Didn't the song begin as a cover of "Little Girl"? I know there's an abortive vocal take of "Little Girl" floating around, with Carl just singing a couple of lines. It sounds like the same song as "Sunshine", just at a faster tempo with drums, and of course different lyrics. I've always assumed the "Little Girl" recording predated "Sunshine." I don't know where it was recorded, though.

"Livin' with a Heartache" apparently was, in the short term, a relative "fan favorite", at least among fans attending shows. During the April, 1980 Philadelphia BB show that was simulcast to a number of radio markets, Mike mentions that they've been getting a lot of requests to do the song, and they proceed the play it live. I don't think it lasted in the setlist very long. Even among 1980 shows it doesn't seem to pop up that much.

Is this the one where he's in his robe? (on the steps?)

No. Its like Leo said...the one inside the BB's LP titled Carl and the Passions So Tough. Easy to find. They cropped it from another group photo from '72 that happened to include Brian...and stuck it in one that didn't.

I think the original photo featuring Brian (from which Brian was cut out and stuck onto the "So Tough" pic) is used at the current placeholder page for www.beachboyscentral.com. I don't know if it's the exact same pose, but if it isn't, it's pretty close. He seems to be wearing the same shirt in both and has nearly the same pose.

[little]

Al is praised for wanting to bury the hatchets he put in the backs of his bandmates and their heirs.   

Cam, you are way, way off in regards to Al. He's human, like the rest of us, and he's really a very decent sort.

I agree.  Al is a very kind and honest man, who, yes, has made mistakes in the past.  He does not deserve the shaft he's been given since 1998.  Cam, you get upset when people demonize Mike Love in any way...and I do agree that sometimes people go a little far when people insult Mike.  But don't you think that your view of Al may be just a little skewed?  I think that the degree to which you demonize Al far surpasses the degree to which most people demonize Mike.  

It seems that any post you make regarding Mike, Brian or Al comes out to about this:

Mike=Unfairly attacked, heavily important part of the Beach Boys legacy, who has made few, if any mistakes

Al=Greedy, cold-hearted demon-man who is out to get everybody

Brian=Wishy-washy buffoon who should wise up and go ahead and collaborate with Mike already

Well said, Eric, and thanks for taking the time to make this point. I haven't seen much of it, but I have seen 2 or 3 fans in my lifetime who believe that Al is really the root of all evil in all of the BB fuss of the last 8 years or so. This position seems to stem from the fact that Al was not particularly succesful in either defending himself against recent lawsuits or his own lawsuits. (Frankly, I don't even know where all of the lawsuits stand, as some of them had nothing to do with the naming issue but had to do with Al being paid back for a settlement relating to Brian's "autobiography", etc.). Now, we can debate the merits both legally and morally of the whole BB trademark/naming issue (which I no longer care to do since I went through numerous go-arounds with Cam on the PSML regarding this topic several years ago; it started out interesting and thought-provoking and ended in circular arguments going nowhere), but even those who don't feel Al was doing himself or others any favors by using the "BBFF" name or going through the various lawsuits usually don't try to posit that Al did it all out of vindictiveness and some evil plan to go after the rest of the group. Further, I find it particularly offensive and hyperbolic to use such obviously inflammatory statements as Al going after "heirs" as if Al is not only being vindictive, but he's also doing a devil dance on the grave of Carl or something.

Brian, David Marks, and the "heirs" of Carl and Dennis all joined Al at the Hawthorne Landmark ceremony last year. Gee, who was it that didn't show up to that event? All of these supposed actions that Al took against the rest of the group clearly would have impacted Brian and the heirs as much as Mike, yet who was the one who didn't show up at that event? It makes me think that Brian and the "heirs" feel no such "hatchets." Mike is the only one who has referenced "hatchets", and even he never made any direct reference to Al vis-a-vis the "hatchets." Geez, even Mike didn't make such hyperbolic statements about Al. Mike has said that Al is suing, and that he has "issues" with Al, etc. But I've never even seen Mike come out and claim that Al is hatcheting the entire group and their heirs.

As I mentioned, I could argue on and on about legal and moral merits of the issues that Cam is clearly referencing regarding Al. But that went nowhere before, and I don't know if I can find all of my posts from the PSML from several years ago since copying and pasting them would be the same thing as posting anew, because the arguments are all the same. But I'm sorry, the whole Al/hatchet thing is just low. If Cam is using this terminology in not such a heavy way, and for some reason just means to use "putting a hatchet in the back" of somebody as a way of conveying that that person is doing something that does not benefit and/or disagrees with another person's point of view, then I'm sorry to say that there are enough hatchets in every band member's back from every other band member to go around. Gimme a break.

It's particularly off-putting that Dennis didn't get a credit on "City Blues" if he indeed did help write it, since, if I recall correctly, even Scott Bennett gets a co-writing credit on the released version for some additional lyrics or some such thing.

I hear a lot of pinched melodies and chord progressions on Brian's late 80's and early 90's work in particular. I hear a bit of "City Blues" in "Baby Let Your Hair Grow Long." I also hear a bit of "Looking Down the Coast" in "Walkin' the Line." I think I even hear a bit of "I Sleep Alone" in that Duck Dodgers song "Believe in Yourself."

And then in some cases his "new" songs are of course simply new recordings of old songs. The two new "Roxy" songs were old. You can even hear his earlier version of "This Isn't Love" on the "Cocaine/Hamburger" tape (I think he sings "I Said a Prayer" on that recording). I think there was only one or two songs on "Gettin' in Over My Head" that couldn't be traced back to an older composition.

Jon, do you know anything about Brian's attempt to record "Oh Lord" for the '85 BB album? I vaguely recall reading that Brian talked about that song being a Brian/Dennis collaboration. I always got the feeling that if they had released that particular song on the '85 album, Dennis may have actually received a co-writing credit on that one. I asked Alan Boyd on an older thread a while back about whether an '85 recording of the song had been found, and he said that it hadn't, but that all of the '85 DAT tapes hadn't been listened to yet, and some of the tapes had generic song titles that could potentially include "Oh Lord." I guess the Beach Boys ran out of time on that one, what with all the effort they put into the masterpiece that is "At the Hop."

I heard that when this movie was shown in the theatre it was a different cut. Does anybody know what the differences were?

I never saw this alternate cut, but I remember a few of the differences based on a description by somebody who saw it. The two differences I remember were that the theatrical cut included a segment featuring the song "Friends" (I vaguely recall this involved airport footage or something, I'm not sure), and most of the audio included in the theatrical version used the original Capitol mono/stereo masters.

Apparently, there was a problem in the end using finished Capitol song masters in the film. So, when it was put out on video, all of the Capitol-era recordings were replaced either with live recordings (i.e. some of the audio used for the drag racing footage, which featured live versions of songs like "409") or alternate mixes. As I recall, they simply couldn't use the *original* Capitol mixes/masters. They apparently were allowed to use the raw session tapes. So, they apparently went out of their way, when using Capitol-era recordings, to make it very evident that they were using different mixes even if the same basic take was being heard. This is why, for instance, the "Pet Sounds" songs heard in the film feature such drastically different mixes.

As I recall, the film had a very limited theatrical run and may have only even been put in the theaters at all to make it academy award-eligible.

My biggest problem with "MIU" is the cynicism. For the first time you can hear them straining to sound like themselves. Or some earlier, more successful version of themsleves. "I wanna go surfin' where I dig it the most, in Hawaii." Help me, Jesus. For one thing, none of those guys were surfing anywhere by 1978. For another, they didn't realize that literal surfing -- the sport -- had nothing to do with why people loved their earlier work. It was the way they sang about it. . . the risk, the beauty, the promise of transformation. It was the whole dream of the west, wrapped up in one spiffy youthful New Frontier image. Trying to re-claim that world as their own in '78 was just sad....particularly because the music beneath those words was so lame and pedestrian. And ripped off, in places, from their better songs (see also: 'Go to hawaii!' nicked from 'Hawaii,' and "When I Grow Up"'s '...won't last forever' at the end of the dismal, soupy, schlocky, 'Winds of Change.' I'm not even that big a fan of "My Diane," to tell the truth, 'cause the rhythm seems so lethargic and plodding. I know others disagree, and yes, it's nice to hear BW up there on the high falsetto, which he actually pulls off with emotion, etc. etc. I'll give it another spin.

But everyone makes crappy albums eventually, and I wouldn't be quite so harsh on this one except for the cynicism thing, which was not only bad enough in this context, but even worse when you realize (in retrospect) that it was just the start of a long and dismal era in which a band that had once set standards for musical adventure and spiritual derring-do was now in the business of cashing in on their own history.

I'm sorry if that sounds too harsh. I'm calling it like I see it.

I haven't read the your book yet, but I think you make good points here. My take is that it's just less clear exactly when the cynicism crept in. I would certainly say that the downturn for the group began before "MIU." I again point to "15 Big Ones" as perhaps even more disappointing than "MIU." The production on 15BO is horrible, the cover versions are largely a cop-out (at least "MIU" is largely original material) and generally not very good, and I wouldn't rate most of the originals on 15BO as particularly more inspiring than the MIU stuff.

So I guess my problem with saying MIU is the worst is not that the album is that great. It is one of their worst. I just feel there are several other albums in their catalog that are as weak if not weaker. As I said, I haven't read your book so I don't know how you characterize the project. But some fans I think overemphasize Al and Mike's input into the album and end up downplaying the fact that Brian, whatever his condition or attitude, was responsible for a good hunk of "MIU" both in terms of songwriting and recording.

I'd love to see Jeff Lynne produce an entire Brian album, and even write some of the material.

You know as we are also Beatles fans we remember his work with George and I for one loved it. I think he and Brian should do something becaue I am one of the few people who really liked Let It Shine. I wonder why so many others didn't.

I know AGD has said in the past that back when the BW '88 came out, the word was that Brian "hated" "Let It Shine." Then again, supposedly it was at Brian's instigation that the song was added to his live setlist for a time in 2000.

"Let It Shine" does have a strong Lynne influence, as Lynne injected his sound into the backing track and Lynne supposedly wrote pretty much the whole song apart from the vocal intro. My take is simply that the song is one of the stronger songs on the album, and at the end of the day, I think the strongest songs on the album should be judged as such regardless of who wrote or produced it. "Let It Shine" is borderline Brian Wilson covering a Jeff Lynne song with Lynne producing, but it still sounds good.

Given that Brian, under the right circumstances, can still arrange and sing and stack his vocals well in the proper studio setting, I'm not at all opposed to another new Brian album where somebody like Jeff Lynne writes or co-writes some of the songs, even if some of the songs have little Brian input on the songwriting end; the songs just need to be good compositions. I don't know about other BW fans, but I for one will not freak out if a BW album comes out without a "Produced by Brian Wilson" tag or without Andy Paley or Van Dyke Parks or Steve Kalinich's name anywhere on the credits.

[BWPS]

Mike's album might get picked up if he somehow is able to release it under the name "Beach Boys". Why not? He tours under the name, wouldn't be much of a stretch. Or better, a possible release on the internet, via Beachboyscentral.com.

The license to use the BB name is for touring only. That's why not.

I know that, but consider what if Brian had the legal rights to use the name "Beach Boys" as his rider, and then tried to play "Love & Mercy"? There would be a lawsuit in that.

Nope - as long as you pay the performance fee, you can play any song you like live. Mike & Bruce could even play BWPS.

Well, supposedly there is, or was claimed to be when Brother was going after Al Jardine, certain terms that a licensee of the Beach Boys name has to follow, and these terms can potentially include what type of songs should be played. Somehow, shock of all shocks, Brother is apparently not nearly as concerned with Mike and Bruce performing non-surf/fun/car songs as they were when Al Jardine was performing such songs as "Beach Boys Family & Friends."

I have no idea if such terms are or were ever actually written into the licensing agreement, but they at least potentially can be. Even if something along these lines was written into an agreement, who would interpret what songs are or aren't acceptable? I recall back around 1999 when the lawsuits began, there was a Rolling Stone article that rightly pointed out that the criticism of Al playing non-surf/car/fun songs didn't make sense in light of the Mike/Bruce band at that very time playing songs like "God Only Knows."

[GIOMH]

If you don't have anything nice to say (in terms of opinion), I think it's better not to say anything at all.

Stuff and nonsense - a big part of Brian's career problems of late have been that he's been surrounded by yes-people. As a case in point I cite the vocals on GIOMH: surely someone, at some point must have felt like pressing the talkback and saying "Brian, you know you can do that better. Take two."

But no-one did...

Very true, and perhaps it has something to do with the adament placement on every BW release since 2000 of "Produced by Brian Wilson." If Brian is really producing the stuff himself, who is there to tell him "Take Two"? I suppose Darian if he's there or Mark Linett. But they aren't going to tell Brian "Hey Brian, that vocal sucked!" Supposedly, though, Darian did do that a bit with BWPS. But think about this: What if the vocals on GIOMH are the later vocal takes? Maybe the earlier takes were even worse? The worst travesty on GIOMH in my opinion was replacing Carl's bridge vocal on "Soul Searchin'", arguably Carl's best spot in the song, with Brian's strained, shouty vocal. Just release the Beach Boys version and be done with it!

I know fans loved seeing "Produced by Brian Wilson", especially instead of Steve Levine, or Terry Melcher, or Joe Thomas. I don't advocate for anybody to just take full control over an album of Brian's, but he could use a producer or co-producer if he's going to continue to make new music. I probably don't have a lot of fans in agreement with me, but I'd love to see Jeff Lynne produce an entire Brian album, and even write some of the material.

[mono]

We have heard the story of how Capitol used to remove tracks released as singles from the album masters and place them on "single reels" for storage. A duophonic copy of WIBN was placed back onto the PS master reel by Cap somewhere, sometime.  The master reel (with the duophonic single) is also now missing along with the original mono master of WIBN.

Well, here is my quandry. I have pulled my mono re-release of PS from 1984 and the Sunshine Dream collection from 1982 and both of these contain the original mono mix if WIBN. Then comes Made In The USA in 1986 and that rough mix of WIBN  is on there and slowly starts to show up on all releases after that until the 1993 boxset. 

I was just wondering if this marks the timeframe that the mono master of WIBN went missing and is it possible to pull the Sunshine Dream master for WIBN. I ask this because the NY copy version of WIBN is so freakin' noisy where the SD one is not (even on my 24 year old cassette!)

Bob

Huh ? This is the first I've ever heard of Capitol releasing any DuoPhonic singles. Brian handed them mono masters for the singles, up to and including "H&V". DuoPhonic (and later electronic rechanneling) was applied  only to albums.

I don't mean to speak for anybody, but I think the original poster, when mentioning the "duophonic single" being placed back onto the mono reel, was simply referring to the single song "WIBN." Perhaps a confusing use of the terminology (a more clear explanation probably could have been something like "the single song taken from the duophonic album master"), but he clearly mentions right before that that the mono mix was what would have been removed for use on the single (had the scenario of WIBN being removed for that purpose been what actually occured, and I don't know whether that's true or not), so I think he understands that the single would have been mono and not duophonic. But again, I'm not anybody's official spokesman.  

Mike's album might get picked up if he somehow is able to release it under the name "Beach Boys". Why not? He tours under the name, wouldn't be much of a stretch. Or better, a possible release on the internet, via Beachboyscentral.com.

The license to use the BB name is for touring only. That's why not.

I know that, but consider what if Brian had the legal rights to use the name "Beach Boys" as his rider, and then tried to play "Love & Mercy"? There would be a lawsuit in that.

Mike Love's "Beach Boys" have played a few of Mike's solo songs recently, including of course "Cool Head, Warm Heart", and "Make Love Not War" or whatever it was called, on the Imus radio/TV show. Interestingly, one of the points mentioned in the various Brother lawsuits against Jardine when Jardine was touring as "Beach Boys Family & Friends" was that Jardine's setlist didn't reflect the sun, surf, and cars image. Apparently, performing songs like "Lookin' At Tomorrow" or "You Still Believe In Me" was damaging the BB name. Of course, now several years later Brother's licensee for the BB name is performing numerous "rare" songs not normally recognized as BB hits or sun, surf, or car songs.

I happen to like Bill O'Reilly.  He's done a lot of good.  I know there are people out there that hate the fact that there is a show that shows both sides of a story and let's the audience decide for themselves..  but I'm not one of them.

I'm not one of them either. But what does that sort of show have to do with O'Reilly? Okay, I know, this sort of debate shouldn't take over the board. BB content: Mike Love has, in the past 9 months or so and apparently somewhat regularly, appeared on TV shows of two of the biggest loads I can think of, O'Reilly and Imus. I've just heard a rumor the long-awaited Beach Boys reunion will take place on "Hannity and Colmes."

I don't remember who the 'current affair' interviewer was. I just recall Mike sitting on a balcony somewhere becoming severely choked up because Landy wouldn't allow him to write more hit songs with his cousin. It was very sweet.

I was recently going through a whole bunch of TV reports, etc. about the BB's, and came across that "A Current Affair" report. I don't think the interviewer was O'Reilly (didn't he host one of the other tabloid shows, like "Inside Edition"?). In fact, they never actually show the interviewer. I have two different versions of the report, and each version has a different person (whoever was hosting the show on that day) narrating the segement. Interestingly, both versions have the exact same footage and narration. One version is narrated by Maury Povich and is presented as a segment simply on the whole Brian/Landy conservatorship thing, while the other version is the exact same piece narrated by a female anchor and, because of the recent popularity of Wilson Philips at the time, is presented as a story about how "two members of the hit group Wilson Philips are dealing with turmoil in their family" or some such sensationalist tag.

I too found the footage of Mike tearing up (talking about how his first memory of Brian is Brian singing "Danny Boy" when he was a young boy) to finally show some humility and a softer side of Mike. Of course, my feelings were quickly washed away when the next TV clips I watched consisted of footage of Mike Love at a 1988 presidential rally singing literally "I'm picking up Bush Vibrations", followed by a segment featuring Mike on "The Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous."

It's called having a critical perspective.  In the whole BB canon, MIU is firmly in the basement, due in no small part to the fact that Brian was a most unwilling participant, and at the top of another slippery slope down. A biography that says everything an artist does is wonderful isn't a biography, it's a hagiography.

I agree that whatever critical perspective an author takes is better than no critical perspective. I haven't yet read the book, so I can't pass judgement either way on the book. But I think it is worth pointing out that "MIU" seems to often be the pick for worst BB album, yet when some fans actually step back and pick apart other albums like "15 Big Ones" or "KTSA" song-by-song, they start to find that those albums are as wonky if not moreso. I find "15 Big Ones" to be markedly worse than "MIU." Of course, I don't need to explain this to AGD, who literally wrote the book on picking the albums apart song by song! Of course, I can't fathom how one could find "Looking Back With Love" to be any stronger than "MIU", but there's that critical perspective thing!

I would find a ringing endorsement of "MIU" as he the second coming if "Pet Sounds" to be rather troublesome, but at the same time I would say it's about as easy to rip into "MIU" or pretty much any post-1976 BB album as it is to rip into the dreaded O'Reilly.

Just as a matter of interest. Any ideas on the costs of a internet only release ? I think Mike and Al may have to look at this as the only way to go as have Billy, Jeff, Adrian and others plus of course Brian with the original release of "Roxy". Al has had some experience in this with "Vegas" so that may be the way he is planning to release.

The book... I'll pick up a copy after the reunion show in London in September.

It's relatively cheap to do an internet-only release, at least in terms of the post-production costs (meaning once you have the finished master ready to press). Al has used DiscMakers to do "Live in Las Vegas" and I believe the "PT Cruiser" CD single as well. I have a bit of experience with them, as I worked with a band that looked into using them to press some CD's. It costs something like around $990 to press 1,000 CD's with them. (DiscMakers has placed ads in ESQ magazine in the past, and I believe ESQ used DiscMakers to press their "One in a Million" CD from awhile back).

The costs of course depend on what kind of artwork you want and how elaborate the artwork is. (I think that $990 price is for like a cardboard sleeve and the CD, whereas jewel cases with inserts would cost a bit more). In any event, to press up 5,000 or so copies of an album on CD would cost several thousand dollars. Then, there are costs involved in selling the CD's. You can just put up a website with an address to send money orders and checks to, and have your family help you stuff CD packages all day. Or, you can just have DiscMakers or whatever company who presses the CD's send them straight to a service like CDBaby (which Al used for the Vegas album at one point), and that service handles all of the orders for the CD's so the artist doesn't have to bother with it. These services of course take a cut of the money that comes in. I think it's even possible for self-made CD's to be sold on Amazon under the right circumstances. I think Amazon sold Al's "Live in Las Vegas" at one point (and probably still have it listed), albeit as a "Special Order" item. For that matter, Al eventually got some sort of mainstream distribution deal in place for the Vegas CD at some point, because I eventually saw it in a few indie CD stores maybe a year or so after it came out via the net.

Given the fact that Al could easily sell several thousand copies (as in probably 5,000 or so, give or take) of a new album, it could not at all be cost prohibitive for Al to release a CD himself. Even if you add in the cost to pay someone to master the album (assuming Al doesn't just do it himself at his studio, which he could), and add in the cost to produce the recordings (paying the engineer and musicians), and other miscellaneous costs, I don't think Al would lose money if he sold a finished CD for $15 or $20 via his website. He's probably already put plenty of time and money into recordings over the years anyway. It's about time he gets some return on that investment.

At the same time, I don't think it's totally out of the question that a super-indie label might be interested enough to sign Al up and release his album. It probably wouldn't make Al a ton of money, but it helps a lot just to get a CD with any label that can get your CD into stores and on Amazon, etc.

Hell, SIP was a Mike solo album, and it went under the Beach Boys name. Of course, as Andrew has just informed us, the license isn't for recording.

Maybe Al's problem is the same with Mike's: No record company wants an album from a bunch of has-beens. Brian Wilson should be in the same category, but it is "Brian Wilson", so he mas a little more merit.

Don't know about that, because many has-beens still have record deals... AC/DC immediately springs to mind, the Who (without the late Moon & Entwistle, it's pointless), Whitney Houston (although I think she's too busy doing lines in between dodging punches from Bobby to record an album)...don't know why this would be any different.

Well, somehow I think acts like AC/DC, The Who, and Whitney Houston have just a *tad* more name recognition among the general public than "Al Jardine." This is precisely why Al has trouble booking live shows. As much as labels (whether major or indie) who go after "aging" acts might like to put out an album based on the quality of the music, the reason some "aging" acts get a record deal is solely due to their name selling a minimum number of units.

I'm not quite as down on "Gettin' In Over My Head" as AGD for instance, but I think it's safe to say that some unknown artist would not have easily sold an album of that quality to any label.

Getting a record deal has little or nothing to do with Al producing or not producing an album. He knows he can sell it himself on the internet. That's what he did with "Live in Las Vegas"! Al is seemingly in a pretty good position to put an album together. He has experience releasing the stuff on his own, he presumably has more time on his hands than he did during his active touring years, he has experience as a producer, and he has his own studio! What I believe Al probably needs is an outside producer to helm the project. Not so much to even influence the sound of the album, but rather simply to execute some editorial control over the thing and convince Al to settle on some finished compositions and recordings and put something out. He probably has a bit of the "Loop de Loop" syndrome of over-working things. Just look at the song titles that have been mentioned in relation to this album. We're still looking at songs like "California Feeling", "Looking Down the Coast", and probably other songs that popped up in that long list of unreleased songs in the "authorized" Byron Preiss biography back in 1978/83. I wouldn't mind a new album with those songs (although it's pretty clear we'll never see the old recording of "Looking Down the Coast" released even if some sort of "Brother Rarities" set is released at some point), I'm just pointing out how long these songs have been in progress.

    I can't find this article on the Iceberg website.  You didn't make it up, did you?


                Love and merci,  Dan Lega

When I posted my response, I had clicked on the link and that website did contain the article. My guess would be either that news items on that website expire very quickly, or somebody had the article pulled or decided to pull the article.

The New Album - Sounds good and very promising. Hopefully, Al will keep the cover versions to a minimum, as well as the voice-overs. Not too enamored with a bunch of Spanish lyrics. I don't need novelty songs or even intricate themes. Just good songs. Maybe we can get both good songs and intricate themes. I won't hold my breath on this new album, as there have been at least two previous announcements of some sort of a forthcoming Al album. I think his publicists actually put a full-blown press release out back in 1998 about an album from "The Jardines." Nothing ever came of that. I think back around 2000 or so ESQ or somebody reported about Al working on an album that was going to include a song he wrote with Terry Jacks (was that "Don't Fight the Sea"?), and, interestingly considering Brian remade it not too long after, "California Feeling."

The Tour - I'm not sure about the X-Mas theme or having to sit through material from Cross or Messina, but if the tour gets Al out there a bit more for his fans to see, then that might be good. Hopefully the tour will be substantial enough that there will be enough shows around the country that most fans can get to one without too much trouble.

The Autobiography - Again, I'm not holding my breath on this one either. Hopefully if it makes it out it won't be like a Timothy White sort of thing where half the book is about the Jardine family tree and the history of Big Sur, but however it comes out, it will be interesting to get the story from a new perspective.

The Animated Film - I'm sort of indifferent to this one. I got the book because it had a new song on the CD. But I've spoken to several folks who are quite knowledgable about children's literature, and they weren't greatly impressed with the book. I certainly felt the book could have been a little more substantial, even for its target age audience. 

Is the Top gear performance available on Boot?

Also, I know Denny did the "River Song" / POB promo film with Ed Roach. What other promotion did he do for the album?

I also read once that he was planning to tour it with Christine McVie (or do some kind of concert with her), is this just rumour or was it a plan that never came to be?

I don't know about the possible participation of McVie, but a solo tour in the US to support "POB" was definitely planned. Supposedly, it was going to include a good hunk of the Beach Boys touring band (Billy Hinsche, and probably Ed Carter, Bobby Figueroa, etc.) There apparently were even a few rehearsals. My recollection is vague, but I think there are a few tapes in the Brother archives of rehearsals that either haven't been listened to yet and/or were labled as tour rehearsals but didn't have a tape inside. Something along those lines. I believe some tour dates were even booked, and one or a few even went on sale before the whole thing was cancelled. I think Jon Stebbins' "The Real Beach Boy" discusses the tour in as much detail as is available.

Apparently, the BB's did allow Dennis to promote POB at a few shows in 1977 by letting Dennis do a few songs from the album. I think even these instances were relatively rare. Again, this is mentioned in Jon Stebbins' book. I think they did "What's Wrong" and one or two other songs.

Well, if you want to bug Durrie Parks, go right ahead.  See what happens.   Or wait for a Smile boxed set of every single take put down.  Even if Brian ever agreed to that, which he probably won't, wouldn't it be just a limited selection of them, as the PS boxed set it?  Then, you'd still be disappointed.  Having every single take of every single thing that Brian ever did is just not going to happen, particularly as official releases (not to mention the fact that many tapes are just plain missing).  There just aren't that many people out there that care that much.   Look how well the Hawthorne set sold, which probably has caused some other discussed releases not to happen.  Whether the new Web site is going to change things remains to be seen, in terms of releasing studio stuff, not just live recordings. 

I still don't understand this reasoning for not bothering with the acetates. First, it was:

Fans wanting to preserve "Smile" acetates = Fans who are only interested in using said acetates to "finish" the album the way Brian should have

Now, it has morphed into:

Fans wanting to preserve "Smile" acetates = Fans who are only interested in hearing and seeing released every bit of "Smile" sessions ever recorded

Let me repeat again: While fans would love every bit of "Smile" sessions to be released, and many fans actually do enjoy piecing together their own "Smile" lineups (but aren't delusional enough to believe what they're doing reflects what actually would or could have been released; they just do it for fun), these facts have nothing to do with preserving some potentially important "Smile" acetates! I repeat: The fans want to see the acetates preserved for historical purposes! End of story. It has nothing to do with what the finished album could have been. It has nothing to do with wanting to see a "Smile" boxed set or wanting to see every second of sessions released. As I mentioned before, it doesn't even have anything to do with wanting to neccesarily hear the acetates. As my previous post indicated, the very fans trying to look into saving the acetates may well never get to hear the acetates *even if* a "Smile" boxed set of some sort gets released.

So far, the only reason for not pursuing the acetates that makes the slightest bit of basic, logical sense is to not bug the person or people who might have the acetates. I don't agree that one e-mail for instance is particularly instrusive. But what doesn't make any sense is to not pursue the acetates because we don't know what the final lineup would have been, or because even an in-depth boxed set may not contain the acetates. These reasons have nothing to do with the acetates at all.

Okay, whatever.  I'm sure Van Dyke and Durrie are thrilled to be continually bugged by Smile fanatics.  It's almost like some value recordings more than their fellow human beings, including those that created the recordings and those associated with them.  I don't get the sense of entitlement people have about having access to anything and everything Brian Wilson recorded.  Not that I don't own boots.  But it was thieves that made it possible.

Plus, you still are never going to know what Brian's real intentions were with Smile.  You just won't.  There is a distinct possiblity that Brian never knew where he was going with it, even if he had the idea of movements in mind (and it's not really conventional movements in a vocal work with distinct songs).  Your guess is probably as good as his.

Okay, a few things:

1. Trying to contact somebody once via e-mail or even phone/snail mail to inquire about the possible existence of archival recordings is not stalking, or even overtly bothersome, assuming the correspondence is polite and formal. The recipient of this correspondence could consider it as bothersome, in which case they can ignore it or answer by stating that they don't wish to be contacted.

In fact, I'm not even 100% sure that somebody who takes home an acetate technically owns the thing. I'm sure an argument could be made that the acetate was cut at the studio and the studio and/or artist and/or record company owns the acetate and it was only being borrowed by somebody working on the project (VDP in this case) for reference purposes. So it may be that somebody could conceivably make contact about these acetates to point out that they should be returned to the rightful owners. I don't know about this, maybe whoever ends up with it owns it. Beatles acetates pop up for auction all the time, so I doubt anybody would try to take acetates away from the Parks or anybody else.

2. Regarding the statement that "It's almost like some value recordings more than their fellow human beings", I think this is obviously a bit of hyperbole. Some fans are interested in what  happened to the acetates, and a few are apparently tossing around the idea of e-mailing somebody who may have access to the acetates. This means that people value the recordings more than fellow human beings? I don't follow that one.

3. Those who are interested in the acetates are not by default "Smile" fanatics simply because they're interested in the acetates and even, gasp, would like to see the acetates properly archived.

4. I don't see any sense of entitlement from fans about the recordings, at least in this thread. Heck, I don't even see anybody stating they have to hear the acetates themselves! We all would of course! But most who are interested in saving the acetates are probably interested from an historical perspective. Unless a "Smile" boxed set is release, the very fans who are trying to save the acetates will likely never even get to hear the acetates even if they are recovered!

5. Regarding the actates and what Brian's intentions were with "Smile", let me repeat as I mentioned in my previous post: The acetates are important all on their own! It has nothing to do with what Brian intended to do regarding finishing the album, or what Brian did years later.

I don't understand the apparent argument that we shouldn't bother with the acetates because "Brian never knew where he was going" with the album or because when it comes to a finished album "Your guess is probably as good as his." This reasoning doesn't address the actual issue. People don't want to hear the acetates solely to try to prove some harebrained theory about what they believe the finished album would have been! They want to preserve any archival recordings because they are BW/BB recordings! Frankly, it doesn't even have anything to do specifically with "Smile." The fact that they are "Smile" recordings only lends more interest to the thing for some fans. But for me, it would be just as important to preserve acetates with on-the-fly mixes that aren't in the tape archives for "Please Let Me Wonder" or "Wild Honey" or "This Whole World", etc.

Brian or the BB's or anybody else involved with "Smile" don't owe the fans anything. But I don't buy into the idea that fans with a strong interest in history should be painted as trying to abuse the artists or something simply because the fans want to help preserve some archival recordings. Does anybody really think VDP or Brian are crying themselves to sleep at night because fans want a "Smile" boxed set, even after BWPS was released? I wouldn't have even asked this question in past years when it seemed Brian might well freak out over the subject. But given his eventual enthusiasm over "Smile", I don't think fans should ever again feel any guilt for wanting to hear the original "Smile" recordings for fear that Brian will freak out over it.

We can take the whole thing in the other direction and paint an extreme scenario such as: Imagine watching the new updated A&E Brian Wilson Biography in 2015 or so. They get to the segment on "Smile", and discuss the amazing recently uncovered photographs of "Smile" acetates. We see the labels, many marked "final mix", maybe there's one in there marked "He Gives Speeches - Final Mix for b-side", and maybe there's a test pressing in there somewhere marked "Dumb Angel - Final Compilation" or something. I'm making this all up of course, and I'm not even trying to match the acetates up time-wise with what they could or would have actually been. The point is, I can imagine the narrator stating "unfortunately, the photographs that only recently turned up were taken years before the acetates were lost." Again, all made up, and rather hyperbolic to boot. The point is, we wouldn't want to hear some BB historian saying "if so-and-so had just been contacted and reminded about the acetates, we might have been able to save the acetates, but historians were afraid to be bothersome."

Beyond all of this, I don't think any fans even need to contact anybody regarding the acetates. I would imagine Alan Boyd and his crew have already or will inquire and do everything they can do find out about the acetates. Wasn't there some story where they fairly recently went through Al Jardine's stack of old junk in his studio to see if there were any interesting acetates or other items?

I don't get the obsession with the acetates.   It's nice to have more stuff, but can you really say that's what would have wound up on the final any more than what's on the other outtakes?   I don't think the fact they wound up as acetates makes it necessarily more likely that's what the final would have been.  Plus, no, I doubt they would be in good shape.  It would have more value if the master tapes they were cut from could be located, otherwise it would be scratchy listening.  It's also not fair that people have bothered Durrie Parks about this.  She owes Brian Wilson fans absolutely nothing.  It's to her credit that she hasn't sought a secondary alimony by selling them off.  Plus, we have no idea what the circumstances were in her divorce.  It might be a painful thing for her.

I think the fact that Brian drove to an emergency room during the making of BWPS speaks for itself.  I don't blame him at all for not wanting a Smile boxed set.  If Brian doesn't want it, it's good enough for me.  No matter what his reasons are, and I don't think BRI and lawsuits are the reasons. 

Frankly, I'm kind of surprised by the lack of interest some fans seem to have in vintage "Smile" material. Just as it serves no purpose to place the 2004 BWPS in the context of what the 66/67 recordings "could have been", I also don't see any point in placing the original recordings in the context of what the 2004 BWPS ended up being. In other words, I don't care whether the original recordings reflect what might have been released back then or what ended up being released in 2004.

My interest in the original "Smile" recordings has nothing to do with a "finished" album. It has to do with the fact that there is a huge cache of recordings made in 1966-67 by Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys during their creative peak, and a lot of this material has never been released or even bootlegged. To suggest that it's all just unfinished outtakes ignores the history of the Beach Boys, in which often times great stuff went unreleased. It also ignores the simple historical significance of the recordings.

As for the acetates, they *may* contain material not on any tapes in the archives. The acetates are likely historically important. Again, it doesn't matter whether the acetates reflect what could or would have been actually released. It's about Brian/BB recordings (and in some cases, actual compositions or variations of compositions) that we haven't heard.

Also, while the acetates most likely would not sound pristine, nobody knows for sure. Acetates properly stored and rarely played back then could still sound pretty good. Listen to the "Love Me Do" outtake on the Beatles "Anthology 1". That's an acetate from 1962, and it sounds like it could have come from a tape.

Somebody else mentioned the possibility of a "Smile" boxed set being one of the things offered on the upcoming beachboyscentral.com website, but I would think that while most archival BB material does have relatively limited appeal worth offering via the internet, a "Smile" set would be easy to launch as a mainstream release through Capitol.

It was always assumed by many that Brian was blocking a "Smile" archival release over the years because the whole subject was too sensitive. Given that he has now recorded a new version of the album and performed it probably 50-75 times in 2004-2005, I don't think the old excuse holds much water. It seems to me, and I'm just speculating, that assuming Brian is the only one holding such a release up (I've seen no evidence that the other BB's are opposed to such a release; at most, I would think the other BB's would want some input along the lines of Mike Love's booklet essay in the PS Sessions set), his unwillingness to go along with such a release has nothing to do with legalities and everything to do with the typical group politics.

Given what has gone down in the last few years, I still think a "Smile" boxed set of some sort is likely in the next few years. Maybe Capitol and their crack anniversary marketing team will motivate Brian to allow a 40th Anniversary "Smile" release.

I remember sources with seemingly "inside" info who swore that there was never any doubling of Brian's leads on "Live at the Roxy", even though there are clearly two voices singing on "The Little Girl I Once Knew."

Maybe "The Little Girl" on the "Roxy" CD has a doubled lead vocal because Jeffrey is doubling Brian's lead, not 'cause Brian doubled it later in the studio?

Yes, that is Jeff Foskett doubling the lead in places. But the people with "inside" info I was talking about were saying that neither Jeff nor any other band members were doubling Brian's leads, either on the album or at the shows. And clearly Jeff is doubling those lines on the opening song on the live album. Further, I've seen Brian numerous times between 1999 and 2005, and I've seen Jeff Foskett doubling Brian's leads to varying degrees at various points throughout every one of those concerts. Similar to what AGD says, I say it's no big deal if they do whatever they want with the live shows or live CD/DVD releases, but the denials from various people at various points is a bit strange, especially concerning the things AGD was talking about, like Brian's keyboard being unplugged, which didn't even need a camcorder video to prove considering it was blatantly obvious to crowds at every show; you could even tell without seeing the keys that Brian wasn't moving his hands across the keys at any point. The teleprompter was even more obvious. At one of the Brian shows I saw (I believe it was the first BW solo show I saw in 1999), Brian was so glued to reading the lyrics off the teleprompter that, during one song when the wrong lyrics from a different song were displayed by mistake, Brian actually started singing the lyrics from the different song! I can't recall for sure, but I think he was trying to sing the lyrics to "Love and Mercy" to some other song.

I'm just always just a bit skeptical by nature when questions about CD releases come up and there are immediate denials of what the fans think they are hearing. I remember when I bought the BW '88 CD reissue, I took it home and within not even a full listen one time through, I could tell the wrong mixes had been used for several of the songs. Other fans heard the same thing, and the fans were initially told they were wrong. Soon after, it was admitted that the fans were right.

I will defer to AGD's inside info source (I'm taking a wild guess that it would be either Boyd or Linett, since they actually handled and examined the tapes specifically for this release), but to me the "DDD" lead vocal sounds different not so much because of the quality of Mike's voice, but simply the overall ambience of that lead vocal track as compared to the music and to some of the other lead vocals sounds so different.

Was "DDD" aired during the TV series? I can't remember. If it was, and if there was an overdubbed lead vocal used for the TV airing, then there might be a few instances where the mouth doesn't match the words exactly. If we had an audience recording of the show, it would make it easier to compare if the actual live lead vocal matched what is on the Hallmark CD.

We do know there was some overdub/pre-recorded work done for that TV series, especially for those "Club Kokomo" segments during which we hear clearly new recordings of the songs, but the band is clearly miming to those new recordings. I don't think there was any miming at that actual Universal Amphitheater concert, but there were several cues on both the Hallmark CD and the actual TV show that indicated to me that some post-production work was done. I assumed that if any post-production work was done that made it onto the Hallmark CD, it was work done back in 1989 for the TV series.

There are a few people who swear they hear pitch-correction on lead vocals on several archival BB releases including the Hallmark CD and the Kneborth releases. I don't hear that, but I suppose that's an alternate explanation for a few of the lead vocals that do carry a different ambience, if nothing was "overdubbed."

I remember sources with seemingly "inside" info who swore that there was never any doubling of Brian's leads on "Live at the Roxy", even though there are clearly two voices singing on "The Little Girl I Once Knew."