|
|
Post by ironhorseapples on Jun 14, 2022 10:27:59 GMT -5
Mikie, is this a 'whoosh' moment?
|
|
|
|
Post by dauber on Jun 14, 2022 11:00:38 GMT -5
No. The Dr. Ebbetts series were bootleg CD's complete with artwork and essentially virgin vinyl needle drops. They were fantastic. I still have most of the 'releases' in the collection. The go-to prior to the formal 2009 remastered album releases in stereo.
To be honest, I didn't think they were that great; the EQ was a bit harsh. But they definitely did the job for what you couldn't get on CD yet, like the American mixes. (And Ebbetts is still my go-to for the American version of A Hard Day's Night.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Mikie on Jun 14, 2022 11:44:24 GMT -5
They were essentially CD versions of both the UK and US vinyl releases. Good for replacing the vinyl versions when you didn't have a turntable or too lazy to pull out the vinyl. But many people like me wanted the CD's for their CD collections plus the artwork were excellent copies of the original vinyl sleeves. I preferred the stereo copies. But then the 2009 stereo/mono releases were the definitive. That's all I ever play now is the stereo box.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mikie on Jun 14, 2022 12:32:58 GMT -5
Mikie, is this a 'whoosh' moment? You mean did it go over my head? Nah, the subject of Dr. Ebbetts (not to be confused with Dr. Robert) came up and it reminded me of Beatles collecting 20+ years ago. I'd pretty much forgotten about the Doc Ebbetts releases.  |
|
bookofb
Grommet
Posts: 34
Likes: 37
|
Post by bookofb on Jun 14, 2022 12:38:45 GMT -5
Re: "cool" and "FM," etc.
"cool" is meaningless; the way I interpret Beach Boys history is that the Beach Boys, as a name is pop music, is (was?) not as respected as that of the late-60s/FM-radio crowd. In that podcast, Edelson maybe could have referenced the concept of (lack of) respect for the Beach Boys, and maybe wouldn't have offended some people here. Instead, he used the concept of "cool" as a kind of shorthand. Anyway that's how I hear it.
He did accurately pinpoint a huge part of the problem for the Beach Boys when in the podcast interview he pointedly referred to the Beatles as "men," and thereby implicitly contrasted those "men" with the Beach Boys, who in the end remained, in terms of their music, "boys." This is totally accurate and speaks to the element of maturity, and the problems the Beach Boys had with maturity and growing up. In a nutshell, the Beach Boys had trouble growing up within the music - certain members of the band wanted to grow up musically (Brian wrote a song about it) and had trouble, others had no interest in growing up (musically speaking) and were content to perform and promote the immature "teenage" concept that dated from the first half of the '60s and even back to the '50s (doo wop, malt shop etc.)
Edelson surely knows the history of the band - as indicated, for instance when he pinpoints the year 1967 as the year when the Beach Boys lost it - but I assume that as an employee or independent contractor or consultant he has to walk a line and remain diplomatic. So, when I hear Edelson saying that Rolling Stone and Jann Wenner screwed the Beach Boys and did them wrong (he is referring to Wenner's famous take-down of Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys at the end of 1967), I wonder if he really believes that. Because the truth is that the Beach Boys did it to themselves; Wenner's article was well-reasoned and accurate if read in the context of the era (among other things Wenner was saying that he couldn't take the Beach Boys seriously because the Beach Boys did not take themselves seriously.) Again it's not the concept of "cool," but respect and maturity that is at issue.
It's a very large and interesting subject, but in short what happened in 1967 was that the train left the station and the Beach Boys either missed it or never wanted to get on the train in the first place (or a combination of both - the Beach Boys had by then long ceased to be a band in which the members were all of one mind) The Monterey Festival signifies the birth of a new rock 'n' roll culture that, even months before, few people knew was going to come into existence. Rock 'n' roll had heretofore been seen as a stylistic fad that was was short lived; the assumption was that once teenagers grew up, they would move on to more adult forms of music. As of late '66 into 1967, the business as whole was suprised (if not shocked) to find that "rock 'n' roll" was taking over and wasn't going to go away; that old people (i.e., people who were no longer teenagers) still enjoyed the music (which was itself maturing and evolving). Things were happening very fast in those days. The Beach Boys absence from Monterey accurately symbolizes the fact that they had no place in the new culture (which had both positive and negative attributes). The decision not to appear at Monterey was in my opinion the correct decision, as it acknowledged the unavoidable reality of the situation at that time.
The Beach Boys did this to themselves - as a collective business entity - because they wanted it that way and probably because there was never really a choice to be anything than what they were. There's no evidence that any of the Beach Boys - including Dennis and Brian - had any interest in being seen as "cool" or "hip." And some of the Beach Boys (Mike, Bruce, and probably Al) were actively opposed to that on personal, cultural and aesthetic grounds. And somebody like the Brian Wilson of 1966 had no interest in being "cool" at all. Circa 1968, Mike wanted to promote TM - was that because TM and India was "cool" and au courant in those days? Who knows.
There was a time (long before the early '70s) when Brian wanted to excel and have the Beach Boys be respected and taken seriously, yes, but not "cool" or "hip." We can blame Jules Siegel for introducing the falsehood that Brian wanted to be "hip" into the Beach Boys discourse.
|
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jun 14, 2022 13:25:07 GMT -5
Re: "cool" and "FM," etc.
"cool" is meaningless; the way I interpret Beach Boys history is that the Beach Boys, as a name is pop music, is (was?) not as respected as that of the late-60s/FM-radio crowd. In that podcast, Edelson maybe could have referenced the concept of (lack of) respect for the Beach Boys, and maybe wouldn't have offended some people here. Instead, he used the concept of "cool" as a kind of shorthand. Anyway that's how I hear it.
He did accurately pinpoint a huge part of the problem for the Beach Boys when in the podcast interview he pointedly referred to the Beatles as "men," and thereby implicitly contrasted those "men" with the Beach Boys, who in the end remained, in terms of their music, "boys." This is totally accurate and speaks to the element of maturity, and the problems the Beach Boys had with maturity and growing up. In a nutshell, the Beach Boys had trouble growing up within the music - certain members of the band wanted to grow up musically (Brian wrote a song about it) and had trouble, others had no interest in growing up (musically speaking) and were content to perform and promote the immature "teenage" concept that dated from the first half of the '60s and even back to the '50s (doo wop, malt shop etc.)
Edelson surely knows the history of the band - as indicated, for instance when he pinpoints the year 1967 as the year when the Beach Boys lost it - but I assume that as an employee or independent contractor or consultant he has to walk a line and remain diplomatic. So, when I hear Edelson saying that Rolling Stone and Jann Wenner screwed the Beach Boys and did them wrong (he is referring to Wenner's famous take-down of Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys at the end of 1967), I wonder if he really believes that. Because the truth is that the Beach Boys did it to themselves; Wenner's article was well-reasoned and accurate if read in the context of the era (among other things Wenner was saying that he couldn't take the Beach Boys seriously because the Beach Boys did not take themselves seriously.) Again it's not the concept of "cool," but respect and maturity that is at issue.
It's a very large and interesting subject, but in short what happened in 1967 was that the train left the station and the Beach Boys either missed it or never wanted to get on the train in the first place (or a combination of both - the Beach Boys had by then long ceased to be a band in which the members were all of one mind) The Monterey Festival signifies the birth of a new rock 'n' roll culture that, even months before, few people knew was going to come into existence. Rock 'n' roll had heretofore been seen as a stylistic fad that was was short lived; the assumption was that once teenagers grew up, they would move on to more adult forms of music. As of late '66 into 1967, the business as whole was suprised (if not shocked) to find that "rock 'n' roll" was taking over and wasn't going to go away; that old people (i.e., people who were no longer teenagers) still enjoyed the music (which was itself maturing and evolving). Things were happening very fast in those days. The Beach Boys absence from Monterey accurately symbolizes the fact that they had no place in the new culture (which had both positive and negative attributes). The decision not to appear at Monterey was in my opinion the correct decision, as it acknowledged the unavoidable reality of the situation at that time.
The Beach Boys did this to themselves - as a collective business entity - because they wanted it that way and probably because there was never really a choice to be anything than what they were. There's no evidence that any of the Beach Boys - including Dennis and Brian - had any interest in being seen as "cool" or "hip." And some of the Beach Boys (Mike, Bruce, and probably Al) were actively opposed to that on personal, cultural and aesthetic grounds. And somebody like the Brian Wilson of 1966 had no interest in being "cool" at all. Circa 1968, Mike wanted to promote TM - was that because TM and India was "cool" and au courant in those days? Who knows.
There was a time (long before the early '70s) when Brian wanted to excel and have the Beach Boys be respected and taken seriously, yes, but not "cool" or "hip." We can blame Jules Siegel for introducing the falsehood that Brian wanted to be "hip" into the Beach Boys discourse.
With the Monterey thing, I agree with Howie - and 100%, because it was never a make-or-break their career not to go to Monterey. Just because Jann Wenner said so? And, from Mike, “none of the band was afraid to perform at Monterey” and explained that “Carl was to appear in federal court the Tuesday after the concert, but for all we knew, they were going to arrest him again if he performed onstage.” Monterey went from a pay-the-performers to a what looks like a non profit or gratis performance. There are all these versions out there and all these reflections from other bands, about why. The show was in mid-June of 1967 so around 6-7 weeks post arrest. Carl had to petition the court to let him perform in Europe in May, and here is June, so close to all of that. It was not a low-profile event. The whole band helped Carl with appearing to do shows at prisons or other non-traditional venues as “service” consistent with being a conscientious objector to the Vietnam war to satisfy the court. Coupled with parents of fans, who were WWII vets and held consciousness objectors in a low regard, plus, it was not covered in a light, kind to Carl, in the newspapers. He was referred to as a “draft dodger.” They had been cranking hits out since 1961 and that event, notwithstanding all the gossip surrounding it on wiki. Funny isn’t it that a lot of people who had some kind of connection to the band, had a different take or speculation as to why they didn’t perform. |
|
|
|
Post by Will/P.P. on Jun 14, 2022 13:48:52 GMT -5
If you think this reimagining of the Beach Boys mixing and mastering is bad, it’s the same with The Beatles. Some people in the media and on this board have praised the new Beatles mixes on Sgt. Pepper, The White Album, Abbey Road, Let it Be, and Hollywood Bowl by Giles Martin, but believe me, these are revisionist mixes that belie the intentions and artistry of the original George Martin mixes and mastering, which were apparently done in order to accommodate the perceived preferences of streaming teenagers. But, Pepper's sounds so cool in surround sound. |
|
bookofb
Grommet
Posts: 34
Likes: 37
|
Post by bookofb on Jun 14, 2022 17:21:32 GMT -5
...and also, to keep it in historical perspective, the overarching issue here is certainly not new. It's the basic art (or in this case, craft) vs. commerce issue. By my reckoning, this first became an issue in Beach Boys world no later than the second half of 1964 and into 1965 when Brian Wilson, the artist and music creator, was at odds with demographic realities, and dealt with that in different ways at different points in the '64-'65 timeline.
Years later, around the time of the 1988 Brian Wilson solo album, the executives at Warner/Sire knew they had a difficult marketing challenge - one that is not entirely different than what seems to be occurring in the present day. They had a solid, or at least decent, Brian solo album on their hands, but the music on that album was not going to sell itself with instant radio accessibility. The challenge (or problem) in those days was to sell the name "Brian Wilson" to a younger audience; to inform the teenagers of the late '80s who, exactly, Brian Wilson was, and what he had accomplished. The adult ("boomer") fans, in the main, would have already written off the Beach Boys and Brian Wilson by then, or, if not, would have gravitated toward the easily accessible, but dead-in-the-water "Kokomo" concept of that time. At least in theory, Warner/Sire wanted to reach younger listeners (many of whom would already have tons of Warner/Sire records stuff in their collections - Prince, Talking Heads, Replacements, Madonna, Smiths, etc.), but it didn't happen. The timing was off; it was difficult if not impossible to promote The Great Brian Wilson when his story was not known, when Pet Sounds was still a relatively unknown cult album, and Smile was simply not known (I sort of know this not only from stuff I've read but because I was in the intended demographic and was left confused (though intrigued) by Brian Wilson and the "Love and Mercy" single.)
Because the music hasn't gone away - it's still good enough to be marketed - it seems to me that it's the same challenge today: how to reach people who we think will like the music but don't know about it.
One significant difference between today's efforts and the BW/1988 example is that promoting the quality and excellence of solo "Brian Wilson" is not the same thing as promoting the quality of "Beach Boys," a name which for various reasons became a schlocky, disrespected brand at some point a very long time ago. Best case scenario for the future - in terms of image, respectability and "cool" - is for their embarassing years (decades?) to be memory-holed, which is probably what will happen over time.
|
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jun 14, 2022 21:01:26 GMT -5
...and also, to keep it in historical perspective, the overarching issue here is certainly not new. It's the basic art (or in this case, craft) vs. commerce issue. By my reckoning, this first became an issue in Beach Boys world no later than the second half of 1964 and into 1965 when Brian Wilson, the artist and music creator, was at odds with demographic realities, and dealt with that in different ways at different points in the '64-'65 timeline.
Years later, around the time of the 1988 Brian Wilson solo album, the executives at Warner/Sire knew they had a difficult marketing challenge - one that is not entirely different than what seems to be occurring in the present day. They had a solid, or at least decent, Brian solo album on their hands, but the music on that album was not going to sell itself with instant radio accessibility. The challenge (or problem) in those days was to sell the name "Brian Wilson" to a younger audience; to inform the teenagers of the late '80s who, exactly, Brian Wilson was, and what he had accomplished. The adult ("boomer") fans, in the main, would have already written off the Beach Boys and Brian Wilson by then, or, if not, would have gravitated toward the easily accessible, but dead-in-the-water "Kokomo" concept of that time. At least in theory, Warner/Sire wanted to reach younger listeners (many of whom would already have tons of Warner/Sire records stuff in their collections - Prince, Talking Heads, Replacements, Madonna, Smiths, etc.), but it didn't happen. The timing was off; it was difficult if not impossible to promote The Great Brian Wilson when his story was not known, when Pet Sounds was still a relatively unknown cult album, and Smile was simply not known (I sort of know this not only from stuff I've read but because I was in the intended demographic and was left confused (though intrigued) by Brian Wilson and the "Love and Mercy" single.)
Because the music hasn't gone away - it's still good enough to be marketed - it seems to me that it's the same challenge today: how to reach people who we think will like the music but don't know about it.
One significant difference between today's efforts and the BW/1988 example is that promoting the quality and excellence of solo "Brian Wilson" is not the same thing as promoting the quality of "Beach Boys," a name which for various reasons became a schlocky, disrespected brand at some point a very long time ago. Best case scenario for the future - in terms of image, respectability and "cool" - is for their embarassing years (decades?) to be memory-holed, which is probably what will happen over time.
That 1988 window was an unusual one. For the first time in 1987, after being a fan for at least 20 years, I saw Brian at a concert, when he came out for a cameo, and Landy was in the wings. I have that CD - which was the Landy one. I’m not sure that in the late 80s Pet Sounds was a cult album so much as a “must have” in your collection, as a classic, like the Stones or The Beatles, because it had been released in 1966 and re-released with Carl and the Passions in the early 70s. The Beach Boys had been making appearances on various TV shows, including a soap opera, believe it or not, as well as the series that John Stamos was involved in. I think one was called You, Again with Jack Klugman. So they were known and they were actively touring all those years. Kids were going with their parents to see them, mine among those kids. They also had stuff on movie tracks, which landed on Still Cruisin’ from another film. But I don’t know of a time when they were not on TV, except when Pet Sounds and Smiley, Wild Honey came out. There was a big gap in time on TV variety/talk shows. Some of these releases are coming out because of copyright issues, which gave a set number of years and then the work would go to the public domain. It would be great to be marketed well, but the primary focus is the copyright protection. The band has to make sure it gets out there so it does not lapse with copyright protection. The bonus is all these other unreleased tracks that have been talked about for years. Welcome to this board. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jun 15, 2022 3:14:18 GMT -5
Oh my! I haven’t checked in at this place in a while and it’s like the planet has spun off its axis and into deep space.
Are folks being too harsh on the (so far teased/pre-released) new mixes? Is that the beef? Well, they sound fine but for Marcella which is pretty awful to my ears. Sorry! The original mix seems to have been wise in that it tucked everyone’s vocals in there quite perfectly where the new one makes some vocal lines jump out and show their wonkiness. Everyone sounds drunk. Sorry! This is just one fan’s reaction. Am I not suppose to say anything on a Beach Boys forum? I’m not the one who fucked with The Mona Lisa. Am I supposed to be grateful and feel blessed that someone took the time and effort to make one of my favorite tracks of all time sound like a truck ran over the tape? Sorry again/not sorry. Remixes are completely unnecessary in the first place, usually. I can understand stereo mixes that never previously existed but even then, it ends up being voodoo in irritating ways (as in the no Mike on the WIBN bridge/stereo version) … Remastering: fine, but when you get into these “playing God” remixes you end up basically telling Kubrick where to put his camera and the results should be expected to be picked apart by fans because you’ve gone right out and asked for it/begged for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Awesoman on Jun 15, 2022 5:14:51 GMT -5
For what it's worth two things can be true at the same time. You can be appreciative of Howie, Mark and the rest of their team for their tireless work they've done to keep the Beach Boys and their music alive. Considering this band is now 60 years old and there's still considerable demand for more product is a remarkable thing. But you can also (constructively speaking) offer criticism over various nuances of their projects, such as the way the material is being mixed/mastered.
Beach Boys fans are a highly sensitive lot who are constantly overprotective of the franchise (that's not meant to slam anyone; it's just the way it is). It's finding that delicate balance of appreciating the material we're getting without taking things too personally over any grievances we may have with the product. For all the hoopla and/or flack that the new version of "Marcella" is receiving, I personally welcome this new version of the song as well as any other surprises this forthcoming compilation may have.
|
|
|
|
Post by tomtomplayboy on Jun 15, 2022 6:02:43 GMT -5
Remastering: fine, but when you get into these “playing God” remixes you end up basically telling Kubrick where to put his camera and the results should be expected to be picked apart by fans because you’ve gone right out and asked for it/begged for it. Speaking as someone who is as big a Kubrick fan as I am a fan of the Beach Boys, that is a great way of putting it. |
|
|
|
Post by Awesoman on Jun 15, 2022 6:13:38 GMT -5
Remastering: fine, but when you get into these “playing God” remixes you end up basically telling Kubrick where to put his camera and the results should be expected to be picked apart by fans because you’ve gone right out and asked for it/begged for it. Speaking as someone who is as big a Kubrick fan as I am a fan of the Beach Boys, that is a great way of putting it. Fair points but ultimately for a compilation does this truly even matter? If anything the remixes/new mixes provide new insight into the music itself and (if done well) can breathe new life into music you've listened to endlessly for years/decades. I certainly don't have a problem with this unless the material sounds objectively bad, which I don't believe anything here comes close to. If you really want to hear good music ruined by new remixing/remastering I dare you to listen to the 50th anniversary remix of 𝐶ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑔𝑜 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡 𝐴𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 butchered unmercifully by Tim Jessup. That thing sounded so atrocious the band threw Rhino Records under the bus by suggesting they pulled the wrong mix and offered a replacement disc (which sounded just as awful). I'm guessing that when this forthcoming "Sail On Sailor" (or whatever they end up calling it) box set comes out that the remix of "Marcella" will probably sound more authentic to the original recording. |
|
|
|
Post by drbeachboy (Dirk) on Jun 15, 2022 7:11:19 GMT -5
Speaking as someone who is as big a Kubrick fan as I am a fan of the Beach Boys, that is a great way of putting it. Fair points but ultimately for a compilation does this truly even matter? If anything the remixes/new mixes provide new insight into the music itself and (if done well) can breathe new life into music you've listened to endlessly for years/decades. I certainly don't have a problem with this unless the material sounds objectively bad, which I don't believe anything here comes close to. If you really want to hear good music ruined by new remixing/remastering I dare you to listen to the 50th anniversary remix of 𝐶ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑔𝑜 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡 𝐴𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 butchered unmercifully by Tim Jessup. That thing sounded so atrocious the band threw Rhino Records under the bus by suggesting they pulled the wrong mix and offered a replacement disc (which sounded just as awful). I'm guessing that when this forthcoming "Sail On Sailor" (or whatever they end up calling it) box set comes out that the remix of "Marcella" will probably sound more authentic to the original recording. Yes, but you would also think that that Marcella mix that sounds more authentic to the original would be on a greatest hits package, and the more alternate mix sounding one would be on the Sail On Sailor box set. |
|
|
|
Post by tomtomplayboy on Jun 15, 2022 7:21:18 GMT -5
Speaking as someone who is as big a Kubrick fan as I am a fan of the Beach Boys, that is a great way of putting it. Fair points but ultimately for a compilation does this truly even matter? If anything the remixes/new mixes provide new insight into the music itself and (if done well) can breathe new life into music you've listened to endlessly for years/decades. I certainly don't have a problem with this unless the material sounds objectively bad, which I don't believe anything here comes close to. If you really want to hear good music ruined by new remixing/remastering I dare you to listen to the 50th anniversary remix of 𝐶ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑔𝑜 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡 𝐴𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 butchered unmercifully by Tim Jessup. That thing sounded so atrocious the band threw Rhino Records under the bus by suggesting they pulled the wrong mix and offered a replacement disc (which sounded just as awful). I'm guessing that when this forthcoming "Sail On Sailor" (or whatever they end up calling it) box set comes out that the remix of "Marcella" will probably sound more authentic to the original recording. In truth I'm personally far more upset about the compression/treble issues on Feel Flows than I am about whatever turns up on the new Sounds of Summer set. There are previously unreleased tracks on Feel Flows that are hampered by the poor mastering, and this is what really bugs me. I can live with Marcella being given some new mix that I don't like. But it's depressing that I can only listen to Old Movie and Hawaiian Dream in versions that have compressed-to-death vocals. |
|
|
|
Post by boogieboarder on Jun 15, 2022 9:31:44 GMT -5
Don’t use the 2009 CDs for a reference. Those had increased volume. You have to go back to the original 1987-1988 CDs, or the original vinyl from the 60s and 70s.
Except for Revolver and SPLHCB, the 1987 CDs were total garbage. Even Dr. Ebbetts declared the 2009 CDs to be definitive and said that's why he retired.
The 2009 CDs may be definitive to some, even the majority, but they have been mastered louder than the originals, due to added compression and limiting. If that’s what you like, then you have what you like. But if you are going to compare the relative volume of “Long Long Long” to “Helter Skelter” on The White Album as an artistic decision made in 1968, then you can’t use the 2009 CD to do it. You have to use an original vinyl pressing from the 60s or 70s, or the 1988 CD. |
|
|
|
Post by boogieboarder on Jun 15, 2022 9:42:10 GMT -5
Frank Zappa: “DEBBIE is thirteen years old. Her parents like to think of themselves as 'average, God-fearing American White People'. Her dad belongs to a corrupt Union of some sort and is, as we might suspect, a lazy incompetent, over-paid, ignorant sonofabitch. Her mom is a sexually maladjusted mercenary shrew who lives only to spend her husband's paycheck on ridiculous clothes designed to make her look 'younger'.
DEBBIE is incredibly stupid. She has been raised to respect the values and attitudes which her parents hold sacred. Sometimes she dreams about being kissed by a lifeguard.
When the people in THE SECRET OFFICE WHERE THEY RUN EVERYTHING FROM found out about DEBBIE, they were thrilled. She was perfect. She was hopeless. She was THEIR KIND OF GIRL. She was immediately chosen for the critical role of 'ARCH-TYPICAL IMAGINARY POP MUSIC CONSUMER AND ULTIMATE ARBITER OF MUSICAL TASTE FOR THE ENTIRE NATION'. From that moment on, everything musical in this country would have to be modified to conform to what they computed to be HER NEEDS & DESIRES.”
As much as I like Frank Zappa’s music, perhaps the record company executives who geared their music for a typical 13-year-old “Debbie” weren’t too thrilled with Zappa’s lyrics, such as:
We see in the back of the City Hall mind
The dream of a girl about thirteen
Off with her clothes and into a bed
Where she tickles his fancy all night long
…
…
Nasty, nasty, nasty, nasty, nasty, nasty
Only thirteen and she knows how to nasty
I’d quote more, but even this excerpt is probably too explicit for this board. Please delete or ask me to delete these lyrics if so.
|
|
|
|
Post by dauber on Jun 15, 2022 10:17:55 GMT -5
The 2009 CDs may be definitive to some, even the majority, but they have been mastered louder than the originals, due to added compression and limiting. If that’s what you like, then you have what you like. But if you are going to compare the relative volume of “Long Long Long” to “Helter Skelter” on The White Album as an artistic decision made in 1968, then you can’t use the 2009 CD to do it. You have to use an original vinyl pressing from the 60s or 70s, or the 1988 CD.
Problem is "vinyl." A vinyl pressing is mastered specifically for vinyl, so it's unfair comparing CD to vinyl, especially something that was mastered not only for vinyl but also for 1968 vinyl playback equipment, plus meeting certain requirements, like how bass had to be significantly reduced according to UK standards back then for fear that the stylus would jump off the vinyl. I happily got rid of my 1987-1988 CDs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jun 15, 2022 11:45:20 GMT -5
Speaking as someone who is as big a Kubrick fan as I am a fan of the Beach Boys, that is a great way of putting it. Fair points but ultimately for a compilation does this truly even matter? If anything the remixes/new mixes provide new insight into the music itself and (if done well) can breathe new life into music you've listened to endlessly for years/decades. I certainly don't have a problem with this unless the material sounds objectively bad, which I don't believe anything here comes close to. If you really want to hear good music ruined by new remixing/remastering I dare you to listen to the 50th anniversary remix of 𝐶ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑔𝑜 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡 𝐴𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 butchered unmercifully by Tim Jessup. That thing sounded so atrocious the band threw Rhino Records under the bus by suggesting they pulled the wrong mix and offered a replacement disc (which sounded just as awful). I'm guessing that when this forthcoming "Sail On Sailor" (or whatever they end up calling it) box set comes out that the remix of "Marcella" will probably sound more authentic to the original recording. Good point, but this was one of only 3 new mixes deliberately teased for the upcoming compilation. Therefore it stands out. Bottom line: fans will discuss under such circumstances. There was a time when Siskel & Ebert would tear movies a new one every Sunday on TV. They could be brutal but many of those movies went on to be hits no matter what those guys said. I guess we’re all Siskel & Ebert now. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonaustin on Jun 15, 2022 12:36:02 GMT -5
There was a time when Siskel & Ebert would tear movies a new one every Sunday on TV. They could be brutal but many of those movies went on to be hits no matter what those guys said. I guess we’re all Siskel & Ebert now. That's a good point. I like to revisit old episodes of Sneak Previews and At the Movies on YouTube from time to time, and those guys had a special sort of contempt for purile teen sex comedies like Porky's and low-budget slashers such as Friday the 13th, and those films still went on to make a killing at the box office. I guess what I'm saying is that the Beach Boys' legacy should be able to safely withstand a few fans grousing about remixes on the internet. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonaustin on Jun 15, 2022 12:58:15 GMT -5
I'll say, too-- in Howie's defense-- that I thought the Beatles podcast he did (the FABCAST) was superb. It performed the impossible, in that it got me to go back and revisit a band that I had largely been burned out on since middle school with fresh ears. The guy is one of the most enthusiastic music fans I've ever come across. I mean, he really believes. That said, he does seem to be obsessed with a certain notion of "cool" that I think is largely the product of the 70s and 80s classic rock mentality; and I don't think he'd subscribe to my belief that listening to Brian guide the Wrecking Crew through take 11 of the backing track to "Hide Go Seek" or what have you is every bit as cool as the 1973 In Concert era, if not more so. |
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jun 15, 2022 13:37:15 GMT -5
There was a time when Siskel & Ebert would tear movies a new one every Sunday on TV. They could be brutal but many of those movies went on to be hits no matter what those guys said. I guess we’re all Siskel & Ebert now. That's a good point. I like to revisit old episodes of Sneak Previews and At the Movies on YouTube from time to time, and those guys had a special sort of contempt for purile teen sex comedies like Porky's and low-budget slashers such as Friday the 13th, and those films still went on to make a killing at the box office. I guess what I'm saying is that the Beach Boys' legacy should be able to safely withstand a few fans grousing about remixes on the internet. Right. I guess being a dyed-in-the-wool Mike defender has given myself (and others of the same ilk) pretty thick skin, but that’s not everyone. It’s kind of like this: there is the music. The albums, the singles, the live performances gifted us by the official Beach Boys. Like some Beach Boy product better then others? Fine..Think different creative decisions should have been made? Fine, but there is still the official/historical document that stands and will endure the test of time. And that’s why we’re all here. All the “in-the-know” parties and the remixes and the special editions and the books and the academia regarding the official historical document will always come second and this should be understood and not taken personally. |
|
|
|
Post by radiantradish on Jun 15, 2022 13:55:56 GMT -5
I haven’t followed this whole debate. But I’ve just checked out the shut down and good vibrations mixes on the new comp. What’s the issue? They sound pretty damn good to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce’s Shorts on Jun 15, 2022 14:25:20 GMT -5
I haven’t followed this whole debate. But I’ve just checked out the shut down and good vibrations mixes on the new comp. What’s the issue? They sound pretty damn good to me. Marcella remix is the issue. Or non-issue depending. |
|
|
|
Post by jds on Jun 15, 2022 16:50:47 GMT -5
I've always detected a sort of urgent (manic?) desire to relitigate the post-Pet Sounds career arc that's made me personally concerned for Howie. Why do you have to justify good music? It's too late to correct a marketplace misunderstanding from half a century ago. I don't believe this sort of thinking is a healthy road to go down, but I appreciate his passion.
The new mixes and remasters don't bother me most of the time.
|
|
