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

[runnersdialzero]

Dur dur d'être bébé.

[Wirestone]

After a couple of days of thought -- and  a lot of ranting here -- I've actually nearly reversed my personal opinion.

It seems likely to me -- now -- that the "Worms" session melody is at least the first draft of a verse lyric. And the reason is listening to the PS box edit of the "Caroline, No" sessions. Yes, at 1:33 on the track, Brian sings some gibberish. But before that, he sings the exact melody line of Caroline, No, for much the same reason he's singing DYLW -- to check the tempo as he's instructing the musicians.

Much of my previous argument was based on how little we actually know. I decided I simply couldn't draw conclusions with such sparse information. But the "Caroline" session is not only real information -- it's directly pertinent. And actually hearing this earlier example, where he does almost the same thing -- well, it makes it hard to argue forcefully that the melody means nothing at all.

Now, even though I've changed my personal opinion, I don't necessarily think any differently about the wider issue. Information is still scanty. We can't know for certain what the melody line means, or how it was going to be used. That info seems to be, sadly, missing. But yeah, I have basically changed my mind.

Commence throwing things at me. The bruises will heal my conscience.

[Austin]

No disrespect to the good people here, but to these ears it just sounds like a dude still auditioning ideas in his head.

The incompleteness and off-the-cuff delivery -- which, unlike the "Caroline" stuff, isn't necessarily directed at the musicians -- suggests it's a fragment he was kicking around as one of many possibilities and, like a lot of Smile, figured he would get around to finishing later.

[Micha]

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.

Brian's mind is creative. It is perfectly possible he made ALL of those melody lines up on the spot: Barnyard Billy, the 2003 melody, the melody on the 1966 session. That does not invalidate any of them.

I think there is just no way for us to know. We can only believe. I believe it's an answer line because this melody consumes the lyrics for a complete verse in the time of half a verse. I may use it that way when I make my next fan mix.

[runnersdialzero]

There's also the fact that these songs had likely been kicked around in his head for nearly 40 years by the time BWPS was being done. There was probably a better time in his life to grab these post-Smile ideas for said Smile songs out of him, but I'm sure some of them still existed and were remembered for BWPS. Shoot, plenty of people add onto songs they have released, so yeah.

[The_Holy_Bee]

Holy Bee, you are very wrong and should stop. What you just did makes no musical sense.

Will do! Apologies to the ears I've offended. Bad afternoon.  

EDIT: Further - awful as the mp3 I posted was, and having re-listened to it, it WAS awful, what I didn't expect was all-round support for a terrible idea. I did expect, and maybe I was foolish to do so, some basic civility, even on a message board.

I tried something, it didn't pan out. I put myself in a place for judgment, and I got it, so as I said, no offense taken. On the other hand, I wouldn't accept that kind of aggressive dismissal - and it reads as nasty, no matter how it was intended - from my mates, or someone I met for the first time chatting about the BBs at a bar, so I don't think I have to take it here. You could've said "Nice try, holy bee, but frankly it doesn't work. In fact, it makes the opposite point to the one you intended". Maybe "you are very wrong and should stop" meant the same thing. It reads very differently.

I'm 29 and have been online since the late 90's, and this is the first board I've ever tried to contribute to. I love the Beach Boys and I am over the moon about TSS. I like talking and theorizing about it. I don't think or claim to have a great musical sensibility. I don't think I am rude. I don't think I am stupid. But I clearly am too sensitive for what passes as acceptable banter round here, so I think it's only sensible to - to quote Hot Lips in Altman's MASH - "resign my commission".

I don't expect anyone else to be sorry about this. But before someone else who could contribute something to the ongoing conversation - and no doubt more usefully than I did - is driven away, either by thoughtlessness or (less charitably) the freedom to bully that 'net anonymity allows, try to remember - manners cost nothing.

Tygerbug, this isn't directed at you specifically - indeed, I appreciate your very gracious reply to me on the DYLW thread -  but a certain harshness seems to be standard practice on this board. No worries if that's what you guys enjoy, but I'm saddened to say I'm clearly not of the same opinion.

Now, If you'll excuse me, lurking is free and frankly, safer.

[The_Holy_Bee]

P.S. One thing before I go - Good God, this box set is glorious. Enjoy it.

[tygerbug]

  I apologize for my bluntness, but I felt that it needed to be flatly said that you were wrong here, and had proven the opposite of what you were trying to prove. The two tracks just don't go together, and having proven that, it was clear to me that you should stop with this line of thinking, period.

   It was an idea, you tried it, it didn't work, no harm done.

   I have only recently joined this board and I don't like people being jerks to each other on the internet either. I suppose we all contribute to that every now and then.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Come back Holy Bee.

This board needs the whole spectrum of human behaviour to work correctly.

[Matt Bielewicz]

I've had to be away from this thread for most of the weekend, but I'm quite glad I was while all the tempers flared and dischord was brokered, while points were made in anger and later retracted! I'm hoping things have calmed down enough now to try to summarise where we are with this.

As various attempts to line up the Brian session fragment with the backing track show, it's totally possible to get Brian's mumbled melody over the verse *track* just fine. When done as 'The Zodiac' did it on the Hoffman board (once again, see http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=7104312&postcount=817 ), it fits the backing track really well, rhythmically and musically. 'The Zodiac' made real in file form what I heard in my head right away when I first heard the 'mumbled melody', and I'm sure that was the experience of many others here too.

However, as the various Youtube performances show, it's much, much harder to get the known *lyrics* to fit that melody - you really have to crowbar the lyric in by futzing with the meter and the delivery. It's always possible to fit almost any lyric into any line by forcing syllables into a meter and ignoring the natural stresses and pronunciation of words, and my feeling is that that's what's needed here to make that lyric fit that melody. Props to the Holy Bee for bravely trying with the Worms lyric over the Holidays backing, but I personally find that delivery majorly unconvincing for exactly that reason - the stresses are all wrong and it sounds forced. Mind you, the Holy Bee's spirit of experimentation and enquiry is exactly the kind of thing we're *all* into doing here, even if I don't personally like the results on this occasion... so I say stick at it, Holy Bee. Your opinion and voice is needed here just as much as anyone else. That doesn't mean someone isn't going to call you a jerk here from time to time - that seems to be, sadly, how the Internet works, and is not how I would ideally like it either, but it's the Internet. It is what it is. Dust yourself down, stand up and keep going, I say.

Josh H's attempt sounds much better IMHO on the "Sandwich Isles/Social Structure" couplet, which just about works ("Once-UP-on-the-SAND-wich-isle thesocialstructuresteamed up-ONNNNN Hawa-IIii") although the 'social structure' part of the line suffers, has to be awfully rushed to make it work, and again the stresses have to fall in an odd sounding way to do it). But the Indians line completely resists such crowbar treatment. As far as I can make out, Josh didn't sing all of the words there to get around that problem (Mr H, please correct me if I'm being unfair here).

You could sing the "Ocean Liners/Beaded Indians" line as Josh sings the 'Sandwich Isle/Social structure' couplet, but this would be the result:

"Wa-VING-from-the-OC-ean line-ersbeadedcheering in-di-AAAAAANS behindus".

That... just does not sound good to my ears. But maybe that's just me.

Putting aside my subjective opinion on the merits and demerits of finding a delivery that makes the known lyrics work with the verse backing, the fact remains that the Brian-sung session melody snippet is incomplete. It can be completed and melded with the 2004 melody to fill the line, as Josh H has demonstrated, but that is instantly heading into the realms of speculative, 'fanmix'-style guesswork about how the line might be completed.

So, to summarise the facts: On the one hand, the 1966 session tapes offer a partial mumbled fragment that doesn't fit the whole verse, nor fit the required lyrics without meter strain. A 'fanmix' is required to complete this melody and make it fit the verse lyric, either by blending it with the 2004 melody, another SMiLE-era melody, or by just making something up.

On the other hand, from the 2004 live performances and the BWPS album, we have a BW-remembered, BW-sung melody that fits the meter, lyrics and track.

What's the difference? Well, one dates from 1966, the other one is of unknown (and possibly *unknowable*) creation date but was not actually heard in public until the 2004 live performances of DYLW.

Heading back into subjective opinion-land for a moment, I have to say that I like the mumbled melody too - it's sort of 'jaunty' and 'nautical' and cool. My heart would like it to be part of DYLW somewhere, but my reasoning brain keeps pointing out that it wasn't and isn't (Brian has had at least three major opportunities over the years to put that melody to the track and has still never used it). Also, the lyrics have to be completely mangled to make it work, and it needs 'fanmixing' to fill the line. Personally, I also quite like Josh's efforts on the 'Sandwich Isles/Social structure' couplet but don't think it works at all on the other one, and I'm already seeing other discussion on-line which describes what Josh created as a 'Frankenmelody'. I guess you really can't please all of the people, all of the time...!

Anyway, for all those reasons, balancing heart and head overall, and reaching a conclusion, I prefer the melody featured on BWPS. But as ever, YMMV...

Somewhere on this board, I'm sure Bill Tobelman is laughing, as I don't think there has ever been a better SMiLE-related illustration of how 'unknowable' a riddle SMiLE can be than this little fragment (correct me if I'm selling his theories short, but I believe Bill has said he believes SMiLE to be an ultimately indecipherable Zen riddle which hints occasionally at its deeper nature without ever giving up any of its secrets). We hear and like this snippet, but it doesn't make sense, doesn't fit with the other known facts about the track content, and we'll probably never know whether it was destined for the album or not or where it was supposed to go if it *was*. That's SMiLE in miniature, right there!

For a better conclusion to these ramblings, I'm going to borrow what Rab 2591 said, as I think he has already said everything that I could ever say or that ever needs to be said on this subject, earlier on in this thread:

"It is the melody or it isn't the melody. We will probably never know. And thus we shouldn't jump to conclusions about it. It is irrational to claim that it is definitive...but it is also irrational to claim it isn't.

At this point it is nothing more and nothing less than a melody Brian sings before the take."

All I can add to that is "Er... What HE said."

MattB

PS One final thought - it IS kind of cool that there is totally *new* SMiLE stuff to discuss in this fashion, ain't it?

PPS Having said that, zoom out from the specifics of this discussion a bit, and what do we have when you boil it down?

Poster A: "This part goes here! I feel strongly that this is how Brian might have done it back then."

Poster B: "No way, that sounds awful. Brian would never have done that in 1966. In 2004, maybe, but not 1966."

Poster A: "He so would too, and here's my downloadable fan mix to prove it. Doesn't that sound great?"

Poster B: "Jeez... that sucks"

Poster C: "It's awesome! That's going in my lineup"

Poster D: "I think this entire discussion sums up the ultimately ineffable nature of SMiLE, actually"

Poster B: "Yeah, maybe - but it still sucks"

In other words: pretty much like any on-line SMiLE discussion I've participated in since Autumn 1995. And I actually mean that in the fondest, nicest possible way, and in full recognition of the fact that at times, I have been Poster A, B, C, D, and pretty much any other letter of the alphabet you care to name...

[Boiled Egg]

I'd like to lob this perspective into the mix.

Brian is recording a song he recently wrote in this newly discovered fragment. He's trying to line up the tempo of the backing track, and, with Van sitting (presumably) just behind him in the control room, sings that fragment.

If it weren't the melody he'd written for DYLW, why on earth would he have sung it? There really is no reasonable explanation other than That's How It Goes.

With the BWPS version, it seems feasible to me that he remembered some backing vocals. SMiLE contains the most complex backing vocals the BBs ever recorded (hell, that 10-part combined chord and countermelody backing for the H&V verse is possibly the greatest backing vocal arrangement BW ever committed to tape) -- and his writing had a tendency to pile things on top of each other.

If you'd never heard the H&V melody, say, but heard that isolated backing vocal track (as on the original single), you'd be blown away, and would have trouble working out where another mleody could have fitted across it. And a glance at the lyric sheet would have got you nowhere. Likewise, if you'd heard one of the three combined countermelodies of the GOK fade, you'd have had trouble imagining either of the other two, and would have thought the job was a good 'un. Similarly, the GV chorus is made of three stacked melodies: Mike's one, following the bass line, the stacked 'good bup bup', and then the stacked high line. Each would be enough on its own if you didn't know the other two existed.

For my money, this was the melody BW wrote for DYLW, and he had stacks of bvs sloshing around with it. I've always thought, for such a supreme melodist as BW, that the BWPS 'melody' for DYLW/RPR is nothing of the sort -- it's practically static; something quite uncharacteristic for BW, especially at this period in his writing, when his melodies were prone to doing extraordinary things -- big reaches (Surf's Up, Cabinessence), difficult and very satisfying leaps (Wonderful), twists and switchbacks (Heroes And Villains, this DYLW melody, Vega-Tables).

I've often wondered whether BW recorded demos. F*** knows how you memorise Surf's Up or Wonderful without committing to either tape or paper. Astonishing writing.

If only, if only...

[desmondo]

I've had to be away from this thread for most of the weekend, but I'm quite glad I was while all the tempers flared and dischord was brokered, while points were made in anger and later retracted! I'm hoping things have calmed down enough now to try to summarise where we are with this.

As various attempts to line up the Brian session fragment with the backing track show, it's totally possible to get Brian's mumbled melody over the verse *track* just fine. When done as 'The Zodiac' did it on the Hoffman board (once again, see http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=7104312&postcount=817 ), it fits the backing track really well, rhythmically and musically. 'The Zodiac' made real in file form what I heard in my head right away when I first heard the 'mumbled melody', and I'm sure that was the experience of many others here too.

However, as the various Youtube performances show, it's much, much harder to get the known *lyrics* to fit that melody - you really have to crowbar the lyric in by futzing with the meter and the delivery. It's always possible to fit almost any lyric into any line by forcing syllables into a meter and ignoring the natural stresses and pronunciation of words, and my feeling is that that's what's needed here to make that lyric fit that melody. Props to the Holy Bee for bravely trying with the Worms lyric over the Holidays backing, but I personally find that delivery majorly unconvincing for exactly that reason - the stresses are all wrong and it sounds forced. Mind you, the Holy Bee's spirit of experimentation and enquiry is exactly the kind of thing we're *all* into doing here, even if I don't personally like the results on this occasion... so I say stick at it, Holy Bee. Your opinion and voice is needed here just as much as anyone else. That doesn't mean someone isn't going to call you a jerk here from time to time - that seems to be, sadly, how the Internet works, and is not how I would ideally like it either, but it's the Internet. It is what it is. Dust yourself down, stand up and keep going, I say.

Josh H's attempt sounds much better IMHO on the "Sandwich Isles/Social Structure" couplet, which just about works ("Once-UP-on-the-SAND-wich-isle thesocialstructuresteamed up-ONNNNN Hawa-IIii") although the 'social structure' part of the line suffers, has to be awfully rushed to make it work, and again the stresses have to fall in an odd sounding way to do it). But the Indians line completely resists such crowbar treatment. As far as I can make out, Josh didn't sing all of the words there to get around that problem (Mr H, please correct me if I'm being unfair here).

You could sing the "Ocean Liners/Beaded Indians" line as Josh sings the 'Sandwich Isle/Social structure' couplet, but this would be the result:

"Wa-VING-from-the-OC-ean line-ersbeadedcheering in-di-AAAAAANS behindus".

That... just does not sound good to my ears. But maybe that's just me.

Putting aside my subjective opinion on the merits and demerits of finding a delivery that makes the known lyrics work with the verse backing, the fact remains that the Brian-sung session melody snippet is incomplete. It can be completed and melded with the 2004 melody to fill the line, as Josh H has demonstrated, but that is instantly heading into the realms of speculative, 'fanmix'-style guesswork about how the line might be completed.

So, to summarise the facts: On the one hand, the 1966 session tapes offer a partial mumbled fragment that doesn't fit the whole verse, nor fit the required lyrics without meter strain. A 'fanmix' is required to complete this melody and make it fit the verse lyric, either by blending it with the 2004 melody, another SMiLE-era melody, or by just making something up.

On the other hand, from the 2004 live performances and the BWPS album, we have a BW-remembered, BW-sung melody that fits the meter, lyrics and track.

What's the difference? Well, one dates from 1966, the other one is of unknown (and possibly *unknowable*) creation date but was not actually heard in public until the 2004 live performances of DYLW.

Heading back into subjective opinion-land for a moment, I have to say that I like the mumbled melody too - it's sort of 'jaunty' and 'nautical' and cool. My heart would like it to be part of DYLW somewhere, but my reasoning brain keeps pointing out that it wasn't and isn't (Brian has had at least three major opportunities over the years to put that melody to the track and has still never used it). Also, the lyrics have to be completely mangled to make it work, and it needs 'fanmixing' to fill the line. Personally, I also quite like Josh's efforts on the 'Sandwich Isles/Social structure' couplet but don't think it works at all on the other one, and I'm already seeing other discussion on-line which describes what Josh created as a 'Frankenmelody'. I guess you really can't please all of the people, all of the time...!

Anyway, for all those reasons, balancing heart and head overall, and reaching a conclusion, I prefer the melody featured on BWPS. But as ever, YMMV...

Somewhere on this board, I'm sure Bill Tobelman is laughing, as I don't think there has ever been a better SMiLE-related illustration of how 'unknowable' a riddle SMiLE can be than this little fragment (correct me if I'm selling his theories short, but I believe Bill has said he believes SMiLE to be an ultimately indecipherable Zen riddle which hints occasionally at its deeper nature without ever giving up any of its secrets). We hear and like this snippet, but it doesn't make sense, doesn't fit with the other known facts about the track content, and we'll probably never know whether it was destined for the album or not or where it was supposed to go if it *was*. That's SMiLE in miniature, right there!

For a better conclusion to these ramblings, I'm going to borrow what Rab 2591 said, as I think he has already said everything that I could ever say or that ever needs to be said on this subject, earlier on in this thread:

"It is the melody or it isn't the melody. We will probably never know. And thus we shouldn't jump to conclusions about it. It is irrational to claim that it is definitive...but it is also irrational to claim it isn't.

At this point it is nothing more and nothing less than a melody Brian sings before the take."

All I can add to that is "Er... What HE said."

MattB

PS One final thought - it IS kind of cool that there is totally *new* SMiLE stuff to discuss in this fashion, ain't it?

PPS Having said that, zoom out from the specifics of this discussion a bit, and what do we have when you boil it down?

Poster A: "This part goes here! I feel strongly that this is how Brian might have done it back then."

Poster B: "No way, that sounds awful. Brian would never have done that in 1966. In 2004, maybe, but not 1966."

Poster A: "He so would too, and here's my downloadable fan mix to prove it. Doesn't that sound great?"

Poster B: "Jeez... that sucks"

Poster C: "It's awesome! That's going in my lineup"

Poster D: "I think this entire discussion sums up the ultimately ineffable nature of SMiLE, actually"

Poster B: "Yeah, maybe - but it still sucks"

In other words: pretty much like any on-line SMiLE discussion I've participated in since Autumn 1995. And I actually mean that in the fondest, nicest possible way, and in full recognition of the fact that at times, I have been Poster A, B, C, D, and pretty much any other letter of the alphabet you care to name...

Nice post Matt

[tygerbug]

  The 2004 version makes complete sense of the track, to my ears. The very heavy drums require a heavy melody. It all fits together perfectly. Nothing else is going to really fit as well.

   That little snatch of Brian singing sounds like a generic Beach Boy "answering" backing vocal that could have resulted in a jazzy, alternate take on the track, which is something Brian seems to have tried for basically every track on Smile .... Roll With Me Henry, that sort of thing.

[smackdaddy]

The confusion could have been easily avoided if only they hadn't edited out the part of the session tape where Van Dyke says "Brian, I've decided I hate my lyrics and want you to come up with the most convoluted phrasing scheme possible along with a melody that sounds like a castrato yodel so no one will listen to the track more than once."

[Matt Bielewicz]

Which boot is THAT on?














OK, OK, I'm kidding!



MattB

[mammy blue]

The confusion could have been easily avoided if only they hadn't edited out the part of the session tape where Van Dyke says "Brian, I've decided I hate my lyrics and want you to come up with the most convoluted phrasing scheme possible along with a melody that sounds like a castrato yodel so no one will listen to the track more than once."

Wow, for a Beach Boys fan to call that melody a castrato yodel is really rich. You all feel free to believe whatever you want. I think it fits the Hawaiian/Polynesian vibe of the verses perfectly. Horses for courses, as they say.

[Matt Bielewicz]

My horse is running on a course that says 'I think the mumbled melody is all shades of Hawaiian cool, too'. It's shaved into the grass of the final straight.

[mammy blue]

The main problem is that Brian doesn't give us the full melody line. Anything presented beyond those notes he sings on the tape is pure speculation.

[anazgnos]

Good discussion all.  Holy_Bee, please stick around.  Great posts from Matt and Boiled Egg.

Since nobody seems to have tried it yet, here's an attempt at demonstrating the "newly discovered melody as answer/response rather than main vocal line" theory.  Very crude.  Kind of works, but I don't know if it's a much more compelling idea than anything either suggested or presented thus fur.  I think the melody line he sings matches that "second" chord rather than the first, if that makes sense.

[runnersdialzero]

You guys have got it all wrong. I am 100% certain that this is how the melody fits into the verse:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/2/20/800088//doyoulikewormscorrectvocals.mp3

[mammy blue]

You guys have got it all wrong. I am 100% certain that this is how the melody fits into the verse:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/2/20/800088//doyoulikewormscorrectvocals.mp3

HAHAHA Awesome!!!!!!!

[Austin]

You guys have got it all wrong. I am 100% certain that this is how the melody fits into the verse:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/2/20/800088//doyoulikewormscorrectvocals.mp3

Sounds good to me.

[Micha]

You guys have got it all wrong. I am 100% certain that this is how the melody fits into the verse:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/2/20/800088//doyoulikewormscorrectvocals.mp3

You blew it, but it was fun!

[Matt Bielewicz]

Since nobody seems to have tried it yet, here's an attempt at demonstrating the "newly discovered melody as answer/response rather than main vocal line" theory.  Very crude.  Kind of works, but I don't know if it's a much more compelling idea than anything either suggested or presented thus fur.  I think the melody line he sings matches that "second" chord rather than the first, if that makes sense.

Now... THAT really works, in my opinion. And obviously, if the BWPS melody is carrying the lyric, the fact that the 'new' melody (which, of course, is possibly an older one...) can't rhythmically fit in all the words in doesn't actually matter!!

Still speculation, of course, but at least this suggestion WORKS!

MattB

PS And runners... for what you have done, may you be incarcerated in an echo chamber set to infinite regen feedback for the rest of your born days!! (only kidding...)

[37!ws]

maybe putting a fork in the DYLW road here, but...

Regarding the disputed melody line...first of all, first thing I thought of was actually one of the WIBN sessions (specifically, when he burps)...sounded very similar to his vocalizing then to kind of set the tempo. Similar pseudo-melody.

I'm wondering, though, how this outtake slipped by Midnight Beat/Sea of Tunes...

Didn't Darian have full access to the Smile tapes in the vault?? Certainly if it was "officially" believed to be THE melody, it would have been properly adapted in BWPS.

And speaking of Darian and his access...didn't he say that the melody for "Song for Children" came from a clarinet line he heard bleed through someone's headphones on the original session tapes??? Whatever happened to that, and how did it elude the box? Can anybody hear it???