***Deleted Post***

It worked well with ‘Surf’s Up’ and ‘Heroes and Villains’, but not with ‘Smile’, or much of the other stuff they did together.

Hi Lorren,

Based on my reading of the above and another post, I think you may not realize that "Surf's Up" and "Heroes and Villains" were both part of Smile. I point this out only to reemphasize to the group that it still seems we're expecting you to have a command of the kind of facts that come so naturally to us, but that are less meaningful from your perspective.

"Sail on Sailor" was worked on by Brian and Van Dyke a number of years after their Smile collaboration. Recent evidence that I've seen relayed here suggests that the kernel of the idea for that song was much more Van Dyke's than Brian's. Later the song was worked on by several other writers, with the final product being a true example of a song written by committee.

I, for one, am really enjoying these posts and our interactions with you.

If you want a good timeline of B. Boys/Brian activities that might jog your memory, I suggest you visit Andrew Doe's gigs and sessions timeline (with much of the background research done by Ian Rusten and Craig Slowinski, both members of this site, among other people Andrew names on the landing page) at http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs.html

Nothing any of us could reconstruct for you here could possibly compare.

Been following this alternately fascinating and disheartening thread for the last day or two.

My main question is: Why must Lorren Daro be right for his contributions to this forum to be valuable? He is not a scholar, he is not a professional expert writing a history of the band or Brian Wilson. He is a participant in the story at a particular period of time, and anyone who has done in-depth research or conducted interviews knows that the memories of participants can be wildly divergent, and often incorrect.

The value of what Lorren might have to contribute is not in its factual accuracy, but in his perspective. You may think his perspective is wrong on many issues, but that doesn't make it valueless. His perspective--especially when very different from the consensus--is exactly what makes his comments potentially interesting to us. We don't have to agree with them, and it's perfectly fine to personally believe they may be skewed by an agenda, but exploring them with him, by weaving another voice into the fabric, can only make our understanding of this time period fuller. Just use your brains, the confirmed facts, and your own judgment to evaluate the accuracy or potential accuracy of what you're hearing.

One specific comment: It's not really so surprising Daro might not remember being at the "Help Me, Rhonda" session, even if he was, in fact, there. After all, the infamous dialogue tape suggests very little of value was recorded that day. Perhaps Daro has no memory of being at a Rhonda session because it wasn't even apparent what they were recording that day?

Fascinating. Thanks for this, guitarfool.

I'd been wondering where that thread went to over at the Hoffman board!

Man, that "Spanish Harlem" demo is killer. Beautiful.

When I was talking about Spector's songwriting (or lack thereof), I clumsily forgot about "Spanish Harlem." By all accounts Leiber and Spector truly cowrote that, with Spector taking the lead on many of the musical elements. True that Spector wasn't usually a natural songwriter and it's questionable how much he contributed as a songwriter to most of his hits, but to write "Spanish Harlem" alone is an extraordinary accomplishment.

Edit:

Here, on the other hand, is another demo where Phil sings quite poorly indeed! This one for "I Can Hear Music," another song he probably really did contribute to significantly in terms of songwriting, though he did not produce the Ronettes' record. Quite a brilliant demo structurally, despite Phil's often off-key singing. Strange. Notably, he sings "I hear music, hold me tight" on the bridge. Never realized that was the lyric before. Don't the BBs sing "I hear music all the time" on their version? If so, looks like they goofed, 'cause the Ronettes sing "hold me tight" on their version as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaXAPj1CDh8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDnlWG40gmw

2nd edit: Having listened closely again to the BB's bridge, it sounds to me like they sing, "I hear the music all the time, yeah, I hear the music hold me tight now baby, I hear the music all the time, I hear the music, I hear the music." Interesting.

kwan_dk, just read your blog post. Great job, and great blog!

Thank you for calling our attention to "Things Are Changing." This is an obscure bit of Wilson/Spector-ology that I never knew about before. I had no idea!

So what are we comparing these new Acoustic Analog albums to? Did I hear the original monos?  Wouldn't be best to compare them against already-released mono CD's or even re-issued mono vinyl?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as vinyl is concerned, the Capitol rainbows are the only MONO vinyl editions that I can compare them to, correct?  All of the later reissues have been in stereo.  Oh yeah, In think there was a mid-'70s Capitol mono reissue of SURFIN' SAFARI (the one with a blank back cover), but any reissues of SURFIN' USA through SHUT DOWN, VOL 2 would have been in stereo.

Lee

I assume this is correct. I think there's one additional recent mono vinyl reissue of "Surfin' Safari"--This weird thing: http://www.amazon.com/Mono-Stereo-Gatefold-180g-Vinyl/dp/B00ANDVNXC/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1420651629&sr=1-2&keywords=surfin%27+safari+mono+vinyl

Once we get to "Today," there will be many mono reissues to compare these to!

A couple of additions to/mild disagreements with various previous posts.

A) In addition to "Guess I'm Dumb," "Let Him Run Wild," to my ears, also shows a big Bacharach influence, with its jazzy passing chords.

B) I think that Brian's music would have been totally different in 1963 to 1965, specifically, without the Spector influence. By Pet Sounds he was doing something much more his own. One wonders if he would've gotten to quite that place without the Spector immersion though.

C) Though Spector wasn't a "performer" or front man per se, as pointed out above, all evidence points to that being more due to his unattractive looks and lack of star quality, than to any lack of ability to perform. The Tearing Down the Wall of Sound biography is full of anecdotes of him entertaining people brilliantly at private events as a solo performer. He was also, according to many, a brilliant guitarist (he played lead, for instance on "On Broadway"), who could've easily made a good living as a session guitarist had he not become a producer, and a good piano player as well.

D) As for his status as a songwriter, that I am in total agreement about. Phil Spector was not much of a great songwriter, unless you think "To Know Him Is to Love Him" is a great song (which it might be, in its way) and his contributions to most of the Barry/Greenwich, Goffin/King and Mann/Weil songs that he tacked his name onto, from a songwriting perspective, was minimal (or nonexistent, in some cases). Even "There's No Other (Like My Baby)" he apparently doesn't deserve his cowrite on. Rearranging the tune was apparently his contribution.

E) In general I will say that once I really started getting into Spector, it was immediately apparent how much Brian owed to him. Though I am in agreement with Terry Melcher that Brian was wrong to think he never equaled Spector--that, in fact, he became by far the greater artist--it is clear that in 1963 and 1964, Brian was very much trying to emulate Spector on a number of tracks (especially in his non-BB productions). And it is also clear that, at this stage, Spector was still WAY ahead of Brian in terms of the maturity of the tracks and the rich beauty of the productions. Think about it this way: At the same time that Spector was doing the rich and multilayered, complex "Do I Love You?" and "Walking in the Rain," Brian was doing "I Get Around" and "Dance, Dance, Dance." Just as great in their own way, but certainly not works of the same level of maturation as a talent. Brian's problem might be that he judges himself by the wrong terms. He never equaled Spector at doing Spector, but he took a turn and became totally original. He became the greatest Brian Wilson in the world and did varieties of music Spector could never do.

F) As for "River Deep Mountain High," I don't think the production is the problem; the song is. If it had been a better song it would have shone through the bombastic production and merited it. I don't think the production ruined the song, the song just wasn't worthy of it.

My copy of Surfer Girl in mono arrived this morning. I have to get to work so I only had time to compare the songs Surfer Girl and Catch A Wave on the new release to my original mono on Capitol. As an overall listening experience, I prefer the new AP hands down. Beautiful quiet background and there is more separation/clarity in the instruments and vocals. The only thing I noticed was the new release is a bit bass shy compared to the Capitol release. The new AP version will definitely be my new go to version from now on.

This is great to hear, Lee!

That's great to hear, Mr. Tiger. It'll be interesting to see what people think going forward.

And you're right. When I looked back I saw it was only one poster who was talking about all the titles. If I inadvertently made it sound like this was a consensus opinion in any way already, I apologize for making it sound that way. My attempt in saying "so far" was just to represent what had already been said on the board.

Chatter so far over at the Hoffman forums regarding these is that the album tracks on the first batch of mono releases sound fabulous but that the tracks that were also released as singles tend to sound significantly inferior to the other tracks. This would seem to track with Steve Hoffman's concern that because the first generation masters for single tracks would not actually be on the LP reels in many cases, inferior second-gen. masters might be used in preparation of these releases in the case of those single tracks.

However, sounds like the album tracks really do sound great, as lifelike as they've ever sounded, from what people are saying so far.

I agree that there were a few bum notes in the second stanza.

Hi Stephen,

I'm listening using a Music Hall MMF 2.2 with the standard cartridge that comes with the package (Music Hall Tracker). I have a decent 10-year old Onkyo amp and my speakers are KEF Q300 bookshelves.

I have two other vinyl pressings of Sunflower. One is an early pressing, on Reprise label, but clearly not original and it sounds VERY inferior to my "new" Artisan original.

The other is the pressing from 2009.

Question for you: I'm very curious. Did you write the copy that appears on the back of Sunflower about (I'm obviously blindly paraphrasing at the moment) the record being in true stereo, not 16 different mono channels synced up?

I'll stop bothering you, but thank you so much for all your insight and passion on this thread. It's been very enlightening.

Dear Stephen Desper,

Got my copy of the original Sunflower in the mail. It's in fantastic shape, and I'm in luck. It IS an original Artisan pressing.

And I have to say, as a very quick preliminary reaction it does indeed sound better than--and quite different to--any other release of this music I've heard before. Just as a very first, instantaneous reaction when I put in on, I heard the bassline in "Slip on Through" much more distinctly. A very different sound.

Alan, you know I've bought all of the recent vinyl, now I'll need to go buys these!  Seriously, this is great news and along with the Acoustic Sounds stuff all the albums (minus Wild Honey and SIP) have been given the vinyl treatment in the last few years (Amazon has a Wild Honey vinyl with a 2012 release date but I can't find any more info).  I can't believe Capitol/UMe are not publicising these releases more, especially given the fact they've obviously put a fair amount of effort into getting them right.

Let's get SIP on Vinyl to complete the collection!

I'm guessing the 2012 Wild Honey is a somewhat cheapo looking British import with an EMI logo on the back that I've seen floating around a couple stores in New York.

 

 There was one listing that specifically mentioned Artisan, but I don't think it was the one I bought, and now I can't find it anymore! Darn. There's also a DJ promo version being sold. Would that be a worthwhile purchase?

COMMENT:  There were several runs of Sunflower done over the years. After the Artisan versions came pressings from Capitol Pressing Plant (under Warner contract) being one generation down.  DJ promos are usually end runs or pressings near the limit of the stamper's life that may not be considered for sale. Not good enough for the public, but good enough for a sample to a DJ. The envelope or jacket will have a hole punched into the corner.

~swd

Thank you!

I would never claim these reproduce the originals fully. But perhaps they at least get closer and are very excellent in the process.

And I agree with you also in that I wish more vinyl reissues didn't involve any digital links in the chain. I believe Analog Productions does usually use only analog sources when preparing vinyl reissues. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and will be true for these issues?

COMMENT:  As a sound engineer and as an audiophile, I have heard the best of the best representations available from both digital and analog storage means. To my ears analog wins every time. Mostly because of its ability to present a musically satisfying playback.

In this response I am addressing issues with the songs and albums I've mastered.  Everything up to Holland was created in a world of analog with mass distribution being the LP vinyl record. In those days, digital was just a laboratory curiosity.

When each song’s Master Two-Track tape is completed, it joins other mixdown Master tapes, by way of splicing, and becomes the Album Master Tape. Since this tape contains mixdowns that were done over several weeks or months, you can expect the overall sonic signature of each song along with its levels to be mis-matched with respect to the other mixes. There are also changes that are required of the producer to be made “after the fact” or after the final mix is finished. These changes are executed at the time of mastering and represent subtle, but still significant modifications done to the sound of the master tape. In the case of Sunflower there were around fifty modifications to EQ, levels, limiting, and filter application done at the time of mastering. These changes are approved by the producer and usually physically done by the mastering engineer. The changes are noted so that they can be repeated if required. However, if the mastering house used to make the LP goes out-of-business or changes the equipment it used when the notations were made – it all becomes meaningless. I know Artisan is no longer in business so that means the notations are undoubtedly lost. In anticipation of this and for practical reasons a Master LP tape is always made. The Master LP tape is used to make additional mother discs that are used to make stampers. In my collection I have first pressings of the LP. These are made from the first mother disc cut directly from the mastering house console. At the same time a Master LP tape is made. It is one generation removed from the first mother disc. The Master LP tape is used to make additional mother discs and also it is sent (or a copy of this tape is sent) to pressing plants overseas or in New York City. Thus the LP Master tape is actually the final finish of all production.

The LP Master tape is the final sound that is approved by the producer and/or mixing engineer. But remember, this tape is made for the analog LP medium. When the digital CD came into vogue, most record companies preferred to go back before the LP Master tape, which was flavored to sound best over a vinyl record, and re-do the mastering so that it sounded better over a CD. There was so much re-mastering being done that many albums were given little attention to details.

Then complete digital recordings were being made, that is, recorded in digital and released in digital (DDD). When the analog CD’s (AAD) or (ADD) were compared to the all digital offerings, the analog sounded dull. This was not because they lacked top-end, but because the general public developed an appetite for sizzling top-end sound that is a characteristic of digital sonics. That is why digital seems to sound clearer, while at the same time less musical and fatiguing to listen to over a long period. It is also why so many re-issues of analog over CD have added treble and excessive top-end EQ.

Now we come to today and the re-making of the LP. Acoustic Sounds isn’t the only pressing plant to make these records. They were re-pressed by Warner Brothers and by Capitol Records many times using The Master LP tape or a copy thereof. My beef with these re-pressings of today is that they are not made from the Master LP, thus preserving the entire original intensions of the producer – rather they are re-mastered and therefore DO NOT preserve or mimic any of the instructions and guide lines of the producer. In fact the new mastering engineer takes on the roll of producer and just eliminates the original intent of the artist by substituting their own ideas about the production.

Sometimes you hear that albums must be re-mastered because of improved equipment or techniques. In the case of the LP, it’s still the same RIAA specifications we use today that were in force back in 1970. It’s the same vinyl material, sometimes with more weight – which has nothing to do with the sound. The cutting head improvements are very slight. So why not use the original LP Master tape, mastered by the original artist/producer? And don’t tell me they can’t be found. There are professional copies in several places – I even have a copy.

Another issue to address is the actual physical location of the mastering house and pressing plant. These should be close together to prevent unnecessary deterioration of the matrix mother before it is plated. (After about 18 hours it begins to loose groove detail.) In the case of Beach Boy Master analog tapes, these are stored in Los Angeles, CA. I have never known of Capitol or Warners to let their master tapes venture very far from LA. Copies, yes. The original, never. So if you are located in Kansas (like Acoustic Sounds) and you wish to make an LP run, you either get a copy of the analog tape (one generation down) or you get a high resolution digital copy, or you stay in LA and use a pressing plant located there (which I doubt). Now if they used the LP Master tape, which could be sent to Kansas, then there would be no need to re-master, would there?  So since they are re-mastering, they are doing so from a copy of the Master Tape in some form and they are loosing all the changes that Carl wanted.

This is progress?  This is better?  This is an improvement?

What it is, is business – the music business. If there’s money to be made through re-issues, re-packaging, re-arranging titles, or re-mastering – it will be done. Doesn’t matter if it is true to the original, or steps all over the artist, as long as there is a market out there and a market place to sell the product, the whole idea is to make a buck. Myself and I’m certain you too have no problem with people making money, I just hate to see original art replaced with different art and sold as some sort of improved art.

~swd 

Thank you so much for this analysis and the contribution of your knowledge. I am grateful to have more information and improve my understanding of how this works. There was one listing that specifically mentioned Artisan, but I don't think it was the one I bought, and now I can't find it anymore! Darn. There's also a DJ promo version being sold. Would that be a worthwhile purchase?

Dear Stephen Desper,

I thought I should tell you that I heard your words and decided to go on ebay and find a good-quality original from a reliable vendor. And I found one quite easily, actually.

I look forward to hearing it. And I look forward to being able to compare the differences between it and the upcoming reissue and thereby learn more. Thank you for steering me in the right direction!

I have to say, I am very excited for these releases. It's quite unfortunate that Wild Honey, Friends, and 20/20 aren't included, though I can understand the business sense behind that.

But, given Acoustic Sounds' reputation (I was just reading amazing reviews of their transfer and new release of Duke Ellington's 1951 Masterpieces album, for instance), these hold promise of finally representing these records the way they're supposed to sound. I'll wait to see Stephen Desper's response, but I hope they will manage to capture, for instance, more of the original intended sound of Sunflower .

COMMENT: No one has contacted me. "The original intended sound," as you call it will not be provided in these new releases. You will hear it soon with the release of the next study-video.  As to representing analog recordings by using digital methods still remains an incomplete story. They don't call it sampling for nothing. It is just that. A sample of the complete waveform. IT'S A SNAPSHOT of a slice of time.  It is not complete. The computer makes up (guesses) what goes in between the sampled slices of time. Why bother?  Just listen to the original LP. That has the complete sound story -- no sampled segments -- no computer guessing -- and the original Sunflower LP was Mastered and Approved by Carl Wilson. Why depend on someone who never met or worked with the man himself. Why go backward? You're going in the wrong direction if you want to stay with the original. The wrong direction is to re-do everything. The original mixing and mastering is there for the playing on the LP issue. Any other attempt to "improve" on the original is just so much floobydust.  You are not going to improve over Carl Wilson. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Don't remove Carl from the production. That IS a step backward! If you want original sound, it was issued in 1970 by Brother Records on Warner Brother's Record # RS-6832. It contains complete waveforms, is totally a Beach Boy production, and if you think the LP record comes up short on sound, you are wrong. The LP is quite capable of containing all (ALL) of the sound from any Master Analog Tape. It does not add noise, distortion or limitation to the signal on the master tape. The real listening experience, that is the one that sounds most musical, is the LP. Going back and re-doing what Carl did in Mixing and Mastering is a slap in the face. Nothing has improved in professional audio that much to warrant replacing the original artist and his intentions with a counterfeit rendition. If you are a collector, they've got your number and will keep issuing bogus "original" and so-called "improved" copies. I suppose the fake remakes do have some collector value, but their value is in the eye of the collector, not in the ear of the audiophile. If you really want the real thing, so far the original LP is the pot of gold at the end of the Sunflower rainbow. ~swd

I absolutely hear you. And thank you so much for offering your take on things. It's so great having you here as a presence. The only thing I don't quite agree with is the idea that a company like Analog Productions/Acoustic Sounds is trying to produce "fake remakes." I think their stated goal is to transfer the sound of master tapes (like the one that you and Carl created) as faithfully as possible to vinyl and SACD, and make a good-sounding record available to larger numbers of people than can find copies of the original LP in near-mint condition. And I take them at face value in that stated goal. And yes, they're a business, and so they make occasionally dubious or arguable marketing claims like "the best these recordings have ever sounded." But the main point is they're trying to fill a legitimate need that does music listeners a great amount of good while simultaneously having a sustainable business. I would never claim these reproduce the originals fully. But perhaps they at least get closer and are very excellent in the process.

And I agree with you also in that I wish more vinyl reissues didn't involve any digital links in the chain. I believe Analog Productions does usually use only analog sources when preparing vinyl reissues. Can anyone confirm whether this is true and will be true for these issues?

Interesting comment from Steve Hoffman himself, over at the Hoffman forums:

"I hope they have a really good line producer for these, a real expert. Kevin Gray is a world-class mastering maven but research is not his strong point (nor should it be, he's an engineer). If it's just Chad and Kevin with no producer in the middle, it's going to be very iffy. Why? I'll tell you:

I remember those mono BB tapes are very tricky. Some of the good stuff isn't on the LP reels but reassembled on to various phono single reels, EP reels, Greatest Hits comp tapes, etc. The LP reels have MANY inferior versions of some of the songs, really crappy sounding, phase problems, muffled, just bad replacement dubs to take the place of the correct versions moved to other reels. It will take a really good detective to find all of the correct versions of every song and to reassemble correctly. On the Nat Cole's I worked on it took YEARS to find every correct version of every song.

I hope they have someone who knows their stuff.. "

Always enjoy Beach Boys remasters but isn't this a bit of overkill?  Weren't most of these albums just re-released two years ago?  The SACD remastering should be nice, but there are only so many times I'm willing to repurchase the same album...

See my previous statements above. These are specialty releases and are targeted toward a different audience; they are not Capitol products and they have a different reason for existing. They will be superior in terms of sound quality to average releases. That interests some people and not others. All fair.

I have to say, I am very excited for these releases. It's quite unfortunate that Wild Honey, Friends, and 20/20 aren't included, though I can understand the business sense behind that.

But, given Acoustic Sounds' reputation (I was just reading amazing reviews of their transfer and new release of Duke Ellington's 1951 Masterpieces album, for instance), these hold promise of finally representing these records the way they're supposed to sound. I'll wait to see Stephen Desper's response, but I hope they will manage to capture, for instance, more of the original intended sound of Sunflower .

The last pressing that I bought a few years ago was a definite improvement in sound over any CD release so far. Can it really sound even better?

Yes. I am relatively new to the audiophile world, but I have discovered that there is a big difference between an average consumer release and what a label geared to audiophiles does. Half-speed mastering and other techniques which take great care to capture as much sonic information on the original master tape as possible are the norm with these specialty labels (MOFI, Acoustic Sounds, etc.).

I would be very surprised if this release of Sunflower, for instance, doesn't sound significantly better than the 2009 vinyl release. You will likely hear increased separation and clarity of individual instruments and an increased sense of presence. And I suspect the difference between this and the 2009 vinyl will be bigger than the difference you heard between that and the CD.

I could be wrong, but I suspect (and hope) I'm not.

I have to say, I am very excited for these releases. It's quite unfortunate that Wild Honey, Friends, and 20/20 aren't included, though I can understand the business sense behind that.

But, given Acoustic Sounds' reputation (I was just reading amazing reviews of their transfer and new release of Duke Ellington's 1951 Masterpieces album, for instance), these hold promise of finally representing these records the way they're supposed to sound. I'll wait to see Stephen Desper's response, but I hope they will manage to capture, for instance, more of the original intended sound of Sunflower .

Dr. Beach Boy, to answer your question, what would've made this an audiophile release to me would have been if I'd heard more "information" than I'd heard before on previous releases: increased separation of instruments or sense of placement on the stereo soundstage. But with the rare exception (the better clarity of the percussion on "Busy Doin' Nothin' as I mentioned above) this sounds pretty much the same as any other release I've heard. Though keep in mind, I've never heard Friends on vinyl before. But when it's just a hair better than the 1990 CD, it can't be too audiophile.

I wasn't quite clear on what you were asking with your second question, but no, it isn't loud, which is good. Nice and quiet and smooth sounding. It's certainly a nice-sounding record, just not significantly different than anything you've heard, and, I suspect, not as nice sounding as a near-mint original.