Does BWPS still stand?

[Roger Ryan]

<<(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!

Queen's first album to use a synth, 1980's "The Game", was lousy. The fact that the truly insipid "Another One Bites The Dust" was a hit totally derailed the band's artistic sense for years (they were just starting to return to some semblance of their former glory at the time Freddie Mercury passed on). I'm not blaming the synth, but the more organic production ideal they held in the 70s truly benefitted the material.

But back to BWPS - The original 60s sessions for "SMiLE" were certainly more magical in of themselves, but nothing compares to the material presented as a completed work. I remember the exitement I felt hearing the early edit of "Heroes & Villains" for the first time in 1990 (because it wasn't in pieces) and wishing that more of the "SMiLE" material had that finished feel. BWPS gave me the same thrill of hearing the fully realized potential of this stuff. About ten years ago I dreamt that someone played me the completed "SMiLE" album and it was astonishing; BWPS was/is just as good as the one I heard in my dream.

[sidewinder572]

When it comes down to it. The question I was asking was. 20 years from now will people be talking about SMiLE more as that lost Beach Boys album from 1967 or as a 2004 album completed by Brian Wilson?

[Glenn Greenberg]

20 years from now will people be talking about SMiLE more as that lost Beach Boys album from 1967 or as a 2004 album completed by Brian Wilson?

Both, I'd say.  Because you can't mention one without the other.

[sidewinder572]

Both, I'd say.  Because you can't mention one without the other.

care to elaborate?

[grillo]

In twenty years I think I'll be talking obsessively about 66/67 with a casual mention of 04. That's how it's been since I was 11 and my mom introduced me to this stuff, that's how it is now, so I doubt my M.O. will change any.BTW, I DO like BWPS, just not as much as say...Love You.

[the captain]

When it comes down to it. The question I was asking was. 20 years from now will people be talking about SMiLE more as that lost Beach Boys album from 1967 or as a 2004 album completed by Brian Wilson?

I think that the legend is largely 1966/67, and that will always hold people's attention. That's when the band was reaching its apex, that's when all the drama began to really unfold, that's when Brian and the BBs fell from their commercial heights...it's the more lurid, enticing story. "Brilliant work drives genius mad; simple-minded or jealous band revolts; etc." (I don't believe that...I am just saying that's the story) Of course, BWPS ends the story, and so it will be hard to mention one without the other.

[the captain]

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...

Agree to disagree. I just think there are more important things in making music than whether it was on one medium or another, and you must admit that digital recording opened the process up to huge numbers of people that otherwise didn't have access. That is a bonus, although it means that with more people "practicing" the craft, more of them suck and more of the result sucks.

I agree that much of the digitally recorded music is absolute trash, but it is the bad musicians' fault. You could point to any era and find that to be true.

By the way, I just spent way too much money on some home studio gear today to upgrade. Be nice to me.

[PMcC]

Hit Pro tools on 24 bit, and you will have enough headroom to compete with analog any day. Ask Linett..It's like the oil painters who turn up their noses at pastel, if you are a great artist, you can paint in any medium...

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

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 bulk of your complaints here seem to be more about multi-tracking, rather than the Protools DAW or A-D converters or whatever it may be. 

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.

Indeed, Chuck Britz said that he got out of doing pop recording because there was too much overdubbing for his tastes.

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.

I think it depends on the artist.  For some artists, their brilliance is inherant and exclusive to their medium.

The recording medium didn't ruin music any more than electricity, multitracking or fuzz boxes did.

None of the things you mention here ruined music as a huge entity, but they did contribute to massive changes that I'm sure were very polarizing at the time.

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)

The Lips still do a lot of tracking to 2-inch.

Why do you think they have so many plug-ins for computers to try and make them sound more analog?

Because there's a demand for that sound from people who either can't tell the difference or can't afford the real thing. 

but man do I hate pro-tools!!!

Do you just hate pro-tools, or do you also hate Nuendo, Adobe Audition, Logic, Cubase, etc, etc? 

Hit Pro tools on 24 bit, and you will have enough headroom to compete with analog any day.

Here we go turning a BWPS thread into a recording debate again (and well before I showed up, too).

I think that any problem that I've had with "pro-tools" or any DAW has little to do with the sound of the recording medium.  Perhaps earlier in my life I might have associated digital audio with a less pleasing sound, but now I realize that for me, it's the magic of people playing together in the same room that I was missing.  And, as I alluded to earlier, that was really a problem starting back with the advent of 16-track, or even 8-track recording.  I truly believe that there is something special about getting a bunch of incredible musicians together and getting a complete take.  It's a romantic ideal for sure.  I've literally cried over not being able to assemble a group to record some of my songs, but it's really no use.

Now, of course, that's not practical for the average joe, and thank goodness for cheapish digital recording devices or I wouldn't be able to realize much of my own music unto "tape".


On to BWPS...my thoughts on it haven't really changed.  It never has done anything for me on a personal level.  I certainly appreciate the salubrious, joyous milestone it was for Brian, and having met some of the people involved I appreciate how important it was to so many people.  Which is great, I'm glad it was recorded and meant so much to people.

So I'm not going to ever say a bad word about it again.

[Cam Mott]

On to BWPS...my thoughts on it haven't really changed.  It never has done anything for me on a personal level.  I certainly appreciate the salubrious, joyous milestone it was for Brian, and having met some of the people involved I appreciate how important it was to so many people.  Which is great, I'm glad it was recorded and meant so much to people.

So I'm not going to ever say a bad word about it again.

Ditto, except I do say a bad word [ie. "boogers"] against the inclusion of the alternate version of "Good Vibrations" in that I think it was inappropriate.  If only Brian [Darian?] had asked me first, we could have avoided this unpleasantness.

[Glenn Greenberg]

Both, I'd say.  Because you can't mention one without the other.

care to elaborate?

It'll always be referred to as the lost Beach Boys album from 1966/67 that was ultimately completed by Brian Wilson in 2004.

[Smilin Ed H]

BWPS will, sadly, go down in history as the last good album (and I like it) from any surviving Beach Boy or combination thereof.  The best since 88 or POB.  To be honest, as much as I appreciate it as a work, I don't listen to the various versions of SMiLE I have or BWPS that frequently because (excepting Surf's Up), they lack a little warmth and the emotional attachment that I normally get from BB stuff (up to and including Love You, but only sporadically afterwards).

[the captain]

aeijtsche, thanks for saying a lot of what I was trying to say--and far better. (Other than the parts in which you disagreed with me. No thanks for those.) But the bulk of your post above amounted to what I was aiming for.

[grillo]

aeijtzsche,
    I'm just using 'pro-tools' as an all inclusive word meaning digital. All I know is, everytime I've 'had the chance' to use digital means to reach a musical end it has sounded worse than my original crappy four-track demo. There is something inherant in the digital domain that KILLS me, and to my ears, kills the recent BW albums (although I somehow love the '88 album, so go figure). Now I can't even remember what the original topic of this thread is...Sorry to all for this extreme tangent!

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Believe me, I know what you mean...but I think that in order to truly have a hatred of something, you should be able to quantify what it is you hate about it.  Now, maybe you can do that.  You haven't on the thread, at least.  Personally, I'm not really able to come up with a genuine "reason" to dislike digital sounds.  I mean, for one thing, where do you draw the line?  CD playback is digital, so do you hate the sound of every CD?  I certainly don't, though generally when compared to a vinyl version, CDs have tended to pale in A/B tests.

The Pet Sounds remixes were done in Nuendo, I believe, and subsequent remixes over the years have been synched and mixed in Protools.  And you know what, I think most of those stereo remixes sound absolutely gorgeous.  I might not have done them exactly the same way, but in terms of the sound, I love 'em.

So is it simply having analog somewhere in the chain?  Because obviously on BWPS, Mark used a lot of nice, old tube pres and compressors and such, including the same pres that Brian recorded through back in the day.

Tape compression?  I don't know, there are pleny of recordings out there that haven't really driven the tape that hard and still sound nice.  So is it just something inherant in tape? 

Honestly, you got me.  I just find that backing up any "tape is better" argument without resorting to vague hocus-pocus falls short.  That doesn't mean that I don't prefer the sound of tape, I do, but it's not something I'm going to argue about any more.

Now, getting a group of outtasite musicians in a room together with knock-out instruments and lots of leakage...that I will argue about.

But that was done for the recording of BWPS, so, I have nothing to argue with.  Just a "hurrah for BWPS' presence on the earth."

[Ptolemaios]

I was quite disappointed when I bought BWPS and went home to listen to it. The mix sounded weak and I remember how superdisappointed I was when I heard the fire track! The original was so beautiful; a masterpiece, the new one was just... noise.

I don't even remember the last time I listened to the cd.

But I guess I knew that it won't be like the original recordings.

[Daniel S.]

Don't really know much about digital recording, but I know I hate synthesizers. I like real pianos and real harpsichords.

Hate the sequencing, i.e. tracks cut together/editing, which is definitely not in the mold of Good Vibrations or Brian Wilson. Lazy, no imagination. Put together more like a Vigotone bootleg than a cohesive album despite the three sections. But to me, splitting everything up evenly into those three sections is not very imaginative and not how Brian would have cut it all together 40 years ago.

Hate the mish mash lyrics on Good Vibrations.

62 year old Brian Wilson and Wondermints don't come close to touching the vocal blend of the original Beach Boys. No magic or chemistry together either. Man, if 29 year old Brian thought the vocals on 1971 'Surf's Up' were merda, especially the second section of the song with him on piano, I wonder what he'd say about BWPS.

I don't like BWPS and I haven't listened to it since it was released and I listen to the Beach Boys music every day.

I don't know what Smile is, but Brian Wilson Presents Smile is a 60 something Brian Wilson going along with something that other people put together, and really what I want to ask is "What's the point?"

If they thought the world is ready for Smile, then why not release a box set of the original sessions?

[Magic Transistor Radio]

I just thought of something that I don't really like, but don't hate either. Some of Van Dyke's new lyrics. "Is it hot as hell in here or is it me...." That is my least favorite. Although I do actually like the "Rolling down the ocean liner..." Of course I believe that those lyrics were written in 1966 but not recorded.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Hate the sequencing, i.e. tracks cut together/editing, which is definitely not in the mold of Good Vibrations or Brian Wilson. Lazy, no imagination. Put together more like a Vigotone bootleg than a cohesive album despite the three sections. But to me, splitting everything up evenly into those three sections is not very imaginative and not how Brian would have cut it all together 40 years ago.

Hate the mish mash lyrics on Good Vibrations.

62 year old Brian Wilson and Wondermints don't come close to touching the vocal blend of the original Beach Boys. No magic or chemistry together either. Man, if 29 year old Brian thought the vocals on 1971 'Surf's Up' were merda, especially the second section of the song with him on piano, I wonder what he'd say about BWPS.

I don't like BWPS and I haven't listened to it since it was released and I listen to the Beach Boys music every day.

I don't know what Smile is, but Brian Wilson Presents Smile is a 60 something Brian Wilson going along with something that other people put together, and really what I want to ask is "What's the point?"

If they thought the world is ready for Smile, then why not release a box set of the original sessions?

Very well put. Thank you

[Dave in KC]

Why do I get the impression that the negative comments about BWPS come from mostly those folks who didn't get a chance to see the concert live? Or didn't even try. And I feel that many of these same people have the "original" recordings and think, for some reason, that they hold the real McCoy and the rest of us are missing something better.

[Sheriff John Stone]

I feel that many of these same people have the "original" recordings and think, for some reason, that they hold the real McCoy and the rest of us are missing something better.

They do and you are. 

[Dancing Bear]

I have a VERY negative opinion on BWPS and was going to stay out of this, but I'll say something: We'll have 10 more pages of flaming about its merits and no one's opinion will change one inch. Why bother?

[sidewinder572]

What I don't understand it. One of the most important moments in the history of music was recorded and it's not available. I'm talking of course about the Smile premier in London. Sure there was mistakes, but Brian's only human.

[Ptolemaios]

Why do I get the impression that the negative comments about BWPS come from mostly those folks who didn't get a chance to see the concert live? Or didn't even try. And I feel that many of these same people have the "original" recordings and think, for some reason, that they hold the real McCoy and the rest of us are missing something better.

I saw the concert and met mr. Wilson in Stockholm in 2004. The concert was cool even though the band seemed a bit tired or something. Still, the cd is just weak.

[Jim McShane]

I don't think the original question was intended to be a review of the CD. Where will BWPS as a whole stand was the question I think. Which means the live performances, the DVD, etc.

Am I correct?

Not liking the CD would seem to be a different question. Is there somebody here who saw BWPS live and didn't like it, wasn't amazed by it? Don't the vast majority of people here who have viewed the DVD live performance find it to be really good? Don't most people here find the reviews of BWPS (live, DVD, LP, or CD)  - especially given its rank on Metacritic and the wide range of reviews/reviewers - to be a very positive part of the BWPS experience?

Long term, all those will figure into the whole BWPS image IMHO.