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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Endless Harmony]

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.

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. 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?" 

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.

Precisely.

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.

...more are being pressed, orders are being filled...and Grammy buzz is in full swing.

Jon, I'm sure it's early for this, but has it been looked into in terms of what grammy awards the POB reissue would be eligible for? I think there is a category for something along the lines of "Best Archival Historical Release"; I think the "Pet Sounds Sessions" boxed set may have been nominated in that category back in 1998 or whenever. So I think the POB reissue would probably qualify for that sort of category. But are there any other categories? I suppose the previously unreleased material is "new", and therefore could qualify for song of the year, best rock vocal and other awards for individual songs, but probably not in any of the main original album categories as POB was already issued in 1977, and thus the entire package is not new material. I suppose it might also qualify in some of the more technical categories like best engineering and whatnot, although again I don't know which if any of those type of awards pertain to releases with all "new" music.

My friend Howie Edelson tells me that besides the obvious "Reissue of the Year" it could also be eligible in many of the following categories...
BEST ROCK INSTRUMENTAL PERFORMANCE
BEST SOLO ROCK VOCAL PERFORMANCE
BEST ROCK PERFORMANCE BY A DUO OR GROUP WITH VOCAL
BEST INSTRUMENTAL COMPOSITION
BEST INSTRUMENTAL ARRANGEMENT
BEST RECORDING PACKAGE
BEST BOXED OR SPECIAL LIMITED EDITION PACKAGE
BEST ALBUM NOTES
BEST ENGINEERED ALBUM, NON-CLASSICAL
PRODUCER OF THE YEAR, NON-CLASSICAL
BEST REMIXED RECORDING, NON-CLASSICAL

Interesting. I'm thinking it has a better chance at some of the latter categories on this list. I'm thinking there's probably too much "modern" competition for things like Solo Rock Vocal or Duo/Group Vocal (how would a Dennis release quality for that category? I suppose the track with him and Carl?). I could definitely see it competing in those latter categories, especially "Recording Package", "Boxed/Limited Edition", "Album Notes" , and whatever other sort of archival reissue-type awards are out there.

I'm thinking, doesn't the record label usually push/lobby/campaign for grammies on behalf of their releases? I'm thinking they may even have to be the ones to submit it for consideration? I'm not sure how that works, but since this release has done so well, I imagine Sony/Legacy would be more inclined to do those things if needed and helpful.

...more are being pressed, orders are being filled...and Grammy buzz is in full swing.

Jon, I'm sure it's early for this, but has it been looked into in terms of what grammy awards the POB reissue would be eligible for? I think there is a category for something along the lines of "Best Archival Historical Release"; I think the "Pet Sounds Sessions" boxed set may have been nominated in that category back in 1998 or whenever. So I think the POB reissue would probably qualify for that sort of category. But are there any other categories? I suppose the previously unreleased material is "new", and therefore could qualify for song of the year, best rock vocal and other awards for individual songs, but probably not in any of the main original album categories as POB was already issued in 1977, and thus the entire package is not new material. I suppose it might also qualify in some of the more technical categories like best engineering and whatnot, although again I don't know which if any of those type of awards pertain to releases with all "new" music.

Just broke out my "Recording the Beatles" book to make sure I was getting the mixing desk right, and that indeed appears to be one of EMI's "REDD" desks. So that's a pic of Paul at Abbey Road in 1967 with Brian photoshopped in, unless Brian has been documented as having visited the Beatles at Abbey Road in 1967.

Looks awfully fake to me. It looks like they've taken a photo of Paul in a control room and stuck Brian in. Brian doesn't match the rest of the photo, although the crummy quality has probably covered up some of the most obvious artifacts of it being fake.

Also, without digging out my "Recording the Beatles" book, it looks like that's an EMI mixing desk from Abbey Road (which would make sense if this is a Paul photo with only Brian added in). So unless Brian visited Paul in London in 1967, I think the other elements of the photos are a giveaway.

If this is a fake, somebody can probably dig out the original photo of Paul without Brian.

"Don't Fight the Sea" is easily the strongest of the tracks that have have been offered for sampling so far, in my view. Based on both hearing that segment of the song, as well as comparing another circa 1978 track "Looking Down the Coast", to Al's new version, I would guess that little to nothing from the 1978 recording of "Don't Fight the Sea" is heard on this new version. Even Carl's voice (and Al's for that matter) doesn't sound like it's from 1978, it sounds more like a Carl vocal from sometime in the 90's (perhaps late 80's). It's amazing how great both Al and Carl sound on that track. It sounds like Carl might be in the background vocal blend on the track as well, and it has that near-Beach Boys sound.

I am a bit disappointed at the prospect of so many guest vocalists on this album considering how great Al sounds. I like having the guesting lead vocal bits from Brian and Carl, but I'd rather hear Al sing than Glen Campbell or Steve Miller.

I'm just thinking that "Don't Fight the Sea" has been sitting in the vaults for 30 years now; it could have at least perked up some uneven albums such as, well, just about every album the Beach Boys released after 1978. I'm also thinking that, given the fact that Carl is on it and it was presumably at one point a potential Beach Boys track, it also would have made a nice track for that hypothetical one last great (or at least good) Beach Boys album we could have had at some point in the 90's.

Ugh...that medley may have been the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen.  Why would they agree lip synch to the release at any time, let alone  twenty years after the fact?  Didn't they know how bad that was going to be?  Or think that anyone would notice?

As someone else mentioned, it seems like "American Bandstand" was very firm about only doing lip-synching. They also probably chose to mime to that medley because it was a recent "hit". Didn't that medley hit like the Top 10 or 20 around that time?

It is one of the more odd BB TV appearances. Dennis looks about the worst he ever had, at least as far as TV appearances. The whole thing was just odd. Circa 1981 Carl-less Beach Boys miming to the "Party" version of "Barbara Ann", 1981 Brian miming to Carl's lead vocal on "Good Vibrations." Weird stuff.

My favorite part of that show was the "all star jam" at the end to "Rock Around the Clock." Since Carl as the normal lead guitarist wasn't there, Al had to "represent" the BB's on stage for the song. They start by announcing each "band member" and having them come on stage, and it's pretty funny when they call out Al Jardine to come on stage, he's in the middle of sipping his drink and acts surprised and has to put it down and come on stage. Then, during the song, they let most of the musicians take a solo and Al's is hilariously dreadful. Strangely, even though the BB's were never a heavy guitar band, and Al was never even the lead guitarist, he actually was and/or is capable of playing those leads. I saw him in 2005 playing spot-on leads on songs like "Fun Fun Fun" and "409." But for whatever reason, his solo on "Rock Around the Clock" was a miss. But it's really funny, and you can see the look on Al's face like he knows he blew the solo.

I've probably related this story several times in the past in old threads on this topic, but one interesting thing about "An American Band" is the alternate mixes of 60's Capitol studio tracks in the documentary. As I remember the story, they originally cut the film with the standard Capitol mixes/masters used for those tracks (and that version was the version seen/heard in apparently very limited theatrical screenings). But then they found they weren't allowed to use the actual final Capitol mixes/masters. They could still use the tracks, just not Capitol's mixes. So this is why all of the 60's Capitol tracks have such noticeably different mixes. It seems they specifically mixed the songs to sound noticeably different to display/prove that they weren't using the standard Capitol mixes. This is probably also why they subtituted a few live tracks in as well for early tracks like "409", where it sounds like they used some sort of early 80's live recording because they didn't have any multitrack to do a remix of the original studio version.

They way I remember it being described (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong) was that they simply never made a banded album master where they took each song master and spliced them together on a single reel. They simply kept each song on its own reel and did the mastering that way. So, as AGD alluded to, when they went back to do the 2000 remaster, they didn't have a single master reel to go to, but rather had to pull each individual song master, which then resulted in more chances for a mis-labeled or otherwise incorrect tape to be used, which is how we ended with the two or three incorrect mixes.

I remember reading, I think it was in the Timothy White book, about how there was supposedly an entirely alternate mix done for the whole album spearheaded by Landy, which nobody seemed to like. I've always wondered if the sort of overly-hot, more sort of muddy mix of "Let It Shine" accidentaly used on the 2000 remaster was perhaps that supposed "Landy" version. Probably not, and that whole story of the a "Landy Mix" seemed kind of vague anyway.

I've also always wondered if there truly was an alternate version of "Sherry She Needs Me" cut during those '88 sessions as "Terri She Needs Me", and if so, what it might have sounded like.

Right Al was right there in the formative stage and did sing on the Hite Morgan Surfer Girl, a song that even at that point had been around... Brian first taught to Carl and Dave before Al was in the group, and BTW Dave had rehearsed Surfin' with the Wilsons too before Al recorded it with the BB's MK1...BUT I agree, as I previously stated, my comparison to Love and Mercy was farcical, but funny. The Strat thing drives me crazy cause i know Fender just Googled the BB's and read the Rolling Stone.com bio or whatever and of course they assumed Al was the co-guitarist on all that Fender heavy stuff that is the BB's signature sound as a guitar entity. He's gotten credit for it nearly everywhere for decades, why would Fender know any better. I can say that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has finally come around to the truth, maybe Fender will someday.

You're right Jeff does have the Rickenbacker 12 string that Dave played on the Marksmen stuff. All of Dave's orig. Fenders were stolen many years ago. He currently has a '57 Strat that is sunburst, and when he plays it.. it sounds like 1963.

While I'm sure your description could well be shockingly accurate, I think Fender usually gives a bit more thought to their signature models. My guess is that Al was picked less because they specifically believe he played the guitar licks on that early stuff (even rudimentary bios on the group that fail to mention David Marks will usually point out that it was Carl and not Al that was the lead guitarist, and/or that session guys played some of that stuff in the following few years), and picked more because he has been seen with that Strat pretty much non-stop since 1963 or 64. He played some other guitars in the 70's, but he was seen with a Strat at pretty much every BB show from the mid-late 70's until 1998, and even now at his own solo shows. I see the Jardine Strat as similar to if, say, Gibson did a Carl Wilson signature ES-335, which Carl used pretty consistantly at live BB shows from the late 70's on.

I'm sure it's quite possible that some of the people at Fender aren't nearly as informed about who played what on the BB stuff as they should be. And I'm certainly not trying to deny that, even in the best case scenario, Fender would be at least indirectly linking the Jardine model to the well-known early BB hits. But I think they take a lot into account when they decide to do signature models. They surprisingly don't do a ton of different signature models. I would imagine that they will not be using the "Beach Boys" name in conjunction with the Jardine Strat, which both makes me believe they are at least in part marketing the thing as the guitar Jardine was seen with for so many years in live shows, and they will not really be able to directly link it to early BB songs. But it all goes back to the big burning question: Who is going to even know the name Al Jardine?

I think the Jardine model could have came about because, rather than Googling the BB's, they probably went back to the old Fender advertisements and other publicity photos of the early BB's and found Al with that white Strat. I wouldn't be surprised if, whenever they release this Jardine model, they will utilize old shots of Al from the original Fender prints ads. I think it's more of a visual thing Fender is trying to do with the guitar, because if you add up all the live concert appearances and photos of the BB's, you would probably be see Al's white Strat more than just about any guitar (other than perhaps Carl's ES-335), because Al used the white Strat both in the early days and in publicity photos and whatnot, and also used the Strat for his last 20-plus years touring with the BB's. Even Carl switched his guitars up more than that, using the Jaguar and Rickenbacker, then moving to a Telecaster, and so on.

So I think Fender is banking on a visual connection with the Jardine Strat. Sound-wise, there is too much going on with the BB's. Carl was the lead guitarist on a lot of the early stuff, and David Marks was on that stuff to. Then Al comes in, but soon after that it's a lot of session guys, and by the time the BB's get back to playing their instruments all the time, they either aren't doing a lot of guitar-heavy stuff, or are having Carl or Ed Carter or somebody else playing it. If you ask the average guitar fan to come up with one name that comes to mind when they think about the BB's guitar work, you'll probably get a bunch of different answers including "I don't know." Even asking informed fans of the band will get a bunch of different qualified answers. My answer is that, in relation to past signature guitar models, it doesn't make much sense to do a signature model of any of the BB's really. But they must sell enough of them to hardcore fans and collectors to make it work.

Jon, in all seriousness, I think after the Jardine Strat is released, and particularly if it sells well enough, you and David should contact Fender and try to get something going. Perhaps that isn't feasible, but perhaps it's worth a try. I'm sure even if David doesn't have his original Strat, he could give Fender enough details from memory and pictures to replicate his old Strat enough to do a signature model. They could dig up the same pics (maybe not from actual Fender ads) of David with the BB's playing his Strat, and pics of him on the album covers, and market it that way as well. Heck, if they're willing to do a Jardine signature model, I can't imagine why they wouldn't go all out and do a Carl signature Jaguar, a David Marks sunburst Strat, and a Brian Precision Bass. Throw in some Dennis signature drumsticks (which were actually made a little while back as I recall, because I was tempted but never able to get a set), and well, a Mike Love signature SM-58 mic or something, and you've got the whole band there.

And to think...Al wasn't even on the Beach Boys hit version of Surfer Girl. Its like getting Mike Love to guest on a cover version of Love and Mercy...makes no sense.

I love ya Jon (well, I love your work, well, you know what I mean! ), but I think this is a bit of an exaggerated comparison. As someone else mentioned, Al did sing the song about a gazillion times on tour. He sang on the version released on "In Concert" (and all the other live versions on albums, videos, etc.).  He even actually did appear on the "Surfer Girl" album. He also sang the song with the group I would imagine when the song was first being thrown around. Also, doesn't he sing on the early version of the song cut in 1962 that appears on "Lost and Found"?

So I think Al Jardine has a bit more of a connection to "Surfer Girl" than Mike Love has to "Love and Mercy"! I mean, should Al Jardine have left the stage at the end of the Brian Wilson shows he played at when they ended the shows with "Love and Mercy"? I mean, doesn't David Marks sing leads to BB songs on his live shows with Dean and Al? All these guys are part of the big BB picture, so I think there's enough of a connection for these sorts of things to work.

I can say that, if I was recording a song, especially a BB cover, and I had the opportunity to get Al Jardine to sing on it, I'd have him sing on it in a heartbeat. Just as, if I were recording a cover of some BB track from the 70's or something and David Marks offered to play guitar on it, I'd do that in a heartbeat as well.

As for the Jardine Strat, that was pretty surprising. But so was the Carl Wilson Rickenbacker, which Carl stopped using in the mid-60's, and I don't even know how many studio recordings feature Carl playing his Rickenbacker either. At least Al is having them clone a guitar that he has used for years and years (even though it apparently is not his orignal white Strat, it's the red one he started using in the late 60's and had repainted white in the 70's). While Fender no doubt would want to play up the connection of Al's guitar to early BB hits, I don't think it's an "Al Jardine Early Beach Boys Years Strat", it's just an Al Jardine sig. model, and while that still seems an odd pick for Fender to go with, I'd love to have an Al Jardine Strat. Fender probably bought into a Jardine model because Jardine posed for those Fender ads with the BB's way back when, even if he supposedly only got a Strat to match the rest of the group and because Marks had used one.

I'd love to see a Marks Strat too, and in so far as Fender wants to link these things to the early hits, of course a Carl or David Marks model would make more sense.

By the way Jon, does David Marks by any chance still own his original Strat? I can't remember if that is covered in the book. I vaguely recall a story that in the 70's Jeff Foskett bought a Rickenbacker that he found out had belonged to David Marks (presumably, this would be the guitar he is seen in pics with the Marksmen?). If David still has his original Strat, that would be the place Fender could start with another signature model (which perhaps they'd be open to if the Jardine thing sells well). If David doesn't have his original Strat or some sort of vintage Strat that he used back in the 60's or so, I don't know if Fender would have anything to take away and "clone."

My total guess would also be "With A Little Help...". Not only did the BB's cut it back in 1967, I recall around 1995 the San Francisco ABC affiliate did an interview with Brian Wilson (at his home I think), presumably to tie in with the Beatles Anthology that was airing around that time. They plugged his latest projects (the "IJWMFTT" film and CD, and "Orange Crate Art"), but they also had Brian talking about the Beatles to tie in to the Beatles Anthology promotional blitz. I remember Brian playing and singing "With A Little Help..." during the segment, and he commented on how much he liked the song. I can't remember if he played "She's Leaving Home." I think he played another Beatles song as well. I'll have to dig out the videotape one of these days. It seemed strange back then that they devoted so much time to a Brian Wilson interview (and this wasn't some sort of entertainment program, they aired the interview on the regular news broadcast either in the evening or later at night), and the guy anchoring the interview segment really seemed to actually know a bit about Brian and seemed to stress that back then it was relatively rare to get Brian to sit down for an interview, I guess.

The 1990 movie is really a lot of fun, in a totally bad way. For those around me who I've shown the movie to, we often use quotes from the movie in conversation at random points for fun. There are some hilarious lines in the movie. "You're out of the band Buckwheat!",  "I can't have music in my head if I'm always on the road!", "Duh, Al!", and a bunch of others. Plus, the fake beards are legendary. The Murry is actually pretty good, better than the 2000 movie version. Then there is the fake Dennis song. Al has like one or two lines in the whole movie (one of them is "Cool it Brian!" or something along those lines when Brian goes nuts on the plane.)

The 2000 movie is just more disappointingly bad. The first part of it wasn't that bad, but the second part was a travesty. The 2000 movie wasn't without its bloopers either. In one scene Mike's beard starts coming off but they used the scene anyway.

My favorite review of the 2000 movie said something alone the lines of "Apparently ABC is going to make a Beach Boys movie every ten years until they get it right." (The 1990 movie was also on ABC).

So I'm wondering if we should expect another one in about three years.

1)  On the recent release, Songs From Here And Back, Mike sounds OK on "Cool Head, Warm Heart", as he does on the solo album (did you hear those leaked songs?) he has been shopping for the last five years. I prefer Mike's vocals than Brian's on "The Spirit Of Rock & Roll" or "California Feeling".  And do you really prefer Brian singing "I Get Around" over Mike Love? Hearing Brian attempt to sing Mike's part(s), which he does on almost every song, is very unfulfilling to me.

Just to muddy the waters, I think the best voice to sing material like "I Get Around" today is Al. I heard Al sing "I Get Around" (the Mike parts, that is) at a benefit/charity show back in 2005 without his regular band. This is noteworthy because when Al's band including his sons plays "I Get Around", Matt Jardine usually sings both the Mike and Brian parts. So it was interesting to hear Al sing it, and I think he does a great job. You can of course hear him on things like "Little Deuce Coupe" on his "Live in Las Vegas" album. I like how Al sounds on these songs. It sounds familiar, yet different at the same time. His voice is in such good shape. While a song like "PT Cruiser" is sort of a novelty sort of thing, if you listen particularly to the vocals-only mix of that song, Al's lead vocal sounds like it could have been flown in from 1965.

I really wish a quality recording of the handfull of Mike-less BB shows from 1990 existed. I've heard a pretty bad audience recording from an Ontario show in 1990 where Mike was absent, and Al handled nearly all of Mike's leads. Al also handled his own regular leads as well (Rhonda, Come Go With Me, California Saga as well at this show), so the show is the closest I've ever heard to a sort of half-way Al solo show with Bruce and Carl singing a few leads as well. This show was even more Al-heavy than Al's current "Endless Summer Band" shows, where he gives some leads to his sons and whatnot. Even though the recording I heard was pretty bad, even by audience recording standards, I liked what I heard.

Given, of course, that we are all given at times to a touch of hyperbole, to me, "The footage of the tour" means "SOME OF the footage..." 

Obviously there was a lot of footage shot of that tour.  Doesn't mean it's all been seen...

This was my guess/presumption as well.

Even if one took the statement to mean all of the footage, this would still leave things somewhat ambiguous since we don't know how much of the tour was shot and how much still exists. My instinct is that more than the one commonly circulating part of a show does exist or at least did exist. But I would doubt that every single show on the tour was captured or exists today. Then again, I'm insure of how many shows they performed on that tour. Getting back to my presumption in reading Jon Stebbins' book, I never understood the text to actually mean that Jon Stebbins actually sat down and watched every second of every show on that tour. My presumption would be that "the footage" simply means the footage the author had at his disposal at the time of writing. So the original discussion came down to what footage was at his disposal, which for me was a means to find out if the footage of Carl collapsing even exists.