gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680597 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 04:16:07 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: MIC modern reconstuction.  (Read 12422 times)
Matt Bielewicz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 648


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: August 29, 2013, 09:26:47 AM »

Well, I don't agree (although that's just my opinion, as you have yours...). After all, you can still have the EH version if you prefer it. I quite like the new ending: it lifts the demo a bit and is fun. Historical accuracy be damned.

After all, if they'd stuck to historical accuracy, Brian and Van Dyke would never have finished SMiLE. Artists get on and make art, and history is for the scholars who come along afterwards to try to make sense of it all.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 09:33:35 AM by Matt Bielewicz » Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 29, 2013, 09:35:20 AM »

After all, if they'd stuck to historical accuracy, Brian and Van Dyke would never have finished SMiLE.

They didn't.  Smiley
Logged

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

Gender: Male
Posts: 3133



View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 29, 2013, 09:38:39 AM »

They did too, unfortunately without using the 1966/67 vintage tracks.

I like SPS (MIC).

I wonder what they did to R'n'R Music that it sounds so great now. The guitars are softer, but what's that high percussive thing? Is it the autoharp they brought up front?
Logged

Ceterum censeo SMiLEBrianum OSDumque esse excludendos banno.
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1990



View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 29, 2013, 09:40:02 AM »

People bitched when the boxed set tracklist came out because they thought they'd seen everything before.

Now we know the compilers worked their asses off to give us unique versions and mixes.

So we bitch about that instead.

Le sigh.

Quotado in veritas. Some people are never happy.

A lot of these mixes have been done from scratch, and clearly incorporate things that were on the original tapes, but were mixed out for the original releases. I'm certain that's the case with Suzie Cincinnati. All the Dennis ad-libs on the tag, they're not fly-ins, they're things that were recorded back in the day which were mixed out on the original release, I'll bet my life on it. And if I remember correctly (it's quite possible that I don't), there were two multitracks for We're Together Again back in the late 60s for some reason, one of which had the string overdubs on it and subsequently went missing. I don't know why they recorded it like that; I know in the *MID-60s* they did a lot of recording of basic tracks to one multitrack, dubbed the tracks from that down to a fresh one, and carried on recording, but that was because they were on three- or four-tracks back then. By the time of We're Together Again, I don't know why that would have still been necessary, as they were definitely using eight-tracks regularly and were either about to start using 16-tracks as well, or already had.

But for whatever reason, if I recall correctly, it must have been like this. A basic backing for We're Together Again is recorded to Tape A. Later parts of this are dubbed to Tape B, to which string overdubs are recorded. Test mixes are done from Tape B that include the strings. Some time after that, Tape B goes missing, so the only tapes that have the string overdubs on them are the test mixdowns, which are booted and circulate among collectors during the 80s. When the twofers were released in 1990, the released mix of We're Together Again (which was added to Friends/20/20 as a bonus track) could only be made using Tape A, so there were no strings.

Between 1990 and today, Tape B turned up again, and so it's now possible to make a mix with the strings, as it was in the late 60s. And that's how we get the version on MiC. Far from being some kind of revisionist sweetening string overdub created especially for MiC, those parts were always *supposed* to be there...

...I think.

This was mid-'68, so it would have most likely have been 8-track ... certainly not 16-track, maybe 4 if it were some kind of demo situation.

I think the previously released mix was an original mono mix, not a 1990 (or 2001) remix.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 09:42:48 AM by DonnyL » Logged

Wirestone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6043



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: August 29, 2013, 09:43:38 AM »

I think some things go a bit further than I'd like -- SPS was fine as was. Ditto for YLTLF, although I get what Mark was trying to do with it.

That being said, the 15BO mixes are amazing. And the track only Had to Phone takes its place as a fabulous instrumental. So where's the expanded and remixed full 15BO set? Let's do this thing!
Logged
Matt Bielewicz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 648


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: August 29, 2013, 10:07:40 AM »

This was mid-'68, so it would have most likely have been 8-track ... certainly not 16-track, maybe 4 if it were some kind of demo situation.

I think the previously released mix was an original mono mix, not a 1990 (or 2001) remix.


Well, the sleeve might be wrong, of course... but the back of my original 1990-issue Friends/2020 twofer says that We're Together Again, along with Walk On By and Old Folks At Home/Old Man River were mixed by Mark Linett at his studio.

And yet, the inner booklet DOES say that We're Together Again was 'recorded in mono'. So the only way for both of those things to be true is that Mark mixed WTA for release in 1990 IN MONO. Which *could* have happened, I suppose...

No further forward, really...!
Logged
Matt Bielewicz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 648


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: August 29, 2013, 10:10:54 AM »

After all, if they'd stuck to historical accuracy, Brian and Van Dyke would never have finished SMiLE.

They didn't.  Smiley

OK, I knew that bit would be controversial! I think there was a thread 100s of pages long on that very topic here a few years ago, wasn't there?

So, how about: "they completed a version of SMiLE that they considered finished"...?
Logged
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1990



View Profile WWW
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2013, 10:15:41 AM »

This was mid-'68, so it would have most likely have been 8-track ... certainly not 16-track, maybe 4 if it were some kind of demo situation.

I think the previously released mix was an original mono mix, not a 1990 (or 2001) remix.


Well, the sleeve might be wrong, of course... but the back of my original 1990-issue Friends/2020 twofer says that We're Together Again, along with Walk On By and Old Folks At Home/Old Man River were mixed by Mark Linett at his studio.

And yet, the inner booklet DOES say that We're Together Again was 'recorded in mono'. So the only way for both of those things to be true is that Mark mixed WTA for release in 1990 IN MONO. Which *could* have happened, I suppose...

No further forward, really...!

I don't know, it sounds like a '60s mix to me.
Logged

petsite
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 770



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: August 29, 2013, 10:50:01 AM »

I still don't understand why the California Saga 45 version can't be somehow salvaged. A mint copy can sound really good with the right transfer.

No need - the master is perfectly OK. The 45 mix is on Best Of The Brother Years. I think someone just screwed up.

Alan and Mark have both expressed their preference of the LP versions of both Cal. Saga and RNR Music (and Its Ok for that matter). The only mix I really really don't like on the new box is "It's A Beautiful Day". But you know what? We have TYOH, Endless Harmony (for Sail Plane Song) etc. So it doesn't really matter. Pick your mix and go!
Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2013, 11:09:52 AM »

OK, so wearing my picky hat... but the track is listed using the single title - with the suffix "(On My Way To Sunny Californ-i-a)", so I'm expecting the 45 mix. Doesn't do what it says on the tin.
Logged

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

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: August 29, 2013, 11:10:58 AM »

After all, if they'd stuck to historical accuracy, Brian and Van Dyke would never have finished SMiLE.

They didn't.  Smiley

OK, I knew that bit would be controversial! I think there was a thread 100s of pages long on that very topic here a few years ago, wasn't there?

So, how about: "they completed a version of SMiLE that they considered finished"...?

That will do nicely... It's a Smile, but not the Smile. Same goes for the big box, disc 1.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 11:12:17 AM by Andrew G. Doe » Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
Bubba Ho-Tep
Guest
« Reply #36 on: August 29, 2013, 11:30:42 AM »

To quote Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park: "You spent so long thinking about how you could, that you didn't stop to think whether you should".

Just leave things alone and everyone's happy surely?

That's what I wrote about disc 1 of the SMiLE Sessions box way back when...... I still stand by it.

Quote
I'll tell you the problem with the audio technology they're using here: it didn't require any discipline to attain it. They heard what Anne Wallace had done, and they took the next step. They didn't earn the knowledge for themselves, so they don't take any responsibility for it. They stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as they could, and before they even knew what they had they've patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it in an illuminated pizza box, and they're selling it.

These audio engineers were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.


« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 11:34:08 AM by Bubba Ho-Tep » Logged
Mikie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5887



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: August 29, 2013, 11:52:02 AM »

Ditto for YLTLF, although I get what Mark was trying to do with it.

And what was that?
Logged

I, I love the colorful clothes she wears, and she's already working on my brain. I only looked in her eyes, but I picked up something I just can't explain. I, I bet I know what she’s like, and I can feel how right she’d be for me. It’s weird how she comes in so strong, and I wonder what she’s picking up from me. I hope it’s good, good, good, good vibrations, yeah!!
Rocky Raccoon
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2393



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: August 29, 2013, 11:59:16 AM »

After all, if they'd stuck to historical accuracy, Brian and Van Dyke would never have finished SMiLE.

They didn't.  Smiley

OK, I knew that bit would be controversial! I think there was a thread 100s of pages long on that very topic here a few years ago, wasn't there?

So, how about: "they completed a version of SMiLE that they considered finished"...?

That will do nicely... It's a Smile, but not the Smile. Same goes for the big box, disc 1.


I think Brian would say differently.  In almost every interview he's given, he's said it's finished.
Logged

Matt Bielewicz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 648


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: August 29, 2013, 12:25:34 PM »

See, I knew this might kick off again...!

Andrew accepts my formulation above. But I think an equally accurate (if waaaay more contentious) description of the 2004 recording is 'the finished SMiLE'. It's accurate. The 1966-7 recordings are clearly not finished, and as AGD has rightly pointed out many times, there was never a mastered version delivered to Capitol - ergo it was unfinished. By contrast, Brian's 2004 recording was recorded, mixed, released and sold in stores. It's the version of SMiLE that was actually finished... and I'm not sure how anyone can really argue with that. Not with that specific way of describing it, anyway. As soon as you introduce other qualifiers, like 'The Beach Boys' SMiLE', then you can't say the 2004 recording was the finished version of that... because Brian is the only 'Boy' on it! But if you say that the 2004 recording of SMiLE is the version of it that's finished... I don't see how that can really be in dispute.

And now, he said hopefully, back to our usual programme of in-depth MiC analysis...

Your starter for ten is: what exactly the hell is going on with those MiC mixes of Fun, Fun, Fun and TWOTS? The mixes are unquestionably new: a quick listen to the original Britz stereos from the twofers and a comparison with the MiC mixes tells you that, plus the giveaway that the stereo FFF on MiC has the long fade which the Britz stereo faded out too soon.

Are they 'reconstructions' too? I mean, they *could* just be new mixes from the tapes of the Shut Down, Vol 2 album that were returned a couple of years ago. But if I recall the article about those correctly, the tapes that were returned were *not* the final three-track multitracks: they were described as 'work tapes', and Alan Boyd was keen in the article (still up at http://prince.org/msg/8/317904?pr ) to draw a distinction between the two:

"Historically, these tapes are quite important,” admitted Boyd. “The final three-track masters for the Shut Down Vol. 2 album have been missing for years, and these work tapes—which were not the finished three-track masters—had enough of the separate elements to enable us to make new stereo mixes on some of these songs."

If they *had been* the multis from which the original Britz stereo mixes were prepared, then they could just have prepared new stereo mixes from the returned tapes for MiC. Then I would expect to see them described as "2012 Stereo Mix" or something similar, like a lot of other tracks on the set. But the above quote suggests that for MiC, they must have flown in elements from the recovered work tapes into new multitrack arrangements to make the mixes we hear on MiC. I'm not denigrating this process; in fact I think the new mixes sound excellent, and it's great to have a stereo version of FFF that doesn't fade out early at last. It's also a joy to hear even more of the fade on TWOTS: that song could go on forever as far as I'm concerned and I wouldn't complain! But it's odd that none of this is documented in the MiC track notes: from them, you'd just think it was the Britz stereo mixes from the original SDV2 album that were being presented on MiC, which is definitely not the case.

There's always some mystery like this with a new Beach Boys archival release, isn't there...?   Wink
Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #40 on: August 29, 2013, 12:42:25 PM »

After all, if they'd stuck to historical accuracy, Brian and Van Dyke would never have finished SMiLE.

They didn't.  Smiley

OK, I knew that bit would be controversial! I think there was a thread 100s of pages long on that very topic here a few years ago, wasn't there?

So, how about: "they completed a version of SMiLE that they considered finished"...?

That will do nicely... It's a Smile, but not the Smile. Same goes for the big box, disc 1.


I think Brian would say differently.  In almost every interview he's given, he's said it's finished.

He also said for decades that he burned the "Fire" tapes, and his favorite BB album count is currently in double figures. He finished a Smile, but not the Smile, as conceived in 1966. BWPS is purely a 2003 construct.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
Iron Horse-Apples
Guest
« Reply #41 on: August 29, 2013, 12:45:39 PM »

It's the version of SMiLE that was actually finished... and I'm not sure how anyone can really argue with that.

Unfortunately it's an argument that's been going on for nine years, the validity of BWPS. The way I understood it at the time was quite simple. People have had this special little thing that only they got, taken away from them.



Logged
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1990



View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 29, 2013, 12:49:14 PM »

Andrew accepts my formulation above. But I think an equally accurate (if waaaay more contentious) description of the 2004 recording is 'the finished SMiLE'. It's accurate. The 1966-7 recordings are clearly not finished, and as AGD has rightly pointed out many times, there was never a mastered version delivered to Capitol - ergo it was unfinished. By contrast, Brian's 2004 recording was recorded, mixed, released and sold in stores. It's the version of SMiLE that was actually finished... and I'm not sure how anyone can really argue with that. Not with that specific way of describing it, anyway. As soon as you introduce other qualifiers, like 'The Beach Boys' SMiLE', then you can't say the 2004 recording was the finished version of that... because Brian is the only 'Boy' on it! But if you say that the 2004 recording of SMiLE is the version of it that's finished... I don't see how that can really be in dispute.

sure, you can say the 2004 version is unfinished ... I mean, as a matter of opinion. You could argue Brian hasn't finished an album since Friends if you want to.
Logged

Bubba Ho-Tep
Guest
« Reply #43 on: August 29, 2013, 12:50:08 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. Halleluah....holy sh*t. Where's the tylenol?

The difference now is that instead of giving us the snatch of "Soulful Old Man Sunshine" AND the complete track (like on "Endless Harmony") we get two different elements welded together into something new ("California Feeling"), which is confusing, jarring, and wrong (though I don't particularly care enough about "California Feeling" to get that bent out of shape over it).

Technology is running amok.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 12:53:24 PM by Bubba Ho-Tep » Logged
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1990



View Profile WWW
« Reply #44 on: August 29, 2013, 12:53:07 PM »


If they *had been* the multis from which the original Britz stereo mixes were prepared, then they could just have prepared new stereo mixes from the returned tapes for MiC. Then I would expect to see them described as "2012 Stereo Mix" or something similar, like a lot of other tracks on the set. But the above quote suggests that for MiC, they must have flown in elements from the recovered work tapes into new multitrack arrangements to make the mixes we hear on MiC. I'm not denigrating this process; in fact I think the new mixes sound excellent, and it's great to have a stereo version of FFF that doesn't fade out early at last. It's also a joy to hear even more of the fade on TWOTS: that song could go on forever as far as I'm concerned and I wouldn't complain! But it's odd that none of this is documented in the MiC track notes: from them, you'd just think it was the Britz stereo mixes from the original SDV2 album that were being presented on MiC, which is definitely not the case.


Let's keep in mind that the original stereo mixed of the Shut Down Vol 2 stuff is really just Left/Right/Center of the 3-track. They could have done some trickery to get elements re-situated by a creative combination (perhaps using some phase tricks) of the original mono and stereo mixes as well ... which would perhaps not quality as a 'remix' by the compiler's standards, and thus not noted as such.

NOTE: I haven't yet heard the set properly, just guessing based on what you folks are posting here.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2013, 12:55:11 PM by DonnyL » Logged

DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1990



View Profile WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 29, 2013, 12:53:56 PM »

I will reserve judgement until I have the box (later today I hope!), but ...

does anyone else think 'Sound of Free' sounds like a vinyl rip?
Logged

pixletwin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4925



View Profile
« Reply #46 on: August 29, 2013, 01:08:32 PM »

You know I was thinking that very thing today. It does sound like a vinyl rip.
Logged
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #47 on: August 29, 2013, 01:10:44 PM »

OK, so wearing my picky hat... but the track is listed using the single title - with the suffix "(On My Way To Sunny Californ-i-a)", so I'm expecting the 45 mix. Doesn't do what it says on the tin.

It is kinda weird that they have done that, but apparently the "(On My Way...)" thing doesn't mean the single version to BRI or Capitol or whoever, because they've titled it as such on both Fifty Big Ones and Made In California. I have to think that's not a mistake, and that apparently they feel that the parenthetical title belongs with the album version. Not saying I agree with that, but yeah.
Logged
Wirestone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6043



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: August 29, 2013, 01:12:16 PM »

Ditto for YLTLF, although I get what Mark was trying to do with it.

And what was that?

More Spector-y, I would say. At least, that was my first reaction to hearing it drenched in echo.
Logged
runnersdialzero
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5143


I WILL NEVER GO TO SCHOOL


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: August 29, 2013, 04:39:20 PM »

I still don't understand why the California Saga 45 version can't be somehow salvaged. A mint copy can sound really good with the right transfer.

No need - the master is perfectly OK. The 45 mix is on Best Of The Brother Years. I think someone just screwed up.

Sounds awful on Best Of The Brother Years. I believe it's also on Ten Years Of Harmony? And doesn't sound awful on there? Woh hoppen?

And, not that it's correct, but I feel like the "On My Way" subtitle was something that came after the album came out that someone came to prefer over the awkwardly titled "California Saga: California". Like, it wasn't that way on the album, but the post-album invented subtitle came to be adopted for the song proper.

I find it acceptable, I guess I can see why others might not, but I figger if they want to use the single mix, they could just put "single mix" next to it.
Logged

Tell me it's okay.
Tell me you still love me.
People make mistakes.
People make mistakes.
gfx
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.516 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!