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, 12:26:14 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Add vocals only where lyrics are of 1960's vintage  (Read 21907 times)
BJL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 333


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: March 20, 2011, 05:44:29 PM »

I'm generally against adding modern "updates" to old recordings, no matter who does it, but you know what really changed my mind?  The version of Holy Man on bambu.  That record proved to me that it is possible to recapture the spirit of a song or a moment to provide the fans with a new piece of music expanding on and giving tribute to the old.  So in that spirit, I hope there is new recording done for this box set, because I'd love to hear the Beach Boys, even whats left of them today, give us a new take on some of the lyrics which were written but not recorded in 1966-7.  And I think those songs would belong where Holy Man was: tacked onto the end of the last disc, as a bonus.  To me, that does nothing to compromise the integrity of what the early discs present, it just adds, expands, and pays tribute. 
Logged
Mr. Cohen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1746


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: March 20, 2011, 07:18:16 PM »

"Holy Man" worked, though, precisely because the vocal wasn't recorded by a Beach Boy. I want youthful voices on the Smile material, because that's what the songs were written for. Put some of the Wondermints on there, or some of the BB's backing band, or even some of the BBs descendants on the tracks. If you're going to have Brian sing the parts now, it might as well be BWPS.
Logged
bgas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6372


Oh for the good old days


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: March 20, 2011, 07:28:04 PM »

"Holy Man" worked, though, precisely because the vocal wasn't recorded by a Beach Boy. I want youthful voices on the Smile material, because that's what the songs were written for. Put some of the Wondermints on there, or some of the BB's backing band, or even some of the BBs descendants on the tracks. If you're going to have Brian sing the parts now, it might as well be BWPS.

So Capitol/somebody wants to add new vocalds/vocalists to old tracks, let them add a completely separate bonus disc to the set and label it just for what it is.  
Put as many or as few tracks on there as they want. It should be a free (throwaway) disc, because new vocals aren't part of the Smile sessions.
Heck, get Kayla to sing some of the leads...
« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 07:29:54 PM by bgas » Logged

Nothing I post is my opinion, it's all a message from God
Chris Moise
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 192


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: March 21, 2011, 11:20:46 AM »

The 3-sided Smile is Brian. I'm sure as they assemble a track listing that Brian will be involved in not only song selection, but sequencing, as well. Unless they go verbatim with BWPS, who else would know better that Mark or Alan could turn to? Brian may not be involved in the day to day work, but he's involved. He has to be. This is his legacy, as well as The Beach Boys, on the line.

I love the guy but I don't think the 2011 model Brian Wilson is necessarily the best source for minutiae on the original Smile sessions. I know that sounds arrogant but if Diamond Head and Time To Get Alone were on Brian's 2003 Smile list then...you get the point. I may be off but my impression of BWPS was Darian played Brian a bunch of sequences (in the context of presenting a live show) and Brian would pick the one he liked best. That's a far cry the 1966 model Brian that produced every second of the 1966 sessions. I want disc 1 to respect the guy that was the greatest record producer on the planet. He ain't that guy anymore. For that reason if it comes down to "Brian, all of the 1966 mixes are like this" vs. "Mark, I like Fire with the 'in the pink' line added" then I think the they should go with the '66 mixes.
Logged
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #79 on: March 21, 2011, 12:09:21 PM »

So Chris, if not Brian working out the track listing and sequencing, then to whom shall we turn to? Geez, Brian has really fallen from grace. Can't trust him with making any musical decisions on his own compositions. On his own "Teenage Symphony To God".  Oh, how the mighty have fallen. It's a dirty shame, it is. Wink
Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
Chris Moise
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 192


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: March 21, 2011, 12:48:11 PM »

So Chris, if not Brian working out the track listing and sequencing, then to whom shall we turn to? Geez, Brian has really fallen from grace. Can't trust him with making any musical decisions on his own compositions.

I don't want the compilers of the boxset to turn to anyone. There is a list of songs that were to be on the 1966/67 Smile album. For the stab at a "finished" 1966/67 album I want the titles on that list in their most complete form before it was announced the project was scrapped. Since a 1966/67 album was not going to have movements I don't care what the sequence is. Of course, I want Brian but if it comes down to the 1966 tapes and what Brian today wants I think the tapes should have more weight. In other words, if there is a Great Shape acetate with a verse/chorus/verse structure I don't want the "finished" album to have the Great Shape/I Wanna Be Around/Workshop structure or whatever it is. If you respect Brian Wilson's skills as a producer in 1966 I would think you want the same.

This box is about what Brian was doing in 1966. We're talking about the best producer at the top of his game, working with the best musicians, a once in a lifetime vocal blend, in the best studios during the best year of pop music.  I want this to respect that sh*t. I'm not that interested in what the 2011 model Brian brings to the project.
Logged
hypehat
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6311



View Profile
« Reply #81 on: March 21, 2011, 12:57:02 PM »

Last time I checked, the guys name who made that music was Brian Wilson and he's still alive and kicking. I would understand that reasoning if he was dead, but sadly he isn't. I guess we'll just have to deal with the fact he gets to release what he likes. These goshdarn Beach Boys....  Grin
Logged

All roads lead to Kokomo. Exhaustive research in time travel has conclusively proven that there is no alternate universe WITHOUT Kokomo. It would've happened regardless.
What is this "life" thing you speak of ?

Quote from: Al Jardine
Syncopate it? In front of all these people?!
Chris Moise
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 192


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: March 21, 2011, 01:05:21 PM »

Last time I checked, the guys name who made that music was Brian Wilson and he's still alive and kicking. I would understand that reasoning if he was dead, but sadly he isn't. I guess we'll just have to deal with the fact he gets to release what he likes. These goshdarn Beach Boys....  Grin

He's alive but I'm not sure he is kicking. At least not in terms of producing records. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he shouldn't be involved or shouldn't have veto power over the project. My only point is if one side of the scale is "1966 BW mixes" and the other is "2011 BW assembly" I think the 1966 mixes should be given more weight. This is based on my respect for Brian Wilson's talents in the 1960's when he was spitting out masterpieces on a weekly basis.
Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #83 on: March 21, 2011, 01:11:28 PM »

The 3-sided Smile is Brian. I'm sure as they assemble a track listing that Brian will be involved in not only song selection, but sequencing, as well. Unless they go verbatim with BWPS, who else would know better that Mark or Alan could turn to? Brian may not be involved in the day to day work, but he's involved. He has to be. This is his legacy, as well as The Beach Boys, on the line.

I love the guy but I don't think the 2011 model Brian Wilson is necessarily the best source for minutiae on the original Smile sessions. I know that sounds arrogant but if Diamond Head and Time To Get Alone were on Brian's 2003 Smile list then...you get the point. I may be off but my impression of BWPS was Darian played Brian a bunch of sequences (in the context of presenting a live show) and Brian would pick the one he liked best. That's a far cry the 1966 model Brian that produced every second of the 1966 sessions. I want disc 1 to respect the guy that was the greatest record producer on the planet. He ain't that guy anymore. For that reason if it comes down to "Brian, all of the 1966 mixes are like this" vs. "Mark, I like Fire with the 'in the pink' line added" then I think the they should go with the '66 mixes.

My understanding (FWIW and yes, thanks for asking, I've had a pleasant weekend away) is that Brian will be presented with the track listing & sequence - and packaging - to approve (or not): I don't think he'll be involved in the actual track selection.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #84 on: March 21, 2011, 01:22:50 PM »

Chris, Disc 1 is not about 1966. This is the 1966 album done in 2011. To sell, it needs to sound fairly finished. Mark & Alan have to turn to someone. They may have a track listing, but they don't have a sequence. Mark says the LP will be three sides. meaning possibly more music than originally intended. Who knows? Brian most likely. You clearly have no faith in Brian, anymore. I see now why Brian was always so hesitant about releasing Smile. Everyone second guesses him and now it is the fans, as well.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 01:26:43 PM by drbeachboy » Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
bgas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6372


Oh for the good old days


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: March 21, 2011, 01:29:22 PM »


My understanding (FWIW and yes, thanks for asking, I've had a pleasant weekend away) is that Brian will be presented with the track listing & sequence - and packaging - to approve (or not): I don't think he'll be involved in the actual track selection.

Yep. That's what I thought. 

Disc 1 is not about 1966. This is the 1966 album done in 2011. To sell, it needs to sound fairly finished. Mark & Alan have to turn to someone. They may have a track listing, but they don't have a sequence. Mark says the LP will be three sides. meaning possibly more music than originally intended. Who knows? Brian most likely. You clearly have no faith in Brian, anymore. I see now why Brian was always so hesitant about releasing Smile. Everyone second guesses him and now it is the fans, as well.

Everything devolving to arguments; Where's Brians' argument session when you need it? 
You obviously just aren't listening. I got it, so it can't be that hard to see.
If there's a choice between 1966 tapes and Brian's 2004/11 choices, he says we should give more weight to 1966. 
THAT IS what the Smile Seesions is about, IMO( and seeemingly most people)
It's NOT about what Brian thinks he should do this year, it's about the sessions he recorded then. 
Logged

Nothing I post is my opinion, it's all a message from God
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #86 on: March 21, 2011, 01:34:46 PM »

The 2011 part is only choosing tracks and sequencing. It has to be 2011. There was never an official 1966 album to go by. Yes, it is what Brian thinks this year. This year is the year it is released.
Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #87 on: March 21, 2011, 01:41:30 PM »

Andrew, the back cover track listing, it's only a listing, not sequenced, correct? Recordings ceased so the tapes were never sequenced for an album, correct? If both are true, then wouldn't a final track listing and sequencing have to be originally done in 2011 or am I missing something here? Thanks!
Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
Chris Moise
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 192


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: March 21, 2011, 02:34:27 PM »


Why is everyone hung up on the sequence? I think some people are looking at this through BWPS goggles. A 1966 LP was not going to have 'movements' and the track order wasn't decided so does it really matter what order the songs are in?

If Pet Sounds was scrapped before Brian got around to deciding the track order and 40 years later it is coming out would anyone sweat whether Here Today was track 3, track 5 or track 8? Smile is no different.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #89 on: March 21, 2011, 03:16:42 PM »

Quote
Chris, Disc 1 is not about 1966. This is the 1966 album done in 2011. To sell, it needs to sound fairly finished.
No it doesn't! It's a SESSIONS box of an UNFINISHED ALBUM. If it was being released as a single disc, you might have a point. And as arguably the most legendary unfinished album of all time, a box set version will sell regardless of Disc 1.
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
buddhahat
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2643


Hi, my name's Doug. Would you like to dance?


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: March 21, 2011, 04:05:12 PM »

I can see both sides of the argument here.

The truth is, we have no idea what we will get. It is a sessions box, but the playable disc will be the focus of the most media attention and is therefore the most important element to get right. Here are the options as I see it:

1. They could use the BWPS sequence and edit the tracks into BWPS structures too (i.e. H&V starts with Gee and ends with western theme + sunny down snuff)

2. Or use the BWPS sequence, but keep the structure of the original tracks intact (i.e. use Cantina Heroes, or better still an unearthed, unbooted edit!)

3. Or make up a sequence based on the 66 list.

I'd be up #1, providing vintage edits of all the tracks are available elsewhere on the box set. If done well, it could be great, (but of course, if it's bad it will be really bad)

#2 is my preferred option.

Personally I think #3 is a bad idea. Mark and Alan will effectively have to pluck a sequence out of thin air. This will result in a neither this nor that situation where most people will ask "why on earth didn't they use Brian & VDP's sequence from 03/04?"

I may have misread a lot of the press but Mark L seems to be implying that BWPS will be used as a template, and Domenc P is proclaiming that Surf's Up was always supposed to be in the middle. This would suggest that BWPS is going to be the map for the playable part and as such I don't understand why we're still debating BWPS sequence vs 66 list. I think the biggest question now should be: Will they or won't they hack up the tracks to mirror BWPS?

« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 04:06:46 PM by buddhahat » Logged

Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes, Bedroom Tapes ......
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #91 on: March 21, 2011, 04:05:26 PM »

Quote
Chris, Disc 1 is not about 1966. This is the 1966 album done in 2011. To sell, it needs to sound fairly finished.
No it doesn't! It's a SESSIONS box of an UNFINISHED ALBUM. If it was being released as a single disc, you might have a point. And as arguably the most legendary unfinished album of all time, a box set version will sell regardless of Disc 1.
Disc 1 is an approximation of the what the original album might have been. Discs 2-4 will be sessions. Disc 1 will be the album proper. It needs a track listing, and those tracks picked will need to sequenced for playing order. Chris, this Disc 1 looks like it will have movements if what Mark stated in the interview stays on track by release. So yes, track listing and sequencing concerns me for disc 1. Also, the average fan will be buying the 2 disc set, so disc 1 is a very important selling point. Guys, be real about this release.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 04:12:10 PM by drbeachboy » Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #92 on: March 21, 2011, 04:11:13 PM »

Who's to say that if they use the movement concept that the track listing won't be different than BWPS? With all interlocking pieces of music, I wouldn't count it out.
Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
Jeff
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 545



View Profile
« Reply #93 on: March 21, 2011, 04:46:31 PM »

I’m really surprised by the number of people who insist that BWPS should be the structure for the 1966-67 sessions.  Even if the historical integrity of the original sessions were meaningless, using BWPS as the template would be a bad idea, because it would include too much intstrumental.

In addition to the portions of Worms and Child that are missing lead vocals, H&V intro, IWBA/FN, Look, Holidays and Da Da are all mostly or entirely missing vocals.  Using them on Disc 1 just would not make for the ideal listening experience IMO.

I’m all for including Prayer and/or You’re Welcome, since I think one or both would have been an unlisted track in 1967.  I’m also for using Barnyard and Water, since I bet that both would have been part of one of the listed tracks.  But beyond that, you’re really going to dilute the power of the album.
Logged
juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1121


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: March 21, 2011, 05:21:42 PM »

I’m really surprised by the number of people who insist that BWPS should be the structure for the 1966-67 sessions.  Even if the historical integrity of the original sessions were meaningless, using BWPS as the template would be a bad idea, because it would include too much intstrumental.

In addition to the portions of Worms and Child that are missing lead vocals, H&V intro, IWBA/FN, Look, Holidays and Da Da are all mostly or entirely missing vocals.  Using them on Disc 1 just would not make for the ideal listening experience IMO.

I’m all for including Prayer and/or You’re Welcome, since I think one or both would have been an unlisted track in 1967.  I’m also for using Barnyard and Water, since I bet that both would have been part of one of the listed tracks.  But beyond that, you’re really going to dilute the power of the album.

You make a great point, and I'm with you for the most part, though I'm still holding out hope that Mark and Alan have found (or will find) vintage lead vocals on one or two of the tracks you've mention (e.g., Worm and/or Child).  In the Billboard interview, when talking about missing lead vocals, Mark cites Da Da as "the biggest one." 

"If you take Brian's 2004 version as a blueprint, [it will have] all of that music, all of the significant parts and even the little segue ways. For the most part, that project was heavily researched by myself and others to make sure Brian had available all the parts that had been recorded back in 1966 and 1967. Some lyric additions were made in 2004 that hadn't been completed before the project was abandoned. That's some of the questions that we have to do deal with. How will we are going to present those few pieces. But there really aren't too many. The biggest one is the song that became Blue Hawaii, which started out as a thing called "Loved to Say Dada," which is sort of the water section of the piece. That had background but no lead vocal."


That's an interest comment, isn't it?  I mean, who amongst us really considered the lack of a lead vocal on Da Da as the "biggest" gap?  I know that I didn't.  Da Da may or may not be the water part of The Elements, but I certainly don't think it'd be a big deal if it were included "as is" on Disc 1 or even left off completely.  "Look" and "Holidays" are almost certainly missing lead vocals, and if either or both were also left off of Disc 1, I wouldn't care.   
Logged
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #95 on: March 21, 2011, 06:00:15 PM »

I’m really surprised by the number of people who insist that BWPS should be the structure for the 1966-67 sessions.  Even if the historical integrity of the original sessions were meaningless, using BWPS as the template would be a bad idea, because it would include too much intstrumental.

In addition to the portions of Worms and Child that are missing lead vocals, H&V intro, IWBA/FN, Look, Holidays and Da Da are all mostly or entirely missing vocals.  Using them on Disc 1 just would not make for the ideal listening experience IMO.

I’m all for including Prayer and/or You’re Welcome, since I think one or both would have been an unlisted track in 1967.  I’m also for using Barnyard and Water, since I bet that both would have been part of one of the listed tracks.  But beyond that, you’re really going to dilute the power of the album.
Nobody is insisting on anything. It is from Mark Linett. Even if they go the movement route, they can still use different songs in a different order if they have to, to make it feel more finished. How do you know if anything is being diluted? None of us knows exactly what they are going to do. I'd like to see Prayer their too, but not You're Welcome. But it is not about me and I'll accept whatever they decide to do, mostly because I'm not Brian or one of the Compilation Producers. It will be what the they make it and that's it. We should be having this discussion after the tracks are announced, not now when we don't know didley squat in regard to what they are going to do.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2011, 06:01:18 PM by drbeachboy » Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
Jeff
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 545



View Profile
« Reply #96 on: March 21, 2011, 06:29:03 PM »

I’m really surprised by the number of people who insist that BWPS should be the structure for the 1966-67 sessions.  Even if the historical integrity of the original sessions were meaningless, using BWPS as the template would be a bad idea, because it would include too much intstrumental.

In addition to the portions of Worms and Child that are missing lead vocals, H&V intro, IWBA/FN, Look, Holidays and Da Da are all mostly or entirely missing vocals.  Using them on Disc 1 just would not make for the ideal listening experience IMO.

I’m all for including Prayer and/or You’re Welcome, since I think one or both would have been an unlisted track in 1967.  I’m also for using Barnyard and Water, since I bet that both would have been part of one of the listed tracks.  But beyond that, you’re really going to dilute the power of the album.
Nobody is insisting on anything. It is from Mark Linett. Even if they go the movement route, they can still use different songs in a different order if they have to, to make it feel more finished. How do you know if anything is being diluted? None of us knows exactly what they are going to do. I'd like to see Prayer their too, but not You're Welcome. But it is not about me and I'll accept whatever they decide to do, mostly because I'm not Brian or one of the Compilation Producers. It will be what the they make it and that's it. We should be having this discussion after the tracks are announced, not now when we don't know didley squat in regard to what they are going to do.

Using different songs in a different order isn't going to hide the fact that Look, Holidays, etc., don't have vocals.  Using them would at very least dilute the vocals/instrumental ratio--that really can't be argued.  IMO it would also dilute the quality of the disc, and I can say that (even though it's just my opinion) because I'm familiar with the pieces.
Logged
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #97 on: March 21, 2011, 06:38:29 PM »

Well as we know Smile was never completed. You can only go with what you got. Let's just say that it will be as finished as it can be in terms of 1966. Plus, who knows, we could be in for a couple of surprises when it is released, just on a smaller scale than Brian originally wanted us to be back in 1967.
Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
Jeff
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 545



View Profile
« Reply #98 on: March 21, 2011, 06:45:49 PM »

Well as we know Smile was never completed. You can only go with what you got. Let's just say that it will be as finished as it can be in terms of 1966. Plus, who knows, we could be in for a couple of surprises when it is released, just on a smaller scale than Brian originally wanted us to be back in 1967.

You can also go with less than what you've got.  To me, the available sessions allow for a very good 60 minute disc, but a truly great 40-45 minute disc.  I'd rather have the truly great, which would mean not using some of the material that has vocals on BWPS but is vocal-less from 1966-67.
Logged
Jeff
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 545



View Profile
« Reply #99 on: March 21, 2011, 07:05:22 PM »

I’m really surprised by the number of people who insist that BWPS should be the structure for the 1966-67 sessions.  Even if the historical integrity of the original sessions were meaningless, using BWPS as the template would be a bad idea, because it would include too much intstrumental.

In addition to the portions of Worms and Child that are missing lead vocals, H&V intro, IWBA/FN, Look, Holidays and Da Da are all mostly or entirely missing vocals.  Using them on Disc 1 just would not make for the ideal listening experience IMO.

I’m all for including Prayer and/or You’re Welcome, since I think one or both would have been an unlisted track in 1967.  I’m also for using Barnyard and Water, since I bet that both would have been part of one of the listed tracks.  But beyond that, you’re really going to dilute the power of the album.

You make a great point, and I'm with you for the most part, though I'm still holding out hope that Mark and Alan have found (or will find) vintage lead vocals on one or two of the tracks you've mention (e.g., Worm and/or Child).  In the Billboard interview, when talking about missing lead vocals, Mark cites Da Da as "the biggest one." 

"If you take Brian's 2004 version as a blueprint, [it will have] all of that music, all of the significant parts and even the little segue ways. For the most part, that project was heavily researched by myself and others to make sure Brian had available all the parts that had been recorded back in 1966 and 1967. Some lyric additions were made in 2004 that hadn't been completed before the project was abandoned. That's some of the questions that we have to do deal with. How will we are going to present those few pieces. But there really aren't too many. The biggest one is the song that became Blue Hawaii, which started out as a thing called "Loved to Say Dada," which is sort of the water section of the piece. That had background but no lead vocal."


That's an interest comment, isn't it?  I mean, who amongst us really considered the lack of a lead vocal on Da Da as the "biggest" gap?  I know that I didn't.  Da Da may or may not be the water part of The Elements, but I certainly don't think it'd be a big deal if it were included "as is" on Disc 1 or even left off completely.  "Look" and "Holidays" are almost certainly missing lead vocals, and if either or both were also left off of Disc 1, I wouldn't care.   


Yeah, it's hard to know what to take from that.  If DaDa really were the biggest problem, that would be a wonderful thing.  But it could also mean that Linett is badly misjudging what is important.
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.88 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!