I think it's really just an indication of how "faceless" the Beach Boys are compared to say, the Beatles or Stones etc. Photoshop in Paul and Ringo to this picture and tour as "The Beatles". The public would simply not accept that, it would be an outrage.

They could certainly do these pictures better ha. I would say simply having Al there would add such tremendous authenticity and credibility. They could have Mike, Al & Bruce kind of forefront- then the backing band sort of in the shadows in striped shirts or something ... and with a higher degree of style in the image itself.  Not saying that's a great idea but ... the way they do it now is really tacky.

But my personal opinion is I just fundamentally disagree with this group being called The Beach Boys. But I've had 23 years to get used to it at this point. I saw the Beach Boys in 1992, 1993, 1996, and 2012. I don't see the BW solo shows and I don't see "The Beach Boys". The real deal, when they are together- is magic.

Thanks Dean!

I get what Bruce was saying here. Not sure I really agree, but it’s sort of the last truly GREAT Brian Wilson song that was still kind of part of the classic era. As in, it’s as good as anything that came before it in many ways. I think there are tons of songs that came after that I prefer, but I do think it makes sense.

To answer the question- there are plenty of classic that came after. “California Feeling”, most of the Love You album, “Good Timin”.

The last great Brian Wilson songs in my opinion are “Melt Away” and “It’s Not Easy Being Me”.

Second clip w/ more of a Beach Boys connection:

https://youtu.be/lHnWb4B4TSA

Finished up my first new set of recordings in a few years- a minimalistic “1960s songwriter demo” album called Dandelions.

This was recorded all analog into a 1966 Ampex 602 suitcase recorder, on NOS tape.

Album release on June 29 (cassette and download); First promo clip is here:

https://youtu.be/9RjTK1VITT0

Album info here: http://magichero.bandcamp.com

Let me know what you folks think!

This was a Sunset Sound Botnick track, no mention of compressors so who knows ... but based on the simplicity of the recording arrangement, I’d say it seems unlikely:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mixonline.com/recording/classic-tracks-turtles-happy-together-365864%3famp

Maybe someone could email Botnick.

I don’t hear the drums as compressed on “Happy Together”, maybe “She’s My Girl” but I’m not sure even that one is. Definitely on the final mixes and vocals in both cases though IMO.

The west coat folk rock type records that come to mind for me are Turtles, Mamas & Papas, PF Sloan/early Grass Roots, stuff like that. To me that is very much in line with the lack of compression on individual elements but used on vocals and final mix. Tracks like “You Baby”, “Where Were You When I Needed You”, etc. These are very different from the Byrds compressed 12 string sound, and to me that is the sort of standard or normal west coast ‘60s folk rock studio sound.

I think the Monkees would be th early example of a West Coast group beginning to sort of utilize techniques from the Beatles/UK. This was everywhere by 1968. I don’t hear much of it before 1968, and I don’t hear it as an across the board thing for the Monkees (just some key tracks).

I believe the technical distinction between limiting and compression is the ratio. But in practice, I hear compression as a slower, more gradual effect and limiting to be this sort of harder, tight sound. The LA2A is not an aggressive sounding piece of gear as far as my experience. The 1176 is pretty aggressive sounding. Though of course either can be used however anyone wants it to be. I don’t honestly know if the “compressor” on the Byrds 12 string sound is a limiter or not but it’s certainly a more extreme setting than say, anything you’ll hear on Forever Changes.

Yeah it's interesting that the 1176 is a more extreme sound when I feel like the 176 is such a beautiful light touch.  The LA-2A is really chill, you've gotta hit it so hard to make it sound like "an effect."  But the LA-3A is a little edgier.

Yeh I guess they’re both “compressors” for the most part ... I think I’m really talking about the change to the 1176 type sound (along with more individual, separate tracks and less reverb) that seemed to take hold around 1968.

The west coat folk rock type records that come to mind for me are Turtles, Mamas & Papas, PF Sloan/early Grass Roots, stuff like that. To me that is very much in line with the lack of compression on individual elements but used on vocals and final mix. Tracks like “You Baby”, “Where Were You When I Needed You”, etc. These are very different from the Byrds compressed 12 string sound, and to me that is the sort of standard or normal west coast ‘60s folk rock studio sound.

I think the Monkees would be th early example of a West Coast group beginning to sort of utilize techniques from the Beatles/UK. This was everywhere by 1968. I don’t hear much of it before 1968, and I don’t hear it as an across the board thing for the Monkees (just some key tracks).

I believe the technical distinction between limiting and compression is the ratio. But in practice, I hear compression as a slower, more gradual effect and limiting to be this sort of harder, tight sound. The LA2A is not an aggressive sounding piece of gear as far as my experience. The 1176 is pretty aggressive sounding. Though of course either can be used however anyone wants it to be. I don’t honestly know if the “compressor” on the Byrds 12 string sound is a limiter or not but it’s certainly a more extreme setting than say, anything you’ll hear on Forever Changes.

And not to be pedantic, but I think it’s worth differentiating compression and limiting. To me, the use of the limiter changing the sound and vibe of West Coast records in the late 1960s corresponds with the rise of the use of the 1176 unit. IMO this was a result of people chasing the Beatles sound and style of recording more than the Byrds’ guitar sound.

*Sorry, I think Nesmith said it was an 1176, and I assumed 176 because I was unaware of the 1176 being even available in 1967.

In any case, I have actually corresponded with Bones Howe in the past, and read old interviews with him. He did not use compression on anything but vocals from what I gave gathered, and probably a little on mixdown.

The compression angle is likely variable depending on the studio, engineer/producer, artist, and really just limitations of the day. I think it’s safe to say sessions which were recorded mostly live on the west coast did not feature much compression in general, other than vocals during the 4-track (and into 8-track a bit) era. I personally think you can kind of tell by listening, but the reality is the various elements were not really patched individually much in those days, and I don’t imagine studios had more than a couple limiters on hand.

This is to say I think the Byrds guitar sound thing was the exception rather than the rule. Though I do think the Monkees were maybe a little early to get into the Beatles-style of making records. Lots of UK records seem to have tons of compression everywhere, likely during each bounce stage etc. By 1968, we hear this happening on US records too and the sound begins to change. I’m thinking of things like Lemon Pipers “My Green Tambourine” as an example where this is really audible. Drums are limited to hell on Del Shannon’s “Charles Westover” record (1968).

What’s funny is the Murry was essentially bragging about how he was an integral part of the sound of the early records by (oddly) describing something any staff engineer could do. Not to discount the skills of an engineer but ... it’s kinda like saying “I was the guy tapping my foot to the metronome!” Sure it’s needed but it’s also not what made The Beach Boys successful. Not to discredit the teams that he was referring to either- clearly a team effort at play but also clearly something that was essentially based on Brian Wilson as a visionary.

I don’t think compression was used much on West Coast records in the ‘60s, except on vocals. Bones Howe mentioned in an old interview that there was no compression used on the Association “Windy”, except the vocals. Surprising to me was that he mentioned they did not use limiting on the 45 master either- possibly a couple dbs here and there.

There are some notable exceptions of course. I know the Monkees Pisces Aquarius record has a lot of 176 limiting on there.

Thanks for the hipping to this ... gonna buy it.

Right, and asking again what I did on the previous page, how does one quantify such a thing as image/likeness or persona? That's where it gets kind of weird to be honest. With the other deals, BB's, Simon, Dylan, etc, you have a marketable commodity in the catalog of proven hit songs which can be bought and sold, and also projected as to earning potential in the future. But sh*t, how much is the *notion* of an artist actually worth and how can it be valued? And will that artist have veto power so he or she doesn't end up as a classic image of themself on a poster selling Whoppers for Burger King?

Of course there is a lot of inside baseball and reams of legal documents the public can never see with these deals, but if more artists are selling in the way Linda sold, I can't fathom how a valuation would be made on someone's likeness.

And in Linda's case, I believe her biggest hits were written by other writers, so is there a provision in the contract and deal where those writers have a say in how the song is used too?

Again, I'm envisioning a hypothetical where the chorus of Linda's hit "You're No Good" gets used in a political ad to bash an opponent - right? - and someone in the ownership chain of that song who isn't included in Linda's deal says they don't want their song used in that way. I'm sure there are provisions, but still worth considering.

I think the Burger King Whopper example is probably exactly it. I would tend to think of it as an artist being a “brand” at this point. Maybe we’ll see Linda Rondstadt headbands at Target ?

In this age where making money in music is not much about music anymore, these icons are probably projected to be the biggest moneymakers of all. The music industry is getting weird. Artists can’t tour, they haven’t been able to sell physical media in large numbers for awhile now. If you look at The Beatles or Lennon, their teams have been doing this stuff for a long time. Yellow Submarine toys, etc ...

Isn't the simple answer to all of this that if you want the original, then buy the original. Scour eBay and hundreds of other sources until you get what you want. If you want pristine sound, albeit not quite what Carl (& Stephen did in mixing), buy a new release.

I'm not sure why people feel so "entitled", often to an impossible dream.

I personally do not believe it’s that simple, no.

What would be the most simple is the multi tracks don’t exist and we just have the original masters (this is the case for a lot of catalogs- one prominent example is the Mamas & Papas. There is actually a partially remixed 1970 compilation which I find very interesting).

I think one point that Desper is making that is being glossed over is that record making in the 1960s-early ‘70s was not perceived how it is today. There was not a “record all the parts individually, and then later have a thing called a mixdown, then go back and tweak etc”. It was a process of getting the 1/4” mono or stereo master - that was the “performance” that was captured to tape.

I personally believe a consideration can be made to respecting the original work and the time in which it was created.  Additionally, the paradox of choice may come into play also- the concept that more choices tends to lead to less satisfaction.

“I look at sound like a painting, you have a balance and the balance is conceived in your mind. You finish the sound, dub it down, and you’ve stamped out a picture of your balance with the mono dubdown. But in stereo, you leave that dubdown to the listener - to his speaker placement and speaker balance. It just doesnt seem complete to me." -Brian Wilson

^ great post!

Geez, I mean, at this point debating whether *anything* other than original mixes should be released is like debating whether movies should be remade, or whether Dylan should ever plug in an electric guitar. These things all happened a thousand years ago already, and we all survived.

Overdubbing *new* material onto old BB tracks 60 years later is kind of an extreme example, and different from simply remixing vintage tracks, although even in that case with the symphonic album it was presented as a new, updated project where it's patently obvious *new* overdubs have been added. That was the whole crux of the project, that new overdubs were added. They haven't reissued the original albums with those symphonic overdubbed versions subbed in or anything.

But backing up, is anybody still really apprehensive about *remixing* old tracks? The original mixes/versions are almost always still readily available. If you don't like remixes, you can pass.

Geoff Emerick's legacy is just fine; Apple has gone to great lengths to make sure the original mixes remain *the* main versions still out there, and that they remain available.

Similarly, Desper needn't worry. Like Emerick, the original work he did not only is still there on the raw multitracks even when they *do* remix the stuff. And, his final original mixes remain available.

Well, I'm personally not commenting on whether or not they should be done ... but there is certainly room for opinion/interpretation in what they are when they are done. Sorry, but to some people (including myself): applying a digital reverb in place of an original chamber, or replacing the performance of the original hand on the lead vocal fader during the final dubdown is very much akin to adding a new overdub. You could argue that the reverb in some original mixes is more noticeable in the final result than whether or not someone replaced a rhythm guitar, for example.

Though I'm not stating that remixes should not be done at all, I think there is validity in that concept as well. The Pet Sounds stereo mix, for example, has been on the market now for almost as long as the original mixes were prior to the stereo remix. And we now have plenty of examples of the stereo mix replacing the original mono mix- in fact, IME it's just as common (if not more common) to hear the Carl tag on "God Only Knows" or the Brian bridge on "Wouldn't It Be Nice" when these songs are played in public settings, etc.

The biggest miss I've found in archival releases is there's a noticeable lacking of vintage working or alternate mixes- a few have come out here and there, and to me- these are far more interesting than any remix.

The entire purpose of archival releases like this is to "tamper" with the recordings. There will likely be backing track, vocal only, and other alternate mixes included in the box, all created from the multitracks. When the box set releases, original copies of Sunflower and Surf's Up (which are everywhere, as they've been reissued dozens of times) will not disappear. What's the purpose of this mentality? The original mixes of both albums may appear on the box as the mono mix of Pet Sounds did in 1997, or they may not. What difference does it make if we all have the albums and have heard them plenty of times?

To some extent, I'm sympathetic to both sides of this debate.  On the one hand, there is the concept of artistic integrity. The idea is that there was this creative process all those decades ago, and certain choices were made in the creative process, and those choices should be respected to the extent possible.  Geoff Emerick reportedly used the example of a cowbell on one of the tracks, saying that Lennon-McCartney had asked him to make it sound like something other than a cowbell, and he did, and they were happy with it... and then Giles Martin comes along 50 years later and makes it sound exactly.... like.... a cowbell.

On the other hand, where is really the harm?  The fans get something they'll enjoy; the musicians (or their estates) cash in; the record labels get a product they can sell during a period of great challenge for their industry.   The old mixes are available to those who want them. If you get over the notion that what these musicians did a half-century ago is somehow sacrosanct, it's a win-win-win.

I think the modern remixes etc are interesting, but it depends on whether or not you consider the mix to be integral to be original performance- I personally do.

An analogy is the guitar solo on “Goin to the Beach”. This is a new performance on a vintage BB track. Modern remixes etc are comparable IMO. If someone added a second vocal to “You Still Believe In Me”, is this  “tampering”, or is this a cool new way to hear the song? Perhaps the best example I can think of is that more recent symphonic album, where the tracks were almost completely redone. To some, a remix is similar- so I think if you approach it from that standpoint, you might understand the position of people like myself as a fan and Desper as a creator. In Desper’s case, this area was one of his primary contributions.

I’m reading the Making of Pet Sounds, the album liner note of the Pet Sounds Sessions released in 1997. Here’s the thing, Mike Love said about a booth in Studio 3 at Western Recorders, and Brian also mentioned ‘the booth’ when recordingPet Sounds in the David Leaf interview. But as I remembered, Studio 3 was a rather small studio, so I doubted if ‘a booth’ did exist in the studio. And when I watched several EastWest Studios virtual tours on YouTube, the narrator always said there was no booth in Studio 3. And I’m quite confused right now. Did a booth exist when The Beach Boys recorded Pet Sounds? And if there was one, what was that booth used for? As an isolation booth? Or some other uses?

I would think by "booth", they mean the control room maybe? What is the context of the quotes?

Maybe we’ll finally get Record Store Day vinyl releases of Lei’d in Hawaii and Adult Child.

I do think this is actually possible in a sort of alternate scenario, if a few key things played out:

1. Smile really would have had to have been finished and released before Sgt Pepper.
2. Best of Vol 2 would not be released.
3. A Jack Rieley-type character would have needed to come on the scene around the same time.
4. This Rieley type would have changed the direction of the band to go in the Surf’s Up vein as early as 1967-8, and ensure the group perfoms at Monterey.

Basically, all of the things that happened in 1970-71 would have needed to happen in 1967-8. Then the band calls it quits around 1971.

I personally don’t think this alternate scenario would have given us better records though. I like the ones we got.

Woah

In reality, the paste over would have been Best of The Beach Boys, Vol 2 ...

Smile was officially cancelled in May ‘67, and best of Vol 2 seems to have been released in response 2 months later. Smiley Smile didn’t come until September.

*they have not leaked any unreleased snippets from 1971.

While I’m the first to call out how lame it is that Mike/“The Beach Boys” are associated in any way with Trump, I think the “Mike and Trump are similar” angle is a bit much, and not based in reality.

While Mike is often cast as one of the biggest villains in the town full of heroes & villains- I don’t believe Trump and Mike seem too similar aside from that kind of ego thing of seemingly having a tough time admitting you’re wrong, and placing blame on others.

What sets them apart in my observation is that Mile is ultimately a spiritual guy and an emotionally sensitive guy. Trump I believe might be an actual sociopath. I can’t envision Trump being a vegetarian, singing “All This is That”, and meditating. Let’s pause for a moment and the consider Mike Love, the artist that we admire in this way.

My theory- Mike liked being involved in “presidential” stuff again, and the pickings were so slim for the Trump camp, that the Trump era was the first time in many years Mike was able to place himself in a prominent position as being associated with a sitting President.