Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
gfx gfx
678391 Posts in 27405 Topics by 4045 Members - Latest Member: reecemorgan February 04, 2023, 04:32:55 AM
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 387 388 389 390 391 [392] 393 394 395 396 397 ... 401
9776  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: How much has leaked? on: May 08, 2011, 09:05:45 AM
I suppose it boils down to what we consider "new" material. I'm sure there will be "session" material that isn't already out there. There probably won't be much in the way of totally alternate versions of songs, and certainly not much if anything in terms of totally new actual songs.

I'd love to hear more of that "Our Prayer" vocal session, and in better sound quality.

What I really hope for is that this released is not drenched in reverb/echo the way most everything with the BB's has been lately that has required any fresh mixing. I don't want this stuff to sound like the stereo remix of "Please Let Me Wonder", where it sounds like I accidentaly hit the "opera hall" setting on a digital receiver.
9777  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Pet Sounds DCC on: May 02, 2011, 09:23:18 AM
In terms of CD pressings, much more recently (2009 I believe), another remaster of the mono mix was done on the Audio Fidelity label, also by Steve Hoffman. Audio Fidelity is more or less the “new” version of the old DCC label. So you’ll find that the Audio Fidelity version is much easier to find than the old DCC version. The Audio Fidelity pressing is out of print as well, but I think you can probably find a copy for $20-$30, give or take. For most collectors of DCC titles, I would imagine this Audio Fidelity CD has supplanted the DCC, as both were done by Hoffman. They even have the same style of artwork and slipcase (the AF version is white instead of the old DCC, which was black). I haven’t A/B’ed the DCC versus Audio Fidelity, but I believe the AF version was done with the same aim (a flat transfer, etc.), only the AF was done with a better A/D converter.

Long story short, the Audio Fidelity is (arguably of course) the best (and/or most “true” or “accurate”) mastering of the mono mix you can find.
9778  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Don't Fight the Sea - Terry Jacks Version? ("Y'Don't Fight The Sea"?) on: April 19, 2011, 12:46:06 AM
So I've been meaning to ask this for ages. For years, we had heard about the Beach Boys'/Al's recording of "Don't Fight the Sea", but didn't actually hear the song until Al's album came out. It had never been booted. So after Al released it, I found some mentions of Terry Jacks having released a song called "Y'Don't Fight the Sea." I would have to assume it's the same song, but I can't find a single source on the internet where I can sample the Jacks version. Can anyone confirm Jacks released his version of the song back in the 70's, or is it something else? Also, is there anywhere to hear the Jacks recording? Thanks!
9779  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Soul Searchin'-Lets set the facts straight! on: March 01, 2011, 01:10:50 PM

TD -- I can fill in a few bits.

I think this answers the questions quite nicely! I recall when first reading years ago on the net (perhaps on this board?) about Carl’s vocals being grafted onto the older backing track that I came away with the impression that it was done almost as a second effort to get the song released or make the project viable again somehow.

I recall reading that it was done before Carl was gone, but he may well have never heard it. But the impression I got was that Carl’s issue was with the backing track, so this was an attempt to demonstrate for him (and/or others) how the song could sound with a different (arguably better) backing track without any actual BB involvement in any new recording. Obviously, the ideal situation would have been to either have Carl and the group add new vocals on the old backing track, or just cut a totally new version to his and their liking. But this struck me as the best attempt to salvage the song when the group couldn’t or wouldn’t actively participate in any new sessions.
9780  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: for those who haven't seen it... on: March 01, 2011, 12:51:23 PM
It has been ages since I’ve seen this, but a part I always though was funny was Bruce continuing to attempt to show Brian a little new arrangement bit he had worked up for “Caroline, No.” My vague recollection is that he keeps trying to get Brian’s attention to show it to him, but it takes numerous attempts.

I also thought it was interesting that Bruce recalled “Sherry She Needs Me” and asks Brian to play it. I wonder if Bruce recalled the song from the original 1965-ish timeframe, or if Bruce was somehow aware of it more from the 1976 attempt to revive the song.
9781  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Anyone have 'the worst concert ever'? on: March 01, 2011, 12:44:32 PM
I’m guessing, without having heard or seen every gig they ever did, that the 1981 Queen Mary show is not their worst gig ever. It might be the worst gig ever captured on video and broadcast on TV, but I’m sure other gigs came off even worse, especially during this 1981-82 time frame. I’ve heard the gig they did the previous day on July 4th ’81 in Washington DC, and it’s just as bad more or less. I’ve heard other shows from this era, and they are all relatively consistent in that Adrian Baker’s falsetto is totally off, Knapp’s bass playing is both sub-par and usually mixed/processed poorly (with that awful boing-boing sound), and Brian is biting off way more than he can chew trying to take leads on stuff like “Don’t Worry Baby” and “Good Vibrations.”

Shows I’ve heard from the period after Carl returned in mid-1982 sound markedly better. The Knebworth and DC shows from 1980 are some of the last solid-sounding group performances with all members present.
9782  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Al Jardine's \ on: November 29, 2008, 03:35:05 PM
Hmmm. I have to agree with the general sentiments being expressed here that Al's voice sounds really great, but the song isn't that great. I don't think the song is bad, it's just sort of bland. It is sort of interesting to hear Al sing that slightly sort of R&B sort of vibe. I don't think it's the style of song that his voice sounds best on, but his voice still sounds really great, if that makes any sense. It's kind of like hearing Al sing "Soul Searchin'" a little bit (although "Soul Searchin'" is a much, much better song of course).

I just hope when/if his album finally comes out, it's not so filled with guest vocalists that we don't even get to hear enough of Al's singing. I don't mind some guest spots from other Beach Boys ("Don't Fight the Sea" sounds awesome with Carl and Al trading lead vocals), but like listening to that "Drivin'" sample a while back, I think having Brian sing some lead and David Marks play guitar is enough in terms of guest spots. I don't really need the America guys singing nasaly vocals instead of just more Al and/or Brian. I also remember probably a couple of years ago now when Al first put up a sample of the song "Postcard from California", and it sounded like he had layered all the backing vocals himself, and it sounded good. Now he's got other vocalists on backing vocals, not to mention Glen Campbell singing some of the lead.
9783  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Poor crowd at TLOS USA Premier on: September 06, 2008, 06:16:03 PM
I'm pretty sure the Smile show I saw here (opening show of the Smile tour, Minneapolis) was sold out--that was in a couple-thousand seat theater. The Simon tour is the only other BW show I've seen in America. I don't recall whether it was sold out, but it was in a large venue (Excel Energy Center, where the dumbfucks yapped all week), so I doubt it. It did have a VERY large crowd, though.

I don't know how many shows Brian has literally sold out, but every one of his other Bay Area shows since 1999 has been well-attended on the whole, usually by my total guess based on eyeing the venues, 75-100% full. I've certainly never seen a situation where the venue was anything close to 67%-83% empty as this show *may* have been (we clearly don't have any exact numbers on ticket sales).

I don't think it's the area/market that was the problem so much as perhaps the promotion and the quick turnaround time between announcing the show/the on-sale date and the actual show date.
9784  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Poor crowd at TLOS USA Premier on: September 06, 2008, 06:08:55 PM
This was the first Bay Area Brian show (not counting his Bridge Benefit shows) that I wasn't able to make. I don't think my inability as a huge fan to not make it is telling of anything other than all of the reasons why I couldn't make it.

But I would guess some of the factors that resulted in a small crowd included the fact that the show was announced and went on sale a mere few weeks ago (about three and a half or so weeks ago give or take I believe), and that doesn't give them much time to sell the tickets. The previous show at the Paramount with Jardine on January '07 was announced relatively soon before the show, but even that had a five or six week advance notice, and also had the added selling points of being the supposed "last" performance of "Pet Sounds" and having Al Jardine in the band.

Also, Brian played two shows in the Bay Area in 2007. He played the Paramount in January '07 with Al Jardine, and the place seemed near full from what I could tell. He played the Mountain Winery in Saratoga in June of '07, again with Al (though Al's presence wasn't advertised ahead of time), and that show seemed to sell okay but was not a sell-out. I remember some folks noting at that time that it maybe didn't sell quite as well because he had just played the Bay Area a little over five months prior. It had been 15 months since the last Brian show, about the same amount of time that had passed between his 2005 "Smile" show in Berkeley and the January '07 show at the Paramount, and the first '07 show sold well enough. So I'm not sure if "oversaturation" in the market or whatever it's called would have anything to do with it. Perhaps some fans are just not as into "That Lucky Old Sun" as they are "Pet Sounds" and/or seeing Brian with Jardine.

The venue perhaps wasn't the best pick either. It's a wonderful venue, but as I've seen mentioned by others, people in the South Bay perhaps didn't want to deal with Friday night traffic going into Oakland. His show at the Paramount in January of '07 was on a Sunday night when everything else in the vicinity of the theater was pretty dead. If he had booked the Mountain Winery in Saratoga, he may well have sold more tickets (and that venue has well under a 3,000 capacity from what I remember) just because of the type of venue and the area and the fact that it's a newly-renovated venue that people seem to be jazzed about (I saw Ringo Starr there at the end of July and the venue is nice, but the parking is horrible).

I don't pay much attention to how much promotion shows are given on the radio or in papers locally, but I wouldn't be surprised if it got little or no promotion. But I don't think much of any Brian shows in the area have got a ton of advance promotion. But as I said, I've never paid much attention to that end of things.

I'm bummed now because I wasn't able to make this show, and it looks now like he may well not be back anytime soon if ever if the show really sold this poorly. I'm not sure whether this review/description of the show makes me less or more bummed I wasn't able to make it. On the one hand, it appears it would have been easy to get a good seat. On the other hand, the non-TLOS setlist was the same stuff he's been doing for a number of years. I don't know what to make of the description of "technical difficulties", but I doubt that would have been a big deal to me. Reviewers sometimes seem to dwell on that sort of stuff.
9785  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Al Jardine on: July 30, 2008, 09:50:24 PM
They tried adding Al to the didn't work out. Brian had an on-stage episode. Too many bad memories? Exit Al. End of story.

It's a shame, i'd love to see Al back in there, his voice was like pure crystal, but it doesn't look likely.

Hopefully this also means the end to any possible BB reunions.

I was at the show where Brian had that "episode." June 11th, 2007 at The Mountain Winery in Saratoga, CA. There is no evidence, and I saw nothing that indicated his "episode" had anything to do with Al. Al showed concern when it happened and was asking Brian if he was okay, etc. It was in fact Al who sort of took charge and called for an intermission. But that whole thing sort of got skewed and overblown, mostly by people that weren't even at the show. But that can all be re-traced by going back on the various boards to last year and reading the various posts.

As someone else pointed out, whatever the reason was for Al dropping out of the European tour dates, that decision had been made prior to this show. Al came out and did the show apparently even though he knew he wasn't going to be going on the European tour. Al hadn't even been advertised as being part of the Saratoga show.

Further, I don't even think it's really accuate to say that Al stopped touring with Brian's band as if it was a permanent thing that now will never happen again, because in the instances where Al joined Brian's shows, it wasn't advertised or touted as a permanent thing. If Al had done that European tour, I don't think he would have then permanently started touring with Brian. In fact, even when he was slated to do the European tour, I believe it was put around that he wouldn't be at the shows later in the year for "That Lucky Old Sun." Also, while I'm not holding my breath, it certainly doesn't seem totally impossible that Al might sit in with Brian again at some point. Al in total only did like 10 or 11 shows with Brian by my count. I consider myself lucky that I got to see two of those, including to date the last show they did together.
9786  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: New US singles box-set on: July 12, 2008, 05:49:16 PM
The length on the actual single could be shorter than the length on the single master.

One case that always surprises me is the song Good Vibrations which lasts a couple of seconds longer on the DCC Endless Summer CD than anywhere else (3:42 instead of 3:35). According to Steve Hoffman, he used the single master. What version is used on the US singles box-set?

If the song lasts 3.42, then it's self-evidently NOT the single master as released in 1966. Brian would have mixed the multi-tracks down to a mono master, but the fade is done during the actual mastering process, as I understand. For example, the version of (I think) "Surfin' Safari" on the box set is the 45 master, but it's not faded out.

But the final mixes/masters for songs, whether they are on a master pertaining to singles or albums, usually don't all have completely cold endings as far as I know of. Tracks may well sometimes be faded a bit earlier than what is on the master mix/tape as they are mastered (compare the vinyl "LA (Light Album)" or the Caribou/CBS CD to the 2000 Capitol two-fer for instance to hear longer fadeouts on the 2000 CD that were actually on the album master; but note that they still were faded), but this isn't always left completely up to the person mastering the material. The person doing the mix usually wants to fade it when they choose. They don't do a mix without any fade and just leave a cold, often break-down ending and just let the person mastering it decide when the song should be faded.

There is a bunch of info about the work on the DCC "Endless Summer" and the other Beach Boys DCC material over on the Steve Hoffman message board. There apparently was no criteria on the "Endless Summer" set in terms of preserving the original single versions or anything else. They just chose what they felt were the best versions/mixes (i.e. using the single versions of "Be True To Your School" and "Help Me Rhonda" as opposed to what the original album used), so in the case of "Good Vibrations", I believe they found that the fade on the original tape was longer (but note that it's still faded; I don't think that final mix/master has a cold ending or anything) and used it just to provide fans with a longer version. Note that even though Hoffman has mentioned that the mono single version of "California Girls" is a different mix than the mono album version, he still used the (shorter) mono album version on the DCC disc, presumably because he felt it was the preferable one to use.
9787  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: New US singles box-set on: July 12, 2008, 05:38:28 PM
FWIW, I just timed the 45 single that I have of California Girls. It's the 5464 and it does list 2:37 as the running time, but it clocked in at 2:42 when I timed it. It was played on a fairly recent turntable so the speed at which it was played isn't a problem.

Hope this helps.

It can sometimes get a bit confusing just timing the stuff out, due to speed variances in some cases when playing vinyl, but also just each person's idea of when the song is over in terms of fade and whatnot. It sounds like the vinyl 45 indeed features a longer fade out. Can you compare when the song completely fades out on the "US Singles Collection" to when it completely fades out on the 45? The longer fade-out I've heard from the Japanese singles collection carries on longer, well past that noticeable drum fill/riff that is barely heard before the shorter version fades out. That's the easiest way just by ear without a stopwatch to tell whether one is listening to the shorter or longer fade.
9788  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: New US singles box-set on: July 12, 2008, 02:01:31 PM
If nothing else, this should illuminate the difficulty of figuring out what the "correct" version of a recording is for people that put out archival recordings.

I know what you mean, but on the other hand it could be simple in this case. I mean, if they got the longer version on "Greatest Hits Vol. 1" in 1999, then it presumably is not some sort of obscure tape hiding away somewhere. I suppose the easiest way to at least get some information would be to just find an original stock mono 45 single. Even if the debatable mix difference is set aside, one could at least check the length on it (the length it actually plays at as opposed to what is listed on the label, since those two things could at least conceivably be different).

For what it's worth, while I don't have an original 45 single at my disposal (I think I might have it packed away somewhere among a bunch of thrashed old Capitol swirl 45's I inherited at some point), I checked around on Ebay and the like and found what appears to be an original 45, and the picture of it shows the same running time as what is reproduced on the "US Singles Collection" CD label, 2:37. But I suppose an original 45 would have to be played to check what it actually runs to and at what point it fades out, and what the possible mix difference might be.
9789  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: New US singles box-set on: July 11, 2008, 04:12:46 PM
I got a hold of the 1999 "Greatest Hits Vol 1" CD the other day.

"California Girls" on that compilation clocks in at 2:38, one second more than the track on the singles set.  It's the same mix, mastered a little differently.  The fade is almost identical.

Do we have a definitive timing on the version included on the old Japanese singles collection, as well as a timing on the original mono vinyl 45? Comparing the version on the Japanese singles collection with the version on the new US Singles Collection, I would say that, conservatively, the version on the Japanese singles collections runs 6 or 7 seconds longer. I've read comments from folks who say that the Japanese singles collection matches what is heard on the original US vinyl 45, but I don't have one at my disposal right now to compare.

For whatever reason, somebody on another board says their copy of the 1999 Greatest Hits Vol. 1 has the longer fade, with "California Girls" running 2:45. Is it possible some 1995 masterings of GH1 were used in 1999 pressings or packagings or something? I don't have all of the different copies at my disposal (and certainly not alternate pressings if they exist!) to compare right now.
9790  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: New US singles box-set on: July 11, 2008, 04:05:16 PM
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.  Grin

No matter what mix is used it is still the SAME SONG! So why not use the best sounding mix available, be it the stereo mix from Sounds of Summer or another mix, instead of a muddy, crappy-sounding mono mix from the 60s?

Aside from the packaging angle, the whole point of a "US Singles Collection" (as opposed to just a general compilation like "Sounds of Summer") is to present the original single mixes, regardless of whether some feel they are "crappy sounding" or "muddy" or whatever. The point is not to just use the "best sounding mix available" (even assuming we could all agree which mix is the "best sounding", which of course we surely all cannot).

In any event, this new set features both mono and stereo mixes where applicable and possible. So if one is inclined to prefer the vintage stereo mixes or latter-day stereo remixes, those are there on the set as well.
9791  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Nice BW interview from the IMAGINATION era on: July 03, 2008, 12:18:24 PM
Very interesting, not least for the confirmation that "How Could We Still Be Dancing ?" was written (if not recorded) by July 1998.

I always thought that "How Could We Still Be Dancing?" had at least a bit of a genesis with the mid 90's track "Dancing the Night Away" that the Beach Boys briefly worked on. I recall that on the instrumental track version that is floating around out there, there are a few chord changes at the beginning that sound similar to what Brian ended up doing vocally on the beginning of the track in 2004.

Um... the intro vocal is nothing more than the vocals from another section grafted onto the front of the track (specifically from 2.04 into the song).

I understand that. The location of the vocal part in the recording isn't important. It's the musical similarity that I hear. I was just using the beginning of the 2004 recording to demonstrate one of the places where the similarity can be heard. The chord progression that is played on the piano at or near the beginning of the backing track of "Dancing the Night Away" (which I don't think is heard on the version that has a bit of vocals from the BB's, but I'm not sure) sounds similar to the part of the song that Brian sings that repeats itself during the song.

On top of that, the songs have a similar tempo and some similar chords and a similar general style in what I would guess could be called the verse sections. I don't think it's a case of the two tracks being the same song with different lyrics or anything. But, setting aside that both tracks having "dancing" in their lyrics, there are some notable musical similarities that, in a few cases, go beyond the songs just being similar in style. That both tracks also having "dancing" in their titles certainly doesn't dissuade me from pondering the possibility that the later song had a few roots in the older song.
9792  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: New US singles box-set on: July 03, 2008, 09:23:37 AM
I don't suppose it counts, as its a new mix,  but I've just listened to about six different versions of Cal Girls and they vary quite alot, and the longest by some way is the version on Endless Harmony, which captures more of the great fills in the fade.

Not much info in the sleeve notes as to who was responsible for mix/mastering though...

The two different mixes on two different versions of the "Endless Harmony Soundtrack" are stereo remixes, so those are a whole different item altogether, as those were done by going back to the multitrack elements and remixing. The fades on those were definitely newly-performed for the purposes of those remixes, as they would be working from the raw, multitrack tapes that have no ending other than the cold endings that exist on the original takes. It would up to whoever is mixing to decide how to do those fades, and as far as my personal taste in concerned, they can make those fades as long as they want so we can hear as much of the take as possible. I would imagine every case of remixing is different. Some may string it out as long as they can before the take breaks down before fading, some will try to replicate the fade from a vintage mix, and in some cases I've heard remixes of vintage tracks where they actually don't fade it and just give us the cold ending. All of those variations are interesting and valid for different reasons.

The issue with the longer fade on some mono mixes/masterings of "CG" is not whether I think any fade is better than another, or whether any mix is better than another, but simply that that longer fade was apparently on the original single and seems like it could have been on the new set to replicate that original single. The fact that it may well be a slightly alternate mix seperate from the issue of the fade is only another reason why it would make sense to have that version on the set as well.
9793  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: New US singles box-set on: July 02, 2008, 11:38:33 PM

That's not entirely true; I assume any fade decisions could be finalized at the mastering stage.  As Alan said, the phono reels tended to have long fades, and then the mastering engineer could presumably set the final fade length doing the tape-to-disc transfer on the lathe.  And therefore it's entirely possible that one of the "master fades" of CG exists only on disc, and not on tape.

I think I'm following what you're describing. I'm just looking at the end resulting material we have. We have the original 45 with the long fade, and two versions issued on CD with the long fade. So anything on the tapes used to cut the 45 or to master the track for those two CD appearances would have to be at least that long. In other words, if something exists "only on disc" and not on the tape, what is on the tape can't have a shorter fade than what is on the disc. So whatever tape was used to master to the original 45 single release had to be at least that long, or longer. So if that fade only exists on the original 45, the tape used to cut that 45 should be as long or longer, thus allowing a later appearance of the track from the same tape source to have that same fade (as heard on the two older aforementioned CD releases).

So I'm just looking at what appeared on the 45, and thinking that whatever that is or wherever it came from, it still seems to exist and could have/should have been used on the new US Singles set. It apparently was not, as the version we have on that set has a shorter fade as heard on the album.

We apparently have a longer mono version appearing on the original 45 single, and a shorter mono version appearing on the original vinyl album. In the CD era, we have appearances of both of these "versions", suggesting either two (or more) different tape sources are being used for these different CD releases, or the same source is being used and the versions with shorter fades are being faded out in the process of mastering those particular CD releases. Either way, I'm thinking the idea is for a US Singles collection to use the same "version", the same mix and fade as heard on the original single, and for whatever reason that has not happened. Whether it happened because the album master was used, or some other tape was used, or they simply took the same single master and for some reason manually faded it out earlier to match the album fade, I of course do not know. In most cases on these latter-day CD releases, I don't think any new fading is being done; they seem to transfer and master the source and maintain whatever fade is present (which I suppose in some cases could be detected if we hear the song fade but the level of tape hiss remain the same, etc.).

Honestly, I really enjoy discussing this sort of stuff. All of the mechanics of how these tapes were physically put together and exist are really interesting. Smiley
9794  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Nice BW interview from the IMAGINATION era on: July 02, 2008, 11:23:35 PM
Very interesting, not least for the confirmation that "How Could We Still Be Dancing ?" was written (if not recorded) by July 1998.

I always thought that "How Could We Still Be Dancing?" had at least a bit of a genesis with the mid 90's track "Dancing the Night Away" that the Beach Boys briefly worked on. I recall that on the instrumental track version that is floating around out there, there are a few chord changes at the beginning that sound similar to what Brian ended up doing vocally on the beginning of the track in 2004.
9795  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: New US singles box-set on: July 02, 2008, 10:55:16 PM
The singles masters held by EMI are generally stored on compiled reels called "phono reels."  In many cases, when a single was later included on an album, that master would have been pulled from the phono reel to the master album reel, and replaced by a "dub" copy (and this is usually indicated on the documentation found with the phono reel).   The original mix tapes are flat, unmastered, and often will have a long fade.  The phono reel logs generally have fairly precise mastering and EQ notes indicating how the sound, the speed, the fade, etc was to be adjusted during mastering.  The album reels will also have their own mastering notes and instructions, but they're often quite different because they were handled by different technicians.

Great, interesting info. In this case, it sounds like under this scenario, it would seem even more likely that the single and album mono mixes of "CG" are indeed different mixes that were not substituted for each other. If the version included on the original single (with the longer fade out) had been taken out and spliced into the album reel, then the album would have had the longer fade just like the single. The fact that the album has the shorter fade would mean either that the album used a completely different mix/source, or they would have had to dub a copy of the single version onto another tape for the album and in the process fade the track out earlier (assuming, as I mentioned before, that none of the "short fade" versions we hear on CD have been artificially faded for those specific CD appearances). In other words, if the album has a shorter fade than the single, then there's no way that the exact same physical tape that had been used for the single could have been added to the album master. The album has to have a different mix, and/or different tape, and/or at least a different dub in order to acheive a different fade.

As mentioned before, the fact that the longer fade version has been included on at least two CD's (the Japan singles collection, and the '99 version of the "Greatest Hits Vol. 1" CD) seems to indicate that that longer faded version (different mix or not) exists in some form somewhere, and exists on some tape other than the album master. The two cases where this longer fade version was used were both cases in which the compilers would have been specifically looking for the "single" version, which would seem to make it likely that the tape was found on some sort of source that indicates it is the "single" version.
9796  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: New US singles box-set on: July 02, 2008, 07:11:03 PM
I'm also not aware of a separate 45 mix of CG.  I've only seen record of the 45 master separate from the album reel in Alan's documentation.  But he'd be the final word on this, obviously.

Mastering is really a pretty powerful thing and differences in mastering can sound like completely different mixes, masking sounds that are apparent on another master, bringing sounds out, making instrument balances seem different.

I think some of the types who pick apart such things do hear differences in the two mono mixes. Nevertheless, as I've also alluded to in previous posts, even if the two mixes were the exact same mixes and the album mix simply chose to fade it much earlier, that means there is a mono 45 master or some sort of source out there somewhere (same or different mix) with that longer fade, as it's been used on a few other CD releases. So that seems like what should have been used on the new set, because it appears it was that longer fade that appeared on the original 45. The fact that that longer fade recording was used on a 1999 mastering suggests the tape is out there available to be used, and I can only hopefully assume that the versions we're hearing with shorter fades were not simply using that longer fade tape and fading it out artificially or anything.

I don't want to lead the thread into any sort of Hoffman-themed debate here since it would get pretty far off topic of this thread, but he has apparently indicated that the mixes are different, and he would understand as well as anybody and probably more than most what the difference is between what mastering will do to the sound of a recording versus an actual mix difference. As I said, in many cases he has listened to, handled, and worked with the actual tapes in question. He would be the last person in the world to just assume a mix is different because the fade is different or assume for any other reason.
9797  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: New US singles box-set on: July 02, 2008, 03:29:59 PM
AGD, I don't know if you've been there before, but head on over to, where there has been some discussion of the different mixes. It's a really intelligent bunch of folks over there.

You're joking. Right?

Um, no. I don't agree with everybody on that message board, and I tend to feel some of them pay too much attention to very minute sonic differences that probably would not be able to be discerned at all under a double-blind test. But there are a ton of very knowledgable folks both in terms of specific bands and artists and the whole area of sound reproduction, recording, mixing, mastering, etc. Most of the people I converse with and read posts from on that board tend to be part of general discussions about music and artists rather than the nit-picky audiophile-type discussions that take place 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.

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

Well, I didn't speak to anything other than what Hoffman said about the two different mixes of "California Girls." He's right about that, and while I certainly can't speak to every statement he has ever made, he seems to me to be a reliable and knowledgable source of information. In the case of the Beach Boys, he has actually handled and listened to the master tapes in question (not that that is even a requirement to tell the difference between two mixes of the same song). As far as I can tell, he is also one of the most well-respected mastering engineers around, and his work on the DCC catalog is almost always cited even to this day as the best sounding version of the individual titles he worked on by fans and "audiophiles" alike. His DCC discs of "Endless Summer", "Spirit of America", and "Pet Sounds" are the best-sounding versions of those songs/mixes available, and every other DCC CD that I own is the definitive version of those albums. I'm not a Hoffman aficianado or anything, I just think his mastering work speaks for itself, and most everything I've read that he has commented on has been accurate and informative.
9798  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: New US singles box-set on: July 01, 2008, 01:43:58 PM
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.
9799  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: New US singles box-set on: July 01, 2008, 01:11:21 PM
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, 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.
9800  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Bad news re POB/Sony Germany on: June 23, 2008, 08:27:31 PM
Geek Jon, I understand your excitement. However, Wal-Mart must be seeing this as a one time thing. A niche market if you will. I am keeping my eyes PEELED for a display for POB though. 3D Us being huge BB fans see this bigger than stores like Wal-mart do. I imagine it has gotten HUGE reviews in every major music magazine.  I have it on the original LP, CD and now the remaster. I have suggested it to the Electronics department manager, and they say "Who?"  Huh Angry
If you are using the manager at your local Wal-Mart as the guage to whether this release is getting a fair shake or not...ummmm...I can't help you. Dennis Wilson won't register with Wal-Mart or most Wal-Mart shoppers until AFTER the Grammy, AFTER the feature on Access Hollywood, and AFTER River Song is a Shampoo commercial, AFTER Beyonce covers Dreamer ...AFTER American Idol has Dennis Wilson night...then Wal-Mart will get a few in stock.


If your sole source of CD purchases is Wal-Mart, then you're not trying very hard. This is where the Mom and Pop stores trump the Big Box stores.

Well, some people simply don't live anywhere near a brick & mortar record store at all. For some, its either the big-box retailers or go to the internet. For most stuff unless it's super popular and mainstream (in which cases I rarely am interested in anyway), the big-gox retailers like Best Buy, Target, etc. aren't going to stock it at all, or will stock it in small numbers, perhaps only at certain locations. In the case of some of these stores, you can check in-store availability on the web, by the way. So sometimes you can check ahead without having to drive there if they don't have it.

In any event, I can understand someone's frustration with not being able to find a particular CD stocked at a particular store. However, if that person is frustrated, they should be frustrated with those retailers, not the record label in this case. I'm sure there are cases where labels do a bad job with promotion or distribution, but I would doubt this is the case with Sony/Legacy in the case of the POB set. I would imagine Sony/Legacy would be happy to ship as many copies to as many stores that are willing to order as many copies as possible. If the big-box retailers were putting in orders for thousands of copies of a title, Sony/Legacy would be happy to be able to ship out as much product as possible. The problem is that these non-record store big-box retailers just have a small selection of music, usually not much beyond the new popular releases and, if you're lucky, a small selection of back catalog for major artists. The big-box retailers used to be somewhat better with movies than music, but even the movie selection at those stores is getting to where it's harder and harder to find older back catalog stuff. They see it as only having a certain amount of shelf space, and they just stock the biggest sellers in big numbers.
Pages: 1 ... 387 388 389 390 391 [392] 393 394 395 396 397 ... 401
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 6.547 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!