gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 01:17:44 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8
51  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: SMiLE Sessions box set! on: June 17, 2011, 10:50:26 PM
There were a couple of separate situations where Brian and the Beach Boys came into conflict. The first was his idea about movements. My sources tell me that got ixnayed in December 1966. No, I cannot divulge who they are.

Re movements: If it just took a vote to remove Brian's authority as producer and change the course of an album why would Brian then later be able to scrap the whole project over the objections of the Beach Boys--to the point of nearly breaking up the group for good (as Brian said in 1967/68?  Why didn't the band just vote Brian down then like they allegedly did in December '66? I think the answer is because this December 1966 meeting/vote thing never happened. There is simply no evidence this happen. I say this with respect but "no, I cannot divulge who they are" sounds awful convenient. The fact that in 45 years there hasn't been a single mention of this voting members of the band voting Brian down speaks volumes.
52  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Warmth of the Sun compilation on: June 17, 2011, 06:40:21 AM
Well, I maintain that there isn't additional reverb, just that in the new mix/master of some tracks we're hearing what was always there for the first time. Would they really nadd reverb to an original BB recording? It just seems unlikely to me, though if anyone knows better I'd happily stand corrected.

There is no doubt reverb was added. That's standard for any remix of material from the 60's--they aren't going to leave it dry. Especially for a mid 60's Brian Wilson production.

The problem isn't that reverb was added but the type and amount of reverb. The sonic character of the Please Let Me Wonder remix has more in common with the Getcha Back production than something from 1965. I don't know if it was digital, plate or spring reverb but whatever it was it sounds awful. Listen to the drums on Please Let Me Wonder. Cold, boomy, sterile. Absolutely nothing like something you would hear in the 60's. This is why I want as many vintage Smile mixes used on the Disc 1 approximation of the album.
53  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: SMiLE Sessions box set! on: June 16, 2011, 11:40:26 PM
Wasn't it mentioned here sometime back about a group meeting circa December, 1966 where the band vetoed the album? Or am I misremembering something? Piping hot clam chowder enemas!

There isn't an iota of evidence that supports this. There is however an overwhelming amount of evidence that contradicts it.
54  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Warmth of the Sun compilation on: June 16, 2011, 10:58:30 PM
I'm a big fan of stereo remixes when done well, but some of the stereo remixes on this CD are dreadful. WAY too much echo/reverb. I said it a million times back when the CD came out, when I heard "Please Let Me Wonder" on this CD, it sounded like someone had hit the "Opera House" setting on a digital receiver.

The stereo remixes started out pretty nice. The 1996 "Pet Sounds" remix sounded great. The initial 1998 version of the "Endless Harmony Soundtrack" CD had some good stereo remixes. From there, starting with the 2000 reissue of the EH Soundtrack, the stereo remixes have become way too echo-laden. I have some issues with other elements of the stereo remixes in some cases, but the echo/reverb is really distracting.

I really, really, really hope the new "Smile" set doesn't sound this way.

I very much agree. Well stated.
55  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: MOJO Special Spolier on: June 14, 2011, 07:47:19 AM
I just don't think they had much to work with if they wanted the lead vocals on there.
I think they've done a lovely job, it sounds like a mono mix circa 1967 by a producer at the top of his game.

That"s a good point. If it's down to just using the standard 1968 stereo mix on 20/20, especially if the surrounding tracks are true mono mixes, then it might be the only other option. I haven't heard it yet save for on my el cheapo PC speakers. Generally I don't like doing things like tacking on remixed intros (or outros) tacked on the vintage mixes.
56  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: MOJO Special Spolier on: June 14, 2011, 07:00:26 AM
If it stays in digital sync with the '93 digital master of the 20/20 track then it shares a common digital source which means it absolutely is not a new mix from the multi-tracks. At least for the portions of the track that stay in sync. The tag could certainly be a remix but the main part of the track isn't. If this is really one channel of the 1968 stereo mix with the tag a new mix from a multi-track then it might not be the most auspicious start for the box.
57  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: MOJO Special Spolier on: June 12, 2011, 04:29:06 PM
Cool to hear Linett's done new mixes of these.

Do we know for sure these are new mixes? I hope Wonderful isn't just the box set mix with some yodel lay hee hoo background vocals flown in.
58  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Upcoming BW interview in Village Voice (June 8) on: June 09, 2011, 03:02:55 PM
We've got, at best, a handwritten list which Brian may or may not have dictated, a back cover working proof he may or may not have seen..

Doesn't the fact that the handwritten list was submitted to and received by the Capitol art dept almost certainly means it came from the producer of the LP? I don't see any significance in who physically wrote the track list. No way someone goes behind Brian's back in 1966 and delivers the LP track list to the art dept. I mean who would possibly do that? Diane? Carl? Even if someone did attempt this I can't see the Capitol art people going forward without Brian's approval.

I also don't see much significance in Brian's off hand statement 40 years later that he has never seen the handwritten list or back cover mock up. I love the guy but he isn't exactly known as a reliable source on this sort of thing.
59  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Ok - so what do we \ on: June 07, 2011, 10:32:11 AM

Below is a post from Alan Boyd from a few years back..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How complete was Surf's Up in 1967?

I've heard about the existence of a tape of a full arrangement on that second section of SURF'S UP. It's been described to me, third-hand. Supposedly it's pretty weird, lots of strange horn and string parts. But I haven't heard it. We don't have it in the Beach Boys' tape library. And it's not among Brian's tapes either.

There is an enormous amount of SMILE material that's missing. I recently saw a photograph on Ed Roach's site of a tape shelf at Brother Studio, late 1970s. Right there, along with safety 1/4" masters of all the group's albums, is a tape labeled "BRIAN - DUMB ANGEL." Probably a 1/4" or 1/2". I nearly had a stroke when I saw that, and I immediately called anyone and everyone who ever had access to tapes at Brother, and asked what they knew about it. No one knew. What was on that reel? Where is it now? It certainly wasn't listed in the 1985 inventory of the group's tapes.

What WAS listed in that inventory are the many empty tape boxes from the SMILE era, on titles like "Heroes and Villains," "Cabinessence," "Surf's Up," "Vegetables," etc... they were empty in 1985, they're empty today. I'm certain, however, that excerpts from at least one of them (overdubs onto the last verse of "Vegetables") showed up on one of the SOT discs. They're almost all 1/4" mixdowns. Other SMILE tracks were assembled onto some of the 1/2" STACK-O-TRACKS assembly reels, and those SMILE songs are also....missing.

Never did find the multitrack of CABINESSENCE with Carl's lead vocal on it, by the way.

And "Heroes and Villains" is heartbreaking... there's almost NOTHING of any pre-1967 work on that song. I went through every tape on that title while scrounging up parts for the "Hawthorne" remix.... There are no multi-tracks on any of the verses from the early 1967 "alternate" version... nothing at all on the 3rd verse as found in the single (which is why the stereo spread goes a little, um...funky at that point in the Hawthorne mix), "Barnyard" exists only as a (not very good) dub onto an 8 track worktape, and I wouldn't be surprised if we're missing some significant work on "I'm In Great Shape" as well. We did find the first two verses for the single, but they seem to have been re-recorded by Brian specifically for the single. But there's no "3 score and five I'm very much alive" anywhere except on that partially mangled safety copy dated 2/10/67.

Was there indeed a completely diffferent version of the song (as Bruce has claimed) that may have included some sort of a Barnyard Suite (featuring Billy, who loved his chickens) and maybe even a barroom brawl? Did Brian have some sort of crisis in December 1966 that moved him to scrap everything he'd done before on that song and start again? Listening to some of those January 1967 tapes where he's almost obsessively tinkering with different chants of the song's title, it kinda sounds like he's fishing for inspiration.

And speaking of that early alternate mix, we have the tape box (which has a sort of "edit-list" written on it) for the master, but the song itself has been spliced out of the reel. I actually think the count-in may still be there.

Here's what's written on that tape box, dated 1/31/67:
_____________________________

HEROS AND VILLAINS - 1ST PART

1 - 1st version of PT-1
2 - 2nd version of PT-1 with more echo
3 - 1st version of PT-2

4 Bridge to 3rd verses [or versions] (start with “My Children”)
5 Bridge To PT Two (whistle Part)

[note - EDITED, indicating all above parts]

6 - 3rd verses
7 BRIDGE [Last item crossed out]

NOTE:
THIS REEL HAS HAD ALL OF THE ABOVE REMOVED TO AN UNKNOWN REEL 12/31/85 J. PETERS
___________________________________

Here's what's written on the tape box for the SAFETY copy of "heroes and Villains"
_______________________________

“Heroes & Villains” as of 2/10/67 master
1st verse
2nd verse
3rd verse (all edited together)

1 - bridge to 3rd verse
2 - bridge to fade
3 - cantina
4 - 2nd verse
5 - fade

(The above crossed out sort of...)

2:57 MASTER

PROT COPY
_______________________________

I can't even tell for sure if they're referring to the same edit. There's no way to know any of this for sure, because so much is missing. And I'll admit I sometimes think it's kinda pointless for anyone to say "It was THIS way" or "That song was supposed to be constructed like THIS" when there are so many huge gaps among the tapes themselves. especially when it comes to discussing "Heroes."

-Did Brian actually destroy some tapes back in the day? I think he just might have...

-Are there one-of-a-kind tapes that have been stolen and are now in the hands of collectors? Yes...

-Were there tapes that Brian somehow left behind at a studio after working on them that have since found their way into the hands of collectors? Probably...

-Are there acetates of missing material in the hands of collectors and/or people who were around at the time? Absolutely...
60  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Upcoming BW interview in Village Voice (June 8) on: June 07, 2011, 02:41:01 AM
I disagree with you guys...respectfully.

BWPS is faithful to the original vision IMHO. The problem is that folks have not successfully recreated that original vision for themselves...they have not connected with the creator's process.

Sigh. According to every source when work was started work on Smile in 2003 it was to be a **live presentation of Smile material**. In other words, the Smile material was arranged or adapted for a live concert. When Brian Wilson was putting in countless hours at Western in 1966 he wasn’t working on how to present the songs for a live concert. I’m not trying to be snarky but can you see the difference?

Think about it...was Brian’s“original vision” to use samples of harpsichord and tack piano sounds triggered from a keyboard instead of a real harpsichord and tack piano? Surely the “original vision” included the voices of Carl, Dennis, Al and Mike right? Did the original vision include the 2004 lyrics for Holidays, Child and the song now known as Song For Children?

I can totally respect the opinion that BWPS is, let’s say, the best thing Brian has ever done but to state it is “closer to the original vision”...I don’t see how anyone can put together an argument for it.
61  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Upcoming BW interview in Village Voice (June 8) on: May 31, 2011, 04:12:00 PM
There is a problem with the idea it is Diane`s writing inthat I have fairly extensive samples in both or their hands in my collection. The writing closely resembles Carl`s writing NOT DIane`s. So what we have is a mystery, it is not as cut and dried as one might believe.

It strains credibility to think that the album producer wouldn't be required to sign off on the back cover track list before it was finished by the art department. Capitol art directors, one of them Smile’s art director George Osaka, that no artwork and printed material went without review and approval by the album's producer. Add to this the fact that Brian did not work outside of the 12 tracks on the list in months following the handwritten list. Also add that Van Dyke Parks has said single LP of banded (i.e. separate) tracks with no segues and crossfades between them save for within "The Elements".

Sure, Brian might have changed his mind and done any number of things. He might have decided it was going to be a triple album incorporating variations of "Teeter Totter Love" but there is no evidence to support this. The only evidence we have pointing to a 1966/67 Smile consisting of 'movements' is your recollection of Brian telling you this in 1982. While interesting this, IMO, isn't much in the face of the contemporary evidence that points to a 12 track album.
62  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Upcoming BW interview in Village Voice (June 8) on: May 27, 2011, 09:40:30 PM
The one thing that I've learned over the years is to not believe anything Brian says in interviews.

Heh, I'll keep that in mind next time you argue that a 1966 Smile was going to have movements becasue Brian told Peter Reum that in 1982  Grin  Razz
63  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Brian has signed off on Smile Sessions...... on: May 19, 2011, 01:31:08 AM
And I never understood the obsession with Smile tracklists and sequences which led to the dozens of fan mixes through the years..

I agree--imo far too much attention has been foisted on the sequence. I guess much of this stems from the spurious claim that a 1966/7 LP would contain continuous "movements", etc. With that off the table the importance of the sequence is greatly diminished. I don't think the sequence is that much more significant than, let's say, Pet Sounds or Wild Honey. If Brian scrapped Pet Sounds in Feb. 1966 would we be obsessing for decades over where Here Today or I'm Waiting For The Day fall in the running order?
64  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Brian has signed off on Smile Sessions...... on: May 18, 2011, 05:21:20 AM
For all you "12 track" enthusiasts out there, I recognize that this info does not support your ideas.

If anyone is an enthusiast in this discussion it's those on the "movements" side of the fence. There simply isn't any evidence that supports the supposition that a '66-'67 Smile LP would've consisted of movements. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that directly contradicts it--I'm happy to be shown otherwise but all existing info shows a '66-'67 Smile an album of 12 distinct tracks with fade outs (with the Elements a possible exception).  
65  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Previously released material on The Smile Sessions? on: May 12, 2011, 11:31:35 AM
I'm wondering what in the world could be new on this thing.   I know there is the off chance of lost or previously well guarded unreleased tracks, but my understanding is that Darian had all of the existing smile material on his computer for Brian to sort through in making BWPS.  If not, why not?

My understanding is that Darian didn't have the various acetates in the possession of band members. Based on the mention of acetates in the presser I think we can assume some acetates contained some unique material or mixes not found on the tapes. Then there is material that has been discovered since 2004.
66  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Were the sections of The Elements ever enumerated? on: May 11, 2011, 12:06:43 PM
I don't understand why the '66 handwritten list isn't given more weight. It came from Brian and it's the only 1966/67 track list known to exist. Obviously there is still much unknown/unfinished but that list is by far the best we have.

It's not given the weight it once was because...

1 - it's not Brian's handwriting (looks to be Carl's or Diane's, I forget which)...

2 - when Peter Reum showed it to him in the early 80s (granted, not the best period of his life), he said he'd never seen it before.

The feeling is that Capitol were screaming for something to put on the back cover and someone (not BW) hastily scrawled down the titles that they knew about.

Right but (as you know) none of that changes that it almost certainly came from Brian. Regardless of any extenuating circumstances that is what he delivered to the label and absent the discovery of any later list it's the best we have.

I'd be inclined to give it less weight if it wasn't for the fact that Brian didn't do any significant work outside of those titles in the preceding 3 months not to mention be period up to Derek Taylor's announcement. If there was a glut of Look or Holidays sessions in, let's say, Jan. 1967 I'd say it diminishes the importance of the tracklist but this is not the case.
67  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Were the sections of The Elements ever enumerated? on: May 10, 2011, 02:28:43 AM
Yes but the name, the cartoon, BWPS all outweigh a tracklisting that was still awaiting final final sign off (sequence, artwork proofs etc)..

The track list Brian Wilson sent to Capitol was awaiting Brian Wilson's final sign off?  The way you wrote it makes it sound like someone just put together a track list and they were waiting for Brian to veto or approve it. As the producer of the album Brian was the source of the list. Of course, as producer he was the one person that could change his mind, make revisions, etc.

I don't understand why the '66 handwritten list isn't given more weight. It came from Brian and it's the only 1966/67 track list known to exist. Obviously there is still much unknown/unfinished but that list is by far the best we have.
68  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Were the sections of The Elements ever enumerated? on: May 07, 2011, 09:56:33 AM
..but you're all equally rude and bitchy and discussion was going along perfectly well until Chris Moise came in here to tell everyone how dumb they were. Can we just knock it off?

I've done no such thing, at least not intentionally. If I left that impression then I apologize.
69  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Were the sections of The Elements ever enumerated? on: May 06, 2011, 08:26:39 PM

This is starting to read like a parody of the worst aspects of this forum.
70  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: What If The SS Box Disappoints You? on: May 03, 2011, 10:40:37 AM
It also seemed a bit irrelevant, seeing as Time To Get Alone is ALREADY in stereo!

Yep, Shut Down too. Somehow the original tossed off in 5 minutes 1963 stereo mix of Shut Down slays the modern remix.
71  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: What If The SS Box Disappoints You? on: May 03, 2011, 04:32:11 AM
Mmmm... might be my ears but the SOS remix sounds a bit overly 'bright'.

I agree. Now listen for the massive phasey, smeared sound during the intro. Awful isn't it? Also note how some elements are practically duophonic with other true stereo? At times the instrumental track sounds like it is fake stereo (treble on the left, bass on the right) with other elements like the vocals true stereo (albeit bright and hard). I don't understand how the Pet Sounds box was done so well where something like this is appalling.
72  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: What If The SS Box Disappoints You? on: May 03, 2011, 02:21:21 AM

I uploaded a sample of the Shut Down remix from Sounds of Summer below--I'd be interested in your thoughts on the first 30 seconds of the track.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/cmj6qs
73  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: SMiLE Sessions box set! on: May 02, 2011, 07:38:04 PM
And Austin, I agree that SMiLE would have been impossible to mix into anything but mono back in 1967, as Pet Sounds was the year earlier.

There is no reason why a stereo mix of Pet Sounds (or Smile) could not have been made in 1966-67. From a technical standpoint it wouldn't be any more difficult than mixing any other 60's album to stereo.

What wasn't possible (and is explained in the Pet Sounds boxset liners) is syncing the separate vocal multitrack with the instrumental multitrack. That requires a modern computer to sync the separate vocal and instrumental multitracks. A 1966 stereo mix of Pet Sounds would be have the instrumental track mono with stereo vocals, just like the stereo mix of Little Deuce Coupe for example. Not ideal but still stereo.
74  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: What If The SS Box Disappoints You? on: May 02, 2011, 05:36:11 AM
Art is *not* a democracy. Artists rarely consult their fans before taking decisions on what to do, and nor should they. But then people rarely get a chance to develop a sense of entitlement about a record before it comes out. Usually, the first thing fans know about it is when it's released. SMiLE, interestingly, is different. That's part of its charm, of course, but it also leads some people to be mighty self-righteous about it. If SMiLE *had* been released in 1967, and you'd been the age you are now in that year, how much influence would you have had with Brian Wilson about the final shape of SMiLE? How much could you have persuaded him, say, to include the False Barnyard fade or He Gives Speeches if he had decided not to on his release? Not one iota. To exactly no extent whatsoever.

Talk about being self-righteous! I don’t really disagree with any of that but it reads like a series of non sequiturs in this thread.

And so it is with this Sessions box set in 2011 (assuming it does make it out this year!). You can rant and moan all you want, but there is NOTHING anyone here can do to influence the form this box set takes. There is, in fact, just ONE thing you can do to express your displeasure in any kind of meaningful way. If you don't like it (and let's face it, there will be plenty of places you'll be able to hear the contents within a few days of release, unlike back when, say, the Pet Sounds box first came out), then don't buy it, and don't listen to it. Just stick with your existing boots, the recordings that first fired you up with a love of this music. Be happy with those, as you always have been. You don't *have* to buy the Sessions box set. Vote with your feet if you feel that strongly about it, because that's all you can do.

Matt, are you sure you aren't the one ranting and moaning here? Two one sentence posts speculating about the mixing based on prior work and you come back with the Magna Carta?

Also, has anyone talked about not buying it? Has anyone said they are happy with the boots? Are you really Mark L?

So here's my suggestion..

Here’s my suggestion. If you can spare the drama each time someone speculates about Smile on a Smile board I’ll buy you a set. Deal?
75  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: What If The SS Box Disappoints You? on: May 02, 2011, 05:19:51 AM
Boy, it sounds as though you guys are unsheathing the knives already. Or at least testing them to make sure they slide out fast when the time comes that you feel you need 'em... but to what end? What's the point?

I'm not being snidey - this is a serious question  

Here's a serious answer:

a) I'm not fond of the recent BB's remixes b) the same engineer is mixing the Smile set c) I expressed concern with how the new mixes will turn out.  

I'm not quite sure why this prompted such a theatrical, histrionic reply.

What comes out on this release is not up to you, or me, or (I would guess) ANYONE who posts on this board. You have no say in its mixing, track selection, or sequencing. You'll have to accept what you're given, whether you like it or not, as we all will.

For real? You mean the fans are picking the tracks? Thanks for clearing that up.

To the best of our knowledge as it stands today, there *AREN'T* vintage mix-downs for most of the SMiLE material. That's why Mark Linett mixes are mostly what we've got for all the stuff that's come out officially so far (on the '93 GV set, etc etc). Assuming that remains the case, and Messrs Boyd and Linett haven't unearthed a motherlode of 1966-7 era mono mixes in the course of their research, they have **no choice** but to create new mixes.

No merda? If vintage mixes didn't exist they had to remix? Thanks for the audio lesson  Roll Eyes

Yes, I understand they (as you put it) "have **no choice**" but to remix. I just hope they mix in a way more in line with how they mixed things in 1967.
 
You can try to get close to the original equipment, intention, and artistic vision, and I'm sure Alan and Mark are the right guys to get as close as possible to that - but you cannot recreate the original art as it might have been in 1966-7. Not without a time machine. So why can't everyone accept that as their default starting position?

Why? Because most (but not all) of the recent remixes made no effort to get as close to the original equipment, intention, and artistic vision. Why does get your panties out of line?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.53 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!