Van Dyke Barks

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Point me in the direction of some in-depth dissection of Pepper. Something on the level of what we do here for SMiLE, or the Smile Shop essays. Because all I ever see is just circle-jerking over how great it is and the like.

You may want to begin by acquainting yourself with this scholarly book published with articles by 12 different scholars:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=DN6hAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA129&dq=sgt.+pepper&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9gmMVaSjEMvy-AGahIHQBg&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sgt.%20pepper&f=false

After that, we can look at the singular academic essays devoted to the album. You simply cannot compare the enormous scholarly attention that Pepper has received to the discussion on Smile.

[Douchepool]

I think Brian found it hard to lead when those behind him started to catch up, and then at least in his eyes, started to surpass him.

I think it's also a matter of Brian just being burned out and the dominoes came tumbling down as a result. When you're hanging by the proverbial thread, anything could make it snap. The Strawberry Fields incident ("they did it already") seems to be the breaking point.

Its a sensitive subject. On the one hand, of course Brian has the right to call it the finished SMiLE as he pleases since its his music. Yet, he also is quoted saying the original would have been 2 movements not 3 and "less uplifting" than what he made in 03. I think making an album of the songs listed on the original tracklist flows a LOT better and leaves a more focused, concise message than the bloated, everything and the kitchen sink 03 setlist. I think a real harpsichord would have sounded better. Of course, I think the original Beach Boys vocals would have sounded better too, but at what point do such criticisms become ridiculous?

In any case, I see them as seperate projects. There is SMiLE the unfinished modular psychedelic studio album and Brian Wilson Presents Smile the 3 movement live pop symphony.

I'm somewhere in between agreement and disagreement with you on this. Sure, Brian and Van Dyke "finished" it for live performance but the fact that the running order was tinkered with yet again for The Smile Sessions sort of makes one wonder whether Brian really did consider the 2003 sequence "final." As far as the original back cover list goes, I don't see that as a definitive indicator of what the album would have been, either (though it made for fun mixes when the tracks were ordered in the same way as the list). If it were, the tracks would have been listed in their running order.

I also don't think BWPS has the magic of the original recordings. Live, it was another story, of course; I'd have preferred BWPS as a live album because that's where the suite sounded best and it was sequenced for live performance to begin with. At least one other poster here besides myself has half-jokingly referred to the studio BWPS as "the K-Tel repackaging" (albeit with a much bigger budget than K-Tel crap) because it just doesn't have the same feel as the original recordings. I do agree with Brian that his original vision would have been much darker and not as uplifting as what became BWPS. Just a cursory listen to the sounds he was trying to get on the record is proof of that - Pet Sounds may have dealt with some dark subject matter at times, but Smile was another story. Of course, there's also the possibility that something like what eventually became Smiley Smile would have ended up being closer to Brian's original vision, since there isn't much that is uplifting on there to begin with.

[drbeachboy]

As a live performance, it was wonderful. For Brian, and all his fans. It's only the release of the CD and its billing as "*the* finished SMiLE" that I have a problem with

I think this is such a f***ed up opinion. You have a problem with Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks billing their finishing of SMiLE as the finished SMiLE? How dare they. It's only their work. They definitely shouldn't have dared to return to an unfinished work after 36 years, should they have? Seriously, what would you have preferred?

You're opening a can of worms that will spin into an infinite circle of illogical discussion with Mujan.

You'd think the artist himself giving the stamp of approval on BWPS would be enough for some people. And frankly I couldn't care less that people don't like BWPS, everyone has their own opinions, but most here who hold that opinion have the common courtesy not to express it monotonously in every thread relating to Smile.

Sorry, I dont mean to be rude.

The board kinda degenerates into the same circular talking points often in any case. Look how a conversation about VDP's tweet got to where we are now. Give it time and maybe this'll become yet another Mike v Brian argument.

Anyway, Im sorry if it hurts people's feelings, but I just think BWPS is an evolution of SMiLE that's nevertheless different from the original intent. Similar to Smiley in many ways. Im willing to drop it if you are

Of course it is different. I doubt anyone would argue that point. I'll say this, a three movement Smile gave Brian many more options than what he was afforded in 66-67. Trying to put together a 12-14 track single LP had to have been torture trying to figure it all out.

[buddhahat]

With all due respect, could you or someone else please tell me whats so great about Pepper? I asked this in depth in another thread where the subject came up between us both but you didnt answer. Aside from influencing other people, is that really the gist of it--that its watered down psychedelia? And thats somehow good because it got the masses interested in that kinda music? Again, not to sound snotty but I really dont see the supposed brilliance.

It's difficult to explain what's great about the Beatles without rolling out tired old cliches. Also, as a disclaimer, Pepper is no where near my favourite album but here's my take fwiw:

LSD culture demanded a new type of music. This posed a massive challenge for established groups - how to adapt whilst still maintaining one's identity and without alienating an existing fanbase. The Rolling Stones and The Beach Boys were two casualties from the summer of love. However much one might love Smile/Satanic Majesties they were problematic albums for both bands (an understatement in the BB's case). With Pepper, The Beatles managed to create:

a) an album of great pop songs. With A Little Help From My Friends would've been a standard were it written by any band. Most of the songs are so freakin hummable and tuneful that (like most Beatles output) they've become sort of folk songs, school hymns, musical equivalent of the establishment - i.e boring and to be railed at. But that doesn't diminish the brilliance of the music as pop music.

b) but the songs weren't just simple constructions. A Day In The Life is complex and ambitious. It should be a pompous disaster but the marriage of Lennon & McCartney's two disparate songs via the mounting crescendo is genius - it flows, tells a story, feels natural, building to the climax of that one ominous chord. Imagine how many heads were blown by that piano note at the end?! What does it mean? I don't know, but it's ambiguous, open to interpretation - pop music as art. The genius of the song is in its structure and organisation.

We may well hear more interesting, complex music from the Smile sessions but the point is Brian and VDP never managed to organise it into a cohesive statement the way The Beatles and George Martin did with Pepper. A Day In The Life is the flashpoint of the album - the rest of it really is just great pop music for me building to that incredible moment. Surf's Up is the equivalent song from Smile and I see it fulfilling the same sort of function with its (gentler) crescendo and profound release at the end. If only they'd built and finished the album to house that masterpiece.

Mujan, I share your frustrations as do most of us. We hear Cabinessence, SU, H&V, Good Vibrations and marvel at the technicolour brilliance that simultaneously feels like a saturday morning cartoon and the great American novel - high and low art in perfect synthesis. If only they'd organised this stuff into an album it would've been the greatest art pop masterpiece* in the history of music, right? But the question is: Can it be organised in a way that does justice to the potential of those songs? In a way that cements all the bands' prior achievements whilst simultaneously looking forward and influencing other bands in its wake? Brian and VDP didn't manage it. However that really is what Sgt Pepper did for The Beatles imo and that is why I hold the album in such high regard, despite having many other Beatles albums that I actually prefer to listen to.


* critical, not commercial  

Fair enough. I still disagree, but I can see what you're saying. For what it's worth, I do think Pepper is a good album, it's just that its so unquestionably praised that I feel it's past time somebody dare to criticize it. Not so much as in the emperor has no clothes so much as "yes, he has clothes...but are they really any better than the rest?"


I dont see why Pepper should be so hailed and not SMiLE or Satanic Majesties except that Pepper came first and happened to be the one that got the attention. Their Satanic is just as good, I would say. I prefer 2000 Light Years from Home and She's A Rainbow to anything on Pepper, in fact. And I dont see why ADITL should be considered such a triumph of Lennon and McCartney. As you say, its two seperate songs stictched together by the crescendo of music. Id argue the two songs arent particularly meaningful or go with each other well. Just a guy reading some weird story in the news and a guy going about his morning routine. The orgasm of music was Paul's idea, but from what I understand he literally just told George Martin "hey, lets do this" and George made it happen. So I dont understand why that should earn so much praise and claims of the Beatles' genius. In one of the weakest SMiLE tracks, Brian did everything ADITL does and did it better. In My Only Sunshine, he combines two different tracks together to say something very profound about loss of faith. Yet, it's done very subtly, so much so that just about everyone including myself dismissed it as just a throwaway. ADITL, with all its "fancy" pomps and frills, falls flat in my opinion.

But at the end of the day, we wont convince each other. And this mini-debate is off topic from what we were discussing in the first place. SMiLE would have at least sold respectably just from GV and the advertising alone. There really is no question of that. You could argue whether it would have been a smash hit or modest one, but to say it would have outright flopped is just straight-up incorrect.

I feel the opposite. I think Sgt pepper has received its fair share of flak over the years, as does any work of art that gains mainstream acceptance as 'great' - the backlash is inevitable (and of course necessary for an ever-changing culture to redefine itself).

I kind of feel like you're missing the point. Every era calls out for an album that defines it, whether it's gen Xers lauding Never Mind The Bollocks, or OK Computer capturing pre millennial tension etc. etc. Those albums become sort of archetypes, embodying more than just the music contained within the sleeve. Of course, when we revisit them 'cold' (from outside of the context from which they were originally created) it's easy to ask "What's so great about this?" Taken at face value, the music may not sound as good as albums by their contemporaries (or even other albums by the same band i.e. Kid A might be preferable to OK Computer just as Revolver might be preferable to Sgt Pepper), but the point is the album is great not for the music alone, but also because of how it captured the zeitgeist and public imagination at the time.

As far as I can tell, you are taking Sgt Pepper  out of context and comparing it to contemporaneous albums and saying "It sounds better - What's all the fuss about?". But 'the fuss' is the point - It's considered important because it embodied 1967 for so many people, because it represented the peak of pop music's exploration of psychedelia from which point on most other artists of significance threw in the towel and pursued alternative paths. It might sound aesthetically less pleasing than other albums of the time. It does to me too. But that doesn't change its place in history.

As for whether it's a better album than Satanic Majesties - Ha! I've had this exact same argument here before. I enjoy the stones album and used to listen to it loads at university. (It was my alarm CD at one point - I woke one morning, extremely hungover, and thought Keith's snoring was actually somebody in the room with me!) Personally it feels like an unfocused facsimile of Pepper. The Stones don't really sound convinced and it has a laziness and sloppiness about it, although there are some stellar songs, granted.

Is it better than Smile? It depends on what we're comparing. I agree that music from the Smile sessions is more beguiling, more enduring (it stands up far better to repeated plays), more complex, more dazzling. Aesthetically? Yes the Smile music is better by a mile imo. But as an artistic statement? Pepper wins hands down because VDP and BW failed to finish Smile. No statement was made. Arguing that it would've trumped Pepper had it been released is ridiculous. In that fantasy scenario what's stopping us adding Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane to Pepper to level the playing field? You change one reality surely you can change the other?

Once more, I get what your saying and concede your point. But there's something to be said about the test of time. Nobody can say which works of art will hold up decades later, which buried treasures will find an audience and come to prominence or which "classics" lose their luster and fade into obscurity. Some things that capture the zeitgeist of the time end up feeling dated years later.

Of course this is true but what doesn't change is the impact the album had in its own time.

I wish you were right that people will grow indifferent to Sgt Pepper whilst interest in Smile will snowball but I can't picture it. The Beatles and Sgt pepper are a historical phenomenon that will be dissected for centuries at least. Smile will always be a niche thing, more's the pity.

Picture two musical archaeological finds: An acetate containing a missing song from the Sgt Pepper sessions (something they'd planned to include but had somehow mislaid then forgotten about - I'm not talking about a 'Carnival of Light' style free-form wankfest but a proper, bonefide, previously unheard, classic Lennon & McCartney composition that was earmarked for Sgt P) and an acetate containing a finished sequence and mix for a complete Smile c.early 67 (which Brian had also mislaid and forgotten about - not so far-fetched). Both these artefacts coincidentally materialise in the same year sometime in the future - say in 2040 (when I'm 64 as it happens ). Which discovery gets more column inches? I'd wager it would be the lost Pepper track by a mile. It would make the evening TV news here, front pages of all papers I'm sure, whereas I suspect the Smile story might feature  prominently in the music press, but as far as the newspapers go - buried in the entertainment section of the weekend broadsheets at best.

Where we can agree is that Smile sounds less old fashioned than Sgt Pepper. If what your saying is that musically it has more longevity, then this is something I also believe. It strikes me that the restlessness that permeates the Smile music is very much present in music these days. It does sound more 'now' to my ears. But that doesn't mean that it will ever be more popular, or historically significant, than Sgt pepper.

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

Point me in the direction of some in-depth dissection of Pepper. Something on the level of what we do here for SMiLE, or the Smile Shop essays. Because all I ever see is just circle-jerking over how great it is and the like.

You may want to begin by acquainting yourself with this scholarly book published with articles by 12 different scholars:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=DN6hAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA129&dq=sgt.+pepper&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9gmMVaSjEMvy-AGahIHQBg&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sgt.%20pepper&f=false

After that, we can look at the singular academic essays devoted to the album. You simply cannot compare the enormous scholarly attention that Pepper has received to the discussion on Smile.

Honestly, thank you. I would genuinely like to read this and maybe see what Im apparently missing here.

[buddhahat]

Point me in the direction of some in-depth dissection of Pepper. Something on the level of what we do here for SMiLE, or the Smile Shop essays. Because all I ever see is just circle-jerking over how great it is and the like.

You may want to begin by acquainting yourself with this scholarly book published with articles by 12 different scholars:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=DN6hAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA129&dq=sgt.+pepper&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9gmMVaSjEMvy-AGahIHQBg&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sgt.%20pepper&f=false

After that, we can look at the singular academic essays devoted to the album. You simply cannot compare the enormous scholarly attention that Pepper has received to the discussion on Smile.

Honestly, thank you. I would genuinely like to read this and maybe see what Im apparently missing here.

If you haven't seen it you should watch the Beatles Anthology to get a sense of just how incredible their career trajectory was. What floored me was just how massive and total Beatlemania was across the globe. It's breathtaking to watch. Then you realise it's only 1964, like you're on dvd two or something, and there's still 6 more years of their career left and that from that point on each album will surpass the last. It's like the band had five different careers in one. I am a Beach Boys fan primarily, but when you comprehend just how much The Beatles achieved in such a short space of time - It boggles the mind.

[marcusb]

   The concept "Sgt Pepper's band putting on a show"...rather quaint, don't you think?  "Let's put on a show"....Judy Garland & Mickey Rooney did that at MGM in 1939. The "concept" disappears after "With a Little Help from My Friends" (definitive version by Joe Cocker) only to resurface at the end.

I 100% agree with this. I've never understood the "concept" when it seems to be dropped halfway into the album and is only brough back with the reprise of Sgt Peppers. I like the songs and the album but as a concept it's not very complete.

[JK]

I love this topic. It's passionate but not aggressively so.

i just feel every time I see The Beatles compared to what Brian and the Boys did that it should be "The Beatles and George Martin". That man was so incredibly important to their sound and to their success, I feel.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

i just feel every time I see The Beatles compared to what Brian and the Boys did that it should be "The Beatles and George Martin". That man was so incredibly important to their sound and to their success, I feel.

Martin is a great producer and undeniably crucial to the Beatles sound, but his importance does get overstated quite often. There were many people that helped contribute to The Beatles sound and success - Brian Epstein and Geoff Emerick being two other major contributors (the former for the success, the latter for the sound).

[Mike's Beard]

   The concept "Sgt Pepper's band putting on a show"...rather quaint, don't you think?  "Let's put on a show"....Judy Garland & Mickey Rooney did that at MGM in 1939. The "concept" disappears after "With a Little Help from My Friends" (definitive version by Joe Cocker) only to resurface at the end.

I 100% agree with this. I've never understood the "concept" when it seems to be dropped halfway into the album and is only brough back with the reprise of Sgt Peppers. I like the songs and the album but as a concept it's not very complete.

The Beatles have all said it wasn't a concept album.

i just feel every time I see The Beatles compared to what Brian and the Boys did that it should be "The Beatles and George Martin". That man was so incredibly important to their sound and to their success, I feel.

Martin is a great producer and undeniably crucial to the Beatles sound, put his importance does get overstated quite often. There were many people that helped contribute to The Beatles sound and success - Brian Epstein and Geoff Emerick being two other major contributors (the former for the success, the latter for the sound).

I dislike Martin's production style on early Beatles records; rubbish bass sound which is also pushed too far back in the mix to make room for the rhythm guitar. Compare them to the bass sound The Dave Clark 5 were getting at the time.

[marcusb]

The Beatles have all said it wasn't a concept album.

Do you have any quotes or sources? Here's what Lennon said:

"It's called the first "concept album." It doesn't go anywhere. "Mr. Kite," all my contributions have absolutely nothing to do with this idea of Sgt. Pepper and his band, but it worked because we said it worked.  And that's how it appeared. "

He doesn't deny it's a concept album. He just admits it isn't as cohesive as people make it out to be.. but because they said it was, people believe it is.

[Mike's Beard]

Ringo says on Anthology that they went into the studio and laid down the title track and Mr.Kite before saying 'sod it' let's just do tracks.

[Pablo.]

Back on topic. VDP just posted this:

http://www.americansongwriter.com/2015/06/paul-zollo-blog-van-dyke-parks-portrayal-love-mercy/

"the Melinda Wilson biopic"

OUCH!!

[drbeachboy]

Back on topic. VDP just posted this:

http://www.americansongwriter.com/2015/06/paul-zollo-blog-van-dyke-parks-portrayal-love-mercy/

"the Melinda Wilson biopic"

OUCH!!

Guessing that she is the one who he has a bone to pick with, not so much Brian. She probably asked him what "Over and over the crow cries uncover the corn field" means, too.

[ppk700]

Back on topic. VDP just posted this:

http://www.americansongwriter.com/2015/06/paul-zollo-blog-van-dyke-parks-portrayal-love-mercy/

"the Melinda Wilson biopic"

OUCH!!

Guessing that she is the one who he has a bone to pick with, not so much Brian. She probably asked him what "Over and over the crow cries uncover the corn field" means, too.

I really don't understand all the Melinda hate. Brian might be dead right now if it weren't for her. Plus, Brian obviously loves her very, very much. That's good enough for me; Brian seems to be at peace these days, and he deserves it. I know personally, I'd be lost without the wonderful woman I have in my life, I can relate to how Brian seemingly feels about Melinda.

If Van Dyke does have some bone to pick with her, I truly wonder, what could it possibly be over?

[GhostyTMRS]

Well, for those who were complaining that VDP was being too vague in his tweets, he lays it out in the article.  

So VDP wants more recognition for the music of SMiLE, not just the lyrics? Um..ok.

He thinks Melinda purposely diminished him to let Brian have all the credit? Melinda ain't the writer and director.  

Mocking Brian for mispronouncing the cellist's name? Kind of a low blow.

[drbeachboy]

Back on topic. VDP just posted this:

http://www.americansongwriter.com/2015/06/paul-zollo-blog-van-dyke-parks-portrayal-love-mercy/

"the Melinda Wilson biopic"

OUCH!!

Guessing that she is the one who he has a bone to pick with, not so much Brian. She probably asked him what "Over and over the crow cries uncover the corn field" means, too.

I really don't understand all the Melinda hate. Brian might be dead right now if it weren't for her. Plus, Brian obviously loves her very, very much. That's good enough for me; Brian seems to be at peace these days, and he deserves it. I know personally, I'd be lost without the wonderful woman I have in my life, I can relate to how Brian seemingly feels about Melinda.

If Van Dyke does have some bone to pick with her, I truly wonder, what could it possibly be over?

No Melinda hate from me. For VDP to call the movie "The Melinda Wilson biopic", that sounds like he has issues with her.

[SBonilla]

Well, for those who were complaining that VDP was being too vague in his tweets, he lays it out in the article.  

So VDP wants more recognition for the music of SMiLE, not just the lyrics? Um..ok.

He thinks Melinda purposely diminished him to let Brian have all the credit? Melinda ain't the writer and director.  

Mocking Brian for mispronouncing the cellist's name? Kind of a low blow.

If you mean 'arco,' that's a technique, not a name.

If anything it was a low bow.

[ppk700]

Back on topic. VDP just posted this:

http://www.americansongwriter.com/2015/06/paul-zollo-blog-van-dyke-parks-portrayal-love-mercy/

"the Melinda Wilson biopic"

OUCH!!

Guessing that she is the one who he has a bone to pick with, not so much Brian. She probably asked him what "Over and over the crow cries uncover the corn field" means, too.

I really don't understand all the Melinda hate. Brian might be dead right now if it weren't for her. Plus, Brian obviously loves her very, very much. That's good enough for me; Brian seems to be at peace these days, and he deserves it. I know personally, I'd be lost without the wonderful woman I have in my life, I can relate to how Brian seemingly feels about Melinda.

If Van Dyke does have some bone to pick with her, I truly wonder, what could it possibly be over?

No Melinda hate from me. For VDP to call the movie "The Melinda Wilson biopic", that sounds like he has issues with her.

Oh most definitely. I knew you weren't hatin' on her, my apologies if my response came off like I thought you were 

[Douchepool]

If there was any doubt that Van Dyke's personality is so similar to Michael's, well, this little interview really will change some minds. I also don't get all the Melinda hate, either. A lot of conspiracy theory nonsense from where I sit. She's not evil.

[Paul J B]

Well, for those who were complaining that VDP was being too vague in his tweets, he lays it out in the article.  

So VDP wants more recognition for the music of SMiLE, not just the lyrics? Um..ok.

He thinks Melinda purposely diminished him to let Brian have all the credit? Melinda ain't the writer and director.  

Mocking Brian for mispronouncing the cellist's name? Kind of a low blow.

It wasn't his music and if he wants to believe it is now then I don't know what to tell you. People get on Mike for decades about not having spoken up sooner about credit for lyrics. So what music for Smile did he supposedly write? Also, the movie is a story about Brian, Melinda and the Beach Boys. It is not the story of Smile or an obscure lyricist no one has ever heard of.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

A tweet from about twenty-five minutes ago indicates that he more than likely has not seen the film. When asked if he had seen it and if he liked it, he replied, "Those who were there & can remember, tell me it's a combo of "Fantasia" & "Reefer Madness"." So, he's being told about it. What is he being told - that simply he is not shown inventing the cello part of Good Vibrations? He also just re-tweeted this remark: "I enjoyed your 1.5 seconds in the film." I'm not sure what he expects this film to be.

I think he had a very legitimate gripe to complain about his portrayal in that awful TV movie from 15 years ago. This, I don't particularly understand. But ultimately I suppose that no biopic can please everyone who was actually involved when the events portrayed were actually occurring.

[JK]

Mocking Brian for mispronouncing the cellist's name? Kind of a low blow.

If you mean 'arco,' that's a technique, not a name.

If anything it was a low bow.

 

[SBonilla]

If there was any doubt that Van Dyke's personality is so similar to Michael's, well, this little interview really will change some minds.

I think both of them would laugh at that idea. Or, be insulted.

[Douchepool]

If there was any doubt that Van Dyke's personality is so similar to Michael's, well, this little interview really will change some minds.

I think both of them would laugh at that idea. Or, be insulted.

Similar personalities clash.