Smile Box set: Ghost melodies, clues, hints, and new mysteries

[mammy blue]

But hang on... this so-called 'new Worms melody' just does NOT rhythmically fit the verse. There aren't enough syllables left in the lyrics to fit the line, or alternatively, there are too many rhythmic spaces in the line for the lyrics to fill.

Here is a link from someone at the SH board. Try listening to this:

Link edited by moderator

[hypehat]

Matt's right, I made that point in the other thread. That example is really, if it's anything, and not just Brian goofing off, a counterpoint. The BWPS really works for the 'steamroller' effect of the track anyway.

[rab2591]

I don't see how the Worms melody in the box can be so easily dismissed by some people as a joke or throwaway when it's so melodic and intricate compared to the drone we hear on BWPS.

For those with the Pet Sounds boxset, start listening at the 1:30 mark of the 'Caroline, No' tracking session. Brian sings almost that exact same melody as this 'Do You Like Worms' bit - while showing the tempo of the track to the session musicians.

This melody riff could be the actual melody for DYLW, or it could just be a melody Brian sang when the mood suited him.

[mammy blue]

Well, at the very least, I feel like we have a cool alternative melody for Worms. We've got old Brian singing the BWPS melody, and 1966 Brian just singing this one, so why not enjoy both?

[mammy blue]

For those with the Pet Sounds boxset, start listening at the 1:30 mark of the 'Caroline, No' tracking session. Brian sings almost that exact same melody as this 'Do You Like Worms' bit - while showing the tempo of the track to the session musicians.

He also sings the melody of Caroline No to the tempo at another point. The difference from that noodling vocal you cite is that the DYLW count in is an intricate melody that fits the chords exactly. You know what? We're all going to believe whatever we want to believe, so I'll let it go.

[hypehat]

.......but not the lyrics 

[mammy blue]

Frankly, the melody is more important to me than the lyrics. Besides, have any of us ever actually seen the original lyric sheets for Worms? Maybe there was more to it at one point.

[pixletwin]

Brian sings: "Once-UP-on-the-SAND-wich-isles-the-DES-o-da-dee". THAT fits OK. But that means you'd have THIS with the finished lyrics:

The issue there is that Brian trails off and we don't have the complete melody.

Except that we do have the complete melody. It's in the violins a few tracks later playing pizzicato.

[Joshilyn Hoisington]

Brian sings: "Once-UP-on-the-SAND-wich-isles-the-DES-o-da-dee". THAT fits OK. But that means you'd have THIS with the finished lyrics:

The issue there is that Brian trails off and we don't have the complete melody.

Except that we do have the complete melody. It's in the violins a few tracks later playing pizzicato.

Do you have the exact track/timing for this?

[Iron Horse-Apples]

But hang on... this so-called 'new Worms melody' just does NOT rhythmically fit the verse. There aren't enough syllables left in the lyrics to fit the line, or alternatively, there are too many rhythmic spaces in the line for the lyrics to fill.

Here is a link from someone at the SH board. Try listening to this:

Link edited by moderator

I have to say that fits the backing vocals perfectly. I haven't got the box yet, and that's the first time I heard this new vocal. This feel really right to me.

Just listen to the way the new melody harmonises with the high voice on the BV's.  From a musicians perspective this  works really well.

I always thought those backgrounds were a bit on the simple side until I heard this new melody on top. The magic of Brian Wilson strikes again. Simplicity hiding complexity.

[hypehat]

Brian sings: "Once-UP-on-the-SAND-wich-isles-the-DES-o-da-dee". THAT fits OK. But that means you'd have THIS with the finished lyrics:

The issue there is that Brian trails off and we don't have the complete melody.

Except that we do have the complete melody. It's in the violins a few tracks later playing pizzicato.

Do you have the exact track/timing for this?

I think he means False Barnyard..... There's no pizzicato violins on Worms, right?!

[Matt Bielewicz]

I've been away from the board for a few hours and I see someone posted something by way of proof towards the 'this is the original Worms melody' argument, but the link is gone. Can someone kindly Point Me to a place where I might hear this?

Thanks. And while I'm 'here'... just because the melody Brian sings there in the Worms session is 'more complex' than the one we know from BWPS isn't, to my mind, any kind of argument that strengthens the case for it being 'the real Worms melody'. It just means that the melody he sang during a Worms session, possibly solely to demonstrate tempo and rhythm, is twistier and more complex than the one we ended up with on the BWPS verse. Which doesn't tell me anything at all, but as ever, YMMV...

Meanwhile, I need to give that Holidays session a closer listen. I didn't hear ANYTHING by way of missing melodies on that sucker when I breezed through it the other day...!

MattB

[Jonas]

I'm really thinking it was the original vocal melody. Shame he doesn't finish the last half of it it'd have been nice if this was around before BWPS as to jog his memory.

This made me think, did Brian/Darian have this recording when they were working on BWPS? Would have made a huge difference, I love that melody

[Micha]

I don't see how the Worms melody in the box can be so easily dismissed by some people as a joke or throwaway when it's so melodic and intricate compared to the drone we hear on BWPS.

I don't see how that should annoy you.

I see it as an answer vocal line, too, BTW.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I don't see how the Worms melody in the box can be so easily dismissed by some people as a joke or throwaway when it's so melodic and intricate compared to the drone we hear on BWPS.

I don't see how that should annoy you.

I see it as an answer vocal line, too, BTW.

An answer vocal line to what? The melody that was written nearly 40 years later?

[Wirestone]

An answer vocal line to what? The melody that was written nearly 40 years later?

It has generally been supposed that the BWPS melody line was vintage. It was reported, IIRC, that Brian began to sing it almost immediately to the Worms track.

I have never seen speculation that the Roll Plymouth Rock melody came from 2003 until this very thread.

This made me think, did Brian/Darian have this recording when they were working on BWPS? Would have made a huge difference, I love that melody

We have no idea if they did or not. Brian may well have rejected it, as he rejected He Gives Speeches and Darian's attempts to piece together The Elements.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

It wouldn't be the first time there were two melodies for a BB song.

The "new" melody fits the track better and is more fully realised.

And there is also the possibility that Brian remembered it wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, the boxset melody is now the definitive melody, for me anyway.

It is pure SMiLE

[Chocolate Shake Man]

An answer vocal line to what? The melody that was written nearly 40 years later?

It has generally been supposed that the BWPS melody line was vintage. It was reported, IIRC, that Brian began to sing it almost immediately to the Worms track.

I have never seen speculation that the Roll Plymouth Rock melody came from 2003 until this very thread.

Well, I think that this box set certainly casts serious doubts on that supposition. And now there is certainly evidence that there was a melody that existed in 1966 different from the one heard in 2004, and there is absolutely no evidence that the 2003 melody existed anytime before Brian sang it. Let's be fair here, he almost immediately sang "Barnyard Billy loves his chickens" too.

I love BWPS, but there is a desperate desire to believe that a lot of the stuff Brian came up with for it was vintage. Using the Fire Breaks vocals in Fire, vintage. Just putting a string section on Surf's Up section 2, vintage. You even hear people breaking the ruels of rational logic by asking questions as unfounded as, "Well, how do you know he wouldn't have done it like that?" As soon as someone asks a question like that, you know that he or she is not prepared to engage rationally.

[Matt Bielewicz]

BUT.

THE.

LYRICS.

DO.

NOT.

FIT!!!

Yes, you can make the line Brian sings at the session fit over the part 1 verse section, absolutely. It goes well rhythmically, too. I see over at Hoffman, someone called 'The Zodiac' has now edited it in exactly the way I tried to write it out above, to *make* it fit (his link is at: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=7104312&postcount=817 Is that guy over here too? Paging the Zodiac...!) There are also various other attempts to make it fit linked in that thread, none of which work as well, in my opinion.

But - and here's my point - the finished lyrics do NOT fit that melody, as I said above. There is a 66-vintage VDP lyric sheet for this sucker, Frank Holmes had it, and Darian and Brian used it, or a copy of it, to get the lyrics for BWPS, and when they couldn't read Van Dyke's handwriting on the 'Beaded Cheering Indians' line, that was supposedly what caused Brian to ring Van Dyke and get him in on the project in 2003. So this is a lyric sheet with a solid history.

My two cents - this can't be considered definitive. It just can't. It feels to me like loads of people are jumping in just because this 'invalidates' part of BWPS to their way of thinking, which pleases them in some way.

Sigh. Still, if we all had the same reaction, that would be dull, I guess...

MattB

[Wirestone]

The "new" melody fits the track better and is more fully realised.

Are you kidding? It doesn't fit! That's part of what has caused so much discussion here. And fully realized? We're talking about one-half of a single line of lyric! It's like saying you know how God Only Knows goes by hearing a hobo sing the words "I may not always love you." It's suggestive, sure, but it sure ain't realized.

As far as I'm concerned, the boxset melody is now the definitive melody, for me anyway.

Half of one line of a lyric. Is now the definitive verse melody. Really. Really?

I love BWPS, but there is a desperate desire to believe that a lot of the stuff Brian came up with for it was vintage. Using the Fire Breaks vocals in Fire, vintage. Just putting a string section on Surf's Up section 2, vintage.

Desperate desire? Really? IIRC, I think most people at the time wanted to think that Brian was more engaged in 2003, rather than just remembering stuff from the 60s. That was certainly my hope.

You even hear people breaking the ruels of rational logic by asking questions as unfounded as, "Well, how do you know he wouldn't have done it like that?" As soon as someone asks a question like that, you know that he or she is not prepared to engage rationally.

I think rationality is a peculiar word to use when  some folks here are inflating a half-line of lyric sung a capella in a tracking session into some grand imaginary version of DYLW.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

BUT.

THE.

LYRICS.

DO.

NOT.

FIT!!!

Yes, you can make the line Brian sings at the session fit over the part 1 verse section, absolutely. It goes well rhythmically, too. I see over at Hoffman, someone called 'The Zodiac' has now edited it in exactly the way I tried to write it out above, to *make* it fit (his link is at: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=7104312&postcount=817 Is that guy over here too? Paging the Zodiac...!) There are also various other attempts to make it fit linked in that thread, none of which work as well, in my opinion.

But - and here's my point - the finished lyrics do NOT fit that melody, as I said above.

Well, the melody kind of trails off a little, so it's hard to really say for sure.

My two cents - this can't be considered definitive. It just can't. It feels to me like loads of people are jumping in just because this 'invalidates' part of BWPS to their way of thinking, which pleases them in some way.

In other words, you're ignoring the part of my post where I say that I love BWPS?

[rab2591]

Matt and Wirestone have hit the nail on the head.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Desperate desire? Really? IIRC, I think most people at the time wanted to think that Brian was more engaged in 2003, rather than just remembering stuff from the 60s. That was certainly my hope.

Yeah, at the time, certainly so. And I am not making a sweeping statement. But there are quite a few people on this board who have suggested precisely what I said.

I think rationality is a peculiar word to use when  some folks here are inflating a half-line of lyric sung a capella in a tracking session into some grand imaginary version of DYLW.

No, but if you listen to it, it sounds he's quite confident about that melody, does he not? He's counting out the beat to see how fast he wants it, and he's singing along with it to get that beat right. Seems to be a pretty case closed example.

[Wirestone]

No, but if you listen to it, it sounds he's quite confident about that melody, does he not? He's counting out the beat to see how fast he wants it, and he's singing along with it to get that beat right. Seems to be a pretty case closed example.

I think he's confident in giving an example to a musician. I mean, Murry Wilson is pretty confident when he's coaching the boys on "Help Me Rhonda." But I wouldn't want to use his talk back examples to reconstruct the song.

My bickering aside, I would love to hear someone create a grand imaginary version of DYLW incorporating the box set melody in some way. You'd have to recut the vocals, I think, but it could be really cool.

[Dunderhead]

I think the part brian was singing would have been in the final song. It fits the song.