I quite like the idea of Mike opening the doors Brian, Al and Dave permanently, even on his own terms. Clearly there are some major financial complications with that, but my view is that if Al or Brian want to perform as Beach Boys, they should be able to.

I can't see another C50 happening as it did, but perhaps Brian and Mike could make a deal - Mike continues to run the live show but incorporates Brian and Al into it, whilst Brian holds control over anything they opt to do in the studio. In practice that means Mike drops his issue over writing with Brian but keeps his live show the way he wants it, whilst Brian sticks to what he knows and enjoys best without having to take leads on the majority of songs in a live show. That's the best of all world's isn't it?

It'd probably not work out financially and Brian might not have any interest in touring at the rate Mike does, but in theory it seems like a workable compromise. It'd have the benefit of having the live shows covered by multiple primary vocalists and in an era where the guys are getting old, poses much less of a problem should someone take ill, lose their voice or injure their knee whilst inexplicably jumping during I Get Around.

I'd like to think that a deal made on that basis would eventually lead to a more varied set list and some greater involvement for Mike in terms of song writing, but with both happening in a natural way rather than through a forced compromise that neither part would be truly happy with.

[Quickly back to the Al thing, your statement implies Al didn't get the "majority vote" *because* he didn't want to pay the BRI license fee. I don't buy that at all. Al's case for a license or for being in the "Beach Boys" was dead before he had even departed the touring group. It's all in the Stebbins/Marks book; he already knew what was going on, and once he knew Dave was back "in" full time, Al knew he was scr]

It has been, in my view, those defending the status quo concerning the touring band who have implied greediness on the part of Carl's estate (and Brian for that matter). Or, if not "greed", than caring more about money than the brand/band/music, etc.

Quickly back to the Al thing, your statement implies Al didn't get the "majority vote" *because* he didn't want to pay the BRI license fee. I don't buy that at all. Al's case for a license or for being in the "Beach Boys" was dead before he had even departed the touring group. It's all in the Stebbins/Marks book; he already knew what was going on, and once he knew Dave was back "in" full time, Al knew he was screwed.

That temporary "non-exclusive" license malarkey wouldn't have panned out either way; it's a non-issue and didn't impact anything other than prolonging the inevitable. The idea of Carl's estate in 1998 to grant non-exclusive licenses may have been well-intentioned, but even if Al had secured such a license, an *exclusive* license would have been issued to Mike soon enough any way, both because that's clearly what Mike wanted all along, and they ALL would have eventually come to realize that having two bands touring as the Beach Boys would have been beyond confusing. The only thing it *may* have prevented was the 1999 injunction attempts against Al's band.

I was simply referring to the statement in the court document that BRI wanted Al to pay 17.5% to tour as The Beach Boys Family and Friends.

I completely agree that Al wasn`t going to tour in a group calling itself The Beach Boys but that was never part of the equation.

It is interesting that you talk about confusion over the name because there are obviously quite varied opinions about that on this board. Some believe that Al touring using that name caused so little confusion that he should have been able to use it for free for example...

Now the ideal financially for BRI would seem to have been for Mike to go out doing 100 dates while paying them 20% with Al going out playing how ever many shows they could as BB F&F and paying 17.5%. Obviously Al didn`t feel he could pay that so it became a moot point.

Wouldn't the ideal position for BRI be to have one touring Beach Boys unit and receive 100%? In my opinion the issuing of a license to one member of BRI was an enormous mistake that has damaged the Beach Boys reputation and weakened the brand.

I can't help but think that there have been periods over the last twenty years or so when there has been some serious  momentum behind the Beach Boys name. There was something of a renaissance of support centred around Brian's reputation as the 'genius' architect of the Beach Boys work, particularly around Pet Sounds and onwards. Brian and the Beach Boys have been name-checked and praised as influences by an enormous number of well-respected names in music, giving the potential to open them up to new generations of fans. That's continued on and off over the years but there's been next to no ability to capitalise on those opportunities because the visible and tangible representation of the Beach Boys has been Mike and Bruce. I don't say any of this as a dig at either of them, but the touring hits show featuring one original member (who's might almost be as famous for litigation as he is for his lyrics) isn't going to be something that can feed into or feed off any increase in critical reception and the potential for a growing fan base as a result.

Having a touring group that people would see and/or accept as THE Beach Boys would have allowed all sorts of opportunities for generating new fans and interest and therefore sales for BRI. In 2012 we had exactly that and it was an incredible success, with the Beach Boys appearing all over the place and having a top-3 album and rave reviews for the live shows. We didn't have that in 2004 when Brian finished Smile, we didn't have it in 2011 when the Smile Sessions box set came out and we didn't have a 2013 'Made in California' tour. I'm not saying they would have all been worthwhile or successful but it's clear that the Beach Boys lack the ability to drive any sort of campaign without a recognisable group touring or doing promotional work. I know some people will say that no-one knows or cares who anyone in the Beach Boys is except maybe for Brian, but I think that problem is self-perpetuating. If the touring entity is made up of one original member, people won't care who's on stage or take more that a passing interest in what the Beach Boys are doing. If seeing the Beach Boys means seeing every living member of one of the greatest bands of all time, maybe people will start to notice who's there and identify more with the people they see on stage. Then a Beach Boys shows is more of an event and something more significant.

All just my opinion, but it's hard to see how the license arrangements and everything that's happened since 1998 has really served anyone but Mike that well. The Beach Boys name has been spread thinly and is now weak as a result, through a billion different budget-priced compilations of hits and constant touring by Mike and a band. It should be allowed to return to a name that means something.

I feel  sorry for the people left behind. His three children and wife.

I expect to be flamed for opinion but so be it. Suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness and cowardice. Suicide wrecks the lives of those left behind.

We all know it wrecks lives and you can label it selfish or cowardly if you like, but that just gives the impression that you haven't even the vaguest understanding of the issues. I consider myself to be lucky to have had only very occasional and very brief bouts of depression and anxiety, but from even those brief moments of utter despair I can understand why some people end up seeing no alternative. I can't adequately put into words how I felt at those times, but feelings of utter despair, fear, helplessness and a total absence of hope or joy is about the best I can do (and as I said, I've been lucky in comparison to many people who have likely experienced these issues for much longer periods - I can only imagine how awful some people must feel). I'm lucky to have an incredible wife who was with me and just about kept me going until I felt better, but in my mind at that time there was only one way to stop those feelings of utter despair and fear. If I had to live a life like that, I'm not sure how long I'd be able to do it. It's not a rational act, so why judge people who do it as though it is?

I apologise if I've got you wrong here, I just struggle to understand your viewpoint. I think a little sympathy and understanding for someone who (seemingly) felt unable to live their life any longer seems in order. You can feel sorry for the people left behind without calling the person who took their own life selfish and cowardly. You might even feel sorry for all of them.

My sense is that the shift into permanent oldies territory happened during the 80's and continued into the 90's (and generally since then). There were still very varied and interesting set lists right into the late 70's. At some point though, almost anything good became an oldie because the standard of studio output dropped of a cliff in the late 70's. When everything is an oldie, it's easy to see why you'd just play the more popular ones.

At this point, I would guess that Mike is pretty locked into the oldies show in his role as the license holder. Whether it's in the terms or not, would the BRI shareholders be happy to keep Mike as the sole license holder if he went round the world touring Summer in Paradise?

From my perspective the general shift to a set primarily made up of oldies is a shame because there are big portions of the Beach Boys music that are massively under-appreciated. I know why it's mostly an oldies game, but I'd still prefer the lesser known material to get more of an outing, because some of it is incredible and a lot of people just don't hear it. To many people, the Beach Boys will always be that surfing/car group from the 60's and I think the set lists of the last 30 years or so simply reinforce that view. Again, there's a clear and sensible logic to giving people what they know, but I still wish there could be more of an attempt to demonstrate the wider range of Beach Boys music.

As for Stamos, I just find it a bit odd really. I'd almost prefer it if he became a permanent member of the touring band, rather than a regular special guest aimed at bringing in a bigger crowd. The latter motive seems strange, pretty desperate and not at all fitting for one of the greatest groups of all time. I'm one of the few who enjoys the SIP version of Forever (a lot) and I've got absolutely nothing against him at all. I just think the Beach Boys music should stand for itself, without the need for a celebrity guest.

We know that Al is keen to be "out there" performing the music that he loves and that he's worked quite a bit with Brian over the last three years, so perhaps he was interested in performing with Mike but not altogether happy with the manner of the approach or that it wasn't likely to be a regular thing and decided that working Brian was a better offer on any number of levels. It's probably fair to assume that he feels more loyalty to Brian and that he's on better terms with Brian than he is with Mike. It's probably all a sensitive area for Al, in that he presumably feels he should be entitled to tour with or as the Beach Boys and that being asked to play a show as a one-off is a bit like receiving an invite to your own party.

It's a typically shabby affair though and it's a huge shame that what could have been something of an olive branch has turned into yet another public disagreement of sorts. Al's announcement isn't unpleasant, but yet again it's something that could have been handled much better than it has been. Just say that you're not now able to play the show (or never were) but that it would have been a nice occasion and that you wish Mike and the rest of the band the best of luck for what you're sure will be a great show. Rise above it, keep things friendly and everyone's happy!

Plus, there is no guarantee that the last `Beach Boys` gig will feature any original members whatsoever...

That's a hugely unpleasant thought, but definitely not beyond the realms of possibility. In my view they've been playing it fast and loose with the Mike and Bruce show anyway (by using the Beach Boys name rather than in reference to the quality of the shows) and it isn't an unfathomable leap to consider a Four Freshmen type arrangement. The idea of a Beach Boys show with absolutely none of the originals wouldn't ever sit right to me, though. I hope that never happens and I hope they do have a formal last gig at some point. I like the idea that Mike decides to retire at some point and goes on one last tour to celebrate that fact, with Brian, Al and David on board for one last tour. That might be hugely unlikely but it'd be a nice way to finish things off.

Mike's "Good Night Baby" sort of borrows from earlier parts of the song and isn't much of a lyrical contribution at all in terms of words alone, but (and apologies if this has been covered already) .......... isn't the point that it changes the "story" told in the song and gives a resolution that didn't previously exist in the lyric? So that rather than being solely a story of a couple longing for an as yet unknown future together, it resolves at the end with that future realised in some way. That yearning for a future together has become a reality and they can now "say goodnight and stay together". We know that because Mike sings it at the end. For that reason alone, I think Mike deserves more credit than (say) the proportion of the words that he wrote.

Mike's lyrics in isolation don't mean much and would arguable not deserve any sort of significant credit, but in the context of Tony Asher's lyrics they then add significant meaning (for better or worse) and become quite significant in my opinion. They aren't an equal contribution to the rest of the lyrics but they are significant in some way.

No lost momentum, in my opinion.

Don't be so impatient. You can't make the plant grow faster by digging up the seeds to see if they've sprouted.

 

I'm not impatient, I just think that there was an opportunity for Brian to reach a wider audience with an earlier release. I could well be wrong though, obviously.

I'm still really looking forward to this, but at the moment it does look like quite a big missed opportunity in terms of publicity. Brian has had a reasonably good run of well received albums and then something of a relative hit in TWGMTR. The C50 tour put Brian back in the spotlight and even the unpleasant aftermath kept him in the press. There seemed to be quite a bit of press last summer about Brian touring solo with some of the Beach Boys, doing well-reviewed shows with Jeff Beck, working with all of those people in the studio on an album that had started to get a bit of coverage and was being talked up by various people. Then the whole thing gets put on hold for over a year! I'm far from an expert on these things but it does seem like last year would have been a good time to get a new album out to a wider audience and capitalise on the momentum he'd built up.

Maybe the bio will recapture some of that momentum but it still seems a shame to me. Given that there was talk of quite a bit of material being worked on (the 'three albums' thing), maybe there could have been enough material to finish an album last year whilst still leaving an opportunity for a second one later this year.

Does anyone know why they didn't release Soulful Old Man Sunshine at the time it was recorded? It's one of my favorites. I know Carl didn't like his "shunshine" mess up enough to exclude it from the Good Vibrations box set, but that's 20 years after the fact.

The Beach Boys didn't like the song, period - the reason Carl's 'shunshine' vocal remains in the mix is that he couldn't be bothered to go back and fix it.

The story goes - Brian writes the song with Rick Henn, Rick goes and records the track, then BW presents the track to the group, and the group do the bare minimum of work on it until they can't be arsed. They didn't even decide to mix it - the way we hear it is the culmination of Mark L & Alan B welding a bunch of disparate tapes together.

Actually not quite true -- the way we hear it is a version edited together by Rick Henn and Darryl Dragon -- hand-assembled using razor blades and splicing tape from various analog rough mixdown tapes in Rick's possession.  Back in the day Henn had Stephen Desper make him rough mixes of each day's work to take home.  That's why some sections have vocals panned center, some have vocals panned to the sides, etc. -- they were from mixes on different days.  Henn and Dragon's edit was submitted for consideration for the GOOD VIBRATIONS boxed set back in 1993, but rejected by the group -- some say due to Carl's vocal flub; some say just due to the bad memory of a session forced upon them at Murry's insistence, produced by Murry's protégé.  Stephen recalls the group being less than enthusiastic about it while working on it, and when Rick expressed his frustration that the group was not putting forth their best effort, it gave them the excuse to say "screw you" and walk out of the studio before it was completed.  Over on the Hoffman board Stephen said that as long as the tape remained in the studio there was always a chance that someone might pull it out and work on it, but once it was transferred over to the office tape vault, that was pretty much the kiss of death.

The various parties finally consented to allow it on the ENDLESS HARMONY soundtrack after Carl passed away.  The version on MADE IN CALIFORNIA is the same exact mix as was on ENDLESS HARMONY -- per Alan Boyd, he and Mark pulled the multitracks to consider re-editing / re-mixing it for MIC, but some vocal elements that were on Henn's work tapes were missing from the multitracks, so they left it alone.

Lee

Thanks for that. The last part about reviewing the tapes for MIC is interesting and new to me. I'd always wondered if a slightly better mix/edit might be possible, but I guess not. It's up there with my favourite Beach Boys tracks, it's just that the mix/edit can occasionally be a little bit off-putting (for the reasons you've explained above).

I think the one that makes sense is a Brian Wilson solo box set, or at least an expanded multi-disc compilation. There's enough unreleased material to make it work (far more unreleased material than there appears to still be for the Beach boys). There's the Sweet Insanity stuff and Paley sessions material that deserves release, countless demos from over the years (particularly if it covered solo performances of eventual Beach Boys material), presumably plenty of live material, various oddities which are only available as downloads or stand alone solo tracks on compilations (California Feelin, Rodney on the Roq), outtakes from solo album sessions, bonus tracks not included as standard on various album releases. There's plenty there that could make a really complete set. I'd wait until after Brian's next solo album and do it some time around the biopic's release. Something a bit like the recent Nilsson set might be good, discs of each released album with bonus material and then additional discs for rarities/unreleased material.

Can't see it happening, but it should!

Gershwin - Disney - That's Whay God Made the Radio : Three late period classics, a true return to form.

Absolutely agree with this. It's an incredible turnaround from That Lucky Old Sun onwards.

At some point post-GIOMH I may well have thought that Brian had become a disinterested and substandard singer with nothing new to offer (and I like GIOMH), touring with weak performances of Beach Boys hits backed by a good band who inadvertently emphasised Brian's flaws as a singer and performer rather than covered for them. At his age, with his problems and his track record, there wasn't exactly much to hope for from future output. I enjoyed BWPS for what it was but it still wasn't something to fill me with confidence in anything new and the follow up wasn't exactly thrilling. But since 2008 he's completely turned things around in my view. His vocals are very good again and sometimes excellent, studio work has been very well produced and there's been some great new material. His work over the last five years is really something to be proud of. I think Brian hit his stride with TLOS and has rediscovered his true home in the studio (with some apparently good live performances along the way). So I'm really looking forward to what comes next.

After GIOMH I pretty much lost interest for a while. I couldn't see what Brian had left to offer and although I enjoyed TLOS a bit (without listening too much to it) I didn't even listen to the Gershwin or Disney albums when they came out (partly due to low expectations and partly because I was so busy with other things in life). Two things changed for me:

1. The reunion and That's Why God Made the Radio - that made me take notice of Brian again, with good vocals, good performances etc.
2. My son got into Dumbo from 3-4 months old. I'd loved the film when I was young and put it on one day when he was due a nap and he was transfixed - he wasn't and isn't hugely into TV and doesn't sit through anything else for more than 5 minutes but he'll happily watch Dumbo right to the end. After rediscovering Dumbo I wondered if Brian had recorded anything from that on his Disney album, which led me to Baby Mine and then the whole album. His version of Baby Mine is fantastic and its a stunning vocal.

I might change the song choices slightly but by and large they're well-chosen, well produced and very well sung. My main complaint would be that 'A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes' was included only as a bonus track on some releases, which still puzzles me. It's one of the best recording of Brian's solo career - with the fantastic intro reminiscent of a sinister 'Sail on Sailor'.

The big thing here is not what happened, but who said and did what.

I think the big thing is not what happened, but what's happening now and into the future. It's not Mike's fault that Brian agreed to a fixed number of additional dates and nothing further and it isn't Mike's fault that Brian then changed his mind (that's only my understanding from what I've ready here - no idea if it's true). Equally, it isn't Brian's fault that Mike booked new dates for his touring band and couldn't or wouldn't then agree to do a further tour with the full line-up. Why does any of that matter now? They've both arguably handled the aftermath of it all very badly, but absolutely none of this would be difficult to fix. Mike could very easily have explained that he'd made other commitments lasting until (say) the end of 2013, but would be able to do a tour in 2014. Brian could have accepted that or chosen not to - either way they'd both have had the option of doing a further Beach Boys tour together. That's still true now. At one stage at least, Brian claimed that he was disappointed not to be able to continue the tour. Mike said it was Brian's choice to end it, but if they both wanted to book a tour they could do that now, next year, 2015 or whenever they want to.

Problem solved? Probably not, because all of the arguments about who ended the reunion are a distraction from what I suspect are more fundamental disagreements. I don't know exactly what they are, but Mike and Brian have the choice to work together or not and are choosing not to. Different perspectives on why they stopped working together in 2012 are largely irrelevant to that. Maybe it's the cost of a bigger band, more principles, bigger set-up. Maybe it's the set list, maybe it's family disagreements, maybe Mike's too jealous of Brian's hair - I haven't got a clue. But a full Beach Boys tour or even an occasional show is still an option for all concerned if they wanted to do it. Whether it'd be a good thing or not, I'm unsure of (although as someone who unavoidably missed seeing a C50 show and has never seen the Beach Boys live, I'd love to have the opportunity to in the future).

[Surf's Up]

Three points:

"Tears" isn't on Surf's Up...

Dennis drummed on "SDT"...

Has Jack ever so much as alluded to the existence of "(WIBNT)LA" ?

Not that I give much credence to the idea of Dennis being disgusted with SDT, but is it possible that the track was recorded for 'Riot In Cell Block #9', and later used as the track for Mike's new lyrics? Riot had been performed live through most of 1970 and after the first mention of a SDT session that I can see (on your excellent Bellagio site), but SDT seems to have replaced it around the time of the next session referenced for SDT. It's probably unlikely but is it possible?

I bet Brian's hurt he wasn't involved with SIP.

I think it is possible that Carl quit the 1996 album project (from the Paley sessions) out of hurt because he was once more not involved in the creative process. That would be totally understandable.

There's an interesting comparison between that idea and Mike's issues with TWGMTR. Carl hand been the touring band leader since Brian stopped touring, had been Brian's right-hand man in the studio during the sixties (or at least a key assistant/understudy/whatever you'd call it), became the group's strongest vocalist in place of Brian and was lead producer for a time up until Love You. Things got messy for a while after that and Carl withdrew and went solo for a bit, but returned on condition of more rehearsals etc (I think) and so in some ways I think he returned to a leading role whilst Brian remained absent. In some ways it seemed like he withdrew from being the studio lead again after '85, when the Mike/Melcher team seemed to take over. Many people in Carl's position might have taken the view that they'd held the band together, insisted on high standards for the group and found that those standards slipped when other people took control. In the late 70's Brian had returned, but his productions were sloppy and off-the-wall by Carl's early 70's standards. Carl's often described as a perfectionist and probably found a lot of that hard to take. He might have been conflicted between his love and respect for his brother and his desire for high quality material. We know he worked on the Love You tapes to get them into a better shape for release, but he was then barely on the next album. Given everything Brian had gone through, and everything that the group had gone through with Brian, I can see why Carl would have struggled with the concept of returning to a Brian-led studio project when Brian's recent track record wasn't exactly strong. Brian had been sporadically part of the touring band and that hadn't always been a positive. He'd not provided any great new material for the group in well over a decade and was in many ways a different person from the musical powerhouse of the sixties. It would have taken a fairly huge leap of faith to jump back into a Brian produced album without having some control over the project. Add to that the recent SIP disaster that Carl had had little control over, personal issues over the Brian/Landy debacle, the autobiography, possible Brian/Mike friction, Carl's outside musical interests and possiby even issues around Carl's health and you've got a long list of reasons to pull the plug on those session at that time. It didn't mean that Carl never wanted to do it and it's only with hindsight that we can see it as a missed opportunity given Carl's all-too-early passing.

Compare that scenario with Mike's in 2012 - he'd dominated the groups studio output since Kokomo (the group's last big hit), had single-handedly led the touring band since the late 90's (again, for better or worse), had seen little interest from Brian in the Beach Boys, had provided an income to the other BRI members through his touring act, had had to take legal action against Brian to get credit for his part in composing some of the group's hit material, felt jilted over Pet Sounds, Smile and other examples of collaboration with Brian, had been much maligned in the popular media for various supposed acts of bad taste, unpleasant behaviour, cancelling Smile (generally anything negative that ever happened with the Beach Boys) etc etc. So you can see that from his perspective, he's earned his place alongside Brian as the group's leader. Rightly or wrongly, the Beach Boys of recent history had been Mike's and he probably wasn't happy about suddenly ceding control over the group he'd led for the past 14 years or so. Especially if that control went to an 'outsider' in Joe Thomas (or possibly anyone else). Add to that that Brian's solo output hadn't exactly set the world alight and I think his comments since the reunion are understandable, even if I tend not to agree that Brian/Mike collaborations are for the best at this stage. Mike compromised and later felt that maybe others didn't.

I think there are very obvious comparisons to be made between Mike and Carl, and their respective attitudes to TWGMTR and the Paley sessions stuff. Both had been the band's leader, both had had strained relationships with Brian at various points, both might have had questions over Brian's ability to produce material that they were happy with and felt entitled to their own input into the furtherance of the groups legacy.

All that said, I'm a huge fan of TWGMTR and think it turned out better than a more democratic album would have. I see little evidence to seggest that a Brian/Mike collaboration would be fruitful without other's input and I'm not keen on Mike's solo contribution to the LP. My guess is that things could have been handled better and that Mike could have been more involved to keep him happier, but I don't think the album would have been better for it. In the past, Mike seems to have been happy with relatively small contributions to the writing process (e.g. Wouldn't it Be Nice) , so maybe he could have been more involved, but I suspect Mike's being a bit optimistic about Brian's ability to do what he used to without musical input from other sources. I think it's a shame it all ended as it did, because I'd love to see something more from the group - but it now looks very unlikely.

[I have a feeling it may well be post-1992 heavy.]

It would seem unlikely Brian's memory on such things would actually would improve with the passage of time. I guess it will depend on how much time he spends with Jason Fine and to what degree he truly opens up. Also, given the scope of fifty years of the life of Brian, Fine may not care to ponder about such things as Rachel's identity. But the record is a critical early release in Brian's young career, so he should at least address its existence.  And you can't  (although Badman did) mention Rachel without the requisite question of "Who was she?"

I'd like to believe that this book will give equal time and space to all periods of Brian's life... but I have a feeling it may well be post-1992 heavy.

Maybe Fine will visit here and pick up a few of these arcane chestnuts.

If so he would be a very sensible chap. 

Whilst I think that the book should give equal time and space to all periods of his life, I have to say that post-1992 is almost more of a mystery to me than any other period of his life. It might not be the case for others, but I think I have a better understanding of what Brian was up to, what he liked, who he was with etc from the early days up until the second Landy period, than I do from 1992 onwards. There'd still be about a ten year gap leading up to 1992 that I wouldn't know much about, but I'd love to know more about the last 20 or so years.

I just hope that the book manages to capture what it needs to from Brian and that he opens up about things more than he typically does (preferably a LOT more). I've got doubts about that happening, but you never know.

Really interesting stuff here, thanks to all. The interview with Andy Paley linked to above includes this comment about Where Has Love Been - "I got a call about that one and I guess somebody gave the song to J.D. Souther to write lyrics to and then they put it out. We wrote so many songs, it's kind of hard to say when we wrote it.". So it sounds like there wasn't any recording of the song, but it just adds to the sense that Brian and Andy were really creating a lot of music during this period. I would have loved to hear a version of that song completed by Andy and Brian. The Imagination release couldn't be further from the style of Brian and Andy's work together.

Brian seems to have (co)written a huge amount (relatively speaking) between starting these session with Andy Paley and finishing work with Joe Thomas. The number of originals on Imagination might not be that high, but I think it's been said that some of the TWGMTR songs came from the original Joe Thomas era, along with some of the stuff Brian's currently working on. After that, newly written songs appear to become something of a rarity for quite a while afterwards. What was new between Imagination and That Lucky Old Sun?

A Friend Like You?
On Christmas Day?
What I Really Want for Christmas?
Christmasey?
Rodney on the Roq?
Walking Down the Path of Life?

Am I missing a load? It seems to me that he wrote at least thirty songs with others in the five years to 1998 (ish), and then very few that we know of in the next ten years. Maybe Brian did/does write a lot more than this and simply keeps them to himself most of the time. Or does he need a burst of enthusiasm and the right collaborator - for example, Andy Paley, Joe Thomas (sometimes at least) or Scott Bennett? The Paley material almost seems like the last great burst of writing Brian has had. It's a huge shame that most of the material hasn't had a proper release yet.

Is it not true that these guys have been using studio trickery for many decades to ge the sound?  Doubling voices a nd going from studio to studio to get a sound?  Sweetening vocals on live albums?  processing the sound of various member's vocals?  Using reverb and various spectorian tricks?    but in the end, you have to look at the final product and the BB sound that you hear.  do you likeitornot?  auto tune is just another Tool to get a sound.   and I like that unique BB sound.  and I still hear it on the new recordings.     

Not sure what your argument is here. So your saying basically that because they've used studio trickery in the past, that I should like all studio trickery.

So because they've used synthesizers in the past, I shouldn't have a problem if they made an electronic dance music track?

Or because they've used electric guitars before, then I should be happy if they did a thrash metal track?

Didn't he pretty much say the opposite of that? Donald says we all have to look at the final product and decide whether we like it or not. The point seems to be that there's nothing inherently wrong with any particular form of studio trickery - the issue is whether you enjoy the music or not regardless of how the sound was achieved (apologies if I've got this wrong). You don't like it and that's fine. He doesn't say anything like what you've concocted in your post.

Donald's post might even be the most relevant post in this thread because Burton Cummings seems to have a problem with the use of auto-tune itself, rather than the sound of the album. Some people might agree with him, others don't. He also says “In my day, there was no such thing as 'auto tuned vocals'. Especially when you were recording 45's and 33's, there wasn't the studio capability to fix things and filter things. What you sang is what you recorded." - which isn't really true. There were plenty of methods used to fix and filter things.

“I was listening to a new Beach Boys album ( “That’s Why God Made The Radio”) and it was so obvious the vocals had been auto tuned,” fumed Cummings. “Obviously I was not impressed. I mean this is the same Beach Boys that recorded Pet Sounds and all those great vocal harmonies yet they felt they had to resort to auto-tuning!

It isn't the same Beach Boys though, is it? Those Pet Sounds vocals were recorded nearly 50 years ago by a group of young men at or relatively near to their vocals peaks. So it's a bit unreasonable to expect that they can still sing at that same level, particularly given that two of them are no longer with us and that Brian (and his voice) have gone through some incredibly difficult times. There's no point pretending that these vocals should sound anything like Pet Sounds.

I consider the album on it's own merits and I think it's excellent. There are a few spots where the vocal processing grates a bit (the opening to "Isn't it Time" in particular), but I don't have a huge problem with the vocal sound overall and I generally think they sound good, all things considered. They could have been better, judging by Brian's other recent contributions (and Al's, I suppose), but I'll take the TWGMTR vocals over the GIOMH vocals any day. I can see why it would irritate those who hate this type of vocal processing, but it doesn't overly bother me (and I've opted to not think or read about it too much, in case I find myself unable to listen to music that I'd otherwise enjoy).

[I also don't think there is an pirated Paley version]

Pretty sure that Don had next to nothing to do with This Song Want to Sleep With You -- his credit was more for the other tracks on the single.

I also don't think there is an pirated Paley version -- I'm pretty sure that all circulating versions of this song come from that same European CD single (it was issued a year or two before the Paley sessions were widely booted).

As for the Was sessions, I think there may have been another song or two tried (AGD's site might have more on this), but nothing of any consequence.

This makes me wonder if there's more from those sessions that hasn't leaked. Does anyone know whether there are any other tracks not circulating from the original Paley sessions? Some of the booted stuff seems less common - including "Some Sweet Day", which is one of best tracks from the sessions.

Dipped into the boxed set yesterday, and the two '95 group tracks were among the first I tracked. After hearing that they were futzed with, I was somewhat relieved that they weren't futzed with quite as much as I thought they may have.

"Soul Searchin'" is relatively unscathed. It actually has some additonal layers of group backing vocals we didn't hear before, and they do sound legit as far as being original, as I can hear Carl in the layers. Carl's bridge is messed with; it has somebody semi-doubling it, like it kind of weaves in and out of the mix. I honestly can't tell if it's a double-tracked Carl, or Brian, or Andy Paley, or someone else. I don't understand why they did this, as a clean and clear single Carl bridge vocal can be heard on the circulating version. In any event, this doubled version is still highly preferable to Brian's wonky bridge vocal on GIOMH.

I've listened to this quite a few times now and I can't tell what's going on during the bridge either. There are parts that sound like a doubled Carl (or even some sort of doubling effect) and parts that sound like a second vocal from somebody that I can't quite identify. It doesn't sound like the Paley vocal that's on one of the circulating vocals and I think that his phrasing was quite different from Carl's in a few parts, so they wouldn't wholly work well together. You're right that it weaves in and out of the mix and I think that's why it's hard to identify. For that reason it could easily be Paley, Brian or Carl - I've got no idea. I think it's probably one of those things that sounds slightly jarring to my ears just because I'm so used to the previously circulating version of Carl's bridge. It still sounds excellent.

I have to wonder if there was something up with Carl's bridge that somebody had an issue with, given that it's been modified here in some way (at least compared to the version we knew) and that it was also replaced by Brian in the previously released version.

Likely not an intentional connection:

My Love Lives On and Southern California. Dennis' humming at the end and the melody "I had this dream singing with my brothers".

Probably unintentional but it's also interesting that the "When you feel down" line from My Love Lives On shares the melody with "God Almighty" from Live Let Live.

I always felt it was gracious of Al to 'let' Dennis sing one of the few hit leads he sang on.

Do we know that's how it happened? Maybe Al wasn't happy about it(?)

Don't forget that Dennis was a true leader at that point. Well, together with Carl. He didn't play drums. Instead he sang and played piano. He was quite talkative, too. I think it was quite fair to give him a lead vocal now and then. Al already had quite a few leads, songs like You Still Believe In Me, Heroes and Villains, Wouldn't It Be Nice, Funky Pretty (shared lead), Don't Worry Baby.

 

I always assumed it was because Al had taken over as lead vocalist on several other hits. Carl and Al probably had the biggest ranges and so fitted in where Brian's voice might have been on the studio tracks. So it probably made a lot of sense to give Al's voice a partial rest and in doing so give something else to Dennis. Dennis' voice still seems underused in both live and studio setting.

I really like this version but I probably prefer the version from Nassau Coliseum in '74, just. It'll be great to have a Dennis live lead in such good quality and it seems like a great performance. It's also interesting to hear that his voice is still pretty much intact at this point.

Someone else may have brought this up recently but  I was flicking through Brian's old autobiography a few days ago and I thought that the following passage was interesting -

"I need Brian alone," he protested. "I can only write if I'm alone with him."

"We wrote the song," said Dr. Landy. "If you want to add your thoughts, let's do it now. Here"

"Sorry," he said.

"Brian," said Dr. Landy, "do you want to go write with Mike or do you want to write here?"

"I'd prefer to do it here, Gene," I said.

I know that the book has very little credibility with anyone, but given that Mike's openly expressing a similar problem now, I'd guess that it's likely to have been an issue for Mike for quite some time.

[Taking a more objective view of both would cut down on a lot of arguing and create better a dialogue when these issues are discussed]

Mike's done wrong on many occasions, as has Brian. The difference being that Mike's gets bashed every single time, while Brian gets a pass because well, he's Brian. This is what I don't like that goes on in here. Taking a more objective view of both would cut down on a lot of arguing and create better a dialogue when these issues are discussed.

I totally agree with your final sentence and the whole post to a large extent. The only thing I'd add is that saying Brian gets a pass because "he's Brian" might be a bit simplistic. I give him a bit more leeway with some things because he suffers with mental illness and has done for most or all of his life. I don't think it's unreasonable to give him a pass on some issues because analysing (or sometimes judging) a persons behaviour and intentions is a lot more difficult and complicated where they're suffering with mental illness. That doesn't mean that Brian should always be excused for every 'wrong' or that Mike doesn't have his own issues that could mitigate or contextualise his own 'wrongs', but I think it explains part of the reason why Brian gets more sympathy and leeway in discussions. I suspect it goes too far at times and maybe some people give Brian a pass because they prefer his music/abilities/image to Mike's and he's got that quirky innocence and awkwardness that leaves people expecting and accepting unusual, odd or 'off' behaviour. Mike seems a bit too normal to be excused behaviour we might not agree with.

Mike is the most polarizing and controversial member of the beach boys

Controversial yes, but polarizing I don't know. I doubt there's people here that are as pro-Mike as the anti-Mike people are anti-Mike. I only defend Mike if the basher's view is IMO too one-dimensional. I'm neither pro-Mike nor anti-Mike nor anti-Brian. There's things about both of them that I appreciate and others that I'm not so fond of.

but also people who will barely acknowledge that he's ever done anything wrong.

OK, hands up, who thinks Mike's never done anything wrong? I don't think so.

I'm not suggesting anyone actually thinks that, but that's how I read some posts on the subject. I tried but probably failed to explain that I think it's because they feel the need to solely fight Mike's corner in what they see as a very unbalance debate (emphasising others negative actions and failures whilst not mentioning or admitting that Mike might have played some negative role too). I think that just leads to less balanced posts.

I think I've already said this in another thread but actually the consensus opinions and feelings about the Boys and in particular Mike have moved a long way in the past couple of decades. The Mike threads today are down right civil compared to threads in the past. Balance takes more work when the start is so much imbalance but balance has happened and is still happening and it all is not for nothing. Jmho.

As mostly an observer, I definitely agree things have improved significantly over the years and that there's far more balance than there was. I think the C50 ending stuff has set this back a bit, but it's still better than it used to be. There's much more acknowledgement for Mike's contributions than there used to be and I think he gets a much fairer ride than he used to and the majority of people are (I think) reasonable and objective about Mike now.