Do you prefer SMiLE as a 3 movements piece or as 12-14 tracks?

[Bicyclerider]

Ok I see where you're coming from.  Because certain pieces not originally connected in 67 by Brian or noted as being connected by people involved with Smile in 66-67 sound good together in later fan mixes and were put together subsequently by Darian and Brian when making Smile into a live "suite" and you believe they sound right together, then that must have been Brian's original intention.  I shouldn't have to point out the faulty logic of that reasoning but consider it noted.

For what it's worth, Darian believed the "second movement" was what Brian always had in mind, based on his reaction to Darian playing those pieces together.

Considering Look wasn't even in the running as far as we know for Smile - it wasn't on the track list - I think that's a stretch.  Brian liked what Darian did with the sequence, and may have thought that's what I would have liked to have done in 66-67, but if that was what he always had in mind, why didn't he tell Darian that at the start rather than listen to what Darian came up with and then approve or disapprove it?

[Orange Crate Art]

I prefer the 12-14 track SMiLE album. I love the tracks as separate entities.

[Phoenix]

Ok I see where you're coming from.  Because certain pieces not originally connected in 67 by Brian or noted as being connected by people involved with Smile in 66-67 sound good together in later fan mixes and were put together subsequently by Darian and Brian when making Smile into a live "suite" and you believe they sound right together, then that must have been Brian's original intention.  I shouldn't have to point out the faulty logic of that reasoning but consider it noted.

For what it's worth, Darian believed the "second movement" was what Brian always had in mind, based on his reaction to Darian playing those pieces together.

Considering Look wasn't even in the running as far as we know for Smile - it wasn't on the track list - I think that's a stretch.  Brian liked what Darian did with the sequence, and may have thought that's what I would have liked to have done in 66-67, but if that was what he always had in mind, why didn't he tell Darian that at the start rather than listen to what Darian came up with and then approve or disapprove it?

"Look" and "CIFOTM" (SECTION) = "CIFOTM" (SONG), just as "Home On The Range", "Who Ran The Iron Horse", and "Grand Coulie Dam" (SECTIONS) = "Cabinessence" (SONG).

[Phoenix]

Some of the songs flow "too good" to not be what top-of-his-game Brian had intended all along.

As for the Priess "quote", the song described as including OMM/YWMS is referred to as "The Barnyard Suite".

Ok I see where you're coming from.  Because certain pieces not originally connected in 67 by Brian or noted as being connected by people involved with Smile in 66-67 sound good together in later fan mixes and were put together subsequently by Darian and Brian when making Smile into a live "suite" and you believe they sound right together, then that must have been Brian's original intention.  I shouldn't have to point out the faulty logic of that reasoning but consider it noted.

And I shouldn't have to point out that "I like red" doesn't mean the same thing as "I hate green."  Most of the parts, that I (me, personally) feel that way about are things that I (again, ME) think were decisions made by Brian in the 60's.   For instance regardless of how anyone, including Brian himself, feel about it NOW, I (ME) think the "H&V (intro)" sounds better as the intro to "H&V" than it does paired with "Fire".  If you've made up your mind about YOUR preference, that's fine but I think it's pointless (at least online) to try and show you what I see as proof that makes me think I'm barking up the right tree in terms of Smile's sequence. 

And in all seriousness, I bear no ill will against you.  I believe waht I do for very specific (and obsessively researched) reasons.  All that matters is we both enjoy the material for being the unbelievable music that it is. 

[soniclovenoize]

"Look" and "CIFOTM" (SECTION) = "CIFOTM" (SONG), just as "Home On The Range", "Who Ran The Iron Horse", and "Grand Coulie Dam" (SECTIONS) = "Cabinessence" (SONG).

Interesting...  But do we have any evidence to suggest this link other than what was eventually on BWPS? 

Note that Look was recorded in August '66, and then Child was recorded in October '66.  We have a number of acetate test mixes of Child with varying song-structures of the song made between Oct-Dec and none of them contained Look at all, which would have already existed 3-5 months.  Brian would surely have had the opportunity to make a Look/Child test mix by then? 

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

Ok I see where you're coming from.  Because certain pieces not originally connected in 67 by Brian or noted as being connected by people involved with Smile in 66-67 sound good together in later fan mixes and were put together subsequently by Darian and Brian when making Smile into a live "suite" and you believe they sound right together, then that must have been Brian's original intention.  I shouldn't have to point out the faulty logic of that reasoning but consider it noted.

For what it's worth, Darian believed the "second movement" was what Brian always had in mind, based on his reaction to Darian playing those pieces together.

Considering Look wasn't even in the running as far as we know for Smile - it wasn't on the track list - I think that's a stretch.  Brian liked what Darian did with the sequence, and may have thought that's what I would have liked to have done in 66-67, but if that was what he always had in mind, why didn't he tell Darian that at the start rather than listen to what Darian came up with and then approve or disapprove it?

"Look" and "CIFOTM" (SECTION) = "CIFOTM" (SONG), just as "Home On The Range", "Who Ran The Iron Horse", and "Grand Coulie Dam" (SECTIONS) = "Cabinessence" (SONG).

Possible, but unlikely. I think there are some here who'be heard Brian's instrumental mix for Child (why on earth wasn't that on the boxset??) and they don't describe any Look pieces in there. Where would it fit?

There's a theory Holidays and Look were early working versions of Worms and Child...but I've yet to see compelling evidence for this claim.

This is why I'd say, even though it gets much less attention than say, Surf's Up part 2 or the Child verses, the Look vocals are debatably the biggest loss of SMiLE. Until we can know for certain, I prefer to think of it as "Wonderful Part 2." It just sounds right, to my ears and apparently Brian's as well.

[Bicyclerider]

Some of the songs flow "too good" to not be what top-of-his-game Brian had intended all along.

As for the Priess "quote", the song described as including OMM/YWMS is referred to as "The Barnyard Suite".

Ok I see where you're coming from.  Because certain pieces not originally connected in 67 by Brian or noted as being connected by people involved with Smile in 66-67 sound good together in later fan mixes and were put together subsequently by Darian and Brian when making Smile into a live "suite" and you believe they sound right together, then that must have been Brian's original intention.  I shouldn't have to point out the faulty logic of that reasoning but consider it noted.

And I shouldn't have to point out that "I like red" doesn't mean the same thing as "I hate green."  Most of the parts, that I (me, personally) feel that way about are things that I (again, ME) think were decisions made by Brian in the 60's.   For instance regardless of how anyone, including Brian himself, feel about it NOW, I (ME) think the "H&V (intro)" sounds better as the intro to "H&V" than it does paired with "Fire".  If you've made up your mind about YOUR preference, that's fine but I think it's pointless (at least online) to try and show you what I see as proof that makes me think I'm barking up the right tree in terms of Smile's sequence.  

And in all seriousness, I bear no ill will against you.  I believe waht I do for very specific (and obsessively researched) reasons.  All that matters is we both enjoy the material for being the unbelievable music that it is.  

Look - and i'm not referring to the song - I think it's every fan's perogative to assemble the pieces of Smile any way they want, whatever floats your boat.  Since we never got a finished Smile - in 1967 OR I would argue in 2011 -  you can argue that your sequencing is the best and you may very well be correct.  But I just don't get that because you feel something goes together that THEREFOR those are decisions Brian made in the 60s.  If Brian had made the decisions you are talking about in the 60s, well wouldn't we have a finished Smile?  Brian didn't and couldn't make the decisions about the sequencing and the finishing of tracks which is one of the reasons Smile was abandoned.  He never made those decisions.  I could better understand your position if you said because your sequence sounds right to you that you believe Brian WOULD have made similar decisions - that's an opinion, rather than that he DID make those decisions for which the evidence is exactly zero.

[The Shift]

Smile's like a jigsaw, where every piece has three sides that fit and one that doesn't.

No one can ever complete a jigsaw like that, unless Brian decides to shape the fourth side of each piece.

He says 2004 saw it done and we have to accept that, no matter that even be bad to shoehorn those pieces with a crowbar to get them to fit.

Nothing to stop anyone attempting their own solution but the order, the… erm… "mix" can only ever be speculative.

[Phoenix]

Going by the hand written list AND the slicks for the album itself (which I most certainly do, as the record company readied them for the actual release), we know "CIFOTM" was intended to be included as an actual song and not a hidden or link track (like we know "Our Prayer" was meant to be).  We also know that neither "Look" nor "I Ran" were intended to be included as full songs.  So what makes more sense: Brian tosses an apparently fleshed out fleshed out, albeit untitled, song that runs the length of a pop song of its day and instead chooses to include a song fragment, running just over a minute in any of its contemporary forms OR knowing how Brian worked on Smile, the possibility that he combines in the same or similar fashion that he eventually did, 37 years later?

Maybe I'm wrong but like I said, which makes more sense?  And yes I know logic and sense aren't so easily found in many of Brian's decisions but it really makes the most sense to me. 

[Phoenix]

If Brian had made the decisions you are talking about in the 60s, well wouldn't we have a finished Smile?

Seriously?  Definitely, had he NOT gotten so distracted with the singles and spent the bulk of his time on them INSTEAD of finishing the album.   My guess is Derek's decision to scrap the album was what finally reminded Brian it was time to stop dicking around and pull everything together but by that time it was "too late" as he also then came to decision that his window to show Dylan and the Beatles, etc. that was still in charge had closed while he was focused on making things perfect.  With that, his ambition (to the degree it had existed) was gone and he moved onto something very different.

[soniclovenoize]

Going by the hand written list AND the slicks for the album itself (which I most certainly do, as the record company readied them for the actual release), we know "CIFOTM" was intended to be included as an actual song and not a hidden or link track (like we know "Our Prayer" was meant to be).  We also know that neither "Look" nor "I Ran" were intended to be included as full songs.  So what makes more sense: Brian tosses an apparently fleshed out fleshed out, albeit untitled, song that runs the length of a pop song of its day and instead chooses to include a song fragment, running just over a minute in any of its contemporary forms OR knowing how Brian worked on Smile, the possibility that he combines in the same or similar fashion that he eventually did, 37 years later?

Maybe I'm wrong but like I said, which makes more sense?  And yes I know logic and sense aren't so easily found in many of Brian's decisions but it really makes the most sense to me. 

Well, let's take a look at it here:

If you notice, all the "fragments" were usually not their own song*.  Usually the actual songs were a series of fragments put together (H&V, Good Vibrations, Vege-Tables) or was a self-contained song with a number of sections in it in the first place, a la traditional songwriting (Wonderful, Wind Chimes, Surf's Up, Cabin Essence, DYLW**). 

Both Look and Child are of that second group: they are not fragments, they both contain verse, chorus and bridge sections, a self-contained "traditional" song.  Hence they did not need to go together at all, because both were complete as is.  Yes, Child is short, but who's to say that isn't be design?  It already had three separate sections that acted as a few verses and two variations of a chorus.  The same for Look--it's complete, minus a lead vocal.  If they DID go together, you'd have two completely different sets of verses and choruses clumped together.  While that isn't necessarily unfathomable, it is certainly uncharacteristic of how the songs were simply composed and/or created at this time, and the creation of a Look-Child super-song is a red herring.

And as I had said before, we most likely would have some test mixes of it happening...  There certainly were test mixes of the various segments of Child back then.  We also have test mixes of the three segments of Cabin Essence put together as one song.  So this is the standard. 

* exception being obviously OMP, which we all know would have been several segments put together as a complete song, as well as IIGS, which evidence shows would also have a few segments together to make a complete song. 

** one could argue that cabin essence and DYLW were a series of fragments strung together as well, but DYLW lyric sheet seem to indicate it was just written that way, and the fact that Cabin Essence was written along with the batch of the "traditional" songs that it too had a grand design, but was simply recorded in pieces to be later re-essembled. 

[The Demon]

My guess is Derek's decision to scrap the album

I haven't really dug through Smile history since the Smile Shop days, so maybe I'm forgetting something, but why do you call it Derek's decision?  I know you're referring to his article, but aside from that...

[The Shift]

If you notice, all the "fragments" were usually not their own song*.  Usually the actual songs were a series of fragments put together (H&V, Good Vibrations, Vege-Tables) or was a self-contained song with a number of sections in it in the first place, a la traditional songwriting (Wonderful, Wind Chimes, Surf's Up, Cabin Essence, DYLW**). 

I'd argue that Vibes belongs in the second group - recorded, in the version finally released, in segments but originally envisaged in its entirety, as the early sessions tape reveal.

[shangaijoeBB]

According the the 1966 backing track test mix, CFOTM is a complete 3 min song (without lead vocal) with a structure not too dissimilar to Cabin Essence.

[soniclovenoize]

If you notice, all the "fragments" were usually not their own song*.  Usually the actual songs were a series of fragments put together (H&V, Good Vibrations, Vege-Tables) or was a self-contained song with a number of sections in it in the first place, a la traditional songwriting (Wonderful, Wind Chimes, Surf's Up, Cabin Essence, DYLW**). 

I'd argue that Vibes belongs in the second group - recorded, in the version finally released, in segments but originally envisaged in its entirety, as the early sessions tape reveal.

Yeah I can accept that.

According the the 1966 backing track test mix, CFOTM is a complete 3 min song (without lead vocal) with a structure not too dissimilar to Cabin Essence.

Of course, I forgot about that!

For those curious, the structure is:
chorus / verse / chorus / verse / chorus / bridge / chorus

[LostArt]

** one could argue that cabin essence and DYLW were a series of fragments strung together as well, but DYLW lyric sheet seem to indicate it was just written that way, and the fact that CabinEssence was written along with the batch of the "traditional" songs that it too had a grand design, but was simply recorded in pieces to be later re-essembled. 

"And then Van and Brian played us two things they were doing on the album: one was...ah, part of the thing that turned into "Cabinessence."  This was originally part of "Who Ran the Iron Horse," which was about this Chinese cat working on the railroad; it had the the "crow" line in it.  And another song, "Bicycle Rider," was to be integrated with it: they thought they'd put together these two separate songs...A lot of that kind of thing was going on: I mean there are fragments of maybe five different songs combined in each of the songs as they stand now.  "Cabinessence," for example, started out as a wholly different trip - Dennis was going to sing it by himself and sound like a funky cat up in the mountains somewhere singing to a chick by a fireplace: very simple - and that's all there was to it."

Michael Vosse

So, it sounds to me as if Vosse heard a test edit of the Grand Coolie section of what is now Cabinessence, paired with Bicycle Rider.  And it also sounds as if Brian took that Grand Coolie section out of Who Ran the Iron Horse.  And wasn't Who Ran the Iron Horse a part of an early Heroes and Villians, or am I not remembering correctly?

[soniclovenoize]

Well there you go!

[Cam Mott]

Well there you go!

Or Michael didn't fully understand what Brian was planning or doing.  That said it does seem like WRTIH was a separate song or a previous title for the same song.

[soniclovenoize]

Well there you go!

Or Michael didn't fully understand what Brian was planning or doing.  That said it does seem like WRTIH was a separate song or a previous title for the same song.

Weren't all three backing track sections recorded at the same session on 10/11/66? 

While clearly not conclusive, it does indicate that the three were associated together, not to mention that that's how it ended up anyways... 

The specifics of Cabin Essence isn't even my point here...  It was the Look-Child Hypothesis.  But I understand what you are saying, pieces came and went. 

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

If Brian had made the decisions you are talking about in the 60s, well wouldn't we have a finished Smile?

Seriously?  Definitely, had he NOT gotten so distracted with the singles and spent the bulk of his time on them INSTEAD of finishing the album.   My guess is Derek's decision to scrap the album was what finally reminded Brian it was time to stop dicking around and pull everything together but by that time it was "too late" as he also then came to decision that his window to show Dylan and the Beatles, etc. that was still in charge had closed while he was focused on making things perfect.  With that, his ambition (to the degree it had existed) was gone and he moved onto something very different.

First off, NOTHING regarding SMiLE was "Derek's decision." A publicist doesn't just make the sweeping announcement "hey, y'know that new album that's been hyped for months and partially demoed on TV? That's over." Good way to get fired, I'd think. The idea that Brian would see such an announcement and think "Well, I guess I should abandon this masterpiece I've been pouring my energy and soul into" is laughable.

The only "dicking around" during the SMiLE Sessions was the Jasper Dailey tracks, and depending on how important you think they were, Psychedelic Sounds. You could argue the focus on singles since January was misguided, but it was still purposeful work.

I do agree though that eventually the moment passed, the need to "be God" was gone, and Brian moved on. Still ambitious, just not in the same way. Smiley is very innovative and perhaps a microcosm of what SMiLE wouldve been. It's just not the sweeping grandiose statement on America.

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

Going by the hand written list AND the slicks for the album itself (which I most certainly do, as the record company readied them for the actual release), we know "CIFOTM" was intended to be included as an actual song and not a hidden or link track (like we know "Our Prayer" was meant to be).  We also know that neither "Look" nor "I Ran" were intended to be included as full songs.  So what makes more sense: Brian tosses an apparently fleshed out fleshed out, albeit untitled, song that runs the length of a pop song of its day and instead chooses to include a song fragment, running just over a minute in any of its contemporary forms OR knowing how Brian worked on Smile, the possibility that he combines in the same or similar fashion that he eventually did, 37 years later?

Maybe I'm wrong but like I said, which makes more sense?  And yes I know logic and sense aren't so easily found in many of Brian's decisions but it really makes the most sense to me. 

Trombone Dixie. Fact is, sometimes artists record more for a project than they need.

There's precedent for the idea of reusing parts of one track for another. But I'd argue Child quickly became one for the scrap pile, not the other way around. The chorus was planned on being recycled into Vega-Tables at one point, and eventually was recycled into Surf's Up.

The Vosse article provides fascinating insight, but it's not gospel. Unless there's another source for this claim that Cabin Essence is the conglomeration of two previously unrelated songs, I'm skeptical. And in any case, that's not proof Look and Child wouldve merged.

[The Demon]

There's precedent for the idea of reusing parts of one track for another. But I'd argue Child quickly became one for the scrap pile, not the other way around. The chorus was planned on being recycled into Vega-Tables at one point, and eventually was recycled into Surf's Up.

Not being sarcastic, but what's the proof of the "Child"/"Vegetables" connection?  Are you thinking of the "Child" piano section similar to the water chant?

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

There's precedent for the idea of reusing parts of one track for another. But I'd argue Child quickly became one for the scrap pile, not the other way around. The chorus was planned on being recycled into Vega-Tables at one point, and eventually was recycled into Surf's Up.

Not being sarcastic, but what's the proof of the "Child"/"Vegetables" connection?  Are you thinking of the "Child" piano section similar to the water chant?

If I'm mistaken, I apologize. But yes. I was under the impression that that bit was recorded during the Vegetables sessions. I always understood it as Child was to Veggies as Worms was to H&V

[Tilt Araiza]

For what it's worth, Darian believed the "second movement" was what Brian always had in mind, based on his reaction to Darian playing those pieces together.

Does anyone remember an interview in 2004 (an audio interview) where Darian describes Brian being curled on a sofa in a depressive "we can't do it" mood and then, on hearing Look, leaping up and shouting "That goes after Wonderful!"?

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

For what it's worth, Darian believed the "second movement" was what Brian always had in mind, based on his reaction to Darian playing those pieces together.

Does anyone remember an interview in 2004 (an audio interview) where Darian describes Brian being curled on a sofa in a depressive "we can't do it" mood and then, on hearing Look, leaping up and shouting "That goes after Wonderful!"?

I'd be very fascinated to hear this too. I always heard it as Brian listening to Darian playing back some tracks he had on his computer. Look came on after Wonderful (by random coincidence or because that's how Darian had sequenced it) and Brian's eyes lit up as he said "That's how we'll do it!" Not saying you're wrong--just that I'd be interested in clarification too.