BWPS: How much input did Brian have?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Holy old topic, Batman!


Seriously, though, IIRC turns out nothing of real value was on them.

[pixletwin]

Didn't it turn out that it was just a safety of something still in the vaults?

[hypehat]

Dre wins.

[Alan Smith]

Holy old topic, Batman!


Seriously, though, IIRC turns out nothing of real value was on them.

Yep, that's the go, apparently.

I recall one of the TSS players expressing (in writing or in interview) disappointment when he finally heard the acetates - but I can't remember/locate the source doc.

Andrew G. Doe once posted:
Durrie's acetates were auditioned: that nothing on the box was sourced from them should say something about what was found to be on them.

[Julia]

I think this rehashing is interestng f the latecomers. Yes, Brian did tell me in 1981 that Smile was meant to be 3 movements. Two were sequenced in 1966. The Elements was not fully conceptualized or done, and Brian did not finish it. I think that what happened is that the Boys voted Brian down on the movements concept, and Carl submitted an album list on December 10, 1966 to Capitol based on the BBs vote.

I think that there were some serious fights after the concept of movements got voted down, and I think Brian began a slow but steady decline into amphetamine dependence and eventual psychosis afterward. I think he never recovered from the shock of losing control of his group, and that is why, in my opinion, he never finished another album for The Beach Boys alone after that. He did work on songs, but really did not finish most of them either.

Smile as released is the original concept, and the 12 track album in December 1966 was but a shadow of Brian's vision.

The same thing happened to John Fogerty with CCR on Mardi Gras (?), and he never cut anything with CCR after that either.

But then why doesn't Brian or ANYONE else EVER talk about this? I dont doubt you heard what you heard, Im doubting that Brian told you the truth.

Why wouldn't Brian mention in interviews for BWPS "we resurrected my original idea for 3 movements" rather than say "we touched up the first two movements and ADDED a third"? Why would Darian say words to the effect of "after we grouped the first two themes together, what was left over became a makeshift elements suite"? How come none of the other BBs or members of Brian's inner circle have EVER mentioned this in all these decades? Mike Love's autobio, Anderle speaking candidly in the 80s and 90s, Vosse's comprehensive memoirs from 1967 and 1969? None of them thought this was important? None of the other BBs in their TSS essays? Not Van Dyke during all the times he's been interviewed or for BWPS publicity? (Actually Van has said he disliked the "symphony" and "movements" terminology, finding them pretentious and unhelpful--if anything that casts further doubt.)

Why has Brian never brought up this crucial, game-changing revelation in any 80s or 90s interview (like the 95 one where he's very forthcoming) or the TSS booklet? Why does every source make a point to list including GV on Smiley as "the first time Brian was outvoted" rather than this movement thing? How would that work on vinyl, would one of the movements be cut in half across both sides, or a double album but only 3 sides are used? What tracks are in each movement? This opens up so many holes that I think if you or Brian couldn't answer, it makes me even less inclined to believe it.

With all due respect, I think you've been duped and everyone else is too polite, or too invested in BWPS' claim to authenticity, to say it to your "face." I have nothing but respect for the positive relationship you've had with Brian and how you helped him find peace and happiness in a dark time. Im not trying to be a jerk or remove a "claim to fame" you feel you've had, hearing this secret "knowledge" from Brian. But Im on a kick right now of cutting through the myth and rumors to find the truth of what happened with SMiLE, IE I have no more tolerance for "he said she said" and "I remember hearing a thing once" stories that distort the historical record. For my own purposes and hopefully those of people that come after me, I think it's important we take things source by source and see what stacks up and what doesn't. I dont think this particular "clue" passes the smell test, for reasons I've outlined here and in another thread. If other people want to believe, that's on them, but I think we're overdue for someone who is less concerned with their standing among the insiders and willing to say the uncomfortable thoughts aloud which I can't be alone in thinking.

If Ive offended anyone Im sorry, but I think this needs to be said. We shouldn't weigh an insider's secondhand account from twenty years after the events in question over common sense and the otherwise overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. I'll accept my scolding now.

[Julia]

I think that what happened is that the Boys voted Brian down on the movements concept, and Carl submitted an album list on December 10, 1966 to Capitol based on the BBs vote.

Smiley Smile was Brian's passive aggressive response- a creative but fragmented statement showing the band what their vote had created. (...) The Beach Boys, in their vote, nixed the idea of a cantata or rock opera, or whatever you want to call it.

Do you think there was a group vote or are you certain there was one? This is conjecture.

(...)and they went out the window when the band took over Smile and turned it into a 12 track album of songs.

Where is the evidence that the 12 track plan ever got started? The Nov/ Dec unfinished tracks were left lying on the shelf and Brian moved his amphetamine-ridden attention to hours and hours of Heroes & Villains. We can rationalize that the band "resisted" and Brian half-heartedly tried to finish another hit single to "show them", but it was Brian's show all the way. If Carl & Co. had taken over Smile would have been finished in January.

Dancing Bear, Peter has been involved with the inner circle.  He has spoken at great length to all of the individuals involved.  He therefore has access to information not published in interviews, which I believe he's saving for a book someday.  What he is sharing is from those discussions.  It is not conjecture.  If Peter is posting it, he is posting something that someone at some point in the inner circle said.  Not saying it's the gospel, but it is better than the vague "something happened" that most books are stuck with.  

No, this attitude needs to die, like yesterday. This whole "oh they're insiders, they KNOW things! Their word is law because they had an unrecorded conversation twenty years after the fact that no one else has ever corroborated and doesn't gel with the rest of the hard evidence!" bs that we're meant to accept without question is lunacy. It's this nonsense approach that let Priore make up whatever he wants for 40 years and no one calls him on it--I reckon most if not almost all of the contradictions that prevent us from getting anywhere in our SMiLE dissections are due to the influence of Priore and his ilk making up bullshit "secret conversations with Brian" and everyone's too chickenshit to call them out in public. It has to end now. 

Dancing Bear is 100% accurate to press for more info, as the onus is on the one making the claim especially if it's a radically different claim than ANYTHING else ANYONE has ever said about how the sessions went down. I was disappointed to see DB back down when confronted with the time-honored "you're offending Brian/an insider with your skepticism!" line of attack that's been used so often to silence would-be productive inquiries. It's not disrespectful to Brian to point out things you dont like or dont think are authentic in BWPS. And if an insider makes a claim this radical, it's their job to convince us of its accuracy--they put that line of thought out there, they have to back it up or accept if it's too much of an ask with too little credibility.

After going down the line and reading all the SMiLE sources and sections of BBs books, I find that so many people larping as authoritative voices on the subject haven't read what they use to gatekeep other people and/or are just throwing around half-remembered secondhand stories as fact. There's never been a true, unbiased investigation where the sleuth isn't afraid to step on some toes, call some VIPs out for lying or passing along unsubstantiated conjecture as fact, dismissing anything that can't be backed up, however popular of a theory it is... Not saying Im that person, but Im trying my best in the absence of anyone else willing to risk the scorn of the masses by breaking down beloved self-perpetuating myths like this "three movement" hypothesis. If there's no hard evidence but Reum's word (who wasn't there in '66-'67), and it contradicts everything we know, it's never been brought up anywhere else by anyone, then it's useless hearsay. Im sorry, but it is and someone has to say it bluntly without caving to the pressure of pleasing "insiders." I've never been the most popular person so I dont mind being the lone voice of reason on this if that's what it takes.  

[BJL]

No, this attitude needs to die, like yesterday. This whole "oh they're insiders, they KNOW things! Their word is law because they had an unrecorded conversation twenty years after the fact that no one else has ever corroborated and doesn't gel with the rest of the hard evidence!" bs that we're meant to accept without question is lunacy. It's this nonsense approach that let Priore make up whatever he wants for 40 years and no one calls him on it--I reckon most if not almost all of the contradictions that prevent us from getting anywhere in our SMiLE dissections are due to the influence of Priore and his ilk making up bullshit "secret conversations with Brian" and everyone's too chickenshit to call them out in public. It has to end now.  

Dancing Bear is 100% accurate to press for more info, as the onus is on the one making the claim especially if it's a radically different claim than ANYTHING else ANYONE has ever said about how the sessions went down. I was disappointed to see DB back down when confronted with the time-honored "you're offending Brian/an insider with your skepticism!" line of attack that's been used so often to silence would-be productive inquiries. It's not disrespectful to Brian to point out things you dont like or dont think are authentic in BWPS. And if an insider makes a claim this radical, it's their job to convince us of its accuracy--they put that line of thought out there, they have to back it up or accept if it's too much of an ask with too little credibility.

After going down the line and reading all the SMiLE sources and sections of BBs books, I find that so many people larping as authoritative voices on the subject haven't read what they use to gatekeep other people and/or are just throwing around half-remembered secondhand stories as fact. There's never been a true, unbiased investigation where the sleuth isn't afraid to step on some toes, call some VIPs out for lying or passing along unsubstantiated conjecture as fact, dismissing anything that can't be backed up, however popular of a theory it is... Not saying Im that person, but Im trying my best in the absence of anyone else willing to risk the scorn of the masses by breaking down beloved self-perpetuating myths like this "three movement" hypothesis. If there's no hard evidence but Reum's word (who wasn't there in '66-'67), and it contradicts everything we know, it's never been brought up anywhere else by anyone, then it's useless hearsay. Im sorry, but it is and someone has to say it bluntly without caving to the pressure of pleasing "insiders." I've never been the most popular person so I dont mind being the lone voice of reason on this if that's what it takes.  

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I think you're confusing tact for agreement... These ideas haven't really entered the narrative and they don't really appear elsewhere. Rather than forcefully rebutting them, I think the fandom quietly discounted them. And the reason is obvious: if you tell someone who is or believes they're recounting a personal conversation that they're remembering wrong or are confused, the most likely result is that they'll just stop participating in your forum. And because this forum has always valued the participation of insiders, who, of course, do potentially have new or unknown information, the logical thing to do is to "sit quietly" so to speak. I know that back then you experienced maybe the worst side of this fandom, getting attacked for perfectly reasonable theories and run off just for participating. So I get why it would rankle that "insiders" get one treatment and you got another. But I also think a certain element of just letting go of things is necessary to make a forum like this work, because anyone can post and people have some pretty out there ideas, sometimes...

[guitarfool2002]

There's never been a true, unbiased investigation where the sleuth isn't afraid to step on some toes, call some VIPs out for lying or passing along unsubstantiated conjecture as fact

Julia, yes there has been. And not specific to Smile, but for other incidents in the band's history where the "insiders" and VIP's you speak of were passing around false information. And by false I mean information that was passed up the ladder to firsthand participants who said it was false. And some of that happened with people who you have described here in your writings over the past few months as trusted sources.

So I don't want to get into it again, but I'll say again such scenarios did in fact happen and these people you speak of did get called out.

And I will say about the happenings of December 1966: I do not remember who it was, I don't think it was Peter Reum, but I did also hear that there was a band/family meeting in December 1966 that was not positive. I can't say what it was about, I don't have any clue if it was about the sequencing and banding of the proposed Smile album, but I just have to say that I also heard about a 12/66 group meeting that was apparently very intense and which, if we just look at the Smile timeline of events from December 1966 to January 1967, served to help change the trajectory of the album and the project itself going into 1967. Please check the timeline and you'll see clearly where such a break in the momentum happened.

I'm as mad at myself for not notating this better, for not remembering it better, or for putting something out there with sketchy details and little to go on. I don't like to do that...but I wanted to add to all of this that I also heard of something BIG that happened within the group and family in December 1966, and it is simply not widely reported on and hasn't been  for years after the fact. The next generation of sleuths will have to pick up that torch and run with it I guess, before it's too late and everyone who was actually involved is gone.

If there were more detail, I'd add it to my and Don Malcolm's extensive writings and thoughts on the events of May and June 1967 in the crucial events and meetings that affected the trajectory of Smile the most. Alas, such detail isn't there enough to be definitive, and I just can't remember where I heard about that 12/66 meeting. But I definitely did hear about it, and it was apparently a big one.  

[BJL]

And I will say about the happenings of December 1966: I do not remember who it was, I don't think it was Peter Reum, but I did also hear that there was a band/family meeting in December 1966 that was not positive. I can't say what it was about, I don't have any clue if it was about the sequencing and banding of the proposed Smile album, but I just have to say that I also heard about a 12/66 group meeting that was apparently very intense and which, if we just look at the Smile timeline of events from December 1966 to January 1967, served to help change the trajectory of the album and the project itself going into 1967. Please check the timeline and you'll see clearly where such a break in the momentum happened.

I'm as mad at myself for not notating this better, for not remembering it better, or for putting something out there with sketchy details and little to go on. I don't like to do that...but I wanted to add to all of this that I also heard of something BIG that happened within the group and family in December 1966, and it is simply not widely reported on and hasn't been  for years after the fact. The next generation of sleuths will have to pick up that torch and run with it I guess, before it's too late and everyone who was actually involved is gone.

If there were more detail, I'd add it to my and Don Malcolm's extensive writings and thoughts on the events of May and June 1967 in the crucial events and meetings that affected the trajectory of Smile the most. Alas, such detail isn't there enough to be definitive, and I just can't remember where I heard about that 12/66 meeting. But I definitely did hear about it, and it was apparently a big one.  

I mean, December is when the Cabinessence blow up happens, isn't it? At or just after the December 6 vocal session? Or am I misremembering... But my understanding is that there was open tension between Brian and Mike at those December vocal sessions. Whether there was a "formal meeting" seems like a sort of odd thing to wonder over, because the whole band was basically continuously recording vocals from Nov. 30 to Dec. 27, and on top of that, it was Christmas time so there would have been Christmas parties and get togethers with extended family, I assume. So it's not like there would be a need to organize an official meeting, they're basically spending more time together than apart that month.

Crazy that Good Vibrations hits number one December 10... but I guess, from Mike's perspective, that was the whole point. He could write relatable lyrics for Brian's experiments, so why were they singing these crazy nonsensical songs!

[Julia]

Julia, yes there has been. And not specific to Smile, but for other incidents in the band's history where the "insiders" and VIP's you speak of were passing around false information. And by false I mean information that was passed up the ladder to firsthand participants who said it was false. And some of that happened with people who you have described here in your writings over the past few months as trusted sources.

Is this referring to VDP accusing Taylor of giving the Beatles a sneak peak at SMiLE? Or the KHJ premiere of Heroes story having a bunch of holes in it (I remember seeing that thread back in the day, havent unearthed it yet) or something else? I'd love to know more--I truly would. Im not invested in the sanctity of anyone's particular account--if Vosse, or Anderle or whoever got things wrong I'd like to know.

Or is this about Daro? Because that guy's "mistake" I think was he went too far. ("All of Brian's best work was because of, or about me and my wife!") Even the most sycophantic fans knew that was bs and didn't mind calling him out after what he said about Marilyn, probably the most innocent person in the entire BB story.

And I will say about the happenings of December 1966: I do not remember who it was, I don't think it was Peter Reum, but I did also hear that there was a band/family meeting in December 1966 that was not positive. I can't say what it was about, I don't have any clue if it was about the sequencing and banding of the proposed Smile album, but I just have to say that I also heard about a 12/66 group meeting that was apparently very intense and which, if we just look at the Smile timeline of events from December 1966 to January 1967, served to help change the trajectory of the album and the project itself going into 1967. Please check the timeline and you'll see clearly where such a break in the momentum happened.

If it happened, it happened. I just want to know more and see that the proof goes beyond one person's account from 20 years later is all. (I can't help but state my opinions bluntly and perhaps aggressively, it's the debate club in me.) I have no particular investment in seeing SMiLE a certain way, and in fact I'd be open to the thought that Brian wanted movements with intersecting tracks, repeated leitmotifs and spoken word interludes between cuts stitching it all together. (As I've said elsewhere, to some extent an insider saying this even strengthens the argument for some of my pet theories in fact--just with the elements as part 2 and getting split in half rather than Cycle of Life, as is so often done in fanmixes.) But I just need to see more proof before we throw out so much of what (we thought?) we knew.

That said, you spoke of a timeline, is there any particular thread or website or do you just mean look at the sessionography? If the latter, I promise you I have done so many times and know about the dramatic shift to the singles like anyone else. I had thought this was because of Anderle telling Brian he needed a single for BRI. Could that be what this meeting was about? And/or the group telling Brian "stop playing around, stop recording every new idea that pops in your head, we need an album NOW, so pick twelve songs to focus on and get it done ASAP"? Because in the absence of any "pro-movements" evidence, that's what makes the most sense to me considering what other people have said.

Im curious as well, if this meeting happened and it was about the structure of the album, and it wasn't about Anderle needing a single for BRI, why does no one from any camp talk about it? You have to admit it's a big ask unless there's more than a second-hand account to go by.

I'm as mad at myself for not notating this better, for not remembering it better, or for putting something out there with sketchy details and little to go on. I don't like to do that...but I wanted to add to all of this that I also heard of something BIG that happened within the group and family in December 1966, and it is simply not widely reported on and hasn't been  for years after the fact. The next generation of sleuths will have to pick up that torch and run with it I guess, before it's too late and everyone who was actually involved is gone.

All I can say is I hope the truth is revealed one way or another. If there's a vintage diary of Brian's saying "actually I want SMiLE to be He Gives Speeches, Holidays, 20 minutes of faucets and toilet flushing and then 20 minutes of Shortenin' Bread riffs" I'd certainly be disappointed and go on preferring to listen to my own fanmixes but I'd admit "the evidence disproves my theories, case closed, this is what '66 SMiLE would've been." If you find where you read about that meeting I'd really like to see it for myself, but in the absence of more detail, I'm betting that it was either about Anderle wanting the single, the Boys wanting Brian to quit farting around ("lets put forks clashing on plates in the album! let's put a taxi cabber talking on there! let's put water sounds on it! let's use expensive studio time to record comedy sketches!") and tell them what SMiLE was gonna be and what work was essential asap because Capitol was breathing down everyone's neck. That's what makes the most sense to me unless I see evidence to the contrary.

If there were more detail, I'd add it to my and Don Malcolm's extensive writings and thoughts on the events of May and June 1967 in the crucial events and meetings that affected the trajectory of Smile the most. Alas, such detail isn't there enough to be definitive, and I just can't remember where I heard about that 12/66 meeting. But I definitely did hear about it, and it was apparently a big one.  

Is that a thread on this forum or a separate website? Id love to see a link otherwise I guess I gotta go digging through the rest of the forums old threads...

[Julia]

VDP has also gone on record to say he didn't hear the "fire" music until 2003, in Brian's music room with Brian and Darian.

So I seriously doubt that VDP left the project because he didn't like Fire, or because of what went on in those sessions....the man himself says he was pushed out (by Mike Love) before they even began work on the Elements suite.

I'm singling this post out to ask: anyone know where VDP said this? The only significant ancillary piece of BWPS media I have yet to commentate on is the concert booklet (which I now own) is it in there or a separate interview? Ive not seen him say such a thing though I dont necessarily doubt it. But if there's a significant interview of his that I missed I'd really like to see it for obvious reasons.

Also, if it just took a vote to usurp Brian's authority as producer and change the fundamental course of an album [which the Boys allegedly never liked anyway but Brian's soul depended on] why would Brian then later be able to fundamentally scrap the whole project [which the Boys allegedly now gained control of and endorsed but Brian was bullied to accept] over the objections of the Boys, to not fundamentally scrap SMiLE, to the point of nearly breaking up the group [Brian's 1967/68 words]?  Why didn't they just vote Brian down then?

I propose [again] it is because Brian didn't ask or care what the Boys [or VDP or Capitol or...] wanted, he did his thing over any objections and the Boys stood by his choices even as and after  those choices became increasingly affected by Brian's illness and addictions.

I really admire your relentless drive for the truth, Cam. (I know he doesn't post here anymore but Im saying this for posterity and in case word gets back to him). Looking through these old threads, I think yours and SJS' contributions tend to be among the best consistently. You may be the greatest amateur researching in this "field" and it's a shame you never wrote a book about SMiLE because I think your efforts are worthier of printed media than some of the clowns who did get published. One of the best contributors this and the Smile Shop ever had.

[Julia]

I don't get the obsession with the acetates.   It's nice to have more stuff, but can you really say that's what would have wound up on the final any more than what's on the other outtakes?   I don't think the fact they wound up as acetates makes it necessarily more likely that's what the final would have been.  Plus, no, I doubt they would be in good shape.  It would have more value if the master tapes they were cut from could be located, otherwise it would be scratchy listening.  It's also not fair that people have bothered Durrie Parks about this.  She owes Brian Wilson fans absolutely nothing.  It's to her credit that she hasn't sought a secondary alimony by selling them off.  Plus, we have no idea what the circumstances were in her divorce.  It might be a painful thing for her.

I think the fact that Brian drove to an emergency room during the making of BWPS speaks for itself.  I don't blame him at all for not wanting a Smile boxed set.  If Brian doesn't want it, it's good enough for me.  No matter what his reasons are, and I don't think BRI and lawsuits are the reasons. 

Frankly, I'm kind of surprised by the lack of interest some fans seem to have in vintage "Smile" material. Just as it serves no purpose to place the 2004 BWPS in the context of what the 66/67 recordings "could have been", I also don't see any point in placing the original recordings in the context of what the 2004 BWPS ended up being. In other words, I don't care whether the original recordings reflect what might have been released back then or what ended up being released in 2004.

My interest in the original "Smile" recordings has nothing to do with a "finished" album. It has to do with the fact that there is a huge cache of recordings made in 1966-67 by Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys during their creative peak, and a lot of this material has never been released or even bootlegged. To suggest that it's all just unfinished outtakes ignores the history of the Beach Boys, in which often times great stuff went unreleased. It also ignores the simple historical significance of the recordings.

As for the acetates, they *may* contain material not on any tapes in the archives. The acetates are likely historically important. Again, it doesn't matter whether the acetates reflect what could or would have been actually released. It's about Brian/BB recordings (and in some cases, actual compositions or variations of compositions) that we haven't heard.

Also, while the acetates most likely would not sound pristine, nobody knows for sure. Acetates properly stored and rarely played back then could still sound pretty good. Listen to the "Love Me Do" outtake on the Beatles "Anthology 1". That's an acetate from 1962, and it sounds like it could have come from a tape.

Somebody else mentioned the possibility of a "Smile" boxed set being one of the things offered on the upcoming beachboyscentral.com website, but I would think that while most archival BB material does have relatively limited appeal worth offering via the internet, a "Smile" set would be easy to launch as a mainstream release through Capitol.

It was always assumed by many that Brian was blocking a "Smile" archival release over the years because the whole subject was too sensitive. Given that he has now recorded a new version of the album and performed it probably 50-75 times in 2004-2005, I don't think the old excuse holds much water. It seems to me, and I'm just speculating, that assuming Brian is the only one holding such a release up (I've seen no evidence that the other BB's are opposed to such a release; at most, I would think the other BB's would want some input along the lines of Mike Love's booklet essay in the PS Sessions set), his unwillingness to go along with such a release has nothing to do with legalities and everything to do with the typical group politics.

Given what has gone down in the last few years, I still think a "Smile" boxed set of some sort is likely in the next few years. Maybe Capitol and their crack anniversary marketing team will motivate Brian to allow a 40th Anniversary "Smile" release.

I agree 100% and frankly I think the lack of curiosity, of respect, of desire to preserve the historical record (whatever it may reveal) is pretty unbecoming of some people. That's the nicest way I can say it. In my experience, a lot of people have a shocking lack of intellectual curiosity about things like this. You talk about the tragedy of the lost library of Alexandria and some "Im very smart" edgelord chimes in "durr, it's not like the guide to landing on the moon was in there!" (Actual quote from someone I heard). It's like, yeah, but there'd be lost philosophical treatises that might change how we think about things, or lost plays that are great works of art, instructions on how to make triremes (lost info), Carthaginian histories written by actual Phoenicians (we only know what their enemies, the Romans/Greeks, said about them) and stuff we can't even fathom! But who cares about that right, they didn't know how to land on the moon so there's nothing they can teach us. People are just really freaking short-sighted and careless and even downright stupid sometimes. Sounds harsh but it's true--look who we picked to lead us, twice.

This whole bullshit "well we have the completed SMiLE, so why do we need to hear alt takes and lost arrangements/vocals?" is the height of willful ignorance to me and Im going to accuse at least some of the people pushing this line of thought of nefarious purposes. I think some people who are pushing a certain narrative of what SMiLE is, or trying to legitimize the "BWPS is the final word, screw that old stuff from the '60s" pov don't want competition. They worry that if we heard what might be missing that wasn't resurrected in 03 we may realize what an imperfect effort the "resurrection" actually was, with half-remembered info (the Worms lyrics) that's missing a lot of the flavor (the alt melody from TSS, probably a backing vocal part) that would've made SMiLE really special. And then if we ever hear all we missed out on, we might start to wonder "well, what else didn't Brian remember, what else did me miss out on, how else was the '60s album different to what we got?" and BWPS might start coming up short. Or, wildest case scenario, maybe we might hear something like a rough take of Air that isn't WC, or Veggies as a part of Heroes, or a comedy bit inserted between Wonderful and I Ran, that throws their entire preconceived notions into a tail-spin. Anyone who doesn't want us to hear as much vintage material as possible is, I think, pushing an agenda the same way "fans" who say the Nov 4 or Veggie Fight/George Fell sessions "don't count" because they don't like the implications. Just really disagreeable mindset to have, in any case.

Hell, some of us dont particularly care for BWPS, don't accept it as the final word and want whatever scraps we can get to play around with and make a more complete version of the 60s album. Is that ok with some of you? Like the whole "we have the final word, who cares about the missing pieces" is a dumb perspective objectively but even if it weren't, it doesn't speak for the rest of us.

[Julia]

Excellent question, and one to which everyone has their own preferred answer. I've a feeling the truth - whatever it may be, from "Brian did it all" to "Brian was just there for the cameras" (both manifestly untrue, of course) - will emerge in time. Applying the methods of Sherlock Holmes to the material of Brian Wilson is, at best, an exercise in frustration and driving down dead ends.

One thing that sould be writ large across the top of this, and every other page concerning this subject - from the go-get Darian has stated many times that the material performed live and on the CD was chosen because it would work best in a live context. This is a Smile, but not the Smile.

     I've only just now ventured to look at this topic, and I have no idea if I'll ever make it through more than these first few posts, especially seeing as how I just have to respond to the second post, which is by none other than my good friend Andrew!  Andrew, I'll admit that when Brian and Darian first started on this enterprise that the goal was to just cobble together a version that could be played live.  But from what I can see in the end product and from subsequent discussion and especially from the fact that Van Dyke Parks was brought in, I don't see any evidence that the SMiLE that was presented in concert is any less than a true attempt to FINISH the album!  Please show any other evidence that SMiLE 2004 might be watered down for a concert presentation only.  Were there parts that were left out because of the difficulty of playing?  If parts were left out, then why didn't they put them back into the CD version?  Sorry, Andrew, but this idea doesn't fly with me one bit.  As I said, it does look like they started it that way, but from all evidence I've seen is that the concept changed and they truly tried to finish SMiLE as best as they could.  Show me one part that was left out because you think it was too difficult to play or sing and maybe I'll change my mind.

           Love and merci,   Dan Lega

The actual liner notes for BWPS go out of their way to say that it's not the same album as it would've been in the '60s. Full stop, they say that. Once I finally saw that for myself I couldn't believe it, considering the thought is borderline blasphemy in some circles.

Also, LOL at the woman pulling the sexism card just because people told her she was wrong about something--happens every time. This thread was certainly a series of disagreeable arguments if I ever saw one

To answer the question of how much say Brian had in BWPS. I think some minor sequencing decisions, like Look after Wonderful were spontaneous, while most were saying "yeah sounds good" to Darian's suggestions. I don't think Brian really had it in him to go song by song and sequence the thing himself, but I don't think Darian did anything beyond the pale either. There's still a lot of Brian in the formulation even if he didn't do all the grunt work. It's even stated in a Priore book that the first two movements came together very quickly and naturally while Elements was constructed out of leftovers, but somehow it's become a persistent myth that the two vintage groupings were Americana/Elements while Cycle of Life was a new addition. Despite the fact that it's clearly the most cohesive segment musically and thematically but such is the power of Priore's misinformation...

I think some lyrics, lost musical parts etc were revived while others fell by the wayside. We got the droning Worms verse vocals but not the bouncier TSS revelation which was probably part of a "call and answer" backing vocal. Im willing to bet there's some wiped/lost tapes or degraded acetates (that a disturbing number of people dont care about) that would've had some revelations that blow our minds. I dont think we have nor will hear every melody or variation that Brian concocted in those halcyon days of Autumn '66.