Does BWPS still stand?

[sidewinder572]

I ask this because the other day I decide (after almost a year) to put the album on my turntable. I had been listening the '66-'67 music almost religously and decided to listen to the 2004 version. By the time I had got to "Child is Father to The Man" I lost interest and turned it off. Now back when it came out I would listen to it a lot, but since listening to my records of the original material I just lost interest.

Maybe it's the fact that a 24 year Brian Wilson (at the height of his creative powers) with The Beach Boys singing is going to be a much provacative listen then a 62 year Brian Wilson with his band essentially doing cover versions of the same songs.

Maybe it was getting my copy of the 3 LP boot and seeing that original cover art in LP size and thinking that I am now the owner of one of the coolest items imaginable. To top it off it also came with all the goodies (poster, booklet and session worksheets)

or maybe I just listened to BWPS too much.

Anyway. Just wondering if you still feel that the album still stands? Do you still listen? Do you feel that it will be remembered years from now or has BWPS just sparked interest in the old material?

[Jim McShane]

I ask this because the other day I decide (after almost a year) to put the album on my turntable. I had been listening the '66-'67 music almost religously and decided to listen to the 2004 version. By the time I had got to "Child is Father to The Man" I lost interest and turned it off. Now back when it came out I would listen to it a lot, but since listening to my records of the original material I just lost interest.

Maybe it's the fact that a 24 year Brian Wilson (at the height of his creative powers) with The Beach Boys singing is going to be a much provacative listen then a 62 year Brian Wilson with his band essentially doing cover versions of the same songs.

I wouldn't say that's fact - except to say that is a factual representation of your opinion. My opinion is they aren't "covers", and I find Brian's band's singing every bit as compelling as the old BBs. So we disagree on that, but that's really not germane to the interesting question you posed.

Maybe it was getting my copy of the 3 LP boot and seeing that original cover art in LP size and thinking that I am now the owner of one of the coolest items imaginable. To top it off it also came with all the goodies (poster, booklet and session worksheets)

or maybe I just listened to BWPS too much.

Anyway. Just wondering if you still feel that the album still stands? Do you still listen? Do you feel that it will be remembered years from now or has BWPS just sparked interest in the old material?

I think it definitely does still stand - but I rarely listen to the studio CD or vinyl. The live performance DVD simply blows them away. I play the "Live" DVD more than the CD by about a 20 to 1 factor. I play the DVD quite often.

For me, the most exquisite moment of the whole BWPS thing was the live performance I saw back in September 2004. It was stunning. The CD just doesn't capture the "electricity" the live performance created. I'm still amazed it could be performed live with that level of musicianship and feeling.

"Has BWPS just sparked interest in the old material?" I think people's level of interest in the old material is highly dependent on how into it they were before the BWPS release. Meaning that for the average buyer of a recording of BWPS there was little interest in the old material, and there is likely less now. I know in my case I pay no attention to the old material at all anymore. It has only historical interest to me. I do find myself very interested in how BWPS came to be though, the "making of" tracks on the DVD are also still getting a lot of play here.

My 2 cents anyway...

[sidewinder572]

Ok maybe "cover versions of the same songs" was a bit harsh. Brian's band is absolutely phenomenal. I went into BWPS as a casual fan of Brian and to be honest the album turned me into a SMiLE geek. But I've been listening less and less to the 2004 version and more and more to the '66-'67 versions lately.

I was just wondering if anyone felt the same

[XY]

Yes, I prefer listening to the original 60's material, because it has this unduplicatable sound Brian created in the 60's. The current band did a perfect job re-recording SMILE, but not even Brian seems to be able to recapture the magic he put onto tape in the 60's, that's why those records are so great and will stand forever. I don't think BWPS will ever reach the popularity of PET SOUNDS, but this now finished pop symphony will always be an important part of Brian's music catalog legacy, which is part of music history. For me, it's not just a song or an album, it's the whole picture a musician paints in his life.
What I don't like about BWPS is some of the sequencing. But that's just a small point. I think they should have used what was sequenced in the 60's. "Surf's Up" at the end of the album and stuff like that. The "Wonderful/Child Is Father" pairing is great.
I'm happy that SMILE was finished and how it turned out, but it's not the last word for me. The 60's tapes will always be first. When I want to 2004 smile, I watch the Live DVD. Brian really shines on it.

[mikee]

I went to 2 Smile Shows Election Night Nov. 2004 in L.A.  and to the Hollywood Bowl in 2005.  As stunning as the 2004 show was it struck me that the 2005 edition was even better.  I perceived that there was more of a jazz element inserted in the 2005 performance and it was a great move.  I thought the performers had (not long but significant) moments of improvisation and that this helped the performance considerably.  In particular it added freshness and vitality that  addressed the re-recorded-from-1967 factor mentioned above that is in the back (or front) of everybodys mind.       

[Jim McShane]

I went to 2 Smile Shows Election Night Nov. 2004 in L.A.  and to the Hollywood Bowl in 2005.  As stunning as the 2004 show was it struck me that the 2005 edition was even better.  I perceived that there was more of a jazz element inserted in the 2005 performance and it was a great move.  I thought the performers had (not long but significant) moments of improvisation and that this helped the performance considerably.  In particular it added freshness and vitality that  addressed the re-recorded-from-1967 factor mentioned above that is in the back (or front) of everybodys mind.       

I'm jealous. My second look at Smile live was in summer 2005 at the Pabst Theater in Milwaukee. The air conditioning broke down in the theater, the theater management handled it very poorly, and I heard later that a couple people in the band got sick from the heat on stage. It was a major disappointment, there was no way the band could be into it. Survive it would likely be more accurate in describing their goal. As well, this was during the period when the live sound mixes were not very good.

I wonder if that's going to be my last hearing of it live (in person). I sure hope not.

[LostArt]

I play BWPS less these days.  I agree that the DVD is a bit better, and it is usualy the one I play when I do get the urge to hear Brian's released version.  I saw the band perform it in early October, 2004 in Madison, WI.  It remains one of the finest live shows that I have ever seen in my 50 years on earth.  However, I have always loved the Smile era recordings done in the '60s.  Besides the obvious things like Brian's unbelieveable voice, which was in it's prime then, there is a certain vibe on those recordings that could never be duplicated after the fact.  One has to take into consideration factors such as Brian's 'on top of the world' confidence, which sadly has never come back, and the drive that came with that confidence.  One must also consider the time period that the recordings were made.  The music industry was in a completely different state, times were changing very rapidly then.  The Smile stuff recorded in L.A. in 1966-'67 by Brian, the Beach Boys, and the wrecking crew was so cutting edge then.  There had been nothing like it recorded by any pop/rock band at that point in time.  In my opinion, it was these types of things that made those recordings special.  A couple of the problems that I have with the 60's recordings: Unfinished instrumental and vocal tracks, sound quality issues with some of the tracks.  It would sure be nice to get an officially released box set, using all of those tapes that Brian has 'in a safe place'.  C'mon Brian, we know you've got that Dumb Angel reel somewhere.       

[Glenn Greenberg]

I think it still stands up, and I still listen to the CD from time to time.  Not nearly as much as I used to, but I can say the same thing about every other CD in my collection.

[grillo]

I'm afraid BWPS NEVER stood up. To my ears it has always been a really bland recording, with hardly any real dynamics and some pretty lousy BW vocals. There is none of the subtle beauty found in the 66/67 recordings, and none of the magic. It IS a cover album. Still. there are some people who, when I try to turn them on to the BW/BB scene, prefer the new "finished recording" and use it to spread the word, so it's not all bad.

[PMcC]

Does BWPS still stand? YES!!  And it's the only one officially standing. The vast majority of people who sent this album into the top 20 have not heard what we have from 66-67, and if those sessions happen to be released in my lifetime, I would be extremely surprised. It's only been a year since BWPS has been released. Has the glow worn off of the album already?   rusted and tarnished so soon?

[Magic Transistor Radio]

I totally agree with Jim McShane that the live performance is where its all at. I love the DVD but when I was actually at the concert in Dallas, it was the moment of a life time for me.

I still listen to the cd and dvd from time to time and I like them, especially the dvd. But if I had a complaint it would be just one thing; Brian's producing of today is about hitting all the right notes, which is fine. But the 66-67 Brian was about getting the emotion behind every instrument and note. Now I'm not saying that there was absolutly no emotion. There was, but not nearly as much as there was in 66-67.

Having said that, Brian is in his 60s and to compare him to a 24 year old Brian is unfair. The effort and energy he has put into this is all I can ask (if not more then I excpected) from Brian today.

[matt-zeus]

I get the impression that some people think that it should never have been released at all. Its Brians album, he can do what he likes with it, if he wanted to finish it (and it is finished) then i'm not surprised, who cares if he was co-erced into doing it, shouldn't he have been co-erced by the Beach Boys back in 67? Yes of course.
The people around Brian knew that this was good music and it should be out there and so it is, and now millions more people know and dig Brian Wilson than they did before. Of course there are elements of the original that are better, yes the vocals are the Beach Boys etc etc., but they didn't want to sing on it and they weren't keen for it to be released.
I think perhaps people should be looking at the accomplishment that it took for Brian to do after all these years, its great music, great melodies, great arrangements.
Thats why I can sit and enjoy Sweet Insanity for instance without worrying whether the tack pianos are real or the harpsichords are real (though I know there's none on there) or why the production is ridiculous, at the end of the day, its the songs that matter, and Brian made those fragments of stuff that he did back in 1967 into proper songs.
Perhaps Brian thought that going back to finish Smile would get everyone off his back and stop people whingeing about it?

[Dancing Bear]

I get the impression that some people think that it should never have been released at all.

Those folks mean well and will stay out of this thread. 

[SG7]

Its crazy I remember I use to listen to that 3 times a day just to learn the lyrics so I could sing along at my first show... gosh it feels so long ago. Once I found out it wasn't the only smile then no it didn't stand. I even like Smiley Smile now, so I am more sold on the 60s productions then the protools one. Some of it is good on BWPS but if you try to compare it with the orginals, its like building sand.

[Jim McShane]

Its crazy I remember I use to listen to that 3 times a day just to learn the lyrics so I could sing along at my first show... gosh it feels so long ago. Once I found out it wasn't the only smile then no it didn't stand. I even like Smiley Smile now, so I am more sold on the 60s productions then the protools one. Some of it is good on BWPS but if you try to compare it with the orginals, its like building sand.

So are we back to "BWPS isn't the real Smile" again? It would appear so...

One thing I'm virtually sure of - we'd NEVER have gotten a live performance of Smile like we got in 2004-2005 if it had been finished in the 60s. IMHO the live Smile performances are virtually without parallel from any time period. It was like hearing Paul Whiteman's orchestra play "Rhapsody In Blue" for the first time.

[SG7]

Did I say it wasn't the real thing? No I didn't. I just prefer the other version. Okay if you played Smile to a load of people who had never heard Smile before which one would they like better? Some would pick BWPS because it was in their eyes completed and it has more words then the last one. I would think a good chunk would pick the latter because for one The Beach Boys are actually in it and its Brian at his best sounding. I am looking at it because I never experienced the whole drama of it coming out for 20 some years so to actually listen to it in fragments made it only more cooler for me. Its just my 0.02 so take it or leave it 

[Jim McShane]

Did I say it wasn't the real thing? No I didn't. I just prefer the other version. Okay if you played Smile to a load of people who had never heard Smile before which one would they like better? Some would pick BWPS because it was in their eyes completed and it has more words then the last one. I would think a good chunk would pick the latter because for one The Beach Boys are actually in it and its Brian at his best sounding. I am looking at it because I never experienced the whole drama of it coming out for 20 some years so to actually listen to it in fragments made it only more cooler for me. Its just my 0.02 so take it or leave it 

It's not worth arguing about anymore - but while I didn't maintain you said it wasn't the real thing (I merely posed a question), descriptive phrases like "the protools one", and "its like building sand" could easily lead someone to ask the question I did, wouldn't you agree?

[SG7]

Yes but there is things about BWPS I don't agree with using. The protools thing left a bad taste in my mouth after I realized what it was (studio sense I lack in). I was trying to dig deeper into saying like it was sand in covering up the real thing. I don't like people that say there is only one smile. There is a lot of smile's. Its people's perception. Thats why I am not crazy about people like David Leaf who someone said romanticized about it (then again what doesn't he romantize on in Brian's life? I am sure he has every excuse for everything he's done...) I guess I should have gone deeper into what I was saying. I use to do that but it took threads up and too many battles. I miss those days. Same threads on who really said what in vegetables and does air actually exist 

Back to your  regular scheduled programing... 

[the captain]

One thing about people using the word "protools" all the time when they don't know much or anything about it -- and I really don't mean this in a negative or insulting way, but I just want to make note of it.

Protools is one of many kinds of recording software out there. It is the most prominent, but not anywhere near the only one. And at its heart, it is nothing more than a way to make multitrack recordings onto computers instead of onto tape. Otherwise, it is basically the same concept as the original 4 and then 8 (and 16, etc.) track machines that Brian and everyone else were using in the '60s.

Now, the benefits of using such software instead of tape are numerous. Among them are that:

1) you can have unlimited tracks, whereas with physical tape you were limited to 2, 4, etc.
2) you can overdub to your heart's content. With tape, after you've used all your tracks except one, you can "bounce" those onto the final blank track, but it will reduce quality. With software such as Protools, you never need to bounce tracks, and if you did, it wouldn't lose quality.
3) mixes can be done with automation, meaning that people don't have to remember that at 1:13 on track 3 this track has to go up, that one down, etc. It can be programmed, auditioned, changed, etc.--all without using tape.

There are many others, but these are a few basic things.

My point is, Protools, like all other software used for recording, is really not much different at heart than a mechanical, 4-track tape recorder. The advances are tremendous, and there is nothing evil or dubious about it.

It seems to me that every time people say "protools," what they are actually complaining about are either sampled instruments--which has nothing to do with Protools--or about pitch correction, which doesn't have to have anything to do with Protools. Again, I am not trying to pick on anyone, and of course it isn't anyone's responsibility to know about recording if they don't do it. I just don't want Protools or any other software to have a bad name. It isn't cheating to use software instead of tape. It isn't cheating to use automation, or to use multiple tracks. No doubt there were people who felt that same reflex when people used the first 4-tracks, or 8-tracks, or stereo sound, or effects units, or synthesizers (remember Queen posting "No Synthesizers!" on every album they did in the 70s?).

To not like the sound of a sampled instrument compared to the harpsichord itself is fine. To not approve of pitch correction is one's own choice. But don't blame the software. Hell, I am sure Brian would have wanted to use it himself if he were 20 years old when it was coming out, instead of (however old he was...50 or 55 so, I guess).


Oh, and I forgot--yes, BWPS holds up for me. It isn't as good to my ears as a BBs one might've been mostly because I miss Brian's young voice. As for the other BBs* v Brian's current band, or a few natural instruments missing for the sake of more convenient recording, I'm OK with the result. It isnt like we were given a BW88-style treatment of Smile.

*I'd have liked some Carl, too, though. Otherwise, I don't much care either way.

[grillo]

Pro-tools ruined recording. I think Bruce said as much fairly recently. I am a studio engineer/producer, very much inspired by the sound of things from the mid-sixties until the mid-seventies. Saying pro-tools is like a tape recorder is ridiculous! First of all, the very 'limitations' of tape are the things most of us LOVE about the way BW's 60's and 70's recordings. Recording is, or at least can be, an art form. Using your mind to plan out a session(What instrument combos will go on which track, how to make a balanced stereo track, etc.) is, for me, more than half of the fun of doing a session. I don't mean to sound like a sound-nazi (which I am), but pro-tools, and digital recording in general, take all the warmth, spontaneity, and 'art' out of recording, mixing, and mastering. It's fun to ride the faders. I enjoy needing an extra set of hands to help with a final mix. Well, whatecer. I realise this has gone off topic, but man I can't stand pro-tools!

[the captain]

Oh come on! It didn't take the art out of recording--it CHANGED the art of recording. I am sure you found many, many engineers and producers in the 60s who thought overdubbing took the art out of recording because a band no longer had to be good enough to do things in one take. A brilliant artist makes brilliant art. A bad artist makes bad art. The medium is probably the least important part of the process in my opinion.

As for using Bruce as a source...he's in his 60s. It isn't hard to believe he'd prefer what was around in his heyday. Ask someone like Prince Paul, who is a very good hip hop producer of the past 15-20 years. Ask an artist like Beck or Mark Everett. Obviously, they'll say otherwise. Of course, now is when you say "oh, but everything now sucks, they suck," and so on.

But that kind of stagnation is what makes young people dislike listening to their elders. Times change. The recording medium didn't ruin music any more than electricity, multitracking or fuzz boxes did.

[No. Fourteen]

One thing I can say for certain is BWPS exceeded my expectations.  The attention to the details of the original recordings is remarkable to these ears, despite the presence of "artificial" instruments and recording medium disparities.  The one frustration I have about it is that Brian's vocals sounded better later in '04 (after getting the new teeth?), and I wish it the recordings had been done at that time.  Because of that, I agree that the DVD performance is the way to go with BWPS.

[grillo]

Luther,
    I AM young(32) and agree that there are some musicians out there who use pro-tools and other digital recording media to amazing effect (the Flaming Lips come to mind), but that does not mean its the same as, or superior to, analog. Why do you think they have so many plug-ins for computers to try and make them sound more analog? Saying the medium used is the least important aspect seems a little over-the-top when we are talking about recording artists. Agree to disagree. I know I won't sway anyone's opinion, but man do I hate pro-tools!!! Love and Mercy...

[Zander]

For me Smile, finally completed, that shows the rehiblitation of Brian's health, stage fright and career. How can some people think its a bad thing that Smile was completed?

The original music as stood the test of time for 37 years, and Brian has made sure that music will now be able accessible to a wider audience. People who have heard the about the legend since it's release may go out and the GV box set / bootlegs to see what the original fuss was about!

The completed album is excellent, and I'm still listening to it now.

As for the Pro-Tools ruined recording arguement, what a load of bollocks. Pro Tools is a brilliant innovation. If it's so bad, why did Brian use it? He's a producer. If he'd access to it in the '60s would he have used it? Would the Beatles have used it? Of course they would, "tape limitations" possibly held back some of that creativity.

[Glenn Greenberg]

<<(remember Queen posting "No Synthesizers!" on every album they did in the 70s?)>>

Absolutely!  As a kid, I always wondered what the hell that meant!