At the R&R Hall of Fame in 1999, Paul was pretty tipsy. I don't know if "extremely drunk" is really the right way to put it, though. His speech was rather rambling and not particularly coherent, but that had as much to do with his general lack of ability to give particularly good speeches over the years. "Extremely drunk" to me seems more along the lines of ranting and raving, seriously slurred speech, on the verge of passing out, etc. Paul wasn't near that.

As for Brian complaining about Paul, I'll say that it takes quite a bit of audacity for somebody like Brian to complain about somebody else given that people around Brian have been accepting and understanding and often have been apologists for the odd behavior that Brian has exhibited for around 40 years now. Some people at that same Queen's Jubliee thing found Brian rather odd as well, prompting even Ozzy Osbourne to indicate that he found Brian odd. When Ozzy Osbourne finds you odd, that's something to either be very troubled by or very proud of. Probably both. Has anybody other than Brian been able to freak out both Iggy Pop and Ozzy Osbourne? The coolest thing about Brian is that he totally shuts down the eccentricities of others. I recall vaguely reading some story about Brian meeting with Elvis Costello, and somebody who witnessed the meeting said that Elvis Costello was doing his little bit of eccentric behavior and it was just overwhelmed by Brian's personality. Elvis seemed a bit thrown off that he wasn't the most eccentric person in the room.

Not sure if this has appeared anywhere on this board yet ... but a new 'live' version of "California Girls", featuring Alan on lead vocals, has just been issued on an updated version of the "Surf City All Stars" CD. My copy arrived today and it's a great quality version ... also worth noting for David handling the vocals on "Little Deuce Coupe" ...
 

Where did you order the CD? Is it something being sold on the Surf City All Stars website? I just checked their website, and the CD's and DVD's they have listed don't mention this "updated" version of the CD. I'd be interested in ordering it, but I'd want to make sure I'm getting the version with Al on it. Is this the only thing out of all of the Surf City All Stars stuff that features Al?

You know what sucks, when we see these posts "Oh, I haven't seen Brian in L.A. in a couple months, why won't he do another show here?" Try living in North Carolina! You never get even CLOSE to his venues. 

I know what you mean. I should point out that I've never seen Brian in L.A. though. It isn't that close to me really. I can't just whip down to the LA and come back all in the same day. (Well, I could, but that wouldn't make the show very fun). While I have no desire to start comparing notes on what areas of the country are the biggest "concert markets", population concentrations, etc., I think it really makes sense to play the Bay Area if he's going to do anything beyond NY and LA and maybe a few other east coast/midwest shows. The Bay Area has some of the best and most famous concert venues, and of course has a pretty strong history when it comes to concerts.

By the way, a quick perusal of the rough mileage shows me that from the Bay Area (and I'm being generous and using the south bay) to Los Angeles is about 342 miles, while from North Carolina (I chose Raleigh by default) to Glenside, PA is 446 miles. So, you're probably about 100 miles farther away from the Keswick Theatre BW show than I am from the UCLA BW show, and roughly two hours longer of a drive. From San Francisco proper or more generally the northern areas of what is considered the "Bay Area" to L.A. is around 400 miles, so the differences is even less. Any of these trips are well outside of what I would consider a local show for either of us. Of course, I readily admit that you have to do this or more on every BW tour, while I have had to go short distances for his full-blown tours where he did hit the Bay Area.

In any event, I'm not complaining that I never get to see Brian on tour. I'm just pointing out that if he's only going to do a hand full of concert dates, I think the SF Bay Area makes sense after LA and NY and other large markets. Plus, it makes sense logistically, especially since it would be relatively near where Al lives as well.

It sure would be nice if they added a few west coast dates (in the SF Bay Area please!) as they indicate they might. While I've caught Brian on every one of his full-blown tours (99, 00, 01, 04, 05), I've never been able to catch him during these instances where he just did a short run of 1-4 shows in the US like he's done a few times. In fact, apart from a few shows at the Roxy in L.A. and this upcoming show at UCLA, I don't think he's ever done any other shows on the west coast unless it was part of a full-blown tour. The short runs or one-off shows have usually been on the east coast or in the midwest.

I was never able to make the UCLA show anyway, though apparently even if I could make it, it's sold out. Plus, even if I could make it and could get a ticket, it still doesn't seem 100% confirmed that Al will be at that show, although the latest sort-of press release or whatever that thing was seemed to confirm it. Oh well. People in L.A., and the other cities, please get some camcorders and audio recorders into those shows!

I don't know how great the prospects are for a Bay Area show, but even if one is added, I don't know if I can rely on the official BW website to find out about it. They never listed the 2004 Smile show at Davies Hall in San Francisco on their tour schedule! I was there, I bought tickets. It did happen!

I haven't seen 'An American band' and I want to get it, but would like to know is it good viewing?
I've trawled ebay but want to find out which of the version is the proper unedited version, is it the one which is on the DVD with 'I just wasn't made for these times'?
Also does anyone know if there is a region 2 (UK) version of it, because my DVD player is a bit crap and won't play any others!

If you want "An American Band" on DVD, the only version I know of is the DVD that features both "An American Band" and "I Just Wasn't Made for These Times." This DVD uses the full-length version of "An American Band." There were a few different versions previously available on VHS, and I think the "Anniversary" version was the shorter. But if you get the "double feature" DVD, you should have the full length version. I don't know if there is a Region 2 version of that DVD, though.

As for the question of whether "An American Band" is good viewing, that is debatable. If you're a big Beach Boys fan, though, the documentary is worth it simply for the musical audio and video bits that aren't available elsewhere. Most of the musical footage is all chopped up with all sorts of tricky audio and video editing going on (for instance, while most of the live 1983 footage shown near the end is from the 7/4 Atlantic City show, the close-up footage of a raspy Dennis talking and trying to sing is actually from a show later, I believe in August of 1983 in Costa Mesa. Many writings and articles I've read have referred to this footage of Dennis as having taken place at that Atlantic City show.) The documentary aspect of the whole thing is rather shaky. You never hear one mention of David Marks, Blondie Chaplin, Ricky Fataar, Bruce Johnston's 1972-78 departure from the band, and a billion other important things. Brian's circa 1976 comeback is sort of lumped in with his second circa 1983 comeback. And forget about coverage of individual albums other than "Pet Sounds" and "Smile."

Also, hunks of footage are lifted from the 1976 "It's OK" TV special, but sometimes a bit out of context, or really without any context at all. (I think that bit with Carl trying to buy a car is from that special, but maybe somebody else can answer this: did that bit originally air or is it an outtake? I don't recall seeing that either on my murky VHS copy or the official European DVD release.)  All of the BB's except Brian apparently participated in the documentary to some degree, resulting in rather embarrassing (either in their scripted nature or just pure cheesiness) narration bits from Al, Bruce, Mike, and Carl. Without "new" Brian interview footage, they rely mostly on 1976 "bed interview" footage from the "It's OK" special.

Again, it seems fruitless for the film crew to record their own music when they had infinite resources before them, although the odd mix of “Here Today” shows that they weren’t afraid to meddle with history.

I believe Alan mentioned that, at least after the film's debut, the producers of "An American Band" were not allowed to use any of the Beach Boys masters, so by necessity the soundtrack is made up of outtakes, unreleased mixes and live material. Obviously there were no "SMiLE" masters at this point (apart from the tracks finished for subsequent albums) so I don't know how that would explain the appearance of the "Hawaiian" piano melody.

This is what I've heard as well regarding the AAB documentary. The theory I've heard is that they went out of their way to make the mixes sound different to the final masters to demonstrate that they weren't using the original masters/mixes. If the rule was simply that they couldn't use the final masters/mixes, then they presumably could have done remixes of the songs, but still made them conventional mixes that sounded nearly identical to the original mixes. But they apparently wanted to demonstrate that they were using new/different mixes (or, in a few cases, later-era live recordings) to avoid any suggestion that they were using the original mixes/masters.

Apparently, a short theatrical run of the documentary (which also included at least one additional scene using the studio recording of "Friends" as a back drop that was cut from the video version) utlilized the original mixes/masters.

One other comment: You can't really use the fact that a given piece hasn't been bootlegged as evidence of that piece not being a legitimate Brian/BB recording. The SOT stuff is certainly not anywhere near the entirety of what is in the vaults, even concerning only material from the era that the SOT stuff covers. And what has been booted beyond the SOT stuff is certainly relatively little compared to what exists in the vaults. Heck, the material currently in the vault is apparently not even 100% representative of everything that was recorded, considering there are apparently tapes here and there that are missing!

And I'll say one thing regarding the AAB documentary. It certainly seems to be a strange black hole for audio and video material, as apparently some of the video stuff used in the documentary has turned up missing as well (hence the use of an inferior video dub of the Central Park 1971 footage in "Endless Harmony"; compare this footage in EH to AAB and you'll see show much cleaner it looks on AAB; Alan Boyd might be able to explain this better).

Not exactly. My comments involve two main points. First, I am shocked, blown away actually, that Brian AND Melinda would pick up the telephone to call the guys about a Beach Boys' reunion. I thought Brian's team was fully entrenched in making sure Brian had a solo career. I didn't think "they" would want Brian anywhere near Mike Love for musical and non-musical reasons. And I can't believe this phone call (if it in fact happened) wasn't made public by people other than Al, specifically Mike and Bruce. My comments directed at Al had to do with the nonchalant way he mentioned THE PHONE CALL. It was almost like (and I'm paraphrasing), "Yeah, Brian called about a Beach Boys' reunion. Who knows what'll happen?" I just have a hard time with that ho-hum description, but, hey, maybe that's how he/they really feel about it. It's just that when I look at where Mike, Bruce, and Al's careers are at this point - or where they aren't- I would think they would jump out of their shoes at the opportunity to work with Brian. Which leads to my second point.

To me (and maybe I'm in the minority) news of a Beach Boys' reunion is the biggest news about the group since Carl's death. I don't care about anniversaries, awards, solo albums, children's books, and TV movies. I want new Beach Boys' music from the surviving members. And, regardless of what the surviving members say or don't say, that's what I believe they want too. So I am again shocked and blown away that, if Brian and Marilyn made that phone call, that nothing was worked out. If NOTHING was worked out, and we'll know in due time, I would love to know why. What were the stumbling blocks this time?  The cost of airplane tickets? They couldn't re-schedule a concert? Unsettled lawsuits? Set list issues? I'd love to know.

Regarding your first point, what do you think *actually* happened then? Do you really think Al just fabricated the story about the phone call? If the Brian show had never taken place or been scheduled, then there might have been reason to wonder what Al was talking about. But I think it's pretty clear that Al spoke to Brian and/or Melinda, because Al may have been aware of this concert well before it was made public apparently, and he was definitely made aware of it before Brian himself even officially confirmed for it. How else would Al have had that information? I don't think that Brian and Melinda neccessarily made this phone call specifically for the sole purpose of talking about a reunion. There was probably other business to discuss, and this show and a potential dry run for a reunion was mentioned. They have been talking to each other for other reasons than this show apparently. They apparently had some discussions about putting together the tracklisting for that forthcoming "The Warmth of the Sun" CD among other things.

I agree that Al's sort of nonchalant about the prospect of a reunion, but I don't think this means Al made up the story about the phone call or anything of that sort. Further, I'm not sure this short ESQ interview is neccessarily a full and final statement on how Al feels about this show, let alone the concept of a reunion. If anything, I would think it might be the feeling or indication he got from Brian and Melinda (perhaps not a great amount of enthusiasm or willingness to committ to a reunion from them?) that might make Al a bit nonchalant or not particularly hopeful about a reunion. It sure seems like Al is trying to downplay the prospect of a reunion in this interview, and I don't think he's doing it because he's not interested in it. I seems more like he recognizes that such a reunion is a "maybe" at best.

[Pepper]

Yep.
And speaking of the Beatles, How can it be that Sgt. Pepper hasn't got the Box Set treatment? 

I may be off base on this, but I recall hearing that The Beatles had a clause inserted in their EMI contract when re-negotiated that their records would only be released in their original form. Hence no mono/stereo 2fers, no bonus tracks. I think they got around the 5.1 problem because it uses the original multitrack.

Plus, given how they raped the Pepper sessions on Anthology 2 to concoct 'new' mixes, I'd say that's a good idea.

I'm not sure I've ever heard of those specific terms as part of an agreement with EMI. What I have heard and what has been widely reported is that one of the parts of the settlement the Beatles and EMI made in the late 80's was that the Beatles (via Apple) were given the right to sign off on *any* release of Beatles music, whether it was reissuing an old album, compiling hits, or issuing previously unreleased material. EMI retains ownership of all of the Beatles albums and session recordings made under contract to EMI. But unlike the Beach Boys, where Capitol/EMI can to this day still issue any permutation/compilation of previously issued material without approval from the Beach Boys, the Beatles have to sign off on any release. This is why EMI/Capitol no longer attempts to issue things like the compilations they did in the 70's and early 80's like "Rock and Roll Music", "Love Songs", "Reel Music", etc. Apple even vetoed the CD issue of the "red" and "blue" albums; they were only released after Apple signed off on it in 1993.

If Apple agreed to it, EMI could do mono/stereo two-fers, bonus tracks, etc. EMI/Capitol's "Capitol Albums" boxed sets include both mono and stereo mixes of the albums. Neil Aspinall recently commented that they are currently remastering the Beatles catalog and are still considering whether to issue mono/stereo mixes on one CD or release them seperately, etc. So there is no indication that there is any ban specifically on mono/stereo mixes on one CD, or bonus tracks, etc. There simply seems to be a general rule that Apple signs off on anything EMI does with their music.

I predict one of three things happening with the Beatles catalog on CD:

1. Remastered mono/stereo two-fers, no bonus tracks
2. Remastered albums, with seperate mono and stereo releases
3. Remastered albums, no offering of both mono and stereo (whether this means stereo for everything, or mono for the first four, etc., I don't know.)

Apple recognizes the interest in mono/stereo two-fers as demonstrated by the "Capitol Albums" boxed sets. It's just a question of whether they will try to milk the fans by making them buy all the albums twice seperately. Remember, a two-fer of the White Album would require four CD's, and I really don't picture them keeping the standard, stock version that everybody can buy of the album as a 4-CD set. I also don't see Apple wanting to spur so much confusion by issuing mono and stereo versions seperately and have them all appear on the shelves at the same time. So what we may see is single CD's with only one mix (basically remastered versions of what's out there now), and then some sort of boxed set for alternate album mixes.

I don't see any bonus tracks being included, because there wouldn't be much room left on the two-fers anyway, and they do seem to want to keep the outtakes seperate from the albums (according to older comments from Paul McCartney, for instance).

AJ: We were on a conference call together. The invitation was extended to us from Brian and Melinda Wilson to support Brian and to try out the idea of a reunion. Just to see how it would feel. And see if there's any possibility of that and hope from there. I suspect that is where the rumor came from. This is the idea that was proposed to us.

Al never fails to disappoint me. I can always count on him to say something - usually nonchalantly - in his interviews that are totally off the wall. I'm not saying this particular scenerio didn't happen, but I find it hard to believe that Melinda AND Brian would call the Beach Boys for ANY possible reunion, extend the olive branch if you will, even for one night, and that they wouldn't jump on it. ESPECIALLY AL! Or at the very least, say, "Hey, Brian, sorry we can't make it THAT particular evening, but let's talk about another date" I'm sorry but I can't let this go. Do you realize what Al said? I'll quote it again, "The invitation was extended to us from Brian and Melinda Wilson to support Brian AND TO TRY OUT THE IDEA OF A REUNION." Unbelievable...

I'm not sure I'm understanding you here. Are you saying that these comments from Al suggest to you that Al wasn't interested in this "reunion?" The way I interpreted Al's comments was simply that at some point he was on the phone with Brian and Melinda and Brian and Melinda brought up this show and brought up the idea of having Al (and perhaps the others) be a part of this Brian show in some way, to "try out the idea of a reunion."

There is no indication from these comments that this whole thing involved anything other than Brian/Melinda and Al (and perhaps others that might have been on this "conference call") discussing this show. It doesn't mean Brian then proceeded to fax over a contract for Al to sign committing to the show, or vice versa. Indeed, according to ESQ at the time that the interview with Al was printed, Brian had not himself even committed to the event for sure. I also don't see any indication in this interview that Al was opposed to the idea of joining Brian on stage. In all the interviews I've seen with Al, it seems like he *would* jump at the chance to perform with Brian again. So who knows what happened after that discussion, or how serious or set in stone the details were of that original discussion. Maybe Brian or Melinda later decided it should be a solo Brian event. Maybe Al could make it but the others couldn't. Any number of things could have come up that prevented this reunion or semi-reunion from happening. Schedules may have changed. Attitudes may have changed. Who knows? The only thing I don't see in this interview is any evidence that Al wasn't interested in the idea of joining in on this show in some fashion.

I will agree that it would have been nice to get more details about this, but fans always feel this way when somebody they are fans of discusses something. It always is a bigger deal to us than to them. In this same ESQ interview, there are more words devoted by Al to a Kingston Trio documentary than to the prospect of some sort of Beach Boys reunion.

Personally, it would actually make more sense to not have all of the other BB's show up. Just having Al there, perhaps to join in on a few songs or something, would lift the burden of the thing being billed as any sort of "Beach Boys reunion". It wouldn't be much different from Bruce joining Brian on the 1998 "Imagination" show. Frankly, I might be more interested in the prospect of Al and Brian working on each other's solo projects than a "Beach Boys" reunion without Carl.

If this is concerning the "Midnight Special" series, then it's true that they're selling it on DVD now. Unfortunately, they are only being sold through internet/mail order/TV advertising. Not in stores. Also, you have to buy into the whole series, you can't just pick and choose specific titles (not that it would be possible even if you were allowed to pick and choose, because as far as I know even the website for the DVD's, last time I checked, didn't have specific track listings for each DVD in the series. They simply have a partial list of artists and some song titles.)

And of course, they aren't releasing full episodes. They're doing various compilations. I think the different compilations have loose themes. In any event, you'd probably have to buy into a huge series of DVD's just to get one or perhaps a few BB songs. I guess you can cancel at certain points, I dunno. I'd even be iffy about buying one DVD in a store if it only had one BB song, so this series isn't for me. I suppose if one is a huge fan of tons of bands that appeared on the show, and, more importantly, if those bands are featured on these DVD's, then some people might be into this series.

I haven't a clue if any of the other BB's will show up for this show, but it seems pretty clear that something was discussed about this at some point. When Al talked about this in some news story awhile back, some people thought he was just pulling the story out of thin air. But it seems as if, according to Al, that Brian and Melinda did discuss it with Al and perhaps others. Here's one question asked of Al from the latest issue of ESQ where he talks about this. At that time (which was a number of months ago, I'm not sure how many), Brian had apparently not officially confirmed for this event. Please note that the "editor's note" is also from ESQ, not me:

ESQ: There is a lot of hype surrounding a "Beach Boys" reunion. What can you tell me?

AJ: An investigative reporter called me to ask me for verification that the Beach Boys were reuniting this summer for a tour. I said, "No, we're not. That was not in the plans for this summer at any rate. But there is a possibility of our coming together in London this November when Brian is inducted into the UK Hall of Fame." (Editor's note: Brian has not confirmed for this event as of yet.) We were on a conference call together. The invitation was extended to us from Brian and Melinda Wilson to support Brian and to try out the idea of a reunion. Just to see how it would feel. And see if there's any possibility of that and hope from there. I suspect that is where the rumor came from. This is the idea that was proposed to us. Who know what will happen in 2007?

you still looking for this???

Yes! I've sent a personal message! Please feel free to PM back or e-mail.

I've watched most of the DVD video. Has anybody else noticed the sort of slightly strange video quality on a couple of the clips, specifically the "Good Vibrations" promo film and the "God Only Knows" photo collage flown in from the "Endless Harmony" DVD? It's a rather subtle effect, but I can't think of any other way to describe it other than sort of "video noise." It isn't film grain or pixellation or anything like that. It's just a sort of dotty video pattern that can be seen on the screen. It almost seems like some sort of signal interference or something, as if some appliance was messing with the picture on the screen (I re-watched this several times, and I'm sure that interference isn't actually the problem).

It isn't as noticeable on smaller screens, but on a large screen it's somewhat noticeable. Since the GV promo film is already from a sort of not quite pristine film print, the effect isn't as pronounced on it. But on the "God Only Knows" photo collage video clip, it is somewhat noticeable. I thought maybe something was wrong with my disc, but the other clips are just fine. It seems to be an artifact introduced in mastering the video on the DVD. It's sort of strange though that it would affect two clips from totally different sources. It's not a big deal, since the "GOK" clip is on the EH DVD, and the GV promo film is already sort of from a middling quality print to begin with (or was just shot to look that way). This weird video effect seems to also appear very, very briefly during the "Making of Pet Sounds" documentary as well. Again, I'd think there was something wrong with my copy, but a manufacturing defect or something usually wouldn't present itself in this way. The DVD would be all pixelly or stutter or have problems playing if it was a manufacturing defect, or the video quality issue would be seen throughout. I dunno, it's a bit strange but not too problematic. It's a bit off-putting considering the paucity of "new" material on the thing that enticed me to the buy the thing in the first place, though.

In any event, it's worth noting that the "Making of Pet Sounds" is indeed a somewhat drastic re-edit. It mixes in some "Endless Harmony" interview footage, as well as some presumably newly or relatively recently-shot interview footage with Al Jardine. It makes you wish they would just scrap the Brian-centric "Pet Stories" and get the surviving BB's to do all-new interviews and put together a long, in-depth documentary.

I didn't watch all of the "Pet Stories" documentary, and I haven't watched the original version in awhile, so I'm not sure of the differences there. The new re-edit seems shorter.

The "Good Vibrations" clip suffers from the above-mentioned, sometimes barely-noticeable video quality problems. I'll have to pull out my VHS tape from when they aired it on AMC a few years ago. I kind of recall it looking a bit better. Probably the same film print used, but the video mastering issues on this DVD might make my old VHS copy from AMC slightly better.

The "Rhythm of Life" thing is short, but interesting, and the video quality is just fine.

Most everything else is re-hashed.

Regarding the DVD: How much is different on the documentaries compared to what we already had before?

I just bought the set but haven't watched the DVD yet. But as far as I can tell based on what I already know and what is listed on this set, the only thing completely "new to DVD" is the promo film for "Good Vibrations" and the "Rhythm of Life" documentary segment. The packaging states that both the "Making of Pet Sounds" footage from the 1997 boxed set promotion as well as the "Pet Stories" documentary flown in from the "Brian Wilson - Pet Sounds Live" DVD are "new edits." What I don't know is how the edits are different. They could just be shorter, or longer, or just different here and there. I also don't know if the "new edit" of the "Making of Pet Sounds" is the same "new edit" included on the 2003 DVD-Audio (since that version was also edited compared to the original 1997 EPK footage, apparently).

I've given the CD in the package a listen. I like having the mono mix for historical purposes, but because the mono mix is so muddy and cluttered to begin with, I've usually listened to the stereo mix since it was done ten years ago. I'm not quite a super audiophile, so I don't know quite how to size up this new mono remaster. It sounds better than the 1990 CD. The thing is, I don't know if I've ever met an audiophile BB fan who loves the mono mix who still doesn't hold up the DCC Steve Hoffman mono remaster as the best available representation of the mono mix. Sure enough, over on Steve Hoffman's board, the consensus among those audiophiles seems to be that the DCC CD is still tops for the mono mix. I have to say I probably prefer the DCC CD as well. But as I said, I rarely listen to the mono mix much anymore, so I'm usually listening to the stereo remix (preferably the version from the PS Sessions box, as I like Brian's bridge vocal on WIBN, but any mastering of the stereo remix is just fine).

What is strange is that among all of the mastering, mixing, and remastering credits on this new release, I can't find any direct reference to a new mono master being used, let alone remastered. It lists the CD stereo mix as being done in 1996. It lists the one mono bonus track as having been mixed in 1987. Then there is a general "remastered by Joe Gastwirt" credit from 2000. The rest of the credits pertain to the surround/DVD elements. What I don't understand is that, if a new mono master was used, thus neccesitating a remastering of this CD for at least the mono mix portion, shouldn't there be some new remastering credit on this CD? Did Joe Gastwirt remaster this 2006 CD as well? I dunno. No big deal to me, the super-audiophile types really like to know who mastered what, when, where, and how. I'm interested as well, but only to a point in this instance, since I'm happy with decent-sounding mono remasters and a great-sounding stereo remix.

The whole project is just another rehash. I just picked it up today because I figured I'd probably be picking it up sooner or later, so I might as well pick it up while it's available at such a cheap price. I had assumed, having not looked at any Best Buy ads, that they might not even have this new thing in stock. But they had plenty of copies, and the set is in their weekly circular. It's almost like the 2003 DVD-A has been forgotten by almost everybody. Funnily, the 2003 DVD-A was on a rack right next to the "new music release" rack full of copies of the new set at the Best Buy I went to today.

All I can say at this point is the set is worth it just for the cover; I love the feel of that thing! It's comforting, like having a pet which is what I assume the designers were going for.

The liner notes are a conglomeration of everything Brian, David Leaf and Mark Linett have written about the album over the last 16 years, so nothing new there. I look forward to hearing the new improved mono mastering and seeing how the "Making Of Pet Sounds" and "Pet Stories" differs from the previously released versions.

The live tracks are "Wouldn't It Be Nice", "God Only Knows" and "Sloop John B." I would have to think they are the Beach Boys versions- possible from the '73 live album?

Man, I despise both "digital download" bonuses as well as bonuses exclusive to one retailer, and this particular setup accomplishes both at the same time! I sure hope these are simply downloadable versions of tracks from the '73 "In Concert" album and/or the "Live in London" album. If I buy this thing, I'll probably be buying it at Best Buy, but I still don't like doing the download thing. If they just gave a password to go to a website where I can download the mp3 or whatever, that wouldn't be too bad. But it's probably some sort of strange encrypted file that only plays on certain software or is otherwise somehow more complicated than simply clicking on a file link and downloading it.

If this is just a cross-promotion to get people to go on the web to learn more about the group, and/or if this is just cross-promotion for the live album catalog, then I think this is a fine idea. But if this is something that people can't buy on CD and can only get via download, and/or if it's something that only people who shop at Best Buy can get, then that's pretty messed up. And I'm not even getting into the question of why they would design this huge, expansive, "deluxe" CD/DVD set and yet not include some material that they are only going to offer via download.

Just picked this up at Best Buy for $17.99 Sticker says "Exclusive. Package contains a unique digital download code for 3 bonus live tracks".  Since I won't have
a chance to do a download today, wondering if anyone knows what are the live tracks and the venue and year they're from? Anything previously released
or new for these live tracks?

Thanking in advance!

Regards,
Cal
:

Which version did you find at Best Buy, the jewel case version or the "fuzzy" version? Given the list prices of each, I would guess $17.99 would be for the jewel case version (Amazon has the jewel case version at $19.99 and the "fuzzy" version for $22.99). I was iffy about picking this package up, but I'm sure I will eventually. Normally, I prefer jewel cases since they are much more functional than digipak-type packages. But at the same time, I kind of have the impulse that if I'm going to go to the expense and trouble of buying "Pet Sounds" yet again, maybe I should at least get something new out of it from a packaging standpoint.

Someone else mentioned dropping "Barbara Ann", and while I could probably do without the song, that song is probably the most requested at shows over the years via some idiot yelling it out in the middle of the show. What the group should have done years ago was open with "Barbara Ann" to shut those people up.

I agree that the band's performance quality was as if not more important than the setlist. But the performance quality was all over the place over the years just like the setlist. For instance, the 1993 extended boxed set shows had amazing setlists, and amazing vocals and instrumental performances, except for the horrendous drumming. The drumming nearly ruined those shows. The drumming was the weakest part of BB shows from the mid-late 80's and on, and it's no coincidence that that started when Bobby Figueroa was gone and Kowalski took over.

The band sounded hit-and-miss around 1976/77, as they had a nice horn section and whatnot, but by '78 it started to go downhill as Carl particularly began to falter. They cleaned it up quite a bit by 1979, and I think 1980, after Dennis rejoined, was perhaps the last shining moment for the band as a *group* on stage. The Knebworth and Washington DC shows that year featured the band playing and singing solid, and it was one of the last times that the actual number of Beach Boys (6) outnumbered the backing band (3 or 4) by 2-to-1. By 1982, you could actually go to a BB show and only see Al, Bruce, and Mike. Luckily Carl rejoined in the middle of the year, and even into 1983 you could catch all 6 BB's (even if by 1983 Dennis and Brian weren't really contributing much to the band from a performance point of view).

I think if we're looking for a turning point, a point where they "jumped the shark", I would choose the 1981 tour. Not only did they not have anything new to promote (apart from "Come Go With Me" being re-released as a single and becoming a surprise hit near the end of the year), they were also missing Carl. I think this is the turning point because, while they had for a number of years worked with some "oldies", the 1981 tour was the first time you saw them doing stuff like "Surfin' Safari", "The Little Old Lady From Pasadena", etc. That was sort of the point of no return. This was the point at which they felt so compelled to perform so many "oldies" that there simply wasn't as much room to work in other interesting material as much.

There were some points after that during which things took temporary upturns. They did quite a few tracks from the '85 album on the '85 tour, but not for very long. In 1988, they added in "This Whole World", "Forever", "Wendy", and a few others. But this was mostly temporary. In 1989/1990, you could sometimes catch stuff from "Still Cruisin'", and a few chestnuts were brought back like "Please Let Me Wonder" and "California Saga: California", but these were certainly short-terms exceptions.

I agree that some of the mid-late 90's setlists are some of the least imaginative, and the band seemed even more on "autopilot" than normal at that time. The only thing particularly interesting in Carl's last few years in the band were his performances of "Sail on Sailor."

I'm curious, because I guess I didn't pay as much attention to the artwork issue back a couple of years ago, what exactly would the use of Frank Holmes' art have consisted of? In other words, would Brian's 2004 "Smile" program and eventual album cover have used Holmes' original Beach Boys/Capitol cover artwork, with Brian's name substituted for the Beach Boys' name? Or would Holmes' potential involvement have consisted of him working on new booklet illustrations and perhaps using some of the old illustrations?

I love the Holmes' cover art (I have a litho print on the wall), but I'm glad that the 2004 artwork was all different. Frankly, it would have put me off quite a bit if the 2004 CD release had simply used the old album cover with BW's name in place of the BB's. As someone who immensely enjoy's BW's 2004 recording yet was and still am very concerned about the 2004 recording's place in history in relation to the original recordings, I was and am all for making the 2004 version very much a new/different/2004 creation, and I was glad to see that there was no attempt on the 2004 version to simply use the same artwork and erase the BB's name and insert BW.

Hopefully, if we ever see a boxed set release of the original BB recordings, we might get another chance to see the Holmes artwork.

PS: A bit of my own commentary regarding bringing a lawyer into negotiations, I would have to say given the history of Brian and the BB's and all of the supposed/alleged business issues over the years, I would never *not* at least have a lawyer available to me if I was making any business deals with them. It seems a bit strange that all of the BB's feel they are allowed to have a Rutles-style collection of lawyers, yet any of them would be put off by somebody else having a lawyer. I don't know what went down with Holmes specifically, but the actual idea of having a lawyer available is something I think anybody should do. Perhaps simple negotiations regarding artwork could be handled by an agent rather than a lawyer, but having legal advice and representation is not always a bad thing, especially when you're dealing with another side that has what I would imagine is plenty of the same.

I don't know if Peter really wants more comments about the woulda-shoulda-coulda regarding his book, but here's my take having read it.

It certainly is important to remember two fundamental things: This is a BW bio, not a BB's bio, and it given the book's length and mainstream release, it probably is targeted more at casual fans or newly-interested fans. Those things are all fine.

At this point, I would love to see a BB's bio (as opposed to bio focusing more on one member) as reader-friendly as the books put together by Carlin or Stebbins, that focuses on all of the members and places equal focus on all eras. I'm not saying that one has to devote as large a word count to Al writing "Lady Lynda" as Brian writing "Pet Sounds", but I for one am interested in things having to do with other members.

I think most people on this board know the basic story forward and backwards, so many of us, when it comes to Peter's book, find the most interest in little tidbits of info we haven't heard before and new insights based on new interviews we haven't read. Unfortunately, in a bio covering Brian's whole life in 300 or so pages, it's probably not possible to get into intricate detail on why there was at attempted ousting of Al in 1990 (although, my second post asking for more info on this from Peter got lost among the "I Wanna Pick You Up" discussion, so if Peter replies to my questions regarding that, that would be great!). I give Peter credit for explicitly explaining in the book, at the point where he discusses the Al/Mike 1998 split, that the whole thing is just too complicated to get into. I'm sure Peter is tired of the woulda-shoulda, but I would have like to see perhaps some footnotes or endnotes in the book when things like the attempted outsting of Al were brought up, to at least offer a bit of additional info for those who are interested. Again, perhaps this would have led to page count problems. In any event, since these new little tidbits of info mentioned often in passing are some of the things that hardcore fans are finding the most interesting, that might be why some fans are so adament about following up on these tidbits asking for more background information. "What's your source?" may sound a bit accusatory, but I think most fans ask this because they'd like to see more info on that subject, not because they don't believe what Peter wrote. But I'll let other fans/readers speak for themselves on that.

I'm not too concerned with an author's favoring or not favoring a given album or era. Nearly every BB book I've read, I've disagreed with on that sort of thing. I think Jon Stebbins' DW bio is fantastic, but I certainly don't agree with every opinion he has on every song or album. Same goes to Peter's book, or Andrew Doe's, or most books that take any sort of critical look at the music. So those preferences aren't too important to me. Sure, a huge bias on an author's part might color the entire book, but I don't think anything written by Stebbins or Carlin or Doe has that problem. (I don't meant to single any authors out, these are just the three names that are familiar to this board).

Also, I think, and I hope I'm not making too many assumptions, but just about any author has their own points of interest and things they're not as interested in. I would be willing to bet that Jon Stebbins or Peter Ames Carlin aren't as interested in certain aspects of the BB's story as I am. For instance, as great as Peter's book is, and as much as it does offer some new insights and ways of looking at something like "Pet Sounds", it's been quite awhile since I've really read much in terms of actual new information about the creation of "Pet Sounds." So in this instance, I would probably like to read more in a book about something that we know less about, like the reasons for Al no longer playing in the touring BB's, or the aborted Paley/Was sessions, or Brian's early 80's life, and perhaps less about the creation of "Pet Sounds."

This is how I always look at the Beach Boys: They may never get the coverage they deserve when it comes to literature or documentary, etc. Think about it: the "Beatles Anthology" took nearly 10 hours of video to tell a story that, for the most part, covers 1962 to 1970. 10 hours for 8 years. What do we have for the BB's? Endless Harmony clocks in at something like 1 hour and 40 minutes, right? And that covers about 37 years, 1961-1998 roughly. To tell the BB's story in the same detail as something like the "Beatles Anthology", it would take thousands of pages or 30-40 hours of video (keeping in mind that the entire 40-plus year history of the BB's is not as jam packed from year to year as the 62-70 era for the Beatles).

Taking all that into consideration, I can't fault Peter's book beyond the standard sort of critical look that I would and do give any book. I mean, is any publisher really going to publish a bio on Brian or the group that basically consists of "Only Stories that Haven't Been Told in Other Books". I'd buy it, most of us would. But the general public wouldn't. And as much as I'd like to see a 10-part book on the history of the group, that would be large undertaking for even the most connected group insider to do.

Hey Hey: I heard about Al's 1990 ouster from some combination of insiders, now I can't remember who right now (Not meaning to be coy, but I wrote that stuff a year or more ago, the info is buried somewhere here in my archives), and also saw a few references to it in copies of business letters I have about Brian's participation in band projects in the late '80s and early '90s.

Peter, thanks for following up on my question. Can you elaborate at all on what this attempted "ousting" involved? Was it simply an attempt to remove Al from the touring band? Did it involve trying to but you his share in Brother? Was Al aware back in 1990 of this attempt to oust him? It would seem like it would be difficult for him to remain in the band knowing this, but then again, it doesn't seem too strange in the world of the Beach Boys. Can you share anything about how this ousting was referred to in documents you saw? I'm just curious about what this entailed, and how it would be referenced in documents involving Brian. I'm just trying to imagine a letter written to Brian asking him to appear at a session or something, followed by something like "P.S. We're trying to kick Al out of the band."

This may have been covered but I am wondering why Al became a liability in the early 90s within the band? I read somewhere he wanted to freshen up the touring act, with or with-out Love. I can see how this could upset Mike and cause a falling out between them but given Carls history of leaving the band for a new challenge in 81, I would have thought a fresh approach mid 90s would have appealed.

I asked Peter Ames Carlin about this in another thread, because he mentions in his book that there was attempt to oust Al from the band as early as 1990, which, assuming the year is accurate, would seem to predate even the "Summer in Paradise" sessions where Al didn't participate for much of the sessions. Peter didn't really elaborate much on what this 1990 incident entailed, other than to suggest in the book Carl stopped it from happening. He mentioned in the book thread that he heard this from several sources as well as various documents. Perhaps I'll ask in that thread if Peter can provide any more details.

As for members desiring a "fresh approach", I think the problem with the BB's was that different members spoke up or at least expressed a distate with the current state of affairs and suggested changes all at different times.

For instance, Carl left in 1981, and supposedly some of his conditions for rejoining in mid-1982 included the band rehearsing more, and not booking any more casino shows. But within a few years, as I recall, they were playing casinos again, and I think most of us agree that the quality of the live band varied a great deal between 1982 and 1998. So it appears Carl, like most people, felt differently about these things at different times, and at certain times he decided not to put up a fight.

When there were things going on in the band that many fans would perceive as something Carl would be against, sometimes maybe he wasn't against those things and therefore didn't fight it, while at other times maybe he was against something but didn't have the energy or willingness to contest it. I'm only using Carl as one example, there are surely other examples with other band members.

I hope Jon doesn't mind, here's a link to a previous post of his where he quickly alluded to this, perhaps a bit more directly: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,1249.msg31091.html#msg31091

In any event, between what I believe he's alluding to and what others have mentioned in the past, I'm pretty sure I know what Jon is talking about. Here's a clue I think I can offer: If you know how the touring BB's business is setup today (and I'm not talking about licenses, I'm talking about the actual touring production), this might give you an idea of why Al may have taken issue with things when this type of setup was proposed, back when this setup would have included Al and Carl. Such a setup makes sense in light of the band's current lineup, but if Al and Carl were involved, it would make sense for Al to question it (and Carl as well, even if Carl apparently didn't question it according to Jon). I'll leave it at that, since Jon's book will surely detail this in a direct way. If I'm totally off on this Jon, please feel free to say so.

If you include Bruce - and why not ? - I think it would be three: Carl, Alan & Bruce during one of Mike's 1990 absences, or Mike, Alan & Bruce during Carl's final illness, although that is open to question as David can be regarded as an original as well.

There were also some Mike/Al/Bruce shows earlier, such as some shows in 1981/1982 when Carl had left. There were occasionally shows where neither Dennis nor Brian were present. There was also a short string of shows, or at least one show, around September of 1990 that Carl missed because of an appendectomy (if I'm recalling correctly) which featured only a Mike/Al/Bruce lineup. Strange that in 1990 you could have seen a Mike/Al/Bruce/Carl show, or a Bruce/Al/Carl show, or a Mike/Bruce/Carl show, or a Mike/Al/Bruce show. The common theme seems to be that there always seemed to be an attempt to keep at least three "official" Beach Boys on stage. It always struck me as strange that other bands would usually cancel or postpone a show if one of the core members wasn't able to make it, but I guess doing 150-180 shows per year, every year, meant that occasional absences were unavoidable and tolerated.

In one of the press releases or news stories about the Hallmark CD, it was mentioned that Hallmark was considering making the CD a mainstream release at some point after its exclusivity in their stores. But if you want to get the CD, I would suggest EBay because, a) I highly question whether a mainstream release will ever happen; it's a good CD for $7-$10 and/or as a promotion involving greeting cards, but as a full-priced mainstream release it probably wouldn't sell very well, and b) Even if Hallmark does make it a mainstream release, who knows when that will happen or how easily found it will be?