The bit at the start reminds me of the Night Bloomin' Jasmine demo, the part that didn't make it into Rio Grande.

Agreed, the progression is very close - the similarity jumped to my ears !

[B A S T A R D S]

Hello,

As a result of limited availability for the order release of the "Feel Flows" The Sunflower & Surfs Up Sessions 1969-1971, we've cancelled the item from the following order and you haven't been charged:

204-5786767-0530740

We’re sorry for the inconvenience caused.

Regards,

Customer Service Department
Amazon.co.uk

B A S T A R D S 

Same here... 

California Saga's single mix is pretty readily available on Spotify as part of Best of the Brother Years

https://open.spotify.com/track/0lWLhsB8FT7wRpjfucDmaq?si=5712f3436cc54d52

Is it? I tried this, but all I still here is the album version. And Spotify seems to agree, showing the Holland cover.

As an aside (and I guess stating the bleeding obvious), the Single version is on multiple CD releases since the turn of the century.

Could you name one, other than Ten Years of Harmony IIRC, because I need to make a purchase then.

This one => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatest_Hits_Volume_Three:_Best_of_the_Brother_Years_1970%E2%80%931986

Lovely video, even though the autotune is fairly obvious even when played on my laptop speakers.

[As far as I can tell there is no evidence that Mike has a problem with Dennis material]

As far as I can tell there is no evidence that Mike has a problem with Dennis material. I believe he was quite happy with the Dennis stuff on MIC.

^ This. All I've read so far is pure speculation. Yet it looks like some people are treating it as an undisputable fact.

People, speak in English. Quit this bragging "I can speak fluently many languages" stuff. It's annoying. Translate that dialog, pls.

https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto&tl=en&text=Wer%20sagt%2C%20dass%20die%20in%20unmittelbarer%20N%C3%A4he%20voneinander%20waren%3F

Arrêtez de vous plaindre.

As far as I know, he owned a white convertible C5 for a while. But since it was released in 1998, I don't see how Landy could be linked to Brian's ownership of a C5.

Brian's yellow convertible Corvette can be seen in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAeXSYOrXhE

At 0:09, someone (Landy I believe) says "I just ordered the ZR-1"...

100% certain this isn't the "Still Cruisin'" car - this is a 1990 ZR-1 model with a very distinctive rear bumper (and only available as a coupe) while the "Still Cruisin'" car is a 1988/1989 convertible.

[Interviews > Freddie Mercury Interviews > 03-17-1977 - Circus MagazinePart 2: The Queen Tapesby Don RushFreddie Mercury Joins the Bigtime: What It's Like to Lead the British Touring Pack]

I stumbled upon this today: http://www.queenarchives.com/index.php?title=Freddie_Mercury_-_03-17-1977_-_Circus_Magazine

Interviews > Freddie Mercury Interviews > 03-17-1977 - Circus Magazine

Part 2: The Queen Tapes
by Don Rush

Freddie Mercury Joins the Bigtime: What It's Like to Lead the British Touring Pack

Back in the old days, we were often compared to Led Zeppelin. If we did something with harmony, it was the Beach Boys. Something heavy was Led Zeppelin. Robert Plant was always my favourite singer-and he's said nice things about me, you know. He actually said he liked "Killer Queen". We were always a sitting target in the press because we became popular so quickly. But, you know, we spent two years putting our act together. It destroys the soul to hear that you're all hype, that you have no talent, and that your whole career has been contrived. I was never too keen on the British music press. They've called us a supermarket hype, and they used to suggest that we didn't write our own songs. When the whole point of Queen was to be original.

I'm the first to accept fair criticism. But the dishonest reviews-where people haven't done their homework-I just tear them up. I do get annoyed when up-and-coming journalists put themselves above the artist. I don't care what journalists say, we achieved our own identity after QUEEN II. As for the Beach Boys or Led Zeppelin comparisons: it's the combination of all those influences which means Queen. We were disliked by the press in the early days because they couldn't put their finger on us, and that was the case with Zeppelin as well.

I love Stephen Desper's videos, I love his anecdotes and recollections, I love the fact that he's willing to share all of this with us, but...

...That's clearly Blondie on that a capella version of SOS - to be precise, it's the exact same lead vocal as the one that can be heard on the final version of SOS. How it ended up on that cassette is the real mystery here.

Folks, this must be in General Music Discussion. Moderators, move it to it.

How about no? "Peggy Sue" is a Beach Boys song too... 

You may also find it of interest that the CD or DVD actually has three dedicated (so-called) tracks or pathways of information. That is, one song is actually represented by three independent pathways on the disc. Each is read and the processor, called a comparitor, looks to see if the information from each of the three readings is the same. If not (due to dust or a scratch) the comparitor will take any two sets of information and discard the third. Since these pathways are in different parts of the surface of the CD, a scratch at one point on the surface will not effect the reading of the same information from one of the other pathways since they are at different areas of the disc. So the comparitor takes any two matching sets of information (bits). If the comparitor cannot read two signals that are equal, it will makeup the missing bits by a process call extrapolation. For extrapolation, the processor looks at the bits right before and right after the missing information and assumes or creates bits that are kind of an average between the two. Thus, the missing data is added back by assumption. All this is call "error correction." There are programs which tell you the error correction rate as you play a CD. On a dirty CD, or one that has be mis-handled by its user, the error correction rate can be quite high, but you never hear it.

Error correction takes time. We humans never hear it, but it does take microseconds to be processed. Error correction requires that the tracing information first be stored so it can be compared. Back when files were being traded for free a case was brought against the file traders with the ruling of the court that no CD could be copied as it violated the copyright law. Technicians and engineers laughed at that ruling since it would mean that you could not play a CD. The court had to change the law to accommodate error correction, because for error correction to work, the CD data must be stored in the player (or recorded). 

I never knew this. Fascinating and clever. Thank you!

Something about this sounds fishy.

"I Do" - such a knockout track.

I'll second that! Amazing track. It's a shame it wasn't released in the 60's.

where's the Baldwin?

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,19740.0.html

We used it on Heroes and Villains and Fall Breaks and Back to Winter and put it in our storage rehearsal place - we might still have it!

Just made a couple fun discoveries, curious if anyone has any more fun stuff like this to share.

In watching the 1966 Good Vibrations promo music video, I'd always noticed an old car (maybe a Jaguar or Morgan convertible?) that conspicuously stood out in a shot of a lady playing with a ball. (Is that Barbara, the other Rovell sister, by the way?) It was an unusual, expensive car even then, so I always figured that someone associated with the band probably owned it.

That's an MG TC. The one seen in the video is probably Mike's indeed, but it probably wasn't a particularly expensive car anymore in 1966 (Mike's TC is a 1948 model - he still owns it).

The flipside of this is that you also have someone like Gary Glitter:

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/legal-and-management/6273999/why-convicted-child-sex-offender-gary-glitters-hey

Mike didn't do what Gary did, but Mike is supporting someone who arguably did (or bragged about doing) things that many people consider to be in the ballpark of disgusting as Glitter. Not involving kids, but assault is assault. It's not a good connection to have.

Comparing an off color comment made in (seemingly) private to child molestation is the kind of hysteria I'm referring to.

Just felt this needed to be quoted again. I'm tired of seeing "But Trump brags about sexually assaulting women!!!" comments.



Also, and I approach this subject with a certain degree of caution, as someone made many people go nuts by posting a similar comment in the thread in which Steve Desper had simply made an interesting observation about the similarities between Trump's and the Beach Boys's shows: consider Dennis Wilson.

A man who hung out with Charles Manson, repeatedly made racist comments (see the Gaines book), once snuck into a morgue to push in the nose of a corpse (see Mike's book), had a baby with his cousin's alleged daughter, used and abused drugs, had sex with a prostitute so he could record it on tape, and the list goes on.

And yet I see nothing but praise for his work, especially on this very messageboard.

I obviously wasn't talking only about this. I read this board, you know. I don't even need to provide anything apart from the link rab2591 posted above, as that single page shows just how much you like guesstimating, "twisting around", and how when proved wrong it suddenly "shouldn't be an issue" to you. What's more, the page we're currently on shows that when asked for a "clear, detailed example", you reply with "it's quite likely [...]" and fail to come up with an actual fact. I could see that one coming from miles away, and seeing it tells me I need to stop arguing with you as you can't have a rational discussion.

Also, that link is interesting but doesn't provide much evidence, to be honest. I can instruct my attorney to tell pretty much anything about me, even false information. I was hoping for a much more detailed process explanation. Even if the shortly summarized process is to be believed, the mere fact that the emails weren't actually read shows the process wasn't thorough enough. So my point stands.

I would usually agree with you, but Emily is a special case who, as I recall, has a history of presenting things as facts when they're nothing more than opinions (and who doesn't come up with sources when asked for them).

That's false. I have often provided sources when challenged.

I would replace "often" with "rarely" from what I've seen. For instance, I'm still waiting for this one.

You were inconsistent above, in this thread, in your twisting around trying to put down someone who you find irritating.

This doesn't make any sense. Twisting around is what I criticized you for (by providing a clear, detailed example). Again, please explain how I was "twisting around". By providing a clear, detailed example.

You are the one who's being inconsistent.

Interesting. Where was I inconsistent?

In my opinion*, it's usually unnecessary to say "in my opinion" because that's generally obvious to the reader. The phrase is just a waste of space: obviously if a person is making some sort of argument, it's is an opinion. (If it is presented as indisputable fact, a person can always request sources.) And presumably that opinion is the writer's (though I guess it's also funny how many opinions tend to be almost verbatim talking points from media or politicians).

In short, if everyone involved can see it's an opinion, why waste the keystrokes?

*This opinion was adopted from a long-banned poster.

I would usually agree with you, but Emily is a special case who, as I recall, has a history of presenting things as facts when they're nothing more than opinions (and who doesn't come up with sources when asked for them).

Of course it's socially responsible to not fund those who support or do negative things.

In your original comment:

There are lots of people who will respond to The Beach Boys in the same way if they play Trump's inauguration. You say "if the music's good." A lot of people don't know the music's good and will never find out if they play the inauguration. If you want to call people who have a stronger sense of social responsibility "dumb," go ahead, but it doesn't make you seem smart.

You're absolutely not referring to the matter of paying or not paying in order to listen to music. You're clearly saying that the people who I think are "dumb", which means those who "avoid listening to an artist just because of said artist's supposed political views", have a "stronger sense of responsibility", meaning that people would be socially irresponsible if they listened to a band after they played the inauguration of a president said people didn't vote for. If it was a matter of money, you wouldn't have said "A lot of people don't know the music's good and will never find out", because these people could then download the music for free. As usual, you're being intellectually dishonest, by changing what you said. I'm not surprised.  

Im not sure Im.go so far as to say that Hillary was a "vastly superior" candidate.  

I support Trump, and I'll at least admit he wasn't even the best candidate in his own party.

Emily would greatly benefit from ending every single statement she makes with "...in my opinion".

Bottom line is, you may have a better ability to do that than some other people. And good for you. I mean that non-sarcastically, too. I am often able to do that also, but I don't begrudge people who feel differently, and as I mentioned before, it's really both petty and needlessly divisive to call them "dumb". You can stand on your high horse all you want and refuse to back down an inch from claiming this is a perfectly fine blanket label for others, but you have not walked in the shoes of countless people from innumerable backgrounds/life experiences who you label as such. It's simply uncool and not right.

Whether you want to admit it or not, name-calling like that is contributing to the awful divide in this country right now. Snicker at that if you want to, but it's the truth. Not trying to sound sanctimonious, but what the world needs now is less ugly blanket statements about groups of people as a whole. Label people as "misguided" all you want if you feel that way, but don't claim they are literally lacking IQ points.

Fair and understandable point. I don't see you criticizing Emily for labeling 62 million US citizens as "morons", however.

(Also, I'll just add that I am not a US citizen - not that it should change much to what has been said.)