|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 13, 2023 18:05:44 GMT
Rock Cellar: When working with the creative team putting this project together, while listening to session tapes what were the mind blowing, “holy shit” moments for you? Howie Edelson: My personal “holy shit” moment was from something that actually didn’t make the box. It was the uncut session tape for “He Come Down” and hearing Brian Wilson on piano leading a small ensemble — bass, drums, and light guitar — through several takes and breakdowns of the tune. Hearing him as a musician and record maker just killed me, absolutely blew my mind. rockcellarmagazine.com/howie-edelson-interview-beach-boys-sail-on-sailor-mike-love/Yeah, that was a fun bit of that interview. I wish they'd included that, honestly. Also, if that was meant to contradict my point (and I know it may well not have been, I'm not THAT egocentric to think everything relates to me), I hope you understand I definitely didn't mean that I thought Brian Wilson was a bedridden zombie throughout these years and albums, doing virtually nothing at all. My whole point was relative to his earlier (and sometimes later) years' involvement. Clearly, even if or when he was messed up with various mental, physical, or chemical problems, he was still the guy who created some of the greatest pop music of all time. And such a person is bound at the very least to have some good moments, a week, a day, a few-hour session here and there when he's feeling it and has something (musically) to say. Of course that's true! It's just that while he was doing that for the bulk of albums for much of a decade previously, by this time he quite clearly was not in that state as often. Anyway, back to the point: that would have been AMAZING on the album. I wish it were included. I love hearing Brian's direction and insights on sessions--even just once. (Not saying i'd find it normal, repeat listening.)
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 13, 2023 19:39:22 GMT
Most likely, if workload (meaning real work ... you know, the nonsense they pay me for) allows it today, I will put together a little comparison of everyone's contributions so we can see it objectively all in an organized way. OK, I've tallied the totals into a few rough categories for just the songs that appeared on the two proper albums, plus "We Got Love" (since it was officially on Holland at least somewhere or other for a bit--pardon the forgotten details, but exclude those credits if you want). I did not include the Fairy Tale stuff, but obvoiusly that adds to Brian's credits especially. Note that each "credit" counted is by the song, not by the part (e.g., if someone is credited with three instruments on one song, or is listed as having a verse harmony vocal and chorus background vocal, it counts as one, not three or two respectively). I was doing this by hand on paper intermittently while working, so please forgive any errors. It's not impossible I lost my place somewhere, skipped something, double-counted something. I don't think I did, but if I did, feel free to correct me (and forgive me!). Writer/Co-Writer: Mike (7) Brian (5) Alan, Blondie, Dennis, Ricky (4) Carl (3) Producer/Co-Producer: Carl (10) Alan (5) Dennis, Ricky (4) Blondie, Brian (3) Mike (0) Instrumentalist: Carl (17) Ricky (14) Blondie (10) Brian, Dennis (4) Alan (3) Mike (0) Lead Vocals/Co-Lead Vocals:* Carl (8) Blondie (7) Mike (6) Alan (4) Dennis (3) Ricky (2) Brian (0) Background Vocals: Carl (15) Mike (12) Blondie (9) Alan (8) Ricky (7) Brian (6) Dennis (4) (Bruce [2]) *Inconsistent listings of vocal parts made some decisions between "co-lead" and "backing" subjective. I did my best, but admittedly a person could swap some around.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 13, 2023 20:26:21 GMT
What jumped out at me in going through the above were these things:
- How silo'd Al and Dennis especially were. Dennis almost always only has credits on his songs, and then he's across the board with writer, producer, and performer credits. Al is a little different with respect to background vocals in particular, but otherwise is quite similar: he's prominent mostly on his babies but absent otherwise. I'd always, ever since reading the CATP liner notes, understood that they had multiple, separate things going on more or less simultaneously. But with this more accurate detail, you can really see it. You can really get the idea that yeah, Dennis was working on a solo album.
- How much these two albums were built on the core of Carl, Blondie, and Ricky. Of the 18 songs counted (8 on CATP, 9 on Holland proper, We Got Love), Carl is a producer or coproducer on 10; Ricky 4; and Blondie 3. Carl has a role as instrumentalist on 17 of 18(!), Ricky 14, and Blondie 10. Carl sings backgrounds on 15/18 (and leads or co-leads on 8/18), with Ricky and Blondie prominent vocally, too (blondie with the second-most leads at 7, and third-most backgrounds at 9). Honestly this also makes me wish more than ever I could hear that second Flame album, recorded just before these. I really enjoy the unreleased Ricky/Blondie tracks on this set, and would be curious to hear this other set of tunes that Carl worked on with them.
|
|
|
Post by jk on Jan 14, 2023 11:39:55 GMT
Interesting to see Dutch film music composer Rogier van Otterloo credited for the string arrangement on "Only With You", played by an unidentified string quartet. Regrettably his name is misspelt Roger Van Otterloo in the twofer liner notes (I can't find any mention of him at all on the original album cover). For me van Otterloo's finest moment is this haunting tune from 1973's Turks Fruit, featuring Toots Thielemans on harmonica (the images of Amsterdam are not from the film). May they both rest in peace: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Delight_(1973_film)
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 14, 2023 14:12:19 GMT
I was thinking as I reviewed them that they don't really change my impression about Brian's relative involvement. Totally absent? No, but what I'd initially said was that he "wasn't especially involved in it." I'm sticking to that, I think. And I think the same goes for CATP. I will grant that this can just be a matter of how a person interprets things like "wasn't especially involved." But for me, when we're talking about the guy who had been the guy in terms of writing, producing, and a major instrumentalist and singer, this level of contribution is pretty minimal. I pretty much agree. There's so many things I've read, so many things I've forgotten, and there's a few things that I still have to FINALLY come to terms with and reconcile. Holland - or specifically Brian's involvement or non-involvement - has always been one of them, maybe not seriously, but one nevertheless.
- I'll start with the length of the sessions over in Holland. They are listed as June - August 1972. That's almost three months. - I have to eliminate "Sail On, Sailor", which wasn't even worked on during the sessions over in Holland. - Brian was listed as providing "backing vocals" on "The Trader". Even though I can't really distinguish his voice in the mix, I'll acknowledge it. How long did it take for Brian to contribute that part? A couple minutes? A couple hours? - Brian sings the opening line on "California Saga: California". Because I'm anal and this is what I do, I timed the vocal. It's 8 seconds, 2 lines, 14 words. Is it possible that Brian recorded that line while he was present for another session? - I'll give Brian credit for significant contributions to "Funky Pretty" and "Mount Vernon And Fairway", although I have no idea how many days (hours?) he put in. How long did it take him to read the "Pied Piper" part? The music and production sounds very Brian and I recognize that contribution.
I realize that significant parts of songs can be realized in a short period of time. One take, a vocal here, a musical riff there can "make" a song. For example - and I'll leave it up to the listener - Brian's opening lead vocal on "California Saga: California", as brief as it is, might be important to the enjoyment of that song for many fans. OK, I'll get to the point. We've read the stories about Brian's non-boarding of the airplane to Holland and him subsequently being found asleep on said airplane. But, what I wanted to know was what he was doing when he got there. In the studio. Over three months. Not a lot I think.
I guess I just didn't want to be misled or sold a bill of goods. I don't like hype, whether it is 1972 0r 2022. However, you could also think about it this way. He contributed three songs to Holland. How many did he contribute to the previous two albums, Surf's Up and Carl & The Passions, and I think his songwriting contributions to Sunflower are overstated, too.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 14, 2023 15:18:26 GMT
It's a whole separate topic as to what Brian did in Holland versus what he did on Holland (and CATP). I think it's pretty clear that in Holland, he worked on the fairy tale and "Funky Pretty" (and not much else). That isn't nothing! He did the majority of those instrumental tracks, which in those days would have taken a good bit of time. It wasn't as if there were polysonic synths yet, to say nothing of digital recording and editing: this would have been somewhat laborious. Putting together tracks piece by piece in an analog world could easily take days' worth of actual labor, to say nothing of the seemingly unproductive time of planning, listening, wiping, revising. Creating does take a lot of time. (I don't think everyone realizes the dozens of hours it can take to make two or three minutes of music.)
Conversely, his part to "California" by all accounts took about as long to do as it takes to listen to it. If I'm not mistaken, it's said he did it while they were doing an early mix or something: he literally just got a live mic and did it on the fly.
But he and others have said for the most part, he didn't participate. He listened to Randy Newman music and worked on the aforementioned. I'd be curious how often he left his house there and went to the studio while the band was there.
Anyway, that's all just about what he did in Holland (as opposed to on it). He seems to have been more active on the CATP sessions in Los Angeles, not to mention on his unreleased music from the period.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 24, 2023 21:01:21 GMT
I was looking for something on Amazon today, and I noticed the asking price for this box is now $132.69, down from $149.99.
I was lucky enough to get a copy for Christmas, but I haven't delved too deeply into it. I think I got five "discs" deep on Spotify before really going into Christmas music mode last month.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 25, 2023 12:22:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 25, 2023 12:46:53 GMT
Here is a new review from British music journalist Alex Petridis for Super Deluxe Edition. (I think he usually writes for the more prominent The Guardian.) It's generally positive, though this bit stung a little. I don't know how much that one Grateful Dead gig influenced the band to change their...direction. I just don't know. At the risk of oversimplification, I think Jack Rieley entered the picture, influenced the band - and individuals - in several ways, and we got that trifecta in the early 1970s. Rieley got booted, James Guercio entered the picture (along with Endless Summer ) and it was "Counterculture? Ecology? Protest? What counterculture, ecology, and protest?"
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 25, 2023 12:51:39 GMT
I don't know that I'd oversimplify it to the Dead show, either. But bigger picture, might they have miscalculated their countercultural appeal or potential versus their more nostalgic and "simpler times" reputation? I think that's worth considering. But to be clear, I don't think almost anything is ever so simple as X led to Y.
Another debate a person could have over the idea is, what about what the guys themselves wanted? I think Dennis, Carl, Blondie and Ricky were all entrenched in a countercultural scene, as were several of their regular touring band members into that era. Mike and Al were at the very least involved in environmental causes and antiwar, which were both countercultural at the time. So even if there was a miscalculation or just commercial blunder, it could well be described as, "so what? It's what they wanted to do." That has to be considered. Not everything is just focus group testing, market research, and calculated investments aimed at the most efficient returns.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 25, 2023 13:16:54 GMT
I don't know that I'd oversimplify it to the Dead show, either. But bigger picture, might they have miscalculated their countercultural appeal or potential versus their more nostalgic and "simpler times" reputation? I think that's worth considering. But to be clear, I don't think almost anything is ever so simple as X led to Y. Another debate a person could have over the idea is, what about what the guys themselves wanted? I think Dennis, Carl, Blondie and Ricky were all entrenched in a countercultural scene, as were several of their regular touring band members into that era. Mike and Al were at the very least involved in environmental causes and antiwar, which were both countercultural at the time. So even if there was a miscalculation or just commercial blunder, it could well be described as, "so what? It's what they wanted to do." That has to be considered. Not everything is just focus group testing, market research, and calculated investments aimed at the most efficient returns. Yes, I think they might have miscalculated their countercultural appeal, but again, I think they were very influenced by Jack Rieley. I think the Beach Boys - both as a band and individuals, with the possible exception of Dennis - could be easily influenced, led, guided, whatever. For a long time it was by Brian, then Rieley, then somewhat Guercio, and then we have Steve Levine, Terry Melcher, and yes, even Joe Thomas. It's almost like they would, at the drop of a hat, turn their sound or musical direction over to their new best friend. Is that what they really wanted to do? I don't know but it never seemed like they were entirely happy with the results.
But, with all that being said, the funny thing is, no matter what direction they chose, to a large extent, the individual Beach Boys remained their stereotypical selves. Mike would remain the retro/looking back guy with a large dose of spiritual peace and love. Al would forever be the outdoorsy, folksy, California coast proponent. Carl the soft-spoken balladeer who would occasionally rock out. Even Dennis could be categorized as a ballad-driven romantic. I won't even begin to define Brian, but his post-1974 work was pretty straightforward rock/pop. I suppose the post-1978 albums/recordings could be categorized, but the individual characters/members/songs never really strayed too far from their stereotypes. I don't know if any of that makes sense...
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 25, 2023 13:46:37 GMT
I've always found it rather interesting that, in the minds of the general American public, The Beach Boys were never really "allowed" to evolve.
The Beatles were. The Stones were. The Who were.
Were there early hits just too good for some fans to accept anything else? Was it because of the failure of Smile, which might've been more of a bridge between the "classic era" and what came in the early 70s?
I think there was a hope amongst the fans and even some of the insiders that the last two box sets would really shine a light on this era to the public at large, but it seems like it's just, predictably, been a treasure trove for the diehards like us.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 25, 2023 14:00:02 GMT
I think there was a hope amongst the fans and even some of the insiders that the last two box sets would really shine a light on this era to the public at large, but it seems like it's just, predictably, been a treasure trove for the diehards like us. I'm not sure. It seems to me there has been more attention paid to that period, including in the aftermath of the boxes. Not massive, widespread appeal. But more bands seem to mention those albums in their interviews, the reviews for the boxes (especially FF, but also SOS) were overwhelmingly positive. I think they helped. They weren't sudden, massive shifts in popular consciousness. But they helped. Regarding the Beach Boys "not being allowed" to change, I think there's also this to consider: were their "evolved" songs and albums as good as their classics? Even most of us would say "generally no." So there's that. I suspect if in 1972, the Beach Boys released a legit classic album on par with Today or Pet Sounds, but in an updated style, there's be no issue. It isn't all impressions and restrictions of criticis or fans; some of it is material and performance.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 25, 2023 14:06:40 GMT
I think there was a hope amongst the fans and even some of the insiders that the last two box sets would really shine a light on this era to the public at large, but it seems like it's just, predictably, been a treasure trove for the diehards like us. I'm not sure. It seems to me there has been more attention paid to that period, including in the aftermath of the boxes. Not massive, widespread appeal. But more bands seem to mention those albums in their interviews, the reviews for the boxes (especially FF, but also SOS) were overwhelmingly positive. I think they helped. They weren't sudden, massive shifts in popular consciousness. But they helped. Regarding the Beach Boys "not being allowed" to change, I think there's also this to consider: were their "evolved" songs and albums as good as their classics? Even most of us would say "generally no." So there's that. I suspect if in 1972, the Beach Boys released a legit classic album on par with Today or Pet Sounds, but in an updated style, there's be no issue. It isn't all impressions and restrictions of criticis or fans; some of it is material and performance. That speaks to one of my questions. Where their early hits just too good? I mean, there's a lot of really good and great material on the albums released from 1967-73. But, I feel like it's always going to live in the shadow of those early hits. I do agree that more attention has been paid to that era in the 21st century overall. But, I still think that, generally, it remains quite underrated.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 25, 2023 14:30:58 GMT
OK, I was taking your "were the early hits too good?" line to mean "were those early hits so good that no matter what they did later, people wouldn't accept them?" And in that case, I'd say no. But if you mean more literally compared to what they really did do after, then yeah, there is definitely some of that.
The Beatles DID compete with their early hits as they evolved. Somehow their quality remained REALLY high throughout. The Beach Boys just didn't maintain their peak standard for as long. BUT, as you said and I think most of us agree, the reputation seems to have been that they went from brilliant to awful, as opposed to going from brilliant to sometimes very good, sometimes good, sometimes mediocre, sometimes bad, etc.
|
|