Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
gfx gfx
677660 Posts in 27356 Topics by 4046 Members - Latest Member: reecemorgan November 26, 2022, 01:50:52 AM
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
1  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: You've Lost 'You've Lost That Loving Feelin's's Loving Feelin' on: September 04, 2013, 09:14:42 PM
I too went back to listen to the stereo PLMW. Didn't hear anything that off about it. Odd.

I have listened to Please Let Me Wonder about five times in a row and I can't hear any excessive reverb at all. The track is untouched...

The stereo 'Please Let Me Wonder' sounds fine to me ... much prefer the original mono of course.

Listen to the sound of the drums on the remix compared to the mono mix.
2  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: You've Lost 'You've Lost That Loving Feelin's's Loving Feelin' on: September 03, 2013, 07:38:42 PM
Sorry this is so long, but i feel there's a lot to say in response to what i see as dismissive replies...

This is spot on. Very well said. Glad you mentioned the Please Let Me Wonder stereo remix -  that one is slathered with reverb. Like "opera house" mode on an AV receiver. Sounds closer to Getcha Back than anything from 1965. Miles away from the excellent mixing on the Pet Sounds box. Reverb aside the mix is so narrow it might as well be a mono. Shut Down on SOS is worse....witness the massive phasing in the intro.
3  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: MIC modern reconstuction. on: August 29, 2013, 09:39:20 PM
It was meant to be a live performance piece. Why must old tapes be manipulated in an attempt to match it? Did Look really seem that naked without the worthless "chi chi chi" crap flown in? How did the Mickey Mouse vocals on Da Da fit the blueprints? Why is it okay to make a new Vegetables and Child Is Father of the Man that DON'T match BWPS but God forbid if the sped up "Whispering Winds" vocals are shoehorned in there to match The Master's Final Vision even if it sounds awful? CIFOTM on disc 1 barely qualifies as a song, whereas the original (and mostly replicated) verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/chorus format at least presents the song in a manner which shows it had at least a little potential. If the excuse is that it has to match BWPS it doesn't hold water if they strayed on several occasions. As far as I'm concerned the mess on disc 1 doesn't exist. I rolled my own and feel sorry for any newbie who gets misguided by the fly-ins and historical revisionisms.

Post of the year. I try not to think about the abortion that is disc one.
4  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: You've Lost 'You've Lost That Loving Feelin's's Loving Feelin' on: August 29, 2013, 03:51:56 AM
Well, it was necessary for the disk 1 album construction, which in turn was necessary for making the thing marketable beyond us diehards.

Not to be a contrarian but I don't buy this idea that anything other than a BWPS recreation would not appeal to the casual fan. The non-hardcore fans did just fine with the 30 minutes of Smile on GV box. Sorry if this is drifting off-topic  Grin
5  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: You've Lost 'You've Lost That Loving Feelin's's Loving Feelin' on: August 29, 2013, 03:40:23 AM
Linett wasn't involved with the initial release of the Endless Harmony soundtrack.

Strongly prefer the remixes on the first edition of the Endless Harmony CD. The California Girls remix on the revised disc is quite noticeably out of sync where the first edition is fine. For the most part (with exceptions) it seems that with each subsequent release the quality of the stereo remixes goes downhill. That said I haven't heard the Smiley remix yet (I know, I know) which seems to be well received.

6  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: You've Lost 'You've Lost That Loving Feelin's's Loving Feelin' on: August 29, 2013, 03:33:26 AM
It's because the technology now exists to do what would have been unthinkable 10 years ago, and they just couldn't help themselves. This "mucking about" was necessary for TSS, but not for this box.

Strongly disagree that it was necessary for TSS.
7  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: How much did drugs do to brian's mind? on: April 19, 2012, 01:53:17 AM

I really enjoyed reading Fishmonk's posts in this thread. Inspired me to listen the songs discussed for the first time in years, wonderful to hear them with fresh ears. "I Went To Sleep" is one of the 2 or 3 songs that vaulted me into 'hardcore fan' territory. After hearing "I Went To Sleep" I knew I wouldn't rest until I heard everything they did.
8  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Smile Sessions vs. Smiley Smile on: January 05, 2012, 06:14:42 PM

The middle section of "Wonderful" on Smiley is disturbing because of the chatter.  It has a sick, high school locker-room tone to it that is not at all appropriate for the song into which it intrudes.  That's one of the hardest things for me to take about Smiley Smile.  And yet, even that did not keep me from recognizing the greatness of the song when I first heard it.

I believe that is the entire point of the interlude. It presents the "locker-room tone" that symbolizes the band itself. The high voice takes the part of the voices inside Brain's head. Both intruding right into the middle of a song that perhaps best exemplifies Brian's fragile SMiLE art-world. That Smiley trashing of Wonderful is Brian's own commentary on the end of the SMiLE project, whether subconscious or not.

Brilliant analysis!
9  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Yet another \ on: January 03, 2012, 10:00:09 PM
The "monophonic" Pet Sounds is nothing more than a hurriedly prepared fold-down of multichannel recordings to a single channel, replete with the attendant artifacts. Perhaps Capital should have marketed the album as "Unophonic".

None of this was sufficient to keep it from being my favorite album the last 40 years or so, but I don't understand the Cult of Monophonic who cannot abide to listen to the album with both ears.

You're totally missing the point. It has nothing to do with "hearing it with both ears." What is significant about the 1966 mix isn’t that it’s mono – it’s the differences in reverb, tonality, how the vocals are blended, the relationship btw the track and vocals, etc. Nothing to do with stereo vs. mono, it’s good mix vs a great one (regardless which you prefer.)

For example, while the stereo remix is far better sonically the vocal blend during the "I Just Wasn"t Made For These Times" chorus is superior. The 1966 mix is the one Brian Wilson slaved over. Sure, he was hurried but don’t tell me he didn’t slave over blending the layers of harmonies on the chorus. The mix is part of the performance , Brian's talent behind the board is a big part of his legend. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.
10  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Yet another \ on: January 03, 2012, 02:31:27 PM

Interesting to see those that praised the The Smile Sessions fly-ins and pitch shifting so critical of the Pet Sounds remix. I would've thought those bothered by the liberties taken with the stereo PS would be incensed by how the material was presented on disc one of TSS.
11  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: How do YOU think Smile would have went? on: December 09, 2011, 07:23:50 AM
I don't think it is rock solid that the covers were never printed, in fact I think it is extremely more likely they were rather than they weren't.  As I understand it what was in the warehouse was described as covers, what is described on this board as "slicks" were called "liners" by Capitol's 1966-67 production department. If it was boxes of liners ["slicks"] only in the warehouse they would not be called covers by the production department. Covers had a front liner and a back liner and a cardboard jacket.

Subcontractors produced the covers for Capitol, in the case of the SMiLE cover the subs were BertCo in LA and Queens Litho in NY. BertCo says it did its cover fabrication in house, they printed the litho front liners and a plain black on white bond paper back liner and they applied both to the jackets and shipped them to Capitol. The back liners were applied in a different way than they were for most labels. Queens Litho got a PO for covers from Capitol, Queens printed the litho front liners and shipped them to a subcontractor who printed the black on white bond paper back liner and then assembled Queens front liner and the bond paper back liner they printed to their cardboard jacket and shipped the finished covers to Capitol's Scranton warehouse. So I think it is almost a certainty that what was in Capitol's warehouse were finished covers and not boxes of litho front liners.

Well now, that is rather huge. Excellent research my man. I'm a bit surprised no one has commented....arguably game-changing information here.
12  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: How do YOU think Smile would have went? on: December 08, 2011, 02:05:37 AM
...Capitol were on him like crazy for a tracklist, from what I understand, and Brian had no idea - he could have just listed 12 things they recorded in no particular order.

Disagree re 'had no idea' - Brian didn't work outside the titles on the list until the announcement of Smile’s scrapping some 5 months later. He also didn't work outside the list to a significant degree in preceding 3 months. Of course, I realize we have little idea what comprised IIGS, etc..

So, we have a handwritten track list, a cover mock up with same track list, and VDP affirming said track list...seems clear these were the titles intended for the LP. I'm not positing it's the truth but I don't see how primary source evidence is dismissed outright. The 12-trackers here are treated not unlike Apollo 11 deniers at NASA. I can dig that but it pains me to see SMILE go down in history as this huge jumbled ball of confusion - this shortchanges all that Brian accomplished as a troubled 24 year old buckling under the weight of unrelenting pressure and unreasonable expectations.

I mean your average SMILE article gives the impression he recorded with no idea what for. Why is that? I think in part it’s lazy journalism but then you have Mark Linnet on Icon Fetch saying “it didn’t come out is because all we had were a bunch of bits and pieces” or “before 2004 it was just a jumble of sessions.”  It's like painting Ted Williams as a .220 hitter that swung for the fences every at bat. I’ve rambled enough and should celebrate the moment. Sigh, I guess it’s part and parcel of being a devote - mind you a devotee with 1/20th the post count as you all  Razz
13  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: How do YOU think Smile would have went? on: December 02, 2011, 09:41:03 AM
The thing is, he didn't write it, which makes it much more difficult to say that! Either Carl or Diane, who are the main suspects, had that kind of information. I can just picture something like this happening...

"Hey Brian, Capitol just rang, they want a final tracklist for the back cover. They've been on at you for months about it, apparently."
"Er, um, there isn't one."
"It's not finished, alright? Now f*ck off, I'm turning the living room into a gym."
"Well, what have we recorded..... Heroes & Villains, obviously.... He'd put Good Vibrations on it...

Sigh. I'll take Cam Mott’s years of researching the Capitol Art Department – including grilling the SMILE art director - over what "you can picture"..  

Since Brian produced the SMILE sessions we can be certain the handwritten list, regardless who wrote it, came from him. All artwork had to be approved by the LP producer before being printed - this was Capitol policy as confirmed to Cam Mott by SMILE art director George Osaka. The fact a list was submitted to and received by Capitol and work was underway (466,000 front slicks, book design/photos, rear mock up) is proof Brian approved the handwritten list and cover design with track list and "see label for order."  No way a written track list is accepted, designed & revised if it came from someone other than Brian.  Unlikely Capitol authorizes printing 466,000 cover slicks for an job with incomplete art.

Do people think someone went behind Brian's back and turned in a track list to Capitol without his knowledge? How could they get away with this? Imagine George Harrison going to EMI with "here is the track list for the new LP, no need to contact Mr. Martin, go ahead and print the LP sleeves." What was Brian going to do when he received the LP jacket and says "where the f*** is Holidays?"
14  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: How do YOU think Smile would have went? on: December 02, 2011, 02:53:36 AM
Considering the list wasn't in Brian's hand, the slick says "See label for correct playing order", the album was far from complete, and the tracklist flows like a post-menopausal...

I don't see any significance in who physically wrote the list - it almost certainly came from the LP producer. It's inconceivable that in 1966 someone decided to go behind Brian's back and send the Capitol art department a tracklist he didn't approve. Of course, you're right about it not being an actual sequence - hence "see label for correct running order."

For me the sequencing is a red herring - I suspect it wasn't that much of a concern in 1966 - at least not compared to editing/mixing the sections within the individual songs. It isn't like the LP was shelved because he couldn't figure out how to sequence it.
15  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: How do YOU think Smile would have went? on: December 01, 2011, 05:50:06 PM
Eh. Often enough, you'll hear a demo that basically has everything a final has, but exists in a different quality and may have some subtle changes throughout, but still with lots of detail.

Sure but how often did Brian record full group 'demos' at Columbia in 1966? I think it was a serious attempt to track the song (or part of the song) - possibly when it was still part of The Elements.
16  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: How do YOU think Smile would have went? on: November 30, 2011, 06:07:39 AM

Vega-Tables just doesn't work. It wasn't even close to a finished state by any conceivable 12 song SMiLE timeline.

I think the ‘cornucopia’ version was more than a demo - those backing vocals are rather ornate and well rehearsed for a demo.  I suspect it was recorded as an album track at the time. Do we have a firm recording date for the 'cornucopia’ version
17  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: SMiLE - What's missing from the vaults? on: November 21, 2011, 02:38:26 PM
Not to derail the thread or anything... I noticed the mention of "Ball and Mitt" a few posts ago.  I saw that notation on one of the tape boxes... what exactly is this thing?

Others will have more details but I believe it is a recording of a baseball landing in a catchers mitt.
18  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: SMiLE - What's missing from the vaults? on: November 20, 2011, 07:20:05 PM
...but the fact is, the sole piece of extremely shaky evidence for any such piece of music even existing, much less being recorded, is an AFM sheet that lists the session as "Surf's Up (1st movement)", causing those prone to doing so to leap (and doubtless bound - ya see what I did there ?) to the assumption that a part 2 MUST exist. There's more persuasive evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

I believe c-man has said the AFM sheet lists the first session as just "Surf's Up" and the second session later that day with the strings is logged as simply "Part 1".
19  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: SMiLE - What's missing from the vaults? on: November 20, 2011, 07:17:37 PM
So... why wasn't it logged as "part 2" or "(2nd movement)" ?  Grin

Not sure why you ask. Understand I haven't argued or assumed it was for "part 2" or "2nd movement" - in fact I went out my way to acknowledge it could've been for anything and there was no proof it had feces to do with Surf's Up.

My only point was to question the assertion part 2 was definitely not recorded. I totally get there is zero proof for it - if I were a betting man I'd bet against it but since - a) there are more sessions logged as "SU" than we have tapes for b) the session in question wasn't cancelled c) the instrumental lineup doesn't match any Smile known material it seems possible the Jan 23 session was "part 2", sure, it's also possible it was a full band recreation of "Ball & Mitt" or the session went so bad they didn't bother starting the tape machine. It just seemed premature to me to strike the gavel and declare it wasn't recorded but, as I said earlier, I'll yield to your expertise here, just not without a fight first  Grin
20  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: SMiLE - What's missing from the vaults? on: November 17, 2011, 10:45:40 AM

SU Part 2 session...

Missing only in the sense of never being actually recorded.  Smiley

I'll yield to your expertise but I’m not following.

I get that the fact the session was logged as “Surf’s Up” is no guarantee any recordings were actually for Surf’s Up - for all we know it was I Don’t Know rehearsals perversely logged as “Surf’s Up”. That said shouldn’t we infer that a) since the AFM Contract does not indicate the session was cancelled b) shows the musicians were paid and c) no refunds were issued that a session did in fact occur on 23 Jan 1967 and based on the collection of instruments whatever was recorded is something that doesn’t match any known Smile recording?

If my thinking is correct then how would we know the session wasn’t for Surf’s Up part 2? I get that there is no firm evidence supporting it was for part 2 but if we know a) there was a session that day b) it was logged as Surf’s Up and c) a backing for the 2nd half of the song had yet to be recorded then ‘part 2’ seems as likely as anything else. I guess I’m not seeing how we would know for certain there was no session this date or why the lack of a tape would be firm proof it never happened...

I could be full of sh*t here but I’m not ready to give up hope yet!
21  Smiley Smile Stuff / Smile Sessions Box Set (2011) / Re: TSS - All things \ on: November 17, 2011, 03:51:53 AM
I just wonder if the vocals were meant to go on top of the sax line or somewhere else. It's a damn shame we don't have any official vocals for IIGS, Look, etc.

FWIW the lost I'm In Great Shape vocal session was recorded 10 days *before* the short 'eggs & grits' backing track takes. Whatever was recorded at that vocal session most likely wasn't intended to go on top of the 'eggs & grits' instrumental.
22  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Tune X and Gee. on: November 13, 2011, 12:33:45 AM
I was wondering if someone would start a thread about Tune X. This is an amazing song. It really should have been developed into a released track. I think it could have been massive and with harmonies on top? Well, that would have been heavenly. Does anyone know if vocals exist for this and if there are any comments on it by the boys?

What's frustrating is it seems like it was developed further. What we have is just what was recorded the 1st day (March 3)...there were two further days of sessions logged as Tune X--one of which was a vocal session. Odd that apparently no one remembers anything about the song. I agree, it is amazing. I'm deeply curious what was intended for it.

Props to Mark and Alan for getting this (and I Don't Know) on this set!
23  Smiley Smile Stuff / Smile Sessions Box Set (2011) / Re: TSS - All things \ on: November 03, 2011, 10:01:53 AM
Maybe because that's what Brian intended and I think you'll find the sax does play the melody right from bar one

Just curious but do you have a cite for that?
24  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: SMiLE Sessions box set! on: October 18, 2011, 12:24:23 AM
Also, on a separate issue, was it ever said what the "Surf's Up" session in January was? Was anything even recorded? I'm of the opinion that if nothing ever came up in the vaults, that nothing usable was probably there. I'm not one of those that thinks they recorded "movement 2" or put a final vocal on it that day, or that he erased the lead for "Worms" or "Barnyard" or "I'm In Great Shape". I figure whatever is there is probably what was done.

As I understand it if the Jan. 23 session logged as "Surf's Up" was canceled it would be noted on the AFM sheet - which it isn't. Something unrelated to "Surf's Up" could've been recorded but I was under the impression there was most likely a session of some sort (actually two sessions) that night and none of the Smile material comes close to matching the collection of instruments for either - drums, bass, 2 guitars, 3 saxes, and trumpet for the session logged as "Surf's Up" and something like 17 musicians - mostly strings and horns(!) on the second session which IIRC was logged as "Part One".

Am I right that if the session was cancelled the AFM sheet would say as much or is there more to it than that?

Even if it turns out the session was mislabeled and had nothing to do with "Surf's Up" it is still terribly interesting. What the heck could the session with all the strings be for? The mind boggles. Maybe the session was such a disaster that they didn't bother to start the tape machines?
25  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: \ on: September 18, 2011, 10:31:00 PM
I would venture that Our Happy Home is When a Man Needs a Woman.

I don't think it is. If I remember correctly Our Happy Song is a backing track for an unheard song.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.408 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!