I'd love to sit down with Joe Thomas (yeah, like that's ever going to happen) and put a few pointed questions to him, in particular "exactly how long after Jeff Beck bailed on the collaboration did you start calling the likes of Deschanel and Del Ray ?"

Since the questions are "pointed", are we to assume that you don't approve of one musical collaboration for which you've heard 10 seconds of video...

You've obviously not read my comments on this clip either here or on the Bloo, or you wouldn't be making any such woefully uninformed assumption. FYI, I've stated that you cannot possibly make any sensible assessment from such a minute sample. So I haven't.

As for questions being pointed, that's as in relevant, i.e., why does the live album sound so bloody awful ?

I've read your comments but the "Can't judge a 9 second clip" statement you made doesn't negate the most recent statement which is drenched in judgement and indictment. Also, I'd like to have a go at the pedantic game. Relevant has nothing to do with "pointed".

Pointed, adjective: (of a remark or look) expressing criticism in a direct and unambiguous way.

So, in directing your hypothetical "pointed" (aka, critical) questions about Joe's decision (and we don't really know that it was his) to call in Zooey and Co., in what way have you not already assessed and judged the material we've only heard 9 seconds of?

Why does every imagined interaction always have to have some negative implication for the people involved?

Why do you think that's so, meaning WHY people have negative implications?

Some of it is based on precedent but I think there is more at play here that reflects on some of the posters more than anything. Let's not get any more personal than that. Deal?

I'd love to sit down with Joe Thomas (yeah, like that's ever going to happen) and put a few pointed questions to him, in particular "exactly how long after Jeff Beck bailed on the collaboration did you start calling the likes of Deschanel and Del Ray ?"

Since the questions are "pointed", are we to assume that you don't approve of one musical collaboration for which you've heard 10 seconds of video compared to another musical collaboration you've heard non-original music from in a live setting on YouTube? Are we to infer from you're asking these "pointed" questions of Joe, rather than Brian, Melinda or anyone else involved in the project, because you're assuming that Joe alone made these decisions, without the full acquiescence of Brian and his team?

Isn't it possible that some of the decisions just arose and evolved naturally in the context of Brian's creative process? Why does every imagined interaction always have to have some negative implication for the people involved?

Here's how I imagine that things happened:

Maybe Brian decided he didn't like how things were jiving with Jeff musically. Maybe a few months later he said, "Boy, I love how Al and Blondie's vocals are sounding but I'd also love to have a female vocalist on this record like Taylor."

"Okay, Brian...Hmm...What do you think of us calling in Zooey Deschanel? She's a good singer, we know her and you liked what she's done last time you listened. Also, she doesn't live in Texas and has that tv show now...That might get us some more PR for the album. What do you think?"

"Zooey! That's right, her music reminds me of the "50s on 5". I like her. Great, let's do it. Call her in here."

-----

And just to give a bit of perspective of how the music PR thing works, here's how Jeff, who has a collaborative tour with ZZ Top on the cards, recently described his own upcoming album: “It’s almost like if you went to Turkey and came across a rabid bar band, but it’s more sophisticated.”

Because ya know, that makes sense.

Hey Starscream...can I bum another handful of quarters from you? I feel like playing another round.  

Now it's the writer of the RS piece who's the target. Unreal.

I hope those here who have worked in journalism can chime in to clarify some of how it works from the initial setup, to the interview/research itself, to the point where it actually makes the publication stage. There are only so many columns and words given to any piece, and what could have been a 90 minute interview gets broken down into a workable draft, then gets edited further by the publication who will print/publish it. This is unless you're self-publishing a blog or a newsletter with no restrictions on length or content.

As for the writer's "bias", what happens when any writer working the music beat down to the local papers gets contacted by an artist or their PR manager/agent to arrange an interview in relation to promoting an upcoming album or concert in that paper's area? You get a scheduled time saying basically "Artist X will be on the phone from 2:30 to 2:45 Thursday, here are some bullet points to discuss. And don't talk about this or this or that, the artist won't discuss this now...". It happens. It's also why perhaps the publicity "interviews" that appear in areas where a band like, say, The Beach Boys are performing often have the same set of questions and replies when Mike is on the phone, or as of a year ago when Al was out promoting his shows. Ever notice that?

It's part of the game everyone has to play when doing promotions and when writing for that kind of publication promoting an upcoming event or project.

Hell, I'd pay money to see and read a no-holds-barred interview with Mike Love, for one, where he can talk freely about things like Jones Beach, new projects, any feelings related to any of this stuff that's even on this thread and board in general. Is that realistic to read in, say, the Newark Ledger's "music beat" weekly arts section the week before he's coming to the area to play a show? Hell no. It's not part of the promotion. The "interview" or article is designed to sell tickets and promote the show, as it is in almost all of these cases.

So why is the RS piece about Brian's new album under a different standard? It's simply what is done, period, end of story.

Or in the last few pages here since it came out Friday, is it another case of not wanting to challenge what's actually said in the article (or not being able to...) so the writer himself gets called into question?

Let me see if I can find the interview just before Jones Beach, maybe we can contact that writer and ask them why not a word was mentioned about Al Jardine considering his non-appearance seemed pretty significant to a number of fans here, yet *nothing* has been said about it.

Yeah, I'll go with that for now...the part about not wanting to or being able to challenge the actual words written.

But you don't see any articles blaming Brian for any situation that Mike's in or anything he's doing ..... And all Mike does is praise Brian in interviews ..... Not that any/all Mike interviews don't get raked over the coals on this board. But that's all fine and good when it's Mike.

Really? He never mentions the drug use or Brian's "people"?

[Stars & Stripes]

Jason wrote about Brian's album last fall, and never mentioned any guest artists besides Al, Blondie, Dave, and Jeff Beck.  If it's such big news now, you would think he would have mentioned it back then, nor did he mention any plans of contemporary recording artists being part of the album...

You're forgetting that the current version of the album is the 4th incarnation. They weren't mentioned because they weren't part of the gameplan back then.

1 - next BB album
2 - straight BW solo set
3 - Wilson/Beck collaboration
4 - Brian's version of Stars & Stripes, albeit with original material

Very good point AGD.

Yes, regarding the Stars & Stripes analogy, I was getting a deja vu feeling with Joe Thomas producing, Matt Jardine brought in for the high parts, and "guest star" lead vocalists. Maybe Jeff Beck will turn out to be the Rodney Crowell of the project.

With Kacey Musgraves, I'm remembering some TV show around the Imagination era that featured Brian Wilson, Deana Carter, and I think even JOE THOMAS! Actually I think the show was pretty good; I videotaped it; I think it was on a Country TV channel or something. Man, Joe and Brian don't forget anything, do they?

Except these songs aren't thirty year old hit songs that everyone knows.

So, like Wirestone said, absolutely nothing like Stars and Stripes.

You people have it ALL wrong. It's Brian's "A Postcard from California" which was AL's "Stars and Stripes" because some of the guest artists involved occasionally sang with a slight twang in their voice throughout their respective careers.

May I note that not a single person on this board has heard more than a 10-second iPhone clip from this album?

... Apparently not.

Brian Wilson is not perfect, but he's no idiot. He can still write, arrange, sing and play. He's making a new record, and hopefully it will have some good tunes on it. He's worked with some younger singers, and folks involved feel positively about how the project is evolving (including folks from the outside like Ray Lawlor and Don Was, who have nothing to gain by lying to fans about a record's quality). So what is the problem?

It's going to be a splashy record, with big-name guests, released to coincide with a movie and book. It's a 21st-century multimedia extravaganza. It's why someone like Joe is still involved (making trains run on time), and why Brian still has a major-label deal. So I look forward to rolling with it and seeing what happens.

I think the problem with most of us who's expectations for the album are somewhat tempered, is just a nagging feeling that Joe Thomas is up to tricks that are not exactly in line with presenting the best Brian possible .... Given Brian's history, these are not illogical concerns. Like Savonarola with Botticelli, such situations don't generally end well.

I think we all have different reasons for coming to the same conclusion.... personally, I don't have a problem with Joe Thomas because I dont' think he's the one pulling the strings... to be honest, I have more of a problem with Brian writing something like "The Last Song"... AGAIN.  Yet again we get Sad Brian (cute little trademark symbol my keyboard doesn't have).  Sad Brian (TM) pops up and all the hipsters go crazy. 

I guess I can appreciate it from a "Hey, Brian's screwing Hipsters out of money again because they're so easy" point of view, but He's doen this, at the end, of every album, for the past 10 years, right?  He worked up Smile to put Good Vibrations on the end and made it sound like he was singing from beyond the grave or something, he put "Goin' Home" on the end of TLOS to tell us about how he'll be dead soon... he put "When You Wish Upon A Star" at the end of the Disney album and made it sound like a funeral Dirge.... on the end of That's Why God Made The Radio he put "Summer's Gone" which again, is very beautiful but is another "I'm dying" song.  Now we get "Last Song" which I suppose is again about Brian dying.

I'm with Mike on that one.    I know.  It sucks.


I love that the guy's writing new stuff (I thik he is), but motherfucker, can he give us an "I'm still Alive" song instead of a "I'm Almost Dead" song every once in awhile?

/rant off

I hate to tell people that their opinion is wrong, but I think you're ignoring quite a number of songs from Brian in the past 10 years that feature uplifting lyrics and uplifting vocals. Just off the top of my head Morning Beat, Oxygen to the Brain, Spring Vacation, and plenty more. All of these songs say "I'm still alive" pretty loudly.

It's fairly typical for the last track of an album to be more reflective, whomever the artist. But are you really criticizing a 72-year old artist, who has struggled with some form of depression for much of his adult life, for writing reflective music as his career and life winds down? I think it's fair to say we've had more than our share of uplifting Brian Wilson music over the past 50 years that we can "forgive him" for a few reflective songs at the end of his recent albums.

To be clear, the lack of U.S. distribution isn't really that big of a deal. If Brian Wilson wanted a VOX Continental in 1964, JMI would've found a way to get him one. The issue is simply that Brian is unlikely to have heard of it since it didn't really feature prominently on any big hits until "The House of the Rising Sun" came out, which was after the sessions for "Don't Back Down".

Hey, keyboard experts - what is the general opinion regarding the organ on "Don't Back Down"...is it a Hammond? Convential wisdom and expert opinion dictates that a Hammond was used on other ASL songs such as "I Get Around" and "Wendy"...and from what I've been able to determine, the famous mid-'60s "transistor" type organ didn't exist until '65 (a year later), but those of you with access to the session should listen to the track labeled "Don't Back Down (Rehearsals)" - specifically at the 0:32 mark - and tell me it's not a classic transistor organ through a tube amp sound? Maybe not, maybe a Hammond can absoultely sound that way, especially through a Leslie speaker. Opinions please?

Don't have that session handy at the moment but the VOX Continental came out in 1962 so it's not impossible that there would've been a transistor organ available. Combo-organ.com is a great reference.

I posted this recently in another thread (or maybe this one?!), but I'd love to see Brian work with a bunch of artists as producer/arranger and do a  "Artist X, Presented by Brian Wilson" series. I've got a few artists off the top of my head that I think he'd do some really cool stuff with, provided he actually communicated with them in the studio. 

He's actually a pretty decent singer most nights. Maybe the sea air got to him (I'm only half kidding).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBCtl1jXHUQ

I'm not sure why people are saying Matt Jardine didn't do well on Don't Worry Baby. I like this performance and it's certainly better than any version Jeff did, in my humble opinion.

I think everyone has been complimenting Matt's performance of it, actually! 

I found the two fer brother records 70's vinyl reissue of "Wild Honey" and "20/20" and basically my question is, are they using the same masters as used on the original Capitol Vinyl? basically if I buy it will it be as if I bought the capitol versions as far as sound goes? thanks..

As a vinyl nut, to my ears, these two-fers sound much superior to the original issues.... Though this could be due to the original album issues I own being in lesser physical condition than the two-fers. It might be a simple as those limited issue two-fer discs simply as being more recent vintage and were never played as much.

I just picked up the twofer in question over the weekend and to my ears 20/20 sounds phenomenal compared to other masters I've heard...

I like Jeff Foskett's singing.  His solo albums are wonderful.  Especially Thru My Window.  That album is chock full of excellent tunes with great vocal performances.  But Matt Jardine's falsetto just feels like it belongs better in a Beach Boys stack.  It has the yearning quality of early Brian.  A bit more of the whine that carries much of the emotion for me.  I have heard Foskett, Kirsch, Baker and Matt Jardine live in person (where it counts) many many times over.  All very talented folks.  Matt would be my first choice if I could choose a dude for the high vocals in a fantasy Beach Boys line-up.  KittyKat's comments seem a bit odd not to realize what an important role Matt is stepping into (quite beautifully I might add).  To call his vocals "adequate" is nonsense. 

I think this sums it up. If you watch Jeff sing "Don't Worry Baby" live, he usually has a smile on his face (and who could blame him?!?). That smile tends to translate to the vocal delivery. Everything about that song is teen angst, and when Jeff's smile carries over to the way he delivers the vocals, something seems slightly off. Of course if I were singing "Don't Worry Baby" on-stage with one (or more) of my lifelong idols, I'd probably have a sh*t-eating grin plastered on my face each night, too...

Anyway, Matt seems to get a bit more emotional in his delivery where appropriate, and you can hear it.

To my ears the Hop Farm version sounded a lot harder than the Family and  Friends version and indeed the Blondie version from last year( although I can only confess to having heard clips via this board). I was stunned at the sheer  wall of sound generated by the band - there was also a heck of a lot going on vocally behind the lead vocal as well). Matt' s performance of it was closer to something out of some sixties soul band than anything else but as  I said in my review of the show the band sounded much more gritty and earthy to than previous times I have seen them. It has made me wonder a little if this heavier sound is something that might be replicated on some of the new tracks on Brian's new album given Joe Thomas' references to Wild Honey and CATP. In a general sense I wonder if Matt is going to bring a little more versatility to the table than Jeff and  that's why a change has taken place.

Well, Jeff quit, he wasn't fired, and I'm sure the album tracks, whatever they wind up being, were designed well before Matt Jardine was brought on board. I don't think Matt is that dramatically better than Jeff Foskett. From what I've heard of him over the years, he's adequate, but he's not the second coming of Smokey Robinson or something.

How would you possibly know which songs took what form before or after Matt sang on them? We haven't heard one note of the album yet. Additionally, even if the entire album was recorded and nearly finished before Matt set foot in the studio, how would that impact how he sounds singing on them?

Whatnot, whatever. Point is, folks are saying the Brian band sounds dramatically better and I seriously doubt Matt Jardine makes a difference one way or the other.  I'm sure it would be the same if Jeff were there. It's the same band.

In general, he sounds more youthful than Jeff (which makes sense) and he has a different delivery. So yes, the instrumentation is the same, but the vocal mix is decidedly not. I haven't seen Matt with Brian's band (other than he 8 videos currently on YT), but I did see him with Al's band and his vocals really brought quite a bit to the show.  

No. Brian doesn't live in the past unless he's reminded of it.

Well that's kind of a curious response. Wouldn't releasing an album that was in fact from his past be the very definition of "living in the past"?

From the interview:

"A newly recorded version of Smile is in the make. These days Brian has to do the vocals and he is "nervous as
....". Because now all the memories are coming back from the sixties. 'Sometime it takes me two hours to do one line.'"

----

Which part of that statement suggests that he wasn't stressed about the recording and eventual release of Smile?

It's also worth pointing out that this was right in the midst of the Smile stuff, which would've contributed significantly to the pressures that weighed on his minds on a daily basis at that time.

The transcript is dated from August -- Smile wasn't actually released until more than a month later, they may well still have been doing overdubs around that time.  They'd had the first concerts by then, but the main item on the interview agenda was GIOMH.

So yeah, not surprised Brian was disengaged around that time.  It's still painful to read him on a downswing, though...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

The sessions wrapped in June and while Brian was in London the following month the final mix was sent over a hi res link for approval. Thus BWPS wasn't a factor in August. It was done and dusted.

Right, so the Smile album was about a month+ from being released. Do you think Brian might have felt any stress about the upcoming release of an album that had already been dubbed "the greatest album ever" for the prior 37 years without it actually being released? Is it possible that the anticipatory stress may have been weighing on him, while also being out promoting another album? 

Videos I found from Hop Farm today since there isn't a thread for that show:

Sloop John B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM8g-AU74v0

Do You Wanna Dance?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk-EyIcao5E

California Girls: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AAE8-LaYug

Yikes, Brian sounds pretty rough on California Girls.

I've noticed that on most of the gigs I've seen him at in recent years...I think it's because it's usually the opening song and he's probably getting a feel for the monitoring system.

On a related note, he looks much thinner in the videos and photos that have surfaced thus far.

Since the other thread got so large I thought I'd make a new one for tonight's show. Very excited to see how things go! I'll provide as many updates as I can.

Speaking of this show...I had the ticket page opened up, selected two front row tickets in Orch A for $97 and the phone rang. Come back 5 minutes later and someone had purchased the tickets and put them back up for sale at $370 each. Unreal...

Looks awfully like what M&B played at Hampton Court last month.

I don't see too many people complaining about M&B setlists anymore. How many actual BB's singing the leads perhaps.

Hope to see Matt and Al survive until US dates later this year, though the former is much more likely.

I still think we'll see Al and potentially David back in the fold this fall. For as many times as certain people on this board have intimated that Al is "difficult" to work with, he and Brian have worked on three studio projects and gone on multiple tours together over the past decade. That strikes me that Brian and co. don't altogether mind having him around. And that doesn't even factor in hiring Matt to join his band...

[That's true. I was shocked he sang lead on WIBN, was hoping for Al]

Just read a review from an Irish newspaper's website which claimed Matt took most lead vox - is that accurate Shady?

That's true. I was shocked he sang lead on WIBN, was hoping for Al

I have to say matt impressed me. Beautiful singing and his version of wild honey was outstanding, very soulful, singing with the mic in his hand.

A highlight was the pet sounds instrumental turned into an extended jam, great job by the band, especially nelson 

Really??? Most as in 16 or more leads?

The journalist likely interpreted Matt singing the falsettos (which tend to be the dominant part of the harmony), as Matt singing more leads than he actually was. The notes on the setlist indicate that Brian handled most of the lead duties.

I found this response to be very interesting, though:

Brian: I can't make any decisions anymore. I also can't say no. I'm too weak, really I'm too weak. Everything has to be done for me.

Sheriff, I can see what makes that quote seem interesting, especially as it plays into one of the predominant narratives about modern-day Brian: that he can't and doesn't do anything and his management or handlers do everything. But speaking as someone with depression issues running through his family, the quote doesn't surprise me or strike me as especially important. I don't claim any authority here whatsoever, as everyone is different and I don't know Brian outside of the public persona and music--I'm just sharing my experience.

I have family members who are regular, productive members of society, holding down professional careers and living seemingly normal lives, who have said very similar things here and there when the depression is flaring up (or weighting them down). The dramatic, dark feelings come out and those are the sentiments you hear. Then what? Then they get dressed, go to work, go out with friends, and do all the same things everyone else does. It's an honest statement describing the moment's feelings--I'm worthless, I'm useless--but it passes. It wouldn't surprise me at all if that's all we're seeing there: Brian at a bad moment. (Not some glimpse into the "reality" of his puppet status, for example.)

One of the best posts I ever read here; a compliment is in order.

I know a couple of things about depression, and this is one of them. The brain is 'locked' in some fixed state, for the time being. It is thought that the messenger substance glutamate in the brain can, though it being present in too high states, create 'valleys', in which the patient is temporarily trapped; dark, ruminative states are the results, feelings of helplessness and guilt prevail, and self-accusation may occur. Verbal utterances are in line with this state.

But all of this is not representative of what normally constitutes personality and character of the subject in question, as you eloquently illustrate.

It's also worth pointing out that this was right in the midst of the Smile stuff, which would've contributed significantly to the pressures that weighed on his minds on a daily basis at that time. I hope people don't use this interview from 10 years ago, done during one of the more stressful periods of his life, as indicative of his daily existence now. There are plenty of interviews post-Smile where Brian speaks about the weight of the world being lifted off of his shoulders after the album came out.   

Yeah, they did sound generally very good. It sounded like a case of too many cooks spoil the both in terms of the vocals on Wouldn`t it Be Nice though.

So it wasn't just me? I think they wanted to make sure that it looked like Mike and Bruce were singing one of their most famous songs but it just ended up feeling a bit too busy.

Didn't love how the Boston Pops were added to the arrangements and the mix was a little off at times, but they sounded pretty good, particularly Mike's vocals on California Girls.

Yeah, I meant that the best course of action would be doing 30 dates a year with Brian rather than 100 without him. But allowing Brian to play with The Beach Boys whenever he pleases wouldn't work at all.

Bad business practice, cutting your potential income by 70%: everyone loses.

Brian allows him to do this by letting him keep The Beach Boys name.

Like Brian has the final say ? Nope, he has a 25% say. Just so happened Mike & Carl's estate sided with him.

First of all, 30 shows of The Beach Boys has much higher earning potential than 30 shows of Mike Love's Beach Boys. I'd go so far as to say that it probably has the ability to earn for BRI close to the earning power of Mike's configuration over 50 or 70 shows, at least. Why? VIP bundles, merchandise, larger venues with bigger promoter buy-ins, significantly more media coverage and a bigger uptick in related album/video sales. Plus, it's going back to BRI at a 100% rate, not 20%.

Imagine if they (meaning the BB as a group) did a run of 5 shows performing Pet Sounds + GH and another run of 5 shows of SMiLE + GH. You think they might get releasable material out of each of those runs that could make them a bit of money? You think it might get some press coverage? You think that might be how you cement a legacy? Anyone remember the last time the Beatles toured Sgt. Pepper or Revolver? The last time all of the members of Pink Floyd got together to perform Dark Side Of The Moon? Or the last time Led Zeppelin got together to perform IV?

Other benefits? Less time on the road for a bunch of septuagenarians. Less strain on their voices. "Artistic credibility". Riding gracefully into the sunset...You know, gracefully aging.

As far as the voting power, Brian currently has 1/3rd of a say if he sides with the status quo. That influence changes dramatically if he and Al can (depending on BRI bylaws) force a vote. He then has a much bigger say in setting the agenda to determine how they can move forward out of their deadlock.

The license decision was made a number of years ago in a vastly different landscape. Everyone assumes a vote to change the status quo would result in "Brian and Al want the license." I think a more likely change would be "At least 4 BB's on-stage for anyone to use the name 'The Beach Boys'." A subsequent license might lower the licensing rate to 10% if they agreed to tour as "Mike Love's Beach Boys", with BAD being able to tour as "Beach Boys' Family and Friends feat. Brian Wilson, Al Jardine and David Marks." If those changes were made then yes, you could easily get away with 30-40 shows of the Beach Boys touring for the summer and the other bands handling the smaller markets during the "off-season" with no one being "The Beach Boys" and with far less subsequent confusion.

They can change the status quo significantly with a decision that makes business and artistic sense.

Ya Iknow, maybe we're making too big a deal about this..... After all, Brian's had cart blanche regarding showing up or not since, what, 1963? So, now it's Al not turning up. But still the show goes on. That's just life and that's just The Beach Boys.

That was kind of my point in an earlier post. Al is getting raked over the coals by a few on this board and yet this is a (relatively) small blip in the grand scheme of allowances given to others in the band, particularly Brian and Dennis, over the years.

And more to the point, there's more to this story that we don't yet know.