Mastering BEACH BOYS "Pet Sounds" again, leaving the "2 db step fades" intact...

Absolutely there are. On Pet Sounds for example, there's the alternate take of Here Today with Brian experimenting with the background vocals by slowing them down when the lead sings the words "slower" and later "downer". There's the group vocal sped up for comedic effect on She's Goin' Bald. Stephen Desper has said Brian is sped up on Be Here In The Morning and if I remember correctly he's sped up on the coda to the album version of Surf's Up too. There's lots more, but those are the ones that immediately spring to mind.

 

Murry "meddling" - he made the suggestion, Brian has never stated he had any problem with the sped up version, he released it as a single under his own name. Other Beach Boys vocals were sped up, on the Friends album and elsewhere according to Desper, although Caroline No may have been the first time Brian had his vocal/track sped up. Motive? He may have wanted the tempo sped up - the song is slow for a single. He may have liked Murry's idea. The Beatles were doing similar things with slowing down and speeding up vocals. Assuming Murry somehow "forced" Brian to do something he didn't want to do with his most ambitious album I think is presumptious without any evidence.

 

According to one of the booklets in the PET SOUNDS box set, describing what's on disc 3, ....ends with an historic, never-before-released version of "Caroline, No." Back in 1966, at Murry Wilson's insistence, Brian's version of "Caroline, No" was sped up so that, in Murry's words, Brian would sound younger. That is the way we've always heard the song.

This collection, however, concludes as Brian wanted the album to end back in 1966, with "Caroline, No" in mono, at its original speed, in the correct key and with a tempo that imparts the true feeling of Brian's composition.

 

Sounds good to me! Have any other versions featured these unique fades? LP, CD, cassette? If not, than this will be THE Pet Sounds to have!

 

I think it's great the fades will be as they were originally. More music is a good thing of course. I'm also wondering if the fades on the DCC disc were done differently? I listened to it today but I'm not sure what I should be hearing.

 

I'm more interested in the how-is-this-gold-disc-going-to-compare-to-the-DCC conjecture. The fades don't really concern me that much. The only song on Pet Sounds that I wish would go on longer is the title track. I think the stereo remix does extend that fade slightly.

If the goal of the latest remaster is to be as authentic to the original album as possible, then matching the fades exactly makes sense to me.

 

Steve, I'll be honest, since you asked. The fades are not really important to me, which isn't to say they're not important. But there was (I think) a mention in your post about being true to Brian's intentions for the album, hearing it as Brian intended, which opens up the thread a little, wouldn't you say? For the reasons I've stated, which I think are much more important than the fades, I'd say we've never heard Pet Sounds as Brian intended.

Before I sign off on this, the responses to "has Brian ever altered the speed of vocals" are off the point; I was implying (pretty obviously) speeding up an entire song to alter the pitch of his vocals, not as an effect within a song, as part of its construction. One more time for the world - Pet Sounds is an incredibly thought-out, considered, composed, piece of work. It's not like he just turned up with the musicians and cut it. If he'd thought Caroline, No should be sung at higher pitch, there were an infinite number of opportunities for him to do this before the recording was made. Speeding up the entire tape is an unartistic way of doing this, a really hamfisted, amateurish, and disrespectful treatment of a work of art. Brian caved because it was his Dad, he was insecure, and his Dad was a bully.

So yeah, those fades ...

 

I'm just happy the the master is represented as authentically as possible on the CD.

 

I guess George Martin was a bully when the Beatles caved in to him when he sped up When I'm 64, She's Leaving Home, and Don't Pass Me By. How disrespectful of the Beatles' art!

 

I don't know anything about this album whatsoever, I've never even heard it before, so any questions I might have about it are related solely to the techniques used to master a 40 year old recording.

 

ICANNOTWAITTOHEARTHEFADES!!!

 

In the context of my listening experience, I prefer the "helped" fades. Anything else just sounds jarring and represents an impediment to my listening pleasure.

Since it's even moderately controversial and others prefer the alternative, I think your approach -- preserving all you can -- is the right one.

I can always burn a copy and "help" the fades on my own.

 

I am now more than ever looking forward to this release...Thanks for the info Steve!

 

Depends how good the new A/D converter is.

 

I give a darn that you're keeping the album "as is". That's it for me.

 

I'm not to concerned about the fades, although I agree leave it the way it was. I'm again wondering what would be the difference with this and the DCC I have ? The HDCD could make a difference ?

 

Yes, and what would that converter be was my question.

 

Kensei Audio Transposer

 

Agreed. This thread isn't just about the fades. Steve explained in detail how he's doing the transfers. So aside from it being a 1:1 copy of the earlier tape with no processing, what is he doing differently? HDCD -- no one's going to hear that unless they've got the HDCD decoder. And the A/D converter? Most people can't hear differences between good-quality converters. Assuming Steve got it "right" the first time, what makes this CD different from the DCC, and why should I spend the extra money for it?

'Splain it and I'll buy it.

 

Since I am a man who bases his worth in life by the number of Pet Sounds releases he owns -- this makes me richer.

Thanks for the cool info -- as to the fades, I loves me some 2db step fades, so bring'em! Carl referred to it as "The art of the fade." To me, that means do it like this, with no dilly-dallying and wasted space.

 

The fades are fine in 2dB steps. It's really cool you pointed it out and are keeping the recordings as accurate as possible.

But the tape source is an emerging point of the thread we're all pretty curious.

 

Thank you!