall the box set liner notes saying it was intended for the Christmas album.  I'm assuming that's inaccurate?

The liner notes say:
"...is a Christmas song (recorded circa 1963), similar in style to several cuts on The Beach Boys' Christmas LP.  Brian remembers that the Beach Boys recorded it for a movie, but that it didn't make the soundtrack (that last sentence is as per Jim's selection above)."

Farewell, Sir George.  Thanks for everything.

RIP.

- A

Mike is so boring in interview.  You can almost guess everything he is gonna say.
same old answers, same old sentences.  He must love the sound of his own voice.

His answers are a good match for a bunch of boring same old questions.

I think the Nolan films and the Burton induced series are terrible because of Frank Miller's definitive take on "The" Batman.  As noted by JM, Frank (re)set the bar - but no-one's risen to it, imo.  And in a funny way, the bar wasn't that high - focus on Bruce Wayne's mental state, keep the action tight and stakes desperate, aknowledge the pain and remain grounded in something similar to our reality (invisible helicopters and talking flying bombs excepted).

While Nolan's films receive a level of praise, and are not bereft of interesting elements, they are still very comic book and over-cooked, with too few slight nods to the moral complexities and "feelings/interactions" explored by Miller, and other writers of the time as they looked to appeal to adult comic readers.  Nolan's stuff should have been much much better, same with Burton's although more unlikely (noting that Keaton's "Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?" bit was pretty funny).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vukpjl44Yo0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHhf9ai3Tyw

I was lucky/stupid enough to read the Miller stuff when it came out and it has obviously impaired my ability to appreciate the subsequent films - quite a contrast to my love of the corny original series which I watched from knee-height and tuned into regularly after school for many repeat showings (prior to video then pay per view services arriving down here).  Who doesn't love the show intro, paired with the rockin' theme? Love that pulsing kick drum powering the band, leading into a bevy of dad jokes and dutch tilts.  A veritable gas, batgut!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9ymE2Rcxo

I wonder whether those 80's digital tapes have been transferred to the current storage medium.
we always discuss the old analogue tapes, but I believe I read somewhere recently how a lot of those
80's digital tapes are failing as well.?  I'm not sure of that source though.
I don't mind BB85, but it could use an update remix.  

I assume (but wouldn't categorically know) they've been backed-up to 32 bit/88.2khz as per the current archival methodology.

If so, these files may or may not have been sourced for the recent vinyl reissue, or dithered/downsampled re the related download files.

I don't overly mind the mix & sonics per se, it's more the track selection that could have used a little more, umm, consideration.

I don't have proof but it always sounded to me like Brian was doing most of the work at the end of "Getcha Back". 

I've just listened to the tag half a dozen times in headphones, and I *think* it's made up of
High falsetto ooh -- Brian
Backing ooh -- Brian, possibly sequenced on Fairlight rather than necessarily sung, but could be anyone at all it's so processed.
Backing "wah-ooh" -- Brian with *maybe* Bruce and Al (the "wah" sounds quite Bruceish)
"Getcha back" -- either two Brians, two Carls, or (my best guess) Brian and Carl doubled
(Second "Getcha back" in later repeats -- Carl plus at least one other. This sounds to me like it's snipped from the "Getcha back baby"s from earlier choruses)
"Gonna getcha back now" -- Carl
"I leave her and you leave him" -- Brian
"Can we baby get it back again?" -- Brian, doubled very low in the mix by Mike
I'm pretty sure the "I leave her and you leave him/Can we baby get it back again?" part is the only new element in the tag, with everything just copy-pasted from earlier parts of the song and looped.

There's so much processing, and so much doubling, that it's hard to tell for sure, but it sounds like most of it is Brian, but there's definitely some Carl and Mike in there.

Would they have even been ABLE to copy/paste in late '84/early '85? Sure, this stuff was recorded digitally, but it was digital TAPE...did they even have DAWs (digital audio workstations) capable of this sort of thing back then? ProTools was a good decade away, almost (Summer In Paradise was one of the first albums recorded with it). There might have been a way to do it, but with tape copying (ala Smiley Smile) and overdubbing the extra parts...BTW, on the "Can we baby / get it back again?" part, I only hear the very-low-in-the-mix doubling by Mike on the second half of that phrase.

From the PCM-1610 blurb/spec:
"The PCM-1610 can instantly replace the existing 2-channel analog mastering equipment, giving you substantially better sound as well as increased
operational convenience.

First, the PCM-1610 can operate in perfect synchronization with professional videocassette recorders. Sony also offers U-matic digital audio recorders, such as the BVU-800DA and VO-5850DA/5850PDA, designed exclusively for use with digital audio processors for improved operational convenience.

Second, the PCM-1610 lets you record separate takes and edit them at will. Sony has an advanced editor, the DAE-1100, developed to serve the specialized needs of digital audio. With this unit, editing can be performed much more easily and accurately than with any conventional analog
system. Electronic editing, as opposed to tapesplice editing, also allows the original recording to be used again and again.

Third, direct digital-to-digital dubbing is possible. In professional recording, it is a common practice to make several dubbings from the original master recording. With an analog system, each dubbing is itself a poorer version of the original, with noise increasing each time a copy is made.
With the PCM-1610 and the BVU-800DA or VO-5850DA combination, however, any number of dubbings can be made with absolutely no deterioration of the signal quality. Each copy, regardless of the generation, sounds as if it is a master itself. In addition, digital recording also eliminates problems such as print-through. Digital recording, after all, can maintain the original high quality even after going through various studio operations of mixing down, adding
reverberation, repeat dubbing, and so on."

"Using the PCM-1610 and a pair of BVU-800DA or VO-5850DA digital audio recorders, direct digital-to-digital dubbing can be performed with no degradation in signal quality. Even after repeated dubbing, the high quality of the original recording remains true."

Sounds great, we should get one.

That's a lot of money, imo.

I've picked up many 2nd hand SOT items for between $40-$100 (AU, of course) in Melbourne.  But it's a long waiting game.

Also consider UM 10Alternate Party is now somewhat surpassed (bar 1 or 2 tracks), which may or may not be the future fate of other collections, especially if the source multi's have gotten/get back to our favourite archivists.

But if you have the bread and want to buy it now, an opportunity awaits.

They do, but we're talking now about a 50 year old precious, likely fragile tape.  They could still do the show using digital multi's.

That makes sense to me too. Yet, I've seen numerous instances of running multi-track tapes from the 60s and 70s on relatively recent documentaries. They still appear to run Beatles tapes on a few modern-era documentaries.

I've actually heard Beatles multis from the 60s are in excellent shape due to not being played a ton of times, and the non-synthetic makeup of the tape of that era. I wonder if perhaps a similar fact is true of Beach Boys tapes from the 60s.

Dumb question, but wouldn't you need to run 'em through a machine every now and then (perhaps not over the tape head) to stop them gumming up/sticking together over time?

There are others far more familiar with that stuff than myself. But my understanding is that because they used "whale oil" instead of synthetic oil on tape from the 60s, they don't suffer from as much (or maybe any?) of the gummy, sticky issues that occur with tape from the 70s and 80s. It's tapes from the 70s and 80s that I've heard they have to "bake" for each play to counteract the (literally and figuratively) sticky issues.

That's kind of correct ...

"Sticky-shed" only applies to backcoated tape, which was not manufactured until 1969. So it's not applicable in any case to the Pet Sounds tapes above.

The binder used on backcoated tapes from 1969 to about 1974 used whale oil, which is stable ... then they switched to a synthetic binder (due to environmental/poiltical pressures), which deteriorated over time. Though I'm not entirely sure that was the real problem, as Scotch 206 tape (for instance) was still stable even using a synthetic binder.

There are different sets of potential problems on the Beach Boys tapes above.

The tape types appear to be Scotch 201, 202, 203, and 111.

111 and 201 are acetate-based, which can easily break as it does not stretch. 201 can exhibit a sticky-shed like problem which is not true sticky shed, and the tapes cannot be baked (this will dry out the already brittle acetate base ... very bad). 111 doesn't have this problem, but can fall victim to a form of degradation known as "vinegar syndrome", of which little info is known except that it stinks and can pose health risks to those who inhale the fumes. They usually play okay (for now, who knows what will happen down the line). Vinegar syndrome is actually contagious (not making this up!) and can spread among tapes stored in close proximity of one another ... though only acetate tapes are susceptible.

202 and 203 have a plastic base, so they are less brittle and will not suffer from vinegar problems. But as they dry out over time the oxide (where the music is) itself can flake off very easily, leaving a strip of thin plastic that looks like “Scotch (adhesive) Tape”. This is very common (every reel I’ve ever seen exhibits “blank” spots at stress points like the beginning and end of the tape), and these tapes need to be treated with great care, especially where splices exist (if an old splice comes off - highly likely during play -, the oxide/music probably comes off along with it, so it should possibly be spliced back in with original splicing tape/oxide put back in place).

Thanks, HeyJude and DonnyL!

Great info, outstanding even - I was asking for similar reasons to shane's note: 16mm films that now smell like a bag of hot chips.

cheers - A

Save the Whales!

Sorry, just to chuck it out there, in the Byron Priess book, Bruce's legendary "Fading Rock group Revival" quote appears and also states:"After that album (FRGR) we shall be bringing out "Sunflowers", which will be on our own reactivated "Brother" label."

Priess continues - "The first album for Warner Brothers would be named after the single they had planned for Capitol.  Add Some Music became the first test of Warner's committment"..."Add Some Music did not provide Warner with the sendoff they had wanted for the group.  The forthcoming album underwent a name change to Sunflower, but retained the same concept and design." (See pages 94 to 95) - A

COMMENT:  Sorry, I should have consulted by own book, which got it right. I think Ed took the gatefold personality-theme photos over at Warner Movie Studio's backlot. ~swd

Correct Stephen.  Here is a group photo from the session, previously published in Endless Summer Quarterly.  Photo is (c) Ed Thrasher and courtesy of the Fred Vail Collection:



From left to right:
Brian, "The Good Humor Man"
Carl, "The Cowboy"
Bruce, "The Millionaire"
Al, "The Organ Grinder"
Dennis, "The Cyclist"

I stood in that same place on the Warner backlot about 3 years ago, and it looks exactly the same - gazebo and all.

Lee

What did you dress up as, Lee?  My money's on the cowboy outfit.

They do, but we're talking now about a 50 year old precious, likely fragile tape.  They could still do the show using digital multi's.

That makes sense to me too. Yet, I've seen numerous instances of running multi-track tapes from the 60s and 70s on relatively recent documentaries. They still appear to run Beatles tapes on a few modern-era documentaries.

I've actually heard Beatles multis from the 60s are in excellent shape due to not being played a ton of times, and the non-synthetic makeup of the tape of that era. I wonder if perhaps a similar fact is true of Beach Boys tapes from the 60s.

Dumb question, but wouldn't you need to run 'em through a machine every now and then (perhaps not over the tape head) to stop them gumming up/sticking together over time?

No need for Spotify as I've got it all on the ol' iPod in addition to obviously the CD.

But I will say that it took me YEARS to get into this album, and now I quite enjoy almost all of it. Even with some pre-autotune vocal assistance, and a gruff-sounding Brian, those are some amazing vocal arrangements and performances. Parks wrote some good tunes on that one. Production is a bit bland on the backing tracks, especially the more "pop" sounding stuff, though very well performed on all accounts.

Still hoping someday a deluxe edition with a decent-sounding version of "What a Wonderful World" might surface one day.

Had a similar experience of not "getting" this album, bar the title track & appreciating the work put into it, for some years, then ka-pow! Love it to death.  Summer in Monterrey's evocative lyrics and sing-along style, Brian's tough drawl on San Francisco et cetera et cetera.

Great to hear the Spotify generation can access it.

Love your deluxo suggestion, an essential inclusion would be a nicely faded-in & out dub of the stripped back OCA from the Was doco.

God squad bat sh*t crazy sh*t:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey8tLfokbs

bat sh*t crazy sh*t:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RbMTDLFOjA

I've asked this question in another thread but wasn't satisfied with the answer...

At one point in the documentary, Marilyn mentions that Brian was talking about wanting to die, but that it was "again, very innocent". What does that mean?? I'm not trying to put any blame on her, I can understant she's been through a lot, but I really wish I would understand what she means by that. She certainly felt that Brian was childlike in many ways, but wanting to die? I don't know... I guess it kind of bothers me because when she's stating this from her 1995 point of view. It would have made more sense to me had she made that comment back in the 70s.

Anyway, if anyone has an interpretation...

Perhaps it means Brian was curious about the process of life and death and was curious about the process of dying and the eventual "state", if it exists, of being dead.  In the same way one may be curious to feel what it is like to have a broken limb, or have sex, or a disease, but not actually flit this mortal coil.

I think Marilyn was saying while Brian was interested in death he wasn't walking around threatening to put his head in the oven, rocks in his jacket pockets, bladess to the throat, noosi to the necki and so on.

Re the timeliness, if it bothers you, suck it up.  Marilyn said it in the doco when she said it.

Thanks, Malc!

Just pulled 'em in, took about 2 minutes per file.  Downhill, that is - cheers - A

So, basically, SHM CD is another attempt to entice people to pay more money for, essentially, the same product. 

See Also....

Gold CDs
SACD
DualDisc
DVD-A

Isn't DVD-Audio actually a superior format, with a mix? I got my Pet Sounds DVD-Audio autographed by Brian at a GIOMH signing years back. Since then, I've always wondered how many autographed copies of Pet Sounds on the little-known DVD-Audio format exist on this planet.

DVD-A & SACD are high-res formats - 24bit/88.2khz sample (SACD) or 96khz sample (DVD-A).

There are a couple of mixes on the PS DVD-A - Brian's original mono mix is presented in high res, remastered from the '66 analogue safety copy.

The DVD-A is set to be superseded by the hotly anticipated Blu-Ray Audio should it emerge - perhaps the Blu Ray-A will contain the original mono mix at high res remastered from the flat digital transfer to 1630 tape Mark L made back in the day, as used on the 40th anniversary CD/DVD set.

Carl Wilson decides not to return to The Beach Boys and after a few years of struggle, hits pay dirt when a for charity recording of Arthur's theme goes ballistic.  He then quickly compiles a new solo LP with white hot producer Steve Levine that includes It's Getting Late, Maybe I Don't Know, Passing Friend and a duet with Stevie Wonder on I Do Love You.  Despite dire sales, He is invited to perform a duet on It Didn't Matter by The Style Council which helps build a strong international solo profile. 

He continues to make some dubious moves in providing vocals for the themes to Who's the Boss, Growing Pains and the season 1 intro for Family Ties.

In the meantime, due to Carl's departure, Dennis leaves the group, and Carl initially gives him a job as percussionist in his touring band.  This allows Dennis to get his act together and he finally quits drugs and drinking before taking up a position as a Youth Minister.

The Beach Boys continue to sell major venues but take sometime to cobble together a new album containing Getcha Back, Looking Down the Coast, California Calling, Child of Winter, California Dreamin' and Rock and Roll to the Rescue.  Included is a demo version of Kokomo which goes fairly unnoticed by all.

As a favour to Bob Geldoff, Carl rejoins the band for Live Aid and due to the good vibe, asks for and gets the go ahead from Mike to do a solo cover of  Kokomo, which goes to number one globally.

Dennis returns to the fold, all become rich and famous beyond imagining and become regular contributors and thought/discussion leaders at SmileySmile.net/board.

The quote about the stereo mixes in the article is incorrect. I think what the writer was trying to say was that I referred to the mono mixes when doing the stereo mixes but in the case of Rhonda on Summer Days and GV on Smiley Smile we had to use digital extraction mixes because either the tapes were missing (GV) or overdubs were done during the mix (Rhonda) making a mix from multi-track impossible. This proves why I always prefer to proofread articles for accuracy. Overall a nice one, however.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify that, Mark, much appreciated.  Btw, in case you haven't seen, The Today & Pet Sounds stereo mix vinyl editions have people going rather gaga & the some over at Hoffman board - cheers - A