Be careful what you say.

[The Heartical Don]

If someone insinuated I was a drunkard, I'd get pissed too.

       I'm sure I know what you meant!  (Suspect it's a Brit thing!)

If someone insinuated I was a drunkard, I would make sure he'd get properly smashed.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Obviously, I think, it would be going too far to expect everybody to withhold any sort of statement that someone might not like--that would defeat the point.

BUT, there are some things one should keep in mind before posting.  I learned this the hard way.  The problem is that most of us are here because we're emotionally invested in this band, and I, a few years ago, let that get the better of me, and I went too far in criticizing BWPS.  I wasn't the worst offender, and I didn't say anything I didn't really feel, but I did neglect to consider the feelings of some of the people who posted here at the time who had a lot more emotionally invested than I did, to-wit, they worked on the album and put a lot of themselves into it.

And then, some time later, I found myself meeting some of these people in person, and I felt really bad.


Some of you may not have been around when this was the case, but it is easy to remember a time when, on any given day, one could find very informative posts from Steve Desper, Alan Boyd, and Mark Linett, among others.  These chaps have sacrificed huge swaths of their lives to the Beach Boys.  Unlike any of us, they have set aside time to do the unglamorous work that results in providing us with the best product they can--often having to engage in the mentally exhausting chore of pushing the record company to do things right.  It's a huge personal investment, and in the end, it means that, even more than us, the average hardcore fan, the Beach Boys are their baby.

So perhaps you can understand why, when confronted with posts that question their skill or commitment would hurt.  And, while a good deal of the humor on this board is funny, perhaps you can understand why, when confronted with strange posts with sexual content, or drug worship, or whatever it may be--people who used to post here a lot no longer do.

I hope I haven't gone too far here, but I wanted to say some things.

[The Heartical Don]

Obviously, I think, it would be going too far to expect everybody to withhold any sort of statement that someone might not like--that would defeat the point.

BUT, there are some things one should keep in mind before posting.  I learned this the hard way.  The problem is that most of us are here because we're emotionally invested in this band, and I, a few years ago, let that get the better of me, and I went too far in criticizing BWPS.  I wasn't the worst offender, and I didn't say anything I didn't really feel, but I did neglect to consider the feelings of some of the people who posted here at the time who had a lot more emotionally invested than I did, to-wit, they worked on the album and put a lot of themselves into it.

And then, some time later, I found myself meeting some of these people in person, and I felt really bad.


Some of you may not have been around when this was the case, but it is easy to remember a time when, on any given day, one could find very informative posts from Steve Desper, Alan Boyd, and Mark Linett, among others.  These chaps have sacrificed huge swaths of their lives to the Beach Boys.  Unlike any of us, they have set aside time to do the unglamorous work that results in providing us with the best product they can--often having to engage in the mentally exhausting chore of pushing the record company to do things right.  It's a huge personal investment, and in the end, it means that, even more than us, the average hardcore fan, the Beach Boys are their baby.

So perhaps you can understand why, when confronted with posts that question their skill or commitment would hurt.  And, while a good deal of the humor on this board is funny, perhaps you can understand why, when confronted with strange posts with sexual content, or drug worship, or whatever it may be--people who used to post here a lot no longer do.

I hope I haven't gone too far here, but I wanted to say some things.

Great call, great sportsmanship. Cheers aeijtzsche!

[Micha]

If someone insinuated I was a drunkard, I'd get pissed too.

       I'm sure I know what you meant!  (Suspect it's a Brit thing!)

I'm happy to have made you laugh! This is my personal humor at the purest, and I hope it seem like I was making fun of the main theme of this thread, which I think is spot on.

[Pretty Funky]

Just wondering AGD. Is it the same source who said the 'Do It Again' re-recording did not go well?

[DonnyL]

I'm not aware of the ins and outs of this board and what's been going on in the background, but ...

I have been reading and posting less often due to the environment lately; seems like a lot more fluff, offensive "joking" and a lot less of the real informative, academic-type posts.  Every time I've brought it up, the usual response is "lighten up".  But the reality of it is, most of the nonsense is simply not funny, not entertaining, and threatens the relevancy of this board, which was once (and hopefully will be again in the future) a great source of information.

I think it comes down to respect -- show some respect for your fellow human beings, including the subjects of this board, their friends, families and associates, and your fellow posters and readers.

[summerinparadise.flac]

the funny thing is that i have insider info that says the person who has been caused "disquiet and concern" is AGD himself. He read a post by someone saying he doesn't really look like Jeff Bridges.

[37!ws]

I did a search for the word "drunkard" and it showed up exactly three times, once, of course insinuating the possibility of a certain someone being that -- except it said something like "either a drunkard or hired the wrong people" --> that was two choices. Why did s/he "choose" the harsher one instead of the less-insulting one?? Now...if said poster had come right out and said "______ is a drunkard," that's libel right there...and said speaker could find himself/herself in serious legal trouble.....

[Wirestone]

In general, if someone is a public figure -- someone who has worked / given interviews / appeared in the public eye -- it is nearly impossible in court to prove a libel claim in the United States. Hyperbole -- of the sort cited earlier here -- has been explicitly protected by the courts.

That being said, if someone wanted to hire a lawyer to write nasty letters to those running the site, I doubt a battalion of Smiley Smile legal defense forces would spring into action. Easier to take the board down.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Just wondering AGD. Is it the same source who said the 'Do It Again' re-recording did not go well?

No.

[Mikie]

That being said,

There it is again!!!  AAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!

[buddhahat]

And calling someone who's working his butt off to give us the best possible Smile Sessions Box possible a drunkard, just because he might give a SMiLE-track a treatment we don't like to see happen, isn't too subtle either.

Excuse me for being paranoid but does the above refer to the following posting of mine? -

Is it really possible that Linett unintentionally clipped the start of the la la la part? I'm an absolute novice, and use audacity to do Smile edits. It's pretty easy to see where a section begins and ends from the waveforms, right? Surely it would be a colossal gaff for Linett to accidentally chop the start of a section out? He'd have to be editing blindfolded, or drunk or both.

If so I feel it's worth clarifying that I was pointing out the enormous unlikelihood that Linett accidentally clipped the start of a section, based on my limited understanding of modern editing software. I was not insinuating that he was a drunkard (or blind for that matter), but if it was taken this way and any offence was caused, then I sincerely apologise. I was admittedly expressing minor frustration in other posts in the thread that the drop in to the La La La section could have come a micro second later in the mix imo, but I feel I made these observations sensitively and if anyone was made to look stupid as a result of that anal retentiveness then it was me. I also frequently balanced out this criticism with many effusive posts about how great the new mixes are that have trickled out.

If this topic is about criticism of Linett and Boyd's work I think it's fair to say that this will be inevitable come Nov 1st, however good a job they do, and I'm sure they're aware that their work will be contentious amongst the Smile purists and armchair producers. Providing the tone is respectful, I think it's acceptable that any product put out in relation to The Beach Boys is open to critique here, certainly since  I get the impression this board is a valuable source of promotion for many working in BB land, and is also a good place to gauge the desires of the average hardcore fan. I hope this thread is not about encouraging us to keep a lid on our criticisms of Beach Boys product, but more about being civil and respectful to both insiders and each other.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Excuse me for being paranoid but does the above refer to the following posting of mine? -

Is it really possible that Linett unintentionally clipped the start of the la la la part? I'm an absolute novice, and use audacity to do Smile edits. It's pretty easy to see where a section begins and ends from the waveforms, right? Surely it would be a colossal gaff for Linett to accidentally chop the start of a section out? He'd have to be editing blindfolded, or drunk or both.

Well, were my name Mark Linett and, after having put in months of research and stressful studio toil, I read that on a BB MB, posted by a self-confessed audio tyro, I wouldn't just be pissed, I'd come round and rip your lungs out with my bare hands. Not everyone has the same SOH. Not everyone can get away with the same stuff.

My point was, and is, that the things we post here are read by the people we're talking about, or representatives thereof. Consider that before hitting the 'post' button.

[CarlTheVoice]

I think it's very important that we respect that everyone on here, or involved in the Beach Boys world - past or present - has feelings and although we may have our opinions of them, we should be careful with how we put those opinions across. There is only one reason we are all on here, because we love the Beach Boys and their music. We should respect everyone who shaped their history and music and be glad we are given the opportunity to talk about it with like-minded people. Now, we all know the best way to calm down after a discussion like this - listen to a BB album!

[Andrew G. Doe]

... and then we'll have world peace. 

[buddhahat]

Excuse me for being paranoid but does the above refer to the following posting of mine? -

Is it really possible that Linett unintentionally clipped the start of the la la la part? I'm an absolute novice, and use audacity to do Smile edits. It's pretty easy to see where a section begins and ends from the waveforms, right? Surely it would be a colossal gaff for Linett to accidentally chop the start of a section out? He'd have to be editing blindfolded, or drunk or both.

Well, were my name Mark Linett and, after having put in months of research and stressful studio toil, I read that on a BB MB, posted by a self-confessed audio tyro, I wouldn't just be pissed, I'd come round and rip your lungs out with my bare hands. Not everyone has the same SOH. Not everyone can get away with the same stuff.

My point was, and is, that the things we post here are read by the people we're talking about, or representatives thereof. Consider that before hitting the 'post' button.

I think something has been lost in translation here, or maybe my phrasing was bad. But please allow me to clarify (once again) just to make my position clear: In response to a suggestion by another poster that Linett had clipped the start of the section, my point was that with waveforms making it easier to see where things begin and end I found it impossible to conceive  that Linett would make that mistake unless he was either drunk or blindfolded i.e. I didn't believe he clipped the start of the section, it just wasn't conceivable.
. IIRC, I even state in surrounding posts that I don't hear any clipping. I just air my opinion that the section sounds like it comes in a fraction too early in comparison to the original Smile mix, but do so very politely making it clear that I love the mix, that I am no expert to judge, that he most likely had good reason etc. etc. but to MY ears and in My opinion, to which I'm entitled, it feels as if it comes in too early. What's wrong with that?

I think folks are a little over sensitive here if my post was translated as "Linett edits like a drunk", but if that's how it was interpreted by Linett then he has my sincere apologies and I hope he reads this and realises the misunderstanding.

With all respect  AGD, you're one of the most outspoken and openly critical here and spent a lot of time sounding off about how it would be tragic if any recordings outside of the official Smile Sessions were included in this box. A point you seem to have conveniently forgotten since it's become clear that pre and post Smile Session material will be included. Do you not imagine for one second that those cherished insiders of yours may also regard your achingly high standards of historical accuracy as irritating as my nitpicking? Please don't take the moral high ground with me over my choice to make certain criticisms. Certainly not when you fail to understand the nature of the post in question. In honesty I find it somewhat hypocritical that you started this thread in the first place.

[Micha]

I did a search for the word "drunkard" and it showed up exactly three times, once, of course insinuating the possibility of a certain someone being that -- except it said something like "either a drunkard or hired the wrong people" --> that was two choices. Why did s/he "choose" the harsher one instead of the less-insulting one??

Because if that "certain someone" reads it he will be affected more by the word "drunkard" than by "hired the wrong people"? Could you imagine?

[buddhahat]

OK having searched for the word drunkard myself it seems that my post was most likely not the post in question and hopefully didn't cause any offense.

I have to say I don't find the cryptic nature of this thread particularly helpful. If somebody high up in the chain has really been hurt by a post here, would it not make more sense just to PM the poster in question, or at least make it a bit more obvious what the offending post was? At the moment it might be jibes about Jeff Foskett's falsetto, Melinda, criticisms of Mark Linett's edits etc. etc. etc. and everybody's left wondering what they can and cannot say and it starts to feel more and more like something out of 1984. Hell if I want that vibe I can post at the Hoffman Board anytime (distant sound of Buddhahat's Hoffman account suddenly terminating).

[Andrew G. Doe]

With all respect  AGD, you're one of the most outspoken and openly critical here and spent a lot of time sounding off about how it would be tragic if any recordings outside of the official Smile Sessions were included in this box. A point you seem to have conveniently forgotten since it's become clear that pre and post Smile Session material will be included. Do you not imagine for one second that those cherished insiders of yours may also regard your achingly high standards of historical accuracy as irritating as my nitpicking? Please don't take the moral high ground with me over my choice to make certain criticisms. Certainly not when you fail to understand the nature of the post in question. In honesty I find it somewhat hypocritical that you started this thread in the first place.

Right now, I can't respond to that observation except to say most of my sources are also friends: do the math. As for the inclusion of non-Smile material, yes, I was initially heavily against it, but the vast majority of it is contained in CD1, which is for Joe Q. Public and not the likes of us, so I can live with that. Outside of CD 1, there's "Three Blind Mice", as an example of Brian's early adventures in orchestration (I assume) and "Cool, Cool Water", which while not of Smile was certainly heavily informed by it.

[buddhahat]

With all respect  AGD, you're one of the most outspoken and openly critical here and spent a lot of time sounding off about how it would be tragic if any recordings outside of the official Smile Sessions were included in this box. A point you seem to have conveniently forgotten since it's become clear that pre and post Smile Session material will be included. Do you not imagine for one second that those cherished insiders of yours may also regard your achingly high standards of historical accuracy as irritating as my nitpicking? Please don't take the moral high ground with me over my choice to make certain criticisms. Certainly not when you fail to understand the nature of the post in question. In honesty I find it somewhat hypocritical that you started this thread in the first place.

Right now, I can't respond to that observation except to say most of my sources are also friends: do the math. As for the inclusion of non-Smile material, yes, I was initially heavily against it, but the vast majority of it is contained in CD1, which is for Joe Q. Public and not the likes of us, so I can live with that. Outside of CD 1, there's "Three Blind Mice", as an example of Brian's early adventures in orchestration (I assume) and "Cool, Cool Water", which while not of Smile was certainly heavily informed by it.

The truth is AGD I don't mind either way if you are or aren't happy with choices made relating to historical accuracy. It's your thing and I respect that. I believe I'm entitled to the same courtesy when I wish to politely question an editing choice made my Mark Linett, and I would hope and imagine that Linett himself is equipped with a thick enough skin to take such criticisms from audiophile nerds on a message board with a grain of salt.

[The Heartical Don]

I think it's very important that we respect that everyone on here, or involved in the Beach Boys world - past or present - has feelings and although we may have our opinions of them, we should be careful with how we put those opinions across. There is only one reason we are all on here, because we love the Beach Boys and their music. We should respect everyone who shaped their history and music and be glad we are given the opportunity to talk about it with like-minded people. Now, we all know the best way to calm down after a discussion like this - listen to a BB album!

Or have sex.

[Andrew G. Doe]

You 'politely' referred to him as a drunkard (definition: "a person who is habitually drunk"), or as editing blindfolded. Evidently your notion of politeness differs from the norm.

[buddhahat]

You 'politely' referred to him as a drunkard (definition: "a person who is habitually drunk"), or as editing blindfolded. Evidently your notion of politeness differs from the norm.

No, I said: "he'd have to editing blindfolded or drunk (to make such a mistake)". I probably should have followed this up with "...because I don't believe this mistake has occurred, just as I don't believe that Linett habitually edits drunk or blindfolded" but I credited SmileySmilers with more intelligence and a better grasp of the English language. More fool me.

Also I might reiterate that my post is not the 'drunkard' post in question so perhaps you want to play moral arbiter with someone other than me? Either that, or do us all a favour and come clean as to what inspired this thread in the first place.

[buddhahat]

I think it's very important that we respect that everyone on here, or involved in the Beach Boys world - past or present - has feelings and although we may have our opinions of them, we should be careful with how we put those opinions across. There is only one reason we are all on here, because we love the Beach Boys and their music. We should respect everyone who shaped their history and music and be glad we are given the opportunity to talk about it with like-minded people. Now, we all know the best way to calm down after a discussion like this - listen to a BB album!

Or have sex.

Be careful what you say. 

[Andrew G. Doe]

Either that, or do us all a favour and come clean as to what inspired this thread in the first place.

Read my first post.