Talk:Sunflower (The Beach Boys album)

Start dates
Timothy White's liner notes in the 2000 CD booklet states explicitly, and the All Music Guide entry implies that work started on the album in February. What is the source for the assertion that work started in January? I think that we should stick with February unless we can find a reputable source for January. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 19:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Will this suffice ? Shows & sessions 1969 Andrew G. Doe (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

International version
Given that the difference between the original release and the international version is so simply described, I think that it is easier for the reader if we just cite that difference at the end of the Track listing section rather than have a separate international section listing all 13 tracks. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 19:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Read "The Beach Boys: The Definitive Diary of America's Greatest Band on Stage and in the Studio" by Kieth Badman. It states that "San Miguel" was the first song recorded by the group in January, 1969. It states factually that this was the first session for what became "Sunflower." Brad Elliot on the website Mountain Vernon and Fairway also states this.

There is much disinformation from about the group. Many of the articles from this time come from second or third source information. For example, Elliot in his book states that the first Sunflower album was complied for the Deutsche Grammophon company as an inticement to sign the group in mid-1969. This as since proved false since the majority of the "Sunflower" songs were recorded after they signed with Warners in the Winter of 1969/1970.

Another example is "Live In London". It's been stated by Bruce that the concert was not approved to be released by the group. Later information has come out that states Carl Wilson mixed and delivered the album to Captiol. The group did not want to give any new material (i.e. "Reverberation") to a company they were no longer signed to, and both sides felt the concert album would be better, long-tern catalogue seller. It was only released in international markets at first, because Capitol (just like with the "Cottonfields" single) would not promote it. Capitol had just released a compliation album "Good Vibrations" (different from the Brother/Reprise release) that sold very little. In Capitol's mind, it was a waste of money to promote the Beach Boys. Only during the "Brian Is Back" joke of 1976, did Capitol release it to ride on the coattails of their regained popularity.

Also, you have to understand that they signed with EMI for international releases when they signed with Warners. The original contracts with both labels were to release two albums within 18 months. Mo Ostin was concerned that the Beach Boys records would not sell. Only after the "Surf's Up" album sold well, did the group resign with Warners for both home and abroad releases in 1972. During this negotation period, the group did not complete songs for what beacuse the "So Tough" (that's one reason it only has 8 tracks). In fact, the rumor at the time was that the Beach Boys were close to signing with Apple Records!

Because of this, most of the world recieved the 13-track "Sunflower' album. It is slightly different, not because of the song listing, but some tracks are based on mixes from the "Reverberation" project.  Don't you think most of the world should know what was on their release when in came out in 1970?  Only in 1980, when Caribou re-released the album on vinyl internationally, did the American configuration come out  (and the only reason for that was because the Beach Boys did not want to lease "Cottonfields" for the album).  In fact, in late 1999, Captiol's preliminary track list for the Sunflower/Surf's Up reissue had "Cottonfields" as track one, but with the American track listing.  It was taken off, because they wanted to make it an exclusive track on the unreleased "40 Top 40s" hits album.

Most of the information about this time, is not wrong, but not totally accurate. The group has never been one to clarify their history. They feel they don't need to. They feel most people don't care (which might be true). That's why there is so much mis-information about "Smile" and the Reprise years. People like Elliott and Badham have tried to "clean up" their history. Even Brad Eliott has acknowledged his past missteps.

Hope this helps! [Unsigned at 19:24, 26 July 2005 by User:207.157.145.34 ]

Wow! Fascinating stuff. Could you merge this into the article? I have already added the reference that you cite and I restored the summary of the international differences while keeping your full listing. Have you considered Registering? It would make it easier for me to know where to put messages to you rather than chasing round your school IP address and the various dial-up IP addresses. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 19:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The Badman book is full of inaccuracies and has been cited as such by many Beach Boys scholars. It is not a 100% reputable source. In addition, "San Miguel" never appeared on SUNFLOWER, but "Got To Know The Woman - alleged to have been started on February 13th - did. That, then would be the first true SUNFOWER date.  69.157.234.159 16:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

True, but at the time, "Got To Know The Woman" was still apart of the last Capitol album ("Reverberation"). Those sessions stopped when the group filed their second lawsuit against Capitol in April of 1969. Just like with the "Smile" lawsuit, they stayed away from the studio for several months. Techinally, the first dates for the "Add Some Music/Sunflower" sessions were that fall, when the group signed with Warner Bros. But then with the uncertainity of that time in the BB's career, will we truly know?

By the way, what are the other falsehoods in Badman's book?

There are no differences in the mixes between the US and non-US versions, which is understandable as they both used the same master tape: any apparent differences are down to the inadequacies of the none US pressing methods. My UK Sunflower sounds like it was recorded on a cylinder when compared with a 1970 US pressing (same for Surfs' Up). Also, the chronology of the article is misleading: the 'last Capitol album' was assembled on June 19th 1970, some four months after Reprise had rejected the original master for Add Some Music.

Badman's book, aside from containing many inaccurate or misleading entries, also uses the writings of other BB researchers wholesale without due (or in some cases, any) credit.Andrew G. Doe (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

At My Window in French
The spoken intro by Brian was listed as being in Spanish, but it's actually in (very humorously poorly spoken) French, so I changed that.--Guidedbyalan 18:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Aritcle rewrite
I was bold and almost completely rewrote the article. I put all of the information about the finished album first. The second half is a narrative about the recording of the album. If anyone doesn't like it, obviously feel free to revert to the previoius version. Also, I am aware that my writing isn't all that great, so even if it is kept, rephrase my words all you want to. Check all of the wikilinks too, I think I got them all right, but one or two may have slipped through the cracks.

My workbooks for these changes, by the way are at: User:MookieZ/Sunflower & User:MookieZ/Sunflower2, if you want to look through the history.

I hope that you enjoy it. MookieZ (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit "Live performances" section
PaintedCarpet (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)