the similarities between Smile and Sgt. Pepper

[rab2591]

I am awestruck at the similar themes, similar vocal styles, similar use of instruments throughout both of these albums. Here are a few that really caught my attention:

1. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band (intro) - it's interesting that Brian had never had an "intro to the album" until Smile. And neither did the Beatles (that I'm aware of). I know 'Prayer' and 'SPLHCB' are complete opposites musically, but that both Brian and The Beatles were thinking about intros for their albums is quite a coincidence.

2. She's Leaving Home - Both this and 'Wonderful' are about a girl finding her independence.

3. For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite - has the same vibe as Fire in places.

4. Within You Without You - the sitar is reminiscent of the Bouzouki played on the outro of Cabin Essence.

5. Good Morning Good Morning - animal sounds are nearly exactly like what Brian was going to use in Barnyard.

Anyone else notice similarities between these albums?

[leggo of my ego]

Glass Onion sounds like Getting Hungry.

[soniclovenoize]

I am awestruck at the similar themes, similar vocal styles, similar use of instruments throughout both of these albums. Here are a few that really caught my attention:

1. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band (intro) - it's interesting that Brian had never had an "intro to the album" until Smile. And neither did the Beatles (that I'm aware of). I know 'Prayer' and 'SPLHCB' are complete opposites musically, but that both Brian and The Beatles were thinking about intros for their albums is quite a coincidence.

2. She's Leaving Home - Both this and 'Wonderful' are about a girl finding her independence.

3. For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite - has the same vibe as Fire in places.

4. Within You Without You - the sitar is reminiscent of the Bouzouki played on the outro of Cabin Essence.

5. Good Morning Good Morning - animal sounds are nearly exactly like what Brian was going to use in Barnyard.

Anyone else notice similarities between these albums?

I don't know if I agree with #3 and #4. 

Kite and Fire seem to have opposite vibes, as Fire is ominous and Kite is whimsical.  Unless you mean specifically creative use of the studio to communicate a specific idea, I guess I can see that...

And idk, I think the arrangements on Within You Without You are just a continuation of what George was already interested in, stemming back from Norwegian Wood in 1965 and Love You Too from 1966.  George went all the way with the Indian arrangements; the Bouzouki was just an interesting instrument to add a new tonal character to the song, an otherwise red herring in the song.  A better comparison would be the ukelele on Lucy In The Sky or swordsmatle on Strawberry fields of the tambura on Getting Better. 

[rab2591]

Guess it depends on the vibe you get from Kite - it sounds ominous to me...I guess because I never liked the circus The instrumentals just seem to be rooted in something far removed from conventional music at the time, perhaps that's what I was getting at.

Though I'll agree with you about Within You Without You...nothing really coincidental between those two songs.

[soniclovenoize]

Do you have one of those irrational fears of clowns? 

[rab2591]

This fear is not irrational

[Niko]

Neither is fear of Billy Joel

[rab2591]

I told you that in confidence, Woodstock!

[guitarfool2002]

On the point about Within You Without You and Cabinessence, I think the importance of the orchestrations, arrangements, and specifically the roles given to certain instruments has to be looked at. And I think the way they were designed comes from two different musical places.

Cabinessence is one of Brian's crown jewels, one of the most creative and "best" productions he ever created. Likewise, Within You Without You is similar for George Harrison, but in different ways, and it allowed him to flourish musically and bring something brand new to his musical family, something which they had little or no working knowledge of and had to essentially learn from George.

Cabinessence's brilliance is in how Brian uses instruments to represent lyrical and historical concepts, as well as the more arcane from his own work. Let me list a few for consideration:

Fuzz bass: We can hear on the "Fire" sessions that Brian used the fuzz bass to play the role of the "fire", and he has other instruments putting out that fire on the recording. We hear him specifically spell all of this out in the studio sessions, directing how and when the musicians would "put out" the fire as played by the fuzz bass. In a similar way, Cabinessence touches on a practice of farmers setting fire to their fields of crops as part of their growing/harvesting process, and sure enough we hear fuzz bass which had played the role of "fire" on Brian's elemental "Fire" piece again showing up as the cornfields appear in the lyrics.

Banjo: Expertly played by Carole Kaye, this banjo is played in the plectrum/picking style most often heard on the old Stephen Foster and "Swanee River" types of American songs of the 1800's. The banjo is a truly American instrument, and to represent this era and this 19th century American vibe he had the banjo play in that antiquated style which when heard in the 1960's was a throwback to that "old timey" atmosphere rather than the more modern 5-string "Scruggs style" fingerpicking which would soon become a smash hit in the film "Bonnie And Clyde" with "Foggy Mountain Breakdown" becoming that film's main theme music.

Harmonica: Again, the way this is played is straight from the imagery of the cowboys around the campfire, or the singalongs and lonesome sounds heard in hundreds of Western and cowboy movies when they're either around a campfire or sitting in their cabins. It represented a certain imagery and mood, and was played exactly in that old style rather than giving any hints of blues harp or even jazz harp which was "modern" in the 60's.

Dobro: having James Burton - formerly billed as "Dobro Jimmy" when he was playing Louisiana Hayride kinds of gigs as a kid  - play what he played on that instrument, going from the traditional sliding Dobro sound of country and bluegrass to having him pluck those chiming high non-notes in an "I've Been Working On The Railroad" rhythm to represent the spikes being hammered into the train tracks is a brilliant use of an instrument, taking it from traditional to impressionistic in the same song.

The whole song is full of these musical touches, and takes it from the homestead and frontier longing to the driving of the mechanized train to the modern truck driving man and back to the simplicity of birds flying above fields of crops in a few minutes of musical perfection.

Within You Without You is more practical than impressionistic. George Harrison's choice of instruments - and it was 99% Harrison apart from George Martin scoring for strings under Harrison's direction -  was going for traditional Indian musical sounds. he's not trying to use any instrument to represent something, but rather is taking what he had heard and learned through studying Indian musical culture and grafting it onto his own song.

I've recently come around to loving Within You Without You whereas before, I had mixed feelings about it. George Harrison made a brilliant piece of music, not as much the foundation of his song but what he did to it instrumentally.

No one, not even the classically trained conservatory musician George Martin knew Indian music, and it's unique cyclical rhythm patterns, song form, count, or the way notes were attacked and phrased. Harrison had been immersed in this, learning and studying it from master instructors, and in effect had to "teach" George Martin what these musicians were doing and how they were counting the time in the music. It was Harrison's baby, this song, and he gave those involved a crash course in the characteristics of Indian music and rhythms to the point where George Martin's string score incorporated certain "bends" of notes and glisses into notes that had previously not been heard widely in Western music, and for which Martin got a signature sound and reputation with these little musical quirks that others copied widely in pop arrangements.

But had it not been for George Harrison being able to not only play but also relate to and direct the Indian musicians on his song in their own unique and often radically different musical techniques, it never would have happened as it is heard on Pepper. A brilliant recording in its own right, but coming from a different place conceptually than Brian and Cabinessence.

[rab2591]

As always, great post guitarfool! As Within You Without You is one of my least favorite tracks from Pepper, I'll give it another listen with your post in mind.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Not to sound like a smartass, but I think everyone and their mother has noted the similarities.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

Lyrically Lucy in the Sky has a Van Dyke Parks similarity. Also, Surfs Up and A Day in the Life are both 11 stars out of 10 :-)  Also, the merging of tracks that happens on Sgt Pepper and Smile where the music doesn't stop between songs.

I am also tired of the comparison between Pepper and Pet Sounds. PS was a year before Pepper. PS blows Revolver out of the water IMO, except for Tomorrow Never Knows.

[Joel Goldenberg]

Our Prayer and short reprise of that track just before last track Good Vibrations.
SPLHCB and short reprise of that track just before A Day in the Life.

Similar "aaaaaaaaaaaaah!" harmonies in Good Vibrations and A Day in the Life

If Pepper had been released with Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields, that could have had a link with the Child is Father to the Man theme.

[Bicyclerider]

Good Morning Good Morning, despite its animal sounds, has little in common with Smile - and much more with Friends' Busy Doin' Nothin in terms of lyrical import.

The similarities, even when listed, seem fairly minor to me.  Both bands trying to push the envelope of what popular/rock music could be is the main thing in common. 

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Lyrically Lucy in the Sky has a Van Dyke Parks similarity. Also, Surfs Up and A Day in the Life are both 11 stars out of 10 :-)  Also, the merging of tracks that happens on Sgt Pepper and Smile where the music doesn't stop between songs.

I am also tired of the comparison between Pepper and Pet Sounds. PS was a year before Pepper. PS blows Revolver out of the water IMO, except for Tomorrow Never Knows.

Yes, I agree. Pet Sounds is the answer to Rubber Soul, and the competition for Revolver. Sgt Pepper is the answer to Pet Sounds and would've been the competitor of SMiLE had it been finished.

I'm not sure if there was a similar "cycle of influence" between Revolver and SMiLE, or if SMiLE would've been a big influence on the Beatles or not.

I also agree the Pet Sounds blows Revolver and Rubber Soul out of the water. It's the advanced production of the former with the cohesiveness of the latter in one album, with the recurring themes of love and loss to tie it all together. I also believe SMiLE is in a whole other league ahead of Pepper. Pepper is great, but perhaps the single most overrated album of all time. It's a shame the Beatles have such a massive following that this opinion is considered blasphemy by the mainstream public and music critics.

[Joel Goldenberg]

I also believe SMiLE is in a whole other league ahead of Pepper. Pepper is great, but perhaps the single most overrated album of all time. It's a shame the Beatles have such a massive following that this opinion is considered blasphemy by the mainstream public and music critics.

Agree totally.

[SMiLE-addict]

Surf's Up is good competition to A Day in the Life. Both are social commentary, epic-scale, multi-section songs that are (or would have been) ideal ending songs.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Surf's Up is good competition to A Day in the Life. Both are social commentary, epic-scale, multi-section songs that are (or would have been) ideal ending songs.

Unpopular Opinion Time : A Day in the Life...isn't that great.

I agree about Surf's Up working perfectly as an ending, tho. I never will understand why everyone sticks it in the middle of the album, right before Vega-Tables (which completely ruins the somber, reflective mood SU creates)

[SMiLE-addict]

Yeah I'm not a huge DITL fan either. Good song, but not great.

Those two songs do, however, compare favorably, on a sort-of conceptual level if not in musical quality.

[guitarfool2002]

Tired of defending Sgt. Pepper by using history, and its time and place in history, to show that a lot of its reputation and praise comes from the *context* in which it appeared, NOT the words of critics and media figures overhyping it for commercial or ratings purposes.

When the album came out, it was up to that point the single most influential rock album that had been released. This cannot be argued, just ask anyone who was involved in making popular music in June 1967 how big of a deal it was.

Or continue to wallow in the disillusion and hip-based revisionism and idol-bashing that tries to present it as overrated using personal opinions rather than the actual context in which it was received.

Wanna talk overrated? Where shall we start...

Consider that part of the so-called "hype" around Revolver and Pepper is based on the technological achievements which those albums featured, in the way rock and pop music was recorded and mixed before and the way it was mixed and recorded after Pepper and Revolver. It was like lifting up a cover and seeing the future of small-group rock and roll hiding underneath layers of close-mic'ing, compression and limiting, tape manipulation, tape editing, and individual recording techniques that are so commonplace and have been for 50 years or so that we forget someone or something had to be the first to record drums, vocals, brass, guitars, and the like that way. Someone had to make it possible to break and shatter the rules of how one puts a microphone on an drum kit and what one does with that sound once it's on tape in order to maximize, manipulate, and fit it into a mix spectrum of sound that didn't exist in 1964.

And a lot of that influence was Revolver and Pepper. Sorry to bust the revisionist bubble, but they were about as influential on the way rock music would come to be recorded and mixed up to the present day as any other two albums in rock history.

Overrated? Just ask some musicians.  

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Tired of defending Sgt. Pepper by using history, and its time and place in history, to show that a lot of its reputation and praise comes from the *context* in which it appeared, NOT the words of critics and media figures overhyping it for commercial or ratings purposes.

When the album came out, it was up to that point the single most influential rock album that had been released. This cannot be argued, just ask anyone who was involved in making popular music in June 1967 how big of a deal it was.

Or continue to wallow in the disillusion and hip-based revisionism and idol-bashing that tries to present it as overrated using personal opinions rather than the actual context in which it was received.

Wanna talk overrated? Where shall we start...

Consider that part of the so-called "hype" around Revolver and Pepper is based on the technological achievements which those albums featured, in the way rock and pop music was recorded and mixed before and the way it was mixed and recorded after Pepper and Revolver. It was like lifting up a cover and seeing the future of small-group rock and roll hiding underneath layers of close-mic'ing, compression and limiting, tape manipulation, tape editing, and individual recording techniques that are so commonplace and have been for 50 years or so that we forget someone or something had to be the first to record drums, vocals, brass, guitars, and the like that way. Someone had to make it possible to break and shatter the rules of how one puts a microphone on an drum kit and what one does with that sound once it's on tape in order to maximize, manipulate, and fit it into a mix spectrum of sound that didn't exist in 1964.

And a lot of that influence was Revolver and Pepper. Sorry to bust the revisionist bubble, but they were about as influential on the way rock music would come to be recorded and mixed up to the present day as any other two albums in rock history.

Overrated? Just ask some musicians.  

Just listening to it on its own...it's just not *that* awesome of an album. I can appreciate how influential it was, but when rating music I don't think "well, golly gee whiz how many musicians cite this as an inspiration?" I think "does this sound good?" And for Pepper the answer is yes...sorta. No idol bashing or hipster revisionism here, just the fact that there's better Beatles albums(Revolver, Rubber Soul), better psychedelic albums(The United States of America, Piper at the Gates of Dawn), and better albums from the year 1967 (Forever Changes, Axis: Bold as Love.)

I think Sgt. Pepper gets so much attention because it's the Beatles. And I'm not saying they didn't push the envelope, but...so was every band worth their salt back then. The Beatles didn't exist in a vaccuum and weren't the only band being progressive.

[guitarfool2002]

Consider too that artistic or creative influence can be as much as case of showing that something *could* be done in an artistic and creative sense as much as critiquing what was actually done in terms of critical opinion or relative worth in a wider sense of appeal or even the notion of quality.

"Like A Rolling Stone" had influence beyond hearing it for decades on classic rock and oldies radio. It opened up a lot of minds and a lot of doors too in saying that a "pop" or "rock" single could exist on the radio beyond the standard format of the era. Poetry, stream-of-conscious delivery, anger and venom, all set to a rock and roll electric beat...this is possible, this is beyond doo-wop and blues-based influence, it's something new and it's now opened a door for others to follow. That record's influence in that way gets lost to time, unfortunately, but it was as much a blockbuster as Pepper in what it opened up for others.

Consider too that Brian and "Surf's Up" got top billing in April 1967, and those watching CBS in April 1967 heard and saw the song being used to both herald and question the future direction of pop music. Would "the kids" making and buying this music point the way for the future? Was a lyrical direction as detailed and cryptic as to make a casual listen not enough to understand the song the wave of the future in pop? Was this opening doors in the way pioneers of other genres had done, and making it possible to shatter then redefine the nature of what a pop song could do, or what it could be?

The producers of Inside Pop thought enough of Brian's new creation that they gave it top billing, in the finale of a show centered around breaking new artistic ground in pop music. It was so powerful that having the creator of the work basically demo it in his living room at a piano was enough to convey their message, one which the likes of Leonard Bernstein had been building up to in the first 30 minutes of the broadcast, enhanced further by scenes of then-current pop music stars and stars-to-be.

So Brian and Surf's Up were featured, they were heard, they were praised before Pepper was even released. But the real tragedy, at least for me, is that Sgt Pepper did get released and Surf's Up stayed locked away in the vaults for another few years...only to be released a few years after the very direction Surf's Up had been leading popular music toward had already been explored and exploited.

It's tough to be the pioneer in any field because ultimately the risk is either timing it too soon for mass public appeal or missing the mark entirely because no one had blazed the trail you were exploring and any turn you make is into uncharted territory. It's easier to follow than to lead, obviously, especially when a path has already been cut by whoever walked ahead.

And unfortunately for Surf's Up and Smile in general, a broadcast on CBS in April 1967 didn't carry the same weight as an official record release in June 1967. The timing wasn't there.

[guitarfool2002]

"Better" is strictly opinion in any sense of the word. Debating opinions is fun, can be informative, but it always comes down to personal opinion rather than context and fact. It's almost a moot point to say Forever Changes or Piper or any of the others is "better" than Pepper because in almost every notion of historical context and finding something's place in history, opinions are disposable and subject solely to the whims of those expressing them. 

I like Roy Lichtenstein as a pop artist more than Andy Warhol, I find his works very emotional, dramatic, and connect more with them than I do Warhol. Yet Warhol's Campbell's Soup imagery and his Marilyn screenprints and his other popular works are icons of 20th century pop art, and his name is a household word - How many visual artists today in any field are known outside their own fans or genres? Closest I can think of would be guys like Stan Lee in the comic industry. One could argue Warhol is perhaps the most iconic (and perhaps even influential) 20th century visual artist in the popular culture, surely the most familiar avant-garde or new-wave artist of the last several generations, as he is again a household word. So my thinking Lichtenstein's work is "better" doesn't amount to a hill of beans when trying to judge the men on their influence and places in pop culture history. Because Warhol will always win out on a larger scale, whether I think other artists are better or not, again because of context and influence.

So I'd never try to convince others Warhol is overrated on the basis of my thinking someone else chasing a similar artistic goal through pop art is or was better. Some artists, musicians, bands, etc are overrated, and some are overrated by those critics and wanna-be critics trying to champion the underdog or "knock down a few pegs" a popular favorite, but saying one or another is better takes it into arguing personal opinions, and there is no correct answer or conclusion in that. 

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

"Better" is strictly opinion in any sense of the word. Debating opinions is fun, can be informative, but it always comes down to personal opinion rather than context and fact. It's almost a moot point to say Forever Changes or Piper or any of the others is "better" than Pepper because in almost every notion of historical context and finding something's place in history, opinions are disposable and subject solely to the whims of those expressing them.  

I like Roy Lichtenstein as a pop artist more than Andy Warhol, I find his works very emotional, dramatic, and connect more with them than I do Warhol. Yet Warhol's Campbell's Soup imagery and his Marilyn screenprints and his other popular works are icons of 20th century pop art, and his name is a household word - How many visual artists today in any field are known outside their own fans or genres? Closest I can think of would be guys like Stan Lee in the comic industry. One could argue Warhol is perhaps the most iconic (and perhaps even influential) 20th century visual artist in the popular culture, surely the most familiar avant-garde or new-wave artist of the last several generations, as he is again a household word. So my thinking Lichtenstein's work is "better" doesn't amount to a hill of beans when trying to judge the men on their influence and places in pop culture history. Because Warhol will always win out on a larger scale, whether I think other artists are better or not, again because of context and influence.

So I'd never try to convince others Warhol is overrated on the basis of my thinking someone else chasing a similar artistic goal through pop art is or was better. Some artists, musicians, bands, etc are overrated, and some are overrated by those critics and wanna-be critics trying to champion the underdog or "knock down a few pegs" a popular favorite, but saying one or another is better takes it into arguing personal opinions, and there is no correct answer or conclusion in that.  

You're not telling me anything I don't already know. But the borderline-rabid devotion to the Beatles as a band and Pepper as an album is just nuts, and a very narrow view of all the great music the late sixties gave us.

Yeah, it's all opinion whether you prefer Pepper or Piper. But to try to act like your opinion holds more weight because X # of musicians/critics/your mom agree with you is just pompous and silly.

[guitarfool2002]

"Better" is strictly opinion in any sense of the word. Debating opinions is fun, can be informative, but it always comes down to personal opinion rather than context and fact. It's almost a moot point to say Forever Changes or Piper or any of the others is "better" than Pepper because in almost every notion of historical context and finding something's place in history, opinions are disposable and subject solely to the whims of those expressing them.  

I like Roy Lichtenstein as a pop artist more than Andy Warhol, I find his works very emotional, dramatic, and connect more with them than I do Warhol. Yet Warhol's Campbell's Soup imagery and his Marilyn screenprints and his other popular works are icons of 20th century pop art, and his name is a household word - How many visual artists today in any field are known outside their own fans or genres? Closest I can think of would be guys like Stan Lee in the comic industry. One could argue Warhol is perhaps the most iconic (and perhaps even influential) 20th century visual artist in the popular culture, surely the most familiar avant-garde or new-wave artist of the last several generations, as he is again a household word. So my thinking Lichtenstein's work is "better" doesn't amount to a hill of beans when trying to judge the men on their influence and places in pop culture history. Because Warhol will always win out on a larger scale, whether I think other artists are better or not, again because of context and influence.

So I'd never try to convince others Warhol is overrated on the basis of my thinking someone else chasing a similar artistic goal through pop art is or was better. Some artists, musicians, bands, etc are overrated, and some are overrated by those critics and wanna-be critics trying to champion the underdog or "knock down a few pegs" a popular favorite, but saying one or another is better takes it into arguing personal opinions, and there is no correct answer or conclusion in that.  

You're not telling me anything I don't already know. But the borderline-rabid devotion to the Beatles as a band and Pepper as an album is just nuts, and a very narrow view of all the great music the late sixties gave us.

Yeah, it's all opinion whether you prefer Pepper or Piper. But to try to act like your opinion holds more weight because X # of musicians/critics/your mom agree with you is just pompous and silly.

My opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's, I've never said or implied that it did in a case like this, as it is only an opinion based on personal tastes and biases for or against what is being discussed. And I've done nothing of the sort in trying to say my opinion holds more weight because of the people who agree with it, or whatever, so let's define the "pompous and silly" charge to make it seem general rather than personal, which hopefully is how it was intended.

I'll stay with the issue for now that opinions of Piper, Forever Changes, and others were used to back up an opinion that Pepper is overrated. But if that starts to go into saying it is a "fact" that Pepper is overrated or isn't all it's cracked up to be, I'll say again go to the original sources and those musicians who were alive and influenced by it when it actually came out and gauge just how much of an impact it had.

Like other Beatles threads, I'm getting a feeling that there is more of an issue with and a backlash against the hype and the fan-based rabid devotion that could be coloring the music itself, as well as its place in a historical context. The band released the album(s), they had whatever influence they had, let's rate and judge them in those areas.

If we allow the reactions of rabid or crazy-devoted fans to color and affect the works themselves, I can say right now that I'd never listen to certain artists or bands who I like because their fan-base is bat-sh*t crazy in some cases, and seeks to read into and interpret every word of a lyric or every note into some highly cosmic, important, or socially conscious meaning to suit their own quirks and needs. And some are just beyond common sense in how they express their devotion to that band.

A point I made before: You can't blame the band for how their fans will react and act to their music. It happens too often that a negative opinion of how fans are acting gets in the way of judging and even enjoying some really good music.