Add vocals only where lyrics are of 1960's vintage

[drbeachboy]

Well as we know Smile was never completed. You can only go with what you got. Let's just say that it will be as finished as it can be in terms of 1966. Plus, who knows, we could be in for a couple of surprises when it is released, just on a smaller scale than Brian originally wanted us to be back in 1967.

You can also go with less than what you've got.  To me, the available sessions allow for a very good 60 minute disc, but a truly great 40-45 minute disc.  I'd rather have the truly great, which would mean not using some of the material that has vocals on BWPS but is vocal-less from 1966-67.
ce

I agree with you there. That was my point. You can still have movements like BWPS, but not necessarily the same songs or in the same order. BWPS was put together mainly for performance purposes, not for how the 1966 album would have been released.

[Mahalo]

It will be so easy to make our own mixes regardless of what the initial sequence is....the only thing that will be difficult will be to have our own mix pressed onto vinyl...

[Chris Moise]

Even if they go the movement route, they can still use different songs in a different order if they have to, to make it feel more finished.

So if the different songs are stitched together it will somehow "feel more finished"? You lost me there. How is, let's say, Cabinessence, Worms, Old Master Painter back to back with fades and 2 second gaps between songs "less complete" than daisy-chaining them together? They are just as complete/incomplete either way so we might as well go for historical accuracy.

More importantly...any attempt at creating movements out of the '66 tapes will require some remixing. Going with 12 banded tracks with fades means they can use vintage Brian Wilson mixes where they exist. As a Brian Wilson fan you I assume you know the significance of using original mixes right? The whole combining 2 seperate sounds to create a 3rd sound Phil Spector style? All that is out the window with a remix.

None of us knows exactly what they are going to do.

Oh, please. We're arguing becuase the damn press release mentions using BWPS as a template. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

I'll accept whatever they decide to do, mostly because I'm not Brian or one of the Compilation Producers. It will be what the they make it and that's it.

Oh, so you're a fanboy

[Jeff]

Plus, the fades were SOME OF THE BEST MUSIC ON SMiLE.

Yes, I know that's an opinion, but I just don't understand how people fail to see that.  On BWPS, the fades are either missing (Cantina, Vega-Tables, etc.) or neutered through the merging of one track with the next.  Do you really want that AGAIN?

The only worse idea than using movements for the original material would be to let Mike Love and his kids record the missing lead vocals.

[Jim V.]

I just don't understand why so many of you want 'something close to what may have been in 1966/1967'.

The Brian Wilson/Van Dyke Parks work, SMiLE, wasn't finished back then, however it was finished in 2003/2004 as a BW solo project. Brian said so. As did Van Dyke, I'm pretty sure. So why not use their opinions to form the basis of The Beach Boys version? It's not like they are adding disco sections or whatever, it seems like the music won't be changed hardly at all. So whatever the track listing ultimately is, I think we should be happy, as the main creator of it, Brian, has approved of it.

However, I will throw in my 2 cents and say I kinda hope they don't totally follow the BWPS tracklisting, and make The Beach Boys version something different, maybe allow some different songs or arrangements, so it will further allow the BB version to stand on its own.

I just don't see the point of trying to pretend it came out in '67. It didn't. So using what we know, what don't they make the best '11 release they can?

[Don_Zabu]

I care more about the sessions disks than the main disk anyway.

-shrug-

[Andrew G. Doe]

Andrew, the back cover track listing, it's only a listing, not sequenced, correct? Recordings ceased so the tapes were never sequenced for an album, correct? If both are true, then wouldn't a final track listing and sequencing have to be originally done in 2011 or am I missing something here? Thanks!

I've always assumed that the back cover list was neither final nor sequenced, but rather something assembled at high speed to satisfy the increasingly irate demands from the Capitol art department. Remember, the front cover was done, dusted and I believe printed by early December 1966, but until mid-month there was nothing for the back cover of an album that was scheduled for late January 1967.

[buddhahat]

Plus, the fades were SOME OF THE BEST MUSIC ON SMiLE.

Yes, I know that's an opinion, but I just don't understand how people fail to see that.  On BWPS, the fades are either missing (Cantina, Vega-Tables, etc.) or neutered through the merging of one track with the next.  Do you really want that AGAIN?

The only worse idea than using movements for the original material would be to let Mike Love and his kids record the missing lead vocals.

I agree - I think the best thing to do is not try to stitch the songs together. In honesty, I think they'll be making a rod for their back if they try and stitch Gee into H&V into Worms and so on. Many of the segues in BWPS involved creating new bits, or adapting the existing material. I don't think the original sessions will adapt well to being stitched together but I may be wrong - I'm no expert with pro tools or whatever they use. Purple chick always sounded like a bit of a Frankenstein's monster to my ears.

I am up for using the BWPS sequence though. I think the greatest loss was the False Barnyard fade, and they could just use the cantina edit that includes the fade. That's what I'd do anyway. BWPS is a good way of including all the best bits and having the Brian/VDP seal of approval.

I don't have a problem with their being lots of instrumental tracks. Dada sounds great to me as is. A lot of Smile's beauty lies in its ruinous state. Gaps are good!

[The Shift]

I hope Alan and Mark aren't tuning into all this.

I'd hate to have a bunch of geeks like us pre-guessing that they're gonna screw up, get the sequence wrong, follow the wrong blueprint... etc etc etc.

If I were them and I'd looked into some of the threads here I'd be tempted to say "Hey, you know - just so as we don't f*** up, we've decided to can it."

We have to trust the guys and remember that what we're getting is the answer to a 45 year-old prayer.

Let's quit looking over their shoulders and let them deliver.  If Brian and the band trust them, then so can/must we.

[The Heartical Don]

I hope Alan and Mark aren't tuning into all this.

I'd hate to have a bunch of geeks like us pre-guessing that they're gonna screw up, get the sequence wrong, follow the wrong blueprint... etc etc etc.

If I were them and I'd looked into some of the threads here I'd be tempted to say "Hey, you know - just so as we don't foder up, we've decided to can it."

We have to trust the guys and remember that what we're getting is the answer to a 45 year-old prayer.

Let's quit looking over their shoulders and let them deliver.  If Brian and the band trust them, then so can/must we.

Well, as long as CD1 won't contain a 70+ minute popular SMiLE-medley, I am, like, er, totally with you.

[The Shift]

With hand clap syncopation? It's the way forward!

[The Heartical Don]

With hand clap syncopation? It's the way forward!

Yeah baby! I am told that there's even a finalized 1967 Surf's Up on an acetate hitherto unheard by us, and Carl sings a passionate: 'Shurf's Up'.

Straight into the medley and that box, I'd say!

[drbeachboy]

Hey Chris, I'm done talking with you. I'm done with the topic. Discussing topics with an obsessive is just not possible. It always leads to arguments. I hate arguing over things that I have no control over. So obsess to you heart's content. I'm sorry I even posted.

[buddhahat]

I hope Alan and Mark aren't tuning into all this.

I'd hate to have a bunch of geeks like us pre-guessing that they're gonna screw up, get the sequence wrong, follow the wrong blueprint... etc etc etc.

If I were them and I'd looked into some of the threads here I'd be tempted to say "Hey, you know - just so as we don't foder up, we've decided to can it."

We have to trust the guys and remember that what we're getting is the answer to a 45 year-old prayer.

Let's quit looking over their shoulders and let them deliver.  If Brian and the band trust them, then so can/must we.

Wise words.

[The Shift]

Hey Chris, I'm done talking with you. I'm done with the topic. Discussing topics with an obsessive is just not possible. It always leads to arguments. I hate arguing over things that I have no control over. So obsess to you heart's content. I'm sorry I even posted.

This thread was brought to you by Kleenex!
 

[Chris Moise]

Hey Chris, I'm done talking with you. I'm done with the topic. Discussing topics with an obsessive is just not possible. It always leads to arguments. I hate arguing over things that I have no control over. So obsess to you heart's content. I'm sorry I even posted.

Clearly I'm obsessive with my 80 posts here in the past 6 years 

[drbeachboy]

Hey Chris, I'm done talking with you. I'm done with the topic. Discussing topics with an obsessive is just not possible. It always leads to arguments. I hate arguing over things that I have no control over. So obsess to you heart's content. I'm sorry I even posted.

This thread was brought to you by Kleenex!
 

Clever! and it wasn't even directed at you. Your contribution is ever so invaluable. Thank you!

[bgas]

Hey Chris, I'm done talking with you. I'm done with the topic. Discussing topics with an obsessive is just not possible. It always leads to arguments. I hate arguing over things that I have no control over. So obsess to you heart's content. I'm sorry I even posted.

This thread was brought to you by Kleenex!
 

Clever! and it wasn't even directed at you. Your contribution is ever so invaluable. Thank you!

But this is a message board; hence you directed it at all of us. 
Had you wanted to send it privately only to Chris, you could have used the PM feature, right?  RIGHT. ( Answering for you, since you're done with the topic)

[drbeachboy]

Off Topic: I was being polite to Wee Helper. It was a clever post and invaluable to me. So, I thanked him. And I thank you too bgas ever so much for answering for me. I don't know what I'd ever do without you here on this board.

[bgas]

Off Topic: I was being polite to Wee Helper. It was a clever post and invaluable to me. So, I thanked him. And I thank you too bgas ever so much for answering for me. I don't know what I'd ever do without you here on this board.

Thank you; Thank you very much!

[The Shift]

Hey Chris, I'm done talking with you. I'm done with the topic. Discussing topics with an obsessive is just not possible. It always leads to arguments. I hate arguing over things that I have no control over. So obsess to you heart's content. I'm sorry I even posted.

This thread was brought to you by Kleenex!
 

Clever! and it wasn't even directed at you. Your contribution is ever so invaluable. Thank you!

As bgas says, this is an open forum, and I'm tuning in here several times a day for the latest on the 2011 Smile story, as I guess as many of us. I was simply first to make the comment so many of us were thinking!

PMs work very well, as does the Sandbox (so I'm told, I never go there) for the personal stuff.

Nevertheless, I'm glad the post was of value. I'd like to think we all learned something.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Ok guys...let's chill with the snarkiness. Not everybody is going to agree on Smile, or really anything else BB related. Please remember to respect each other.

[Jonathan Blum]

Can I just pop in to add my voice to the "add voices" side of things?

Not for the "finished" album, I think; there's space for purists to have at least some things their own way.  But we're talking about a big multi-disc box set full of alternate and variant versions -- in no way does it hurt to have *more* versions of things to put alongside.  And having new alternatives which people can splice in if they want, creating yet *more* different arrangements of the work, is absolutely in keeping with the "Smile" experience we fans have been having for the past few decades... the mash-uppiest, rearrangiest, inauthenticest, roll-your-own-iest bag-o-musical-tricks in all of modern pop music.

More to the point?  This is our only chance to hear Mike Love try to do the pirate rap from "Holidays".

We owe this to future generations.

Cheers,
Jon Blum
(remember, Brian wanted this to be *funny*!)

[Catbirdman]

... having new alternatives which people can splice in if they want, creating yet *more* different arrangements of the work, is absolutely in keeping with the "Smile" experience we fans have been having for the past few decades... the mash-uppiest, rearrangiest, inauthenticest, roll-your-own-iest bag-o-musical-tricks in all of modern pop music.

More to the point?  This is our only chance to hear Mike Love try to do the pirate rap from "Holidays".

What a great post!! I couldn't agree more. SMiLE is the original mash-up.

The thought of Mike doing the pirate rap has made my night. And I bet Melinda could do a rousing turn at "I Wanna Be Around" too.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Can I just pop in to add my voice to the "add voices" side of things?

No sir, you may not.  

But thanks for asking, we value your custom.