New US singles box-set

[Malc]

OK - so maybe it IS a daft question ... but how in the h**l do you actually get INTO the damn thing ! Don't wanna force it - or peel off any labels - but where IS the entry point 

Addition - OK, so with the wife's cunning guile I found my way into it (carefully lift off the top flap!) but was it worth the effort ? Opinions ?? Personally, the so-called picture book was a major disappointment and, as much as a Volume 2 may sound more interesting, I can't see sales driving a 1965-1969 edition ...
Onto the shelf it goes to gather dust ...

[roll plymouth rock]

Onto the shelf it goes to gather dust ...

That pretty sums up how I feel about the box set and why I would never buy it. The fancy box looks nice though

[elnombre]

OK - so maybe it IS a daft question ... but how in the h**l do you actually get INTO the damn thing ! Don't wanna force it - or peel off any labels - but where IS the entry point 

Addition - OK, so with the wife's cunning guile I found my way into it (carefully lift off the top flap!) but was it worth the effort ? Opinions ?? Personally, the so-called picture book was a major disappointment and, as much as a Volume 2 may sound more interesting, I can't see sales driving a 1965-1969 edition ...
Onto the shelf it goes to gather dust ...

I've got mine - yes, I experienced the same conundrum of how to open the damn thing. I'm really happy with it though, I'm pretty surprised at the amount of criticism the set has received here.

[Wirestone]

It's a specialty item, for collectors with bucks to spare only. I like it.

[The Shift]

It's a specialty item, for collectors with bucks to spare only. I like it.

I Count myself as a collector, but this is way out of my spending range. Too much packaging, too much repackaging, not enough new content to make it worth the bucks. Sorry, quids.

[audiodrome]

Plus they used the LP mix of California Girls! That kind of ruins the whole idea of a SINGLES box set, doncha think? That being said, I like the box set. I think the little picture sleeves with the mini 45s look really nice! Also, buying this set relieves some of the guilt I feel for selling all of my Beach Boys picture sleeves a few years back. 

[Dr. Tim]

Wait a tick: Is the LP mix of California Girls, as you call it, really a different MIX than the 45?  A top-to-bottom remix?  Or is it just a not-as-blistering mastering job as you would hear on a mint-condition 45?  I'm just going by the comparison with the single version in the "Good Vibrations" box set with the "Summer Days" HDCD two-fer.  Allowing for the HDCD they sound the same to me.  Now it was common practice in the 50s and 60s to cut 45 master disc "mothers" at a much hotter level than the original source master tape of the same song, which is why the LP versions may seem a little "flat" at first listen.   

Maybe Mark or Josh can elucidate.

I have so many duplicates of all this stuff (LPs, 45s, reissues, box sets) that I can't justify buying this new one, esp. with the new POB reissue and Brian's TLOS in the offing.  But feel free if you like this sort of thing, or don't have to contend with a house groaning under the weight of all that vinyl like I do.

[mjd180]

Wait a tick: Is the LP mix of California Girls, as you call it, really a different MIX than the 45?  A top-to-bottom remix?  Or is it just a not-as-blistering mastering job as you would hear on a mint-condition 45?  I'm just going by the comparison with the single version in the "Good Vibrations" box set with the "Summer Days" HDCD two-fer.  Allowing for the HDCD they sound the same to me.  Now it was common practice in the 50s and 60s to cut 45 master disc "mothers" at a much hotter level than the original source master tape of the same song, which is why the LP versions may seem a little "flat" at first listen.   

It's a competely different, and many would argue inferior, mix. Not even used on the 'Good Vibrations' box (for whatever reason). It's surprisingly hard to find on cd. The 1999 'Greatest Hits, Vol.1' is one of the very few (and, by far, easiest) places it can be found...

[audiodrome]

It's a competely different, and many would argue inferior, mix. Not even used on the 'Good Vibrations' box (for whatever reason). It's surprisingly hard to find on cd. The 1999 'Greatest Hits, Vol.1' is one of the very few (and, by far, easiest) places it can be found...

I personally don't prefer it either, but if you're going to call something the US Singles Collection, you should use the single mix, regardless of whether it's the best version.

[SloopJohnB]

Got mine today at a quite interesting price (less than $80, shipping included). The picture book is disappointing, there are no liner notes, but you have to admit it'll look GREAT on the shelf. 

...And I never knew there was a "45" mix of California Girls. I had always assumed the LP and the 45 had the same mix. 

[MBE]

Was the 45 mix on Made In The USA

[Bicyclerider]

No.  It's on the Japanese mono singles box and on the 99 Greatest Hits Vol. 1, but not the 95 or so Greatest Hits (with no Vol. number on it).

[Andrew G. Doe]

First I've heard of a dedicated 45 mix of "CG"... and having A/B'd the two 'versions' referred to below (GH 95/GH 99), I detect absolutely no difference in the mix. Care to list the differences for us ? All I hear is a different mastering job and a longer fade on the 99 release. Now, interestingly, on the new box, the mono mix is the same length as the 95 GH, while the stereo mix is the same length as the 99 release. So I'm thinking maybe the 99 GH track is a fold-down of the stereo mix from Endless Harmony.

[HeyJude]

First I've heard of a dedicated 45 mix of "CG"... and having A/B'd the two 'versions' referred to below (GH 95/GH 99), I detect absolutely no difference in the mix. Care to list the differences for us ? All I hear is a different mastering job and a longer fade on the 99 release. Now, interestingly, on the new box, the mono mix is the same length as the 95 GH, while the stereo mix is the same length as the 99 release. So I'm thinking maybe the 99 GH track is a fold-down of the stereo mix from Endless Harmony.

AGD, I don't know if you've been there before, but head on over to stevehoffman.tv, where there has been some discussion of the different mixes. It's a really intelligent bunch of folks over there. I believe Steve Hoffman himself (who mastered the DCC discs which are still the best sounding Beach Boys CD's in existence) has mentioned that the two different mono mixes of "California Girls" are indeed different mixes, not just different fades. Admittedly, the actual mix differences sound to be very, very slight compared to the hugely noticeable difference of the longer fade. Of course, even if it was just the fade that was different, that still means that the longer fade as heard on the original 45 should have been included on the new singles set. They managed to include the mono single mix of "Fun Fun Fun" instead of the mono album mix (heard on "Made in USA" among others) on the new singles set, and they got the original mono single mix of "CG" on the '99 Greatest Hits CD, so it is surprising that it didn't make it on the new set.

As for the '99 Greatest Hits CD, Andrew Sandoval mastered that and I don't think there's any way he would have ever just added a fold-down of a stereo mix to substitute for a mono mix. I can't imagine any engineer or mastering engineer doing that, and Sandoval does excellent work, so I don't think he'd ever do that in a million years. That's the original single mono mix, as can also be heard on the now apparently pricey and obscure Japanese singles collection. Apparently besides those two CD sources, the only way to hear it from what I can tell is to find an original 45.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Know of those discussions, and respect Hoffman's views and expertise - my point is that according to mjd180 "It's a competely different, and many would argue inferior, mix". And it isn't "completely different" by any criteria. I can hear more difference in the LP/45 mixes of "Never Learn Not to Love".

[HeyJude]

Know of those discussions, and respect Hoffman's views and expertise - my point is that according to mjd180 "It's a competely different, and many would argue inferior, mix". And it isn't "completely different" by any criteria. I can hear more difference in the LP/45 mixes of "Never Learn Not to Love".

Gotcha. I would tend to agree with you that the mixes don't sound particularly different; it seems to take some rather sharp ears to hear noticeable differences (again, apart from the fade which in and of itself is not even noticeable because of the actual mix/balance of instruments of course). I suppose it all depends on a person's ears to determine whether they feel it's a "completely different" mix. I believe those who hear significant differences tend to prefer the album mono mix's overall sound. I believe even Hoffman used the album mono mix of his excellent DCC disc of "Endless Summer." Nevertheless, it certainly would have been preferable to have that mix on the new singles set. The idea presumably wouldn't be to use the "best" mixes, even if somehow we could all agree on what the best mix is, but rather to use the mixes that would have been heard on the original 45's, especially considering the whole context of this new boxed set with picture sleeve reproductions and label reproductions and whatnot.

[mjd180]

Know of those discussions, and respect Hoffman's views and expertise - my point is that according to mjd180 "It's a competely different, and many would argue inferior, mix". And it isn't "completely different" by any criteria. I can hear more difference in the LP/45 mixes of "Never Learn Not to Love".

Keep in mind the context in which I made that quote. It was a direct response to someone who doubted it anything more than a difference in mastering...

[Dr. Tim]

That someone was me, and from what AGD says from his comparison, it sounds like a difference in mastering!

...which is not trivial.  Some mastering jobs can greatly alter the sound of the original mixdown tape - sometimes for the worse!  So you may be right about the inferiority of the 45.   Remember the mastering differences in the British Beatles LPs vs. the US Capitol pressings, with the Capitol's added brightness, compression, and sometimes reverb - so different as to warrant their own CD reissue box sets?

But now you've set me a homework assignment.  There's a used 45 dealer at the flea market down the road, guess I'll have to pay a visit, hope to find a not-too-beat-up copy of CG, and see what the fuss is all about.

[brother john]

On a related topic, who did the mastering for all the BB stuff in the Sixties? As Dr Tim says, mastering (the so-called 'dark art') can utterly change the overall sound of a song (I've often wondered about the 'boxey' sound of some mid-period Beatles and wondered why this wasn't corrected at the mastering stage, but I guess tastes were different 40 years ago).

Any ideas? In all the books on BW's fab production skills the mastering is virtually never mentioned, which I find strange. Maybe they weren't mastered at all? Some of them certainly sound that way (Wild Honey and Smiley Smile, for instance, as discussed in the WH thread started by Baker Man).

[Vega-Table Man]

AGD, I don't know if you've been there before, but head on over to stevehoffman.tv, where there has been some discussion of the different mixes. It's a really intelligent bunch of folks over there.

You're joking. Right?

I believe Steve Hoffman himself (who mastered the DCC discs which are still the best sounding Beach Boys CD's in existence) has mentioned that the two different mono mixes of "California Girls" are indeed different mixes, not just different fades.

It may surprise you to learn that "Steve Hoffman himself" is neither infallible nor an always-reliable source of factual information.

[HoneyBee]

Not even used on the 'Good Vibrations' box (for whatever reason).

I always assumed it's the 45 mix on the boxset, because the fade out is a bit shorter than on Summer Days.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Know of those discussions, and respect Hoffman's views and expertise - my point is that according to mjd180 "It's a competely different, and many would argue inferior, mix". And it isn't "completely different" by any criteria. I can hear more difference in the LP/45 mixes of "Never Learn Not to Love".

Keep in mind the context in which I made that quote. It was a direct response to someone who doubted it anything more than a difference in mastering...

My definition of "a completely different mix": "California Saga: California" LP mix v. "California Saga; California" 45 mix. That is, differences you can actually hear (Brian's response vocals. the horns) without having them pointed out. Context in this instance is irrelevant: fact is, it's not a completely different mix. Exactly the same audio elements are there in both versions.

[Andrew G. Doe]

On a related topic, who did the mastering for all the BB stuff in the Sixties? As Dr Tim says, mastering (the so-called 'dark art') can utterly change the overall sound of a song (I've often wondered about the 'boxey' sound of some mid-period Beatles and wondered why this wasn't corrected at the mastering stage, but I guess tastes were different 40 years ago).

Any ideas? In all the books on BW's fab production skills the mastering is virtually never mentioned, which I find strange. Maybe they weren't mastered at all? Some of them certainly sound that way (Wild Honey and Smiley Smile, for instance, as discussed in the WH thread started by Baker Man).

Fred Vail recalls Brian inviting him to the mastering of Pet Sounds and there being just the three of them in the studio - Brian, Fred & 'the mastering guy', who took his cues from Brian.

[brother john]

On a related topic, who did the mastering for all the BB stuff in the Sixties? As Dr Tim says, mastering (the so-called 'dark art') can utterly change the overall sound of a song (I've often wondered about the 'boxey' sound of some mid-period Beatles and wondered why this wasn't corrected at the mastering stage, but I guess tastes were different 40 years ago).

Any ideas? In all the books on BW's fab production skills the mastering is virtually never mentioned, which I find strange. Maybe they weren't mastered at all? Some of them certainly sound that way (Wild Honey and Smiley Smile, for instance, as discussed in the WH thread started by Baker Man).

Fred Vail recalls Brian inviting him to the mastering of Pet Sounds and there being just the three of them in the studio - Brian, Fred & 'the mastering guy', who took his cues from Brian.

Thanks Andrew.

Sounds like mastering wasn't much of a priority for BW. If you read about the Beatles recordings of the same era in Geoff 'the 6th Beatle' Emerick's book for example, or George Martin's, mastering is treated as a pretty major part of the operation. I'm surprised that with all the wealth of information on BW and his work published over the years (and I think I've read the bulk of it...) the process of mastering doesn't really come up.

BJ

[audiodrome]

If you listen really closely, you can hear that the level of the keyboards is softer and the vocals are louder on the LP mix. The organ attack is more prominent and the bells are more present on the 45 mix. It's almost like the LP mix showcases the vocals more while the 45 mix has everything crammed together at equal volumes. That's what I hear anyway. After listening again, I can't decide now which one I like better. I think the 45 mix actually "gels" a little better.