My Last (?) Crack at the SMiLE Jigsaw
Julia:
14. Thoughts on the Rest of the Book
After this, Priore feels the need to continue on with the '70 through '73 years for some reason. I skimmed these chapters but they're not of particular interest to this project so I'm not gonna comment chapter-by-chapter anymore.
I appreciate Priore's history of Smilephiles pre-internet in Chapter 15. Even though I don't like a lot of the "traditionalist" views they propagate about the album, I still respect the passion and results these guys brought to the table, keeping the legend alive at its darkest hour. It's kind of a relief to know Priore was dealing with the same factionalism, naysaying and "condescension" that I and so many other posters feel when they expose themselves to the wider fandom. There are so many schools of thought about what SMiLE was itself, let alone if it's even a worthy subject to devote so much attention to. (I remember when discussing this period in the band's history was considered a nuisance by a lot of people now running a certain "Smile Shop" in the eighth circle.) I guess it's just a universal experience for us passionate theorists and archivists, which further feeds the weird pessimistic-masochsit vibe I mentioned in a previous post. (We experience negativity and rejection for being BB fans so we always assume the music would've been rejected or convince ourselves some of it actually wasn't so good afterall.)
There's absolutely no doubt: even Priore admits the third movement, the 4-part Element suite, was comprised of all that was "left over" when the more natural first two groupings had been established. This occurs in the later BWPS chapter. "A lot of the Western expansion songs fell together, not so much because of the lyrics but because that's what Brian felt held together well, musically." / "Those [SU, Wonderful, Look, Child] were the ones that we naturally gravitated towards grouping together." / "The Elements ended up being all the songs that were left over after we grouped the Americana stuff together and then all the life-cycle songs together." This is all page 168, and I say case closed once and for all. Frustratingly though, Priore confuses the record by writing the prior chapters as though this, what became an ad hoc elements suite by his own admission, had always been the intent in 1966. But if you read to the BWPS chapter, finally he admits it was a happy accident where they had 4 vaguely element-related songs left at the end when the more "natural" groupings (that I'd argue were always vintage) fell into place. I'm surprised when we were going through this decades ago, more fans who supposedly read this book never felt the need to bring up the fact that Darian's testimony (and Brian's) puts the matter to bed in no uncertain terms. (But then we couldn't drag out the stupid Preiss quote for the umpteenth time and have yet another oh-so-ingenuous fan remind us "WC has a piano piece!" as if no one's ever thought of that before...)
The story of Look going after Wonderful is slightly different from what I'd heard before. Instead of passively listening to Darian's boot/mix (playlist of some origin) and having a lightbulb "that's how we'll do it" moment, Brian proactively puts them together and says "that's how it goes!" which implies more strongly a recalled vintage connection. (I used to be more inclined to stick with the Dec tracklist songs alone, but I've softened on that lately and plus Wonderful's abrupt ending always implied a missing "second movement" that I think may've been Look in '66, then "A Wonderful Insert" and god knows what else in '67 after the switch to Version 2 instrumentation.) Look and Wonderful were, at one point, a single song in two pieces meant to be spliced together, I'm throwing that theory out there.
I've been critical of some of Melinda's influence on Brian's career in the past, so I think it's only fair to acknowledge that Priore gives a compelling case here that she, more than anyone else, is responsible for Brian overcoming his fear of SMiLE. We definitely owe her bigtime for that.
The Epilogue and Afterword are cute looks at the artwork by Mark London and then Frank Holmes. Not much to comment on, but the info is appreciated. I prefer Frank's work in the visual aspect of SMiLE but I'm glad in hindsight it wasn't used at the time. This provided a cleaner break between the historical album and the rearranged solo project. I'm of the opinion they're different pieces of art and should be thought of as closely-related yet distinct--like SMiLE and Smiley, or Pet Sounds the studio album and Brian Wilson Presents Pet Sounds. (Why has no one else ever made that particular connection/argument before, by the way? Did Brian "finish" Pet Sounds by changing it into a live presentation? Are they the same album and the newer supersedes the other? Of course not, right--so why is that the case for BWPS?)
15. Conclusion
It's a great read, I couldn't put it down. There's a lot of seemingly great info here and many frustrating holes never filled in, which seems to be the case for every book at this subject. Without reading the new David Leaf book just yet, this is the definitive book on the subject pretty much by default but it's ruined by some blatantly untrue (or certainly unproven) accusations and Priore's incessant hobby horsing. Priore just has a certain view of what SMiLE should be and won't let facts get in the way of the narrative he's chosen. Even with Brian and Darian telling him in no uncertain terms "the third movement is NOT vintage" and a quote from VDP "the elements? oh yeah, I know he wanted to do something with that, that idea came later" he still can't help himself from pretending it was all part of some master plan in summer '66. That's right folks, this famously fluid, unfinished album was actually carefully planned out from the first step and totally ready to be finished--all they needed was a final mixdown! But big bad Mike Love canceled that session and told Taylor to announce SMiLE was dead--what a meanie!
It's hard to give a full-on recommendation for that reason, but there are still some good illuminating quotes from the principles. Speaking of which, Van vouches that all the info in the book is accurate in his foreword so for better or worse he's accusing Mike and Taylor of these things directly or by proxy.
MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm:
Fascinating. Great writing, Julia! 👏
Julia:
One last quick thought on Priore's 2005 book, specifically regarding Frank Holmes' work: Im wondering now if the name change from Dumb Angel to SMiLE hadn't perhaps been influenced by the delivery of the cover art directly, in October '66 as you'll recall. Maybe Frank made the cover at least partially upon hearing Brian talk about how important humor was to the whole project, happiness, and this rather than angels is what inspired Holmes visually. Then when Brian saw the store selling smiles he thought "smile! that's a good name!" Just a theory, I wonder if anyone else could corroborate if it fits.
Now here's my thoughts on the relevant sections of Brian Wilson & the Beach Boys: How Deep is the Ocean by Paul Williams https://archive.org/details/brianwilsonbeach0000will/page/37/mode/1up?view=theater I didn't have as much to say because most of the chapters are about other aspects of Brian's career and the original 3-part Anderle Crawdaddy interview is something I've commentated on elsewhere (and if I revisit it will be when I reread LLVS soon).
1. Thoughts on "A Visit with Brian"
The way Paul Williams describes his first meeting with Brian, smoking hash (his first time getting high) in the Arab tent, talking about the history of bicycles, sounds so freaking cool. I'd give anything to have been a nameless hanger-on in one of those stoned out meetings. Williams makes it sound like the SMiLE sessions and hangouts were as freeform as the music itself, people constantly coming and going (a cousin comes over to hook up a new videotape recorder, then Marilyn leaves, then Jules Siegal and his girlfriend pop over) trying to be around this exciting man in case they miss him doing something particularly cool. It must have been fun but also very chaotic, and I really believe a lot of acetates and other goodies must've gotten lost in the shuffle as people came and went without schedules. Paul even describes being allowed to sleep in the tent that night, then getting whisked away to lunch the next day in a limo and swept up in a session recording, on his back vocalizing at Brian's command. It just seems like Brian made use of anyone who was around to record any feel that crossed his mind (another reason those Psychedelic Sounds shouldn't be counted out).
2. Thoughts on "From the Crawdaddy News Column"
Paul Williams claims that "if SMiLE could've been kidnapped in January '67" implying that was the last period in which the album was still a thing. Also he makes the claim that there was a version of Heroes with "dogs barking" in one section (Swedish Frog? Animals/Barnyard?) that got cut after Brian heard Sgt Pepper's "Good Morning Good Morning."
3. Thoughts on "SMiLE is Done"
You get Anderle and Paul Williams on tape having a chill conversation about how Brian's doing, the personal progress he's made, the state of the industry and plight of being even a successful artist before they get into SMiLE. This is all recorded in 1997 and I think the funniest thing looking back is these guys assuring themselves that working with Joe Thomas was going to be good for Brian's output as an artist. (Good ol' hindsight am I right?)
Regarding SMiLE, their attitude is, it's done. Even pre-BWPS, their position is "it's recorded, everyone's got it in some form, it's as good as it's gonna get, Brian doesn't want to do it so stop badgering him, let it be a formless kaleidoscope, to force it into standard song form (as in Smiley) is to diminish its possibilities and therefore its grandeur. I don't necessarily disagree. I do think locking down SMiLE to any one state is kind of forcing some pieces into a lesser-quality permutation in order to raise others to their full potential. For example, my favorite form of Bicycle Rider is probably the "Piano Theme" version (track 20 of TSS Disc 2) or H&V Part 2 Master Take (track 27) but that doesn't really work as a chorus in Heroes or Worms and if you include them all in an album it either gets too bloated or you have to cut some other great music to hyper-focus on this theme. So those bits never really make the cut, despite being some of my favorite parts of the entire SMiLE canon, in service of the H&V/DYLW tracks. Same with Look, especially if you're trying to be "tracklist accurate" it's harder to justify than some other tracks but it's one of my favorite pieces. That's the enticing conundrum of SMiLE, why it can never truly be finished by anyone without someone (including the compiler themselves) thinking "what, how could you not include this? / Why didn't you sequence these parts together?!" But if you include too much, the album becomes less than the sum of its parts overall.
I used to think Brian had a secret unwritten sequence in his head circa Oct-Nov and it could be reverse engineered through research and intuitive understanding of the music or his mysticist-New Age ideas. (IE, maybe there's clues in interviews how it'd go, or maybe all the Side 1 songs are in the same key, or if you count how many notes are in each song and order them numerologically it'd be a brilliant track order!) Now I'm convinced Brian never had a plan beyond "make Heroes an insane multi-part musical comedy and everything not used for that can go somewhere else. Eventually." An accurate mix would probably be something between Thick as a Brick or the "Abbey Road medley" for whatever side Heroes is on, with these half-finished riffs and segments flowing into each other, or separated by spoken word comedy and laughter. Heroes might not take up a whole side, but I don't think a 6-12 minute cut for the album is off the table, with the rest of the side comprising the other Americana themed tracks that grew out of its inception. Then the non-Heroes side would have more traditional, individualist songs still created from spliced segments (SU and now I'm guessing Wonderful had two movements each, WC & CIFOTM have 3 distinct pieces that'd be edited into some kinda v-c-v-c-f structure) but not as free form and with less overt comedy. Beyond that, it's pure guesswork to say what exact songs would make the cut, or where exactly they'd fall in the order. The whole Element-medley thing is, was and always will be a complete red herring in my opinion, at least with what we have in the vaults. Even indulgences I like to include, such as the comedy skits were almost certainly a passing thought that may well have been scrapped soon after hitting the tape.
Without tying it specifically to SMiLE stuff, David and Paul discuss how a myth, once out in the public, gets set in stone and it's hard to change perspectives. They use this in the context of "Brian spent ten years in bed" and "SMiLE broke Brian's brain" kind of popularly-accepted talking points. Obviously I spend a lot of time decrying and trying to disprove many "SMiLE myths" I take issue with, like the vintage Elements-themed side of vinyl and "Mike singularly, willfully, maliciously killed the project." But it's true, once a compelling narrative takes hold, people don't want to let it go if the truth sounds more boring. Hence the power of propaganda, the power of storytelling as an art form (every plot is contrived or even full of holes, but we brush over it "so the story can happen" and that's not a bad thing), as well as the need for a legendarium in people.
At first David and Paul give Derek Taylor credit for "having the balls to say" Brian's a genius, though they acknowledge from the beginning it did at least as much harm as good. But then they speculate it was McCartney's praise of Brian that gave him that angle. They start talking about how Jules Siegal used the genius line to give his own career a boost. Supposedly, Siegal did things like that so everytime he wrote about Brian he'd feel more important, like "I've got an interview with the great genius." Without getting into specifics, Anderle mentions another vague time when Jules wanted to write something about him but Anderle said no because it wouldn't be true and Jules supposedly said "yeah but no one needs to know that." Anderle straight up says Siegal was "a shithead." I'd heard nobody really liked Jules Siegal and this all but confirms it. Also, on the other board I know the posters there have been going through certain details (the fire next door to the studio being a big one) and proving that Jules did indeed stretch the truth in GSHG. This means his seminal article, the very bedrock of the entire SMiLE myth, was notably exaggerated. It's what makes SMiLE so frustrating to parse out factually nowadays, how the contemporaneous myth of Siegal and ongoing legends of the bootleg/internet "Oral Tradition" (retroactively justified by BWPS) have buried inconvenient, less exciting truths under decades-worth of compounding tall tales.
The Anderle painting story is relayed again but this time David speculates that what scared Brian was that he saw something in himself he didn't like. Looking back, David can admit that he captured the "madness" of Brian a little too well, and seeing how he appeared in other people's eyes must've spooked Brian. The numerology thing was either just a coincidence or an excuse for Brian to express his discomfort without admitting that out loud. Anderle even says "I'm surprised he didn't shoot me" and admits it is a freaky looking painting--which he still had as of '97 (wonder where it is now? That's gotta be as much of a holy grail collector's item as any lost tape/acetate or original SMiLE cover/booklet at least). Anyway, I think this is a plausible interpretation, same as how I think "your girlfriend's a witch" was probably a convenient excuse to get rid of Siegal and the I Ching story was probably a way to blame "fate" for the project's disintegration rather than admit "I just dont want to do this anymore." That all sounds like something Brian would do.
Julia:
These are my thoughts on the BWPS liner notes and TSS booklet. (Plus some other random things that popped up in my sleuthing.)
1. Brian's Essay (TSS)
Once again, H&V, Wonderful, CE & SU (that order listed) are given as the first tracks. This comes up so often I think we can establish it as a fact. It's interesting too how this included arguably the two best tracks in each of the two vintage movements, as well as their respective endpoints.
"It wasn't going to be like any other Beach Boys album anybody had ever heard," can be read into to mean a different structure, or you could say this is just referring to the material's quality.
Bob Dylan is listed twice as an inspiration, along with the Beatles. I think he wanted poetic Dylan lyrics, same as the Beatles did with Rubber Soul (particularly Norwegian Wood).
"Trying to make [working on the album] as much fun as I could" (in regards to the tent, sandbox, exercise equipment, fire hats). Same as with Smiley, I think Brian was a believer in the vibes of the artist(s) bleeding over to the sound of the art. That's probably a not insignificant reason it fell apart, he wasn't having fun anymore so he didn't think it would sound fun--which for an album called "SMiLE" is probably not good.
"The music was very serious" but "the goal was to make the world smile."
In order, Brian lists "the resistance I was feeling to my vision" then "all the things going on inside my head" then "the challenge of competing with the Beatles" then "pressure from the record company" in order as reasons he decided to cancel it. So take that for what it's worth--he seemingly reaffirms here what he said in Beautiful Dreamer that the first reason is the Beach Boys not trusting his vision.
2. Tom Nolan's Essay
In lieu of a VDP essay proper, we get Tom Nolan writing about Van's history and MO in absentia. The top quote, about Van's lyrics as meant to exist on a deeper meaning, seems another reference to the bisociative method. (Or just the concept of abstract impressionist style in general).
The anecdote about how the worst thing you can ask a poet is what their poem means feels like a not so subtle dig at Mike. Not totally unjustified either. (Not everything has to mean something, at least literally. Ask what the words makes you feel, what they make you think of. Has no one ever read poetry?)
I appreciate Tom explaining the concept of "death of the artist" to the reader, though he doesn't use that exact terminology. Art is subjective, it's going to make different people think of different things. Once it's out there, it belongs to the public in terms of "what does this mean?" People on this forum now seem cool but back in the day, the types who'd get bent out of shape if I offered an interpretation of a song without a source "justifying" it could've stood to read this and take it to heart. It's not "distorting the historical record" to speculate on CIFOTM's would-be lyrics as long as I don't make up evidence to justify it. (We'll get into that when I talk about Priore.)
3. The Beach Boys' Essays
Al's description of doing endless takes that already sounded perfect to everyone but Brian gently illustrates, I think, the main problem the guys had with Brian in this era. I think if Brian didn't run the guys quite so hard, there's a chance they'd have been more forgiving of the "far out" lyrics, but after 20+ takes, hours of singing your heart out, there comes a point when you reflexively clap back "what the hell are we even singing anyway, Brian?" It's interesting that Brian apparently didn't write sheet music for the guys, if Al's recounting is believed. I've read that he DID present sheet music to the Wrecking Crew, so it's not like he didn't have any for them to reference if they needed it.
Mike can't help but want to correct the record against perceived slights--in this case, Rolling Stone magazine's 500 best albums (back when Sgt Pepper was still #1). I like how he's willing to admit "excitations" is barely a word (my spell correct doesn't recognize it) but it rhymes so he went with it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, if people can intuit what you mean and the meter fits, go for it. VDP did the same kinda thing--a freaking President (Warren G Harding) is credited with coining the word "normalcy" instead of using "normality" (and why not, it's a better way to say the same thing and everyone knows it!). I appreciate how Mike can acknowledge that Tony Asher did a great job, but the fact he doesn't say the same about VDP on a release of material Van wrote on, feels like a deliberate omission. Mike even challenges Brian's own essay within the very same booklet, affirming he loved the music but not the lyrics or drugs. I appreciate he owns up to the "acid alliteration" put down (and this makes me inclined to believe him when he disowns the "don't f*** with the formula" quote). Mike lists "drugs, industry pressures and Brian's over-the-top commitment to perfection" as the culprits of SMiLE's demise.
I really wish we could have a proper essay from Dennis and Carl. I think they'd have had some nice insights. It's interesting how Dennis downplays that "pop symphony" marketing hype himself in one of the provided quotes, even relaying a memory of Brian calling himself "a musical midget" next to Beethoven. The Carl quote about God as a universal consciousness I think is very important to understanding the spirituality of SMiLE. It's not a Christian conservative or European Yahweh kind of "God" that they were honoring, or invoking, with this music. It was something far more profound and pantheistic I believe, the kind of "God" you feel intuitively on a large dose of psychedelics, the oneness of everything.
It's nice to get Bruce as a counterpoint to that same Dennis quote, where he asserts Brian's music was indeed good enough for the classical label. (I find some of the marketing buzz-phrases pretentious but I do think SMiLE is the "missing link" along the chain of pop music's development, somewhere between Mozart and your average 70s prog rock album.) Bruce, I think, understood that SMiLE was really a solo album based on this essay, as Anderle and some of the Posse have affirmed. I'm inclined to think that way too, as it represents a cohesive body of work from a singular visionary rather than a truly collaborative endeavor with the group. Of all the BBs I think he's the only one who wouldn't have minded if Brian went solo (he'd been in the industry outside the group, he'd find his way). Like, I'm sure he'd be disappointed to lose a great gig and be part of what the mastermind was doing next, but he wouldn't begrudge that master his muse. I wonder if Bruce said these things to Brian in '66; if he didn't, it might've made all the difference if he had...
4. Thoughts on Peter Reum's Essay
SMiLE's raison d'etre was "to express the wonder Brian felt from the spirituality he had experienced through the process of making music." Brian "felt that a creative window to heaven had opened to him during PS."
Among Brian's reading list, sources of inspiration, we can include "books about Native American cultures and their love of Earth," (inspiration for Worms of course, maybe CE too) & "how people's spirituality was expressed through creativity" (is that TAOC you think, or something else?), & "psychology and family dynamics" (that's CIFOTM's genesis surely, perhaps Wonderful's too).
"Humor was especially important to Brian [...] he was intensely interested in the spiritual power of laughter and how it might heal the pain that people feel." Brian "hoped [SMiLE] would bring a new spirituality to pop music." I think he succeeded, or would have, but these are such tough expectations to set for oneself. I don't think SMiLE is funny except for Heroes and Veggies, but maybe he meant for one to go on each side and they be the cathartic-springboard to hear the tough lessons and bittersweet emotions of the following tracks in both movements? The idea being laughter can't happen all the time, life's full of troubles, but it's relative rarity makes it sweeter?
"The modules he was creating would be inspired by all of the things he read, saw and felt while spending time with his new circle of friends." The "embarrassing" (to some people) aspects of SMiLE, with the new age books and "evil stoner" social circle are an integral part of SMiLE's identity. This too is partly why I'm inclined to defend and use the Psychedelic Sounds, or speculate on hidden astrological/numerological meanings in the music.
5. Thoughts on the Sessionography
**I'm not gonna deep-dive this info just yet. I might come back to it to see if things like, "what songs all use a french horn" or "what happens when you order songs chronologically" yield any interesting results.**
I will say quickly though, looking at this, it seems our biggest "missing pieces" in terms of lost tapes are:
1) a May 11 '66 H&V take that came in at 2:45 (taped over). Plus the missing 12/19 & 1/20 sessions with the Wrecking crew as well as 12/13, 12/22, 12/27, 12/28, 1/20, 1/31, 2/3, 2/24 & 2/26 BB vocal sessions. As far as I can tell, AGD doesn't list a missing the 12/22, 12/27, 1/20, 1/31, 2/3, 2/24 or 2/26 dates as missing material. I'm not sure how to account for these discrepencies--TSS is tracking overdubs and AGD isnt, AGD updates the site often and they've since found these tapes? The TSS sessionography does include a disclaimer that the 1967 tapes may be overdubs on previously recorded masters--Im inclined to think that's it if no one corrects me.
2) the Oct 17 IIGS vocal session with all six BBs, but "there's a chance the Veggie Cornucopia demo MAY have been recorded at that session." I never knew about this before, because AGD's "Bellagio10452" site only lists the Veggie Demo on Oct 17, no IIGS for Oct 16. He also has it as missing.
3) the I Ran vocal session on Oct 13 (of 3:50 length) is missing on both sessionographies.
4) the Surf's Up BB vocals session on Dec 15 & instrumental Jan 23 "sweetening session" for PART ONE are missing on both as well.
5) the March 13 vocal session for Tones, either the tape was wiped or misplaced. March 15, April 11 instrumental sessions as well. (AGD doesn't mention the April session but does the other two.)
6. Thoughts on "SMiLE: A History"
This telling of the tale pegs the official change of Dumb Angel to SMiLE at October, which tracks with Frank Holmes sending over the cover. EXCEPT, oh no, fly in the soup, Priore lists October as the month Brian MET Frank, not when Frank turned in his work as per Priore's own book if you'll recall. Well shoot, you'd think Priore would remember that research from 2005, wouldn't ya? So, which month was it, Mr. Ultimate SMiLE Historian? Because that's kind of an important detail methinks. And if he's going to supersede the word of one of our primary sources (Holmes), whom he interviewed, what changed Priore's mind on this? What's more compelling than a firsthand account? Did Brian say it was October and VDP backed him up? Was there hard evidence like dated contractual paperwork that appeared from the ether since '05? sh*t like this happens all the time in SMiLE research and it's so frustrating, especially when you'd think these guys would care about pegging down specifics and keeping the record consistent...
A lot of SMiLE songs went through a metamorphosis. Heroes had at least 3 mixed down variations we can attest to (lost May 66 version with OMP, Feb which may've included a Part 2, then the Smiley single), CIFOTM & WC had 2 each (not counting Smiley WC), Dada had at least 2 as well (All Day/Da Da & Second Day), Veggies also had 2 (demo & single). The reasons for this are numerous--the structure changed when it became a single (H&V, VT), the arrangement changed as it was repurposed to plug up conceptual holes (Dada from a Heroes piece to pseudo-element), or perhaps failed to meat the bisociative standards Brian was setting for himself (CIFOTM, WC). The one that never quite made sense to me though, is Wonderful which has 4 versions including Smiley. The conceptual, bisociative aspects were dead-on accurate in Version 1 and to almost everyone's ears, Version 2 is noticeably inferior while V3 is beautiful but surely less visually evocative (plus it's unfinished). So why change it? Well, somehow seeing Wonderful in this form it clicked--I think it was always Brian's go-to B-side regardless of the single BUT he wanted it to fit with each candidate conceptually or in matching arrangement. Why bother with this uniformity no one would care about? Because SMiLE Era Brian does everything next level. I think V2 Wonderful was an attempt to make what started as a parent's lament into a romantic nightclub tease, so that it would serve as a representation of the kinda music "Margarita" would be dancing to in a seedy saloon. Possibly it'd even be included as such in the 2-part H&V single cut. Then V3 copies the piano from Veggies.
Priore has February as the month the Beach Boys file their lawsuit. I'd never had an exact date in mind that I recall from any of these sources, but like a lot of key events I just assumed Dec or Jan.
Priore has March as the month VDP "leaves temporarily." No such mention of such an occurrence in Dec right after the CE incident. He comes back immediately in April but then leaves permanently to record his solo album. This seems a bit off, especially because it opens up several more months where VDP would've been involved but seemingly not doing anything. (I really want to go back in time to find out how and why CIFOTM lyrics were never even attempted according to him, much less finished, in like 10 months time! This timeline drives me nuts the more I think of it--how long does it take to write a song and is this perhaps an underrated aspect of it's demise if Brian was waiting around for weeks at least waiting for Van to finish or what?)
Also looking at all this now, it occurs to me--You're Welcome, if you think it wouldn't have been another junked feel akin to He Gives Speeches, Holidays and possibly I Ran, is almost certainly the new intro to the album considering it's a fade-in, unambiguously inviting us to come along (presumably on a journey...across America...to wherever the sounds may take us). Considering Vosse describes Prayer as a coda I'm inclined to believe Brian's plans changed despite that "intro to the album" quote in the studio chatter three months earlier. I think this is why You're Welcome became the B-side as well when it's otherwise such a weird choice in that context. They needed to get product out the door ASAP and went with YW (over Holidays, I Ran, HGS or even just any old SMiLE "feel" now indefinitely on ice, like Dada) because it was already associated with Heroes in Brian's mind. It was meant to be an intro tied with Heroes (remember Prayer by itself doesn't lead into Heroes naturally, different keys and tone) and since Heroes wasn't going to be on SMiLE post-Smiley (the 10 track version promised by Capitol) might as well get SOME use out of that segment which wouldn't have reason to exist on the belated version of SMiLE proper. To me this seems intuitive. The Dec recording date could coincide with Anderle telling Brian he'd need to put out a single ASAP for BRI (which they chose Heroes "because it was the closest to being finished" not necessarily because Brian had always intended it that way) so now he knows Heroes would have to go first, as opposed to something else like perhaps Worms (hence why it's first on the tracklist--Diane or Carl didn't get the memo by the time Capitol asked for a list). It's perhaps a bit complicated of a theory but everything fits and sounds plausible. This is why I vote YW as the "true" intro and Prayer the coda after SU.
[ASIDE:]Especially if we believe this history of SMiLE, where VDP leaves only in March then again in April rather than first in Dec or Jan then again in April, I think the true inflection point was Anderle asking for a BRI single. It wasn't Mike and the CE incident, though that certainly didn't help. Mike makes for a convenient, dramatic, narratively satisfying villain and I'm sure he did in fact "kill the enthusiasm for the project" with complaints and a general sour attitude. But when Anderle forced Brian to begin to untangle the H&V knot that's when it came undone because suddenly Brian went from thinking in terms of side-long modular pieces, know he had to make "the best record ever" in only 3:30 time, make Heroes make sense and melt faces without all these epic pieces to back it up. I think that started a negative thought loop of "take 45 minutes of music and find the best 4 minutes" and "what does any of this matter if no individual piece can stand as a single?" I think before that, Brian could always think "just record every stray riff, you can make sense of it later" and "ehh, I'll think of a way to connect that back to Heroes later." Now he had to confront the issue of "what even IS Heroes anymore? Do I even know? Has the initial concept actually gotten lost in all these disparate I've been distracting myself with?"[/ASIDE]
7. Thoughts on Frank Holmes' Essay
Reading Holmes' essay, the biggest takeaway for me is that this guy really got what the project was about, whether Brian discussed TAOC with him or Holmes just had a similar understanding of the artistic process. The way Frank perfectly captured the album's vibe by drawing VDP's lyrics exactly (as in showing "see how ridiculous this is, they're not meant to be literal") which often required melding different objects together like mismatched puzzle pieces (illustrating the abstract freedom of Brian's modular technique as well as the bisociative "everything is on two levels/everything is pictorial and related" art philosophy) is a stroke of genius and/or luck. Pepper may be a better cover, but the overall SMiLE presentation is leagues better. (I'll take the original SMiLE booklet planned for '67 over the dumb Pepper mustaches and cutouts any day, thanks.)
This is as good of a place to mention--I don't like how comparatively overlooked Guy Webster is in all this. There's always talk about "the three artists" who made SMiLE but he was a creative person making great art in a unique field whose work was going to help define the project too. I had completely forgotten the name of the photographer who took the original booklet pictures until going back down the SMiLE rabbit hole this summer. Was he not asked to send an essay--he only just died in 2019. Did he have any unique philosophy of his craft during the SMiLE gig, was he made aware of the project's aims and perhaps little factoids (maybe Brian secretly told the photographer what the second movement of Surf's Up was gonna be!)? I guess we'll never know, and that's a shame.
8. Thoughts on Marilyn's Essay
The fact that Marilyn admits she couldn't understand VDP's words either is pretty significant without trying to be, I think. It implies that, in Brian's world, there wasn't just ornery Beach Boys asking "what does this mean" or not being able to answer if Brian asked them what they think it means, to see if they "got" what he was doing. She does say it doesn't matter, the music was incredible, but I have to think her not getting it may've influenced Brian's decision that this music wasn't palatable to his old audience. Not blaming Marilyn--hey I don't fully get Van's lyrics either and my opinion of him as a collaborator goes back and forth--but yeah, if your wife can't follow your muse that's gotta create some doubt if you're really doing the right thing.
Marilyn claims "the laughing" is Bobi, Diane, "Ralph the engineer," Brian and her. Is this "moaning laughter" she's referring to, like the second half of Breathing on PS? Because that's certainly news to me. (Was Breathing/Torture aka Moaning Laughter a separate recording on the same tape? I thought everything on PS Disc 1/Nov 4 tape was all one mostly continuous session?)
Marilyn attests that Paul McCartney ate celery at the veggies session but not necessarily that it was recorded for the track. (I don't think it was.)
I kinda wish Marilyn would tell us who she considers "the users" but I get why she wouldn't. Perhaps if she'd mentioned a few whom she genuinely liked and let us fill in the blanks that would've been nice, but ah well. I just assume Anderle and Vosse were cool. Hutton seems like a good guy who really loved Brian too. Daro is controversial and obviously hated by Marilyn, Siegal seems like a decent next candidate for a "less-wanted" member of the Posse, beyond that it's really a shot in the dark whom she thought had ill-intent.
Marilyn is a saint the way she sings Brian's praises here for posterity after everything he put her through. She clearly loved him a lot. He was a lucky man, even if he didn't get his dream girl in Diane...
9. Thoughts on Diane Rovell's Essay
Diane's job sounds exhausting, being awoken at 4:30 AM and told you need to assemble a bunch of musicians and get into the studio THE VERY NEXT DAY. It's surprising she was able to pull it off so often, and that she doesn't resent Brian for things like that looking back. I wondered if maybe that's the real answer to the number of cancelled sessions, she booked the studio but couldn't get everyone together in time perhaps, so they canceled. That seemed a more plausible explanation instead of "bad vibes." But then later she says she never had a problem getting the musicians willing to entertain Brian's whims, which feels like something she wouldn't say if she'd had to cancel.
She refers to The Elements as being Fire, Water, Air & Earth in that order. I wonder if there's any significance to that, she says of Fire "it's what he called The Elements: Fire, Water, Air and Earth" written just like that. It's at least the best clue we'll ever get into what order they came in, and something like Fire(+Workshop?)/Second Day(+Water Chant opening, like our Dada has)/Vega-Tables isn't a bad 3-part medley if you're into that sorta thing. Works a hell of a lot better than the BWPS third movement, I'd say. Or I could imagine something like Fire, put out by the Vosse music concrete water sounds, flowing into Breathing-like vocalizations (with a flighty piano) for Air. Then Veggies would come in as Earth. It's maybe a bit rough, I'm just speculating, and ultimately I think the chaotic-sounding results of these element collages are a huge reason the track was abandoned.
Diane has Paul eating carrots, still no mention it was recorded for the track though.
Diane goes out of her way to point out that the '03 album is different than the original '60s conception. "...until it was revised in 2004. Yes, revised - not the real, original version. It's OK, that is how it had to be." This is arguably the person who was as close to the project as Brian and VDP--arguably closer than Van or her sister, Bri's wife, considering she organized (and presumably sat in on) all the sessions. I take that as a significant statement, that she didn't have to make unless it means something. I think she hears a difference in tone, not to mention sequence, not to mention philosophy, in BWPS that compels her to correct the record. (BWPS doesn't have those haunting fades, nor the off-putting Psychedelic Sounds, nor the creepier sessions like Talking Horns, nor the weirdest "far out" compositions like CIFOTM version 1).
She quotes Brian lamenting to her at the time: "Dee, I am sad and confused about this music, and the reaction from the Boys."
10. Thoughts on Dean Torrence's Essay
It's a cute story, not much else to say. I imagine this is the kind of fun goofy shenanigans going on between sessions in Brian's life at that time. Go to the studio, make the greatest music ever recorded, then play basketball or smoke weed and chill in a pool with friends. I kept waiting for Torrence to mention that this game was recorded so I'd finally get an origin story for the Basketball Sounds (one of the more mysterious PS snippets, along with Bob Gorden's Real Trip) but he never does. Still, it's possible, and even if not this specific game, I think we can ascertain that BS was recorded in similar circumstances. (Otherwise it'd have to be, what, a local high school or college game Brian attended? Anyone got receipts on something like that--on such and such date he was known to be at XYZ State college?)
11. Thoughts on Mark Volman's Essay
He describes beginning to hang out with Brian "around the time of [his] wedding in January '67." I'm gonna assume that means "within a few months range" and he was there Oct or at least Nov '66 when all the fun stuff was really happening. Volman describes himself as part of a trusted "inner sanctuary of friends." Supposedly they'd get together "each night" and listen to acetates with their own sets of headphones simultaneously at the dinner table while Brian watched everyone's reactions. The other Beach Boys were never around--presumably not just because of touring, I choose to believe this means even when they could be there, they made a point not to. Volman specifically mentions the other BBs were not supportive except Dennis, which is why the Posse tried to supplement that positive energy themselves, and put up with coming to the airport on command.
There's an offhand mention of Brian "not feeling 100%" and lying in bed one night when he demoed SU for this group of friends. It's unclear if Brian just had like a cold or stomach bug or if this was the beginnings of a depressive funk (the timeline matches up).
12. Thoughts on Michael Vosse - David Anderle - Danny Hutton
This is a great conversation but I don't have much to react to since a lot of it isn't new info for me at this point. One interesting takeaway is Vosse saying he witnessed "tense discussions" between Brian and Mike but he stresses they were not arguments and further emphasizes the group was "very supportive and grateful for Brian's presence." Anderle also expresses empathy for where the Boys were coming from. I really think if Mike killed SMiLE it was just in the sense that Brian was SO sensitive, that everything else was so much to handle, that he was hanging on by a thread and any negativity from within the group itself was enough to break what was left of his drive. Because the only particular grievance ever leveled at Mike is the CE incident and even that is vague and within Mike's right to ask, plus he ultimately sang it anyway. Unless anything egregiously antagonistic was strictly said between Mike and Brian off-mic, and Brian isn't one to spill the beans (except say emphatically that Mike "hating" SMiLE was the biggest factor on at least a few occasions) it just leaves me asking "well, what did Mike DO exactly" anytime I read these accounts.
Vosse mentions "conversations" of Brian realizing he needed "a lot more time [...] it wasn't even a matter of picking a period, like a year. [...] it was his growing realization that he had begun the creation of something quite large in scope and something that he cared about so much more than he had probably cared about any particular album." For me, this means more than a simple 12 track banded pop album. Because even a lot of the sources I've been reading emphasize if that were the case, he only needed a few days to record vocals--plus maybe some odds and ends like the second movement of SU. BUT if SMiLE was something more than that, if the fanciful audio collages of music concrete pieces and linking skits or overdubbed talking between cuts wasn't just hot air for the press, I could see that astronomically increasing the length of time to put it all together. It'd certainly feel like a great deal more work because there's no precedent for it, as opposed to "recording a track takes a day" or whatever. That goes from "schedule a few dates and bump off this clearly defined work" to "I don't even know where to begin with this, I have to sit through hours of footage finding the best spoken word or sentence to tediously splice in the exact right second, I'm not sure if or when I'd have all the raw materials needed, this could go on indefinitely" the way Vosse describes.
13. Thoughts on Producers' Notes
Something that kinda bugs me about SMiLE discussions, even from some of the experts with hands-on knowledge and experience, is in how...literal...(I'm trying not to use the word obtuse) they take everything sometimes. This whole talking point "Brian recorded enough material for a double album" for example. Like, umm, yeah if you ignore that a lot of it was for obsolete alt versions of the songs as previously mentioned. Or for "feels" that almost certainly wouldn't have made the final cut, abandoned songs, B-sides, etc. In 1967, Brian didn't have to include every discretely labelled piece just because they've all since become iconic as was the case in '03. Nor would he have done so by any stretch of the imagination. GV isn't 5 hours long, Pet Sounds shed Trombone Dixie and excluded Little Girl I Once Knew as well as "version 1" takes of IKTAA (aka "Hang Onto Your Ego"), YSBIM (aka "In My Childhood") and GOK with the sax solo. It feels like with SMiLE, these guys forget that the concept of "leaving things on the cutting room floor" exists for some reason. Brian wasn't sitting around waiting until CDs changed the accepted album length so he could include "nearly all of the songs" and he almost certainly would've culled it down to less than 40 minutes because most BB albums are short and he valued quality over quantity. Honestly is SMiLE even that unusual in the "minutes recorded vs would-be minutes released" ratio? Why do people act flummoxed by this?
Similarly, I think the arduousness of editing analog tape contributed significantly to the mental block which killed Brian's enthusiasm for the project, but it wasn't physically impossible the way Linnett likes to imply sometimes. Frank Zappa did it. Joseph Byrd. Countless others too, albeit less extensively. A modular audio collage was definitely possible, you just had to put in the time and know what you wanted going in (this was Brian's problem). Ironically, by BWPS when "the technology caught up with him," Brian's artistic ambition was comparatively zapped from '66 and he wasn't thinking of crazy audio collages with music concrete anymore to need it. By then, a freeform SMiLE somewhere along the spectrum between "Abbey Road Medley" and "WOIIFTM" was the last thing on Brian's mind, except for the need to keep the momentum going for a live presentation.
Alan Boyd's essay describes exactly how and why the oral tradition I'm so critical of developed in the first place. With the slow drip feed of pieces coming out over two decades, people desperately tried to figure out how it all made sense without having the context of the whole work to keep perspective. They had read about an Elements thing and that became the most exciting, easily accessible lens to try to understand things. ("Ooh, they say "wa wa" in this section so this could be Water, hmm this piece sounds Earth-y to me, oh it's got "wind" in the title, it must be air!") Whereas if you've got the complete sessionography and breadth of music at your disposal, one naturally notices groupings that don't require a proscribed context going in to make intuitive sense. (Like "hey, WC/Won/Look/CIFOTM/SU all clearly sound alike, with similar instrumentation and themes--they must be related, especially since they don't neatly fit into the American manifest destiny bent of these other tracks!")
This is partly why I don't think it's a good thing SMiLE happened as it did, why I don't see the ouroboros "fan speculation influenced BWPS so it all came full circle!" as cute, or a "better story" as I've seen it said. This is a tragedy that led to the album being denied its opportunity to shock the world at large, all in favor of comparatively few disciples having to seek it out instead. This circumstance also led to everybody's mostly baseless theories having time to marinate and develop emotional attachments, so when there was more to work with, new light shown on the subject, nobody wanted to reexamine what they thought they knew. (Not to say my mix ideas are perfect or the only way it should be done, but it's not even like most of the alts I see are all that creative either. It's almost always "Americana tracks on side 1, so-called Elements tracks on side 2, with the so-obviously cohesive Life tracks awkwardly split up, W&Child on s1 while WC&SU are s2. Why and how anyone came to believe BWPS' movement 3 was vintage over the far more cohesive movement 2 I'll NEVER understand.)
14. Thoughts on Priore's Essay
His background info on where SMiLE was coming from as part of the rock revolution, the counterculture, is great but mostly a rehash from his 2005 book if you've read it. What kinda bugs me is his going song by song and telling us the obvious interpretation, justifying this flawed sequence. This could've been cut for space--maybe reprintings of some of the best articles in LLVS (Vosse in Fusion especially) or something else. It just feels a little patronizing both to Brian and the reader. I explain the connections track-by-track in my fanmixes because they're unofficial releases and I feel the need to justify why I'm saying "I have a better way to sequence SMiLE than 03-11 era Brian Wilson." The fact that Brian's team themselves feel the need to justify their choices, pretend the flawed 3-movement structure is somehow a narratively coherent journey, is a mark of weakness in my eyes. Like Sgt Pepper "it's a concept album because we say it is, deal with it," except there actually is a far better concept album hiding in plain sight but most people won't buck the established traditions (of an album whose primary purpose was to do just that)...
15. Thoughts on BWPS Liner Notes
I know I must sound snarky or pompous but I don't care, I'm gonna say it. Back in 2014, I was giving my opinion on why BWPS should NOT be considered exactly the same project as SMiLE '66-'67. I said they're separate albeit related recordings, made with different societal blueprints in mind, by an artist warped by 35 years (most of them tinged by pharmaceutical and neurological abuse). These two separate artists, the same man in two wildly different contexts, with different career ambitions and artistic vantage points, used fundamentally irreconcilable methods of achieving sound. One used analog instruments, the other MIDI harpsichords, with different recording equipment--analog 3/4 track machines or digital software. That's enough to ensure a different sonic texture, in a different sequence, played with different emotions, trying to illicit different reactions from the listener and no one can deny it. Anyway, THE LINER NOTES OF BWPS OPENLY ADMIT THIS AND DON'T TRY TO REFUTE THAT IT'S DIFFERENT THAN smIle '67. And, petty spite that I am, I can't help but feel a bit miffed by that, because the way some people reacted back then, you'd think I'd slapped Brian in the face. They're just different works--same sheet music perhaps (minus the missing fades) but different means of bringing it to life, and some fans don't believe the old should be eclipsed by the new on people's shelves, as part of the conversation, or as a series of clues and raw material for alternate versions of SMiLE. (Because the BWPS template is seriously flawed, clearly not a resurrected vintage plan and I wish we could stop pretending otherwise.)
Beyond that, it's just a very basic retelling of the SMiLE myth plus lyric sheets with weird circus artwork--cribbing from Mr Kite? I say it's leaning too hard into the 1-dimension "youthful frolic" element of SMiLE at the expense of its psychedelia, "music cartoon" (as per VDP's interpretation) and bisociative aspects. Which just illustrates my point further--the Sixties version had an ominousness to it, a sense of the unknown and indescribable, all aimed at young adults looking for the answer, while BWPS is a fluffy excursion for literal kids.
16. Thoughts on a Random Domenic Priore Interview
https://prayforsurfblog.blogspot.com/2025/06/domenic-priore-one-on-one.html
This guy is such a phony-bologna Im surprised he's taken seriously as a source. He's a curator of SMiLE articles and a fine enough writer of prose. But then he's always forcing his narrative of what he wants SMiLE to be at every opportunity and it's just insufferable to me sometimes. I'm sure someone's gonna say "oh like you do too" but the difference is my theories are more well-founded and I'm not posing as an objective arbiter of the story to others while clearly having an agenda of what I want SMiLE to be. Like here, he literally makes up some almost-certainly bullshit story of interviewing Brian, who refuses to talk unless they're off the record, but only then reveals WC was air. "Oh yeah guys Brian confirmed that my SMiLE theory is accurate! Uhh, we weren't recording it conveniently but trust me ok? I know it contradicts Brian, VDP AND Darian's accounts in my book as well as objective common sense but my Americana/Elements structure has been sanctified, pinky swear!" It's even worse considering that all the big SMiLE archivists and documentarians clearly know each other and offer self-reinforcing platforms, like Priore getting essays in the TSS liner notes.
Obviously he or anyone else can do a four-part elements thing, do your own SMiLE or adopt the BWPS sequence, but I just dislike how that's held up as "the most likely" by manufactured popular acclaim or even "one step away from a final mixdown" (as Priore himself claims) when the only proof is recursive speculation he keeps fanning without any real hard evidence. Mr. Priore, I'm calling you a liar, sir. I don't believe Brian said that to you "off the record." I think if he said any such thing he must've done so after significant badgering, in his usual people pleasing manner. ("Yeah, sure, you cracked the code--WC is air. Can we talk about something else now? Like, literally anything else?") And you go around saying this knowing Brian wouldn't have been the type to call someone out publicly on their BS--much less undercut a talking point that legitimizes his solo effort. But I just wonder why no one else notices this obvious BS and isn't willing to ask for real proof. Even if anyone disagrees with my takes, I don't fabricate evidence to legitimize my point--I think the evidence I've gathered, and the smoother flow of my sequences, speak for themselves. Priore would too if his Americana/Elements thing wasn't disjointed as hell.
Melinda went to Brian and asked him to go with me into his office, and there we could continue in a more private setting. He became lucid and forward with answering questions at that point, but he just didn't want that kind of stuff to go on tape. So I had to turn off the tape deck when I asked him things about "Wind Chimes" being part of the "Air" in the Elements suite... things like that... that it had been described by Brian previously as a "lovely piano instrumental, we never finished that."
Those kind of things, I could ask Brian, but not for publication, it seems. Things I wanted clarified about the sequence of "Smile." Of course, we never knew until 2004 that "Surf's Up" actually went in the middle of the album, not the end, so there were still things Brian knew that we didn't, even if we did figure out most of the sequence pretty much correctly. For the most part, that's how you hear it on The Beach Boys "Smile Sessions" box set.
^You can decide for yourself if you believe that or not. I don't and I'm not gonna sugarcoat it either. His 2005 book was full of other bald-faced lies that NO other source claims, with NO proof either. Priore is a liar and despite the good he's done for SMiLE with LLVS and popularizing the myth to a new generation, he's done great harm at efforts to ascertain a most likely structure and sequence from the primary sources. I don't mind being the one to say it and hopefully usher in a "third wave" of SMiLE fans with a new, more accurate, understanding.
17. Thoughts on Jules Siegal's Rebuttal
While reviewing the various essays for the TSS booklet, I was wondering if anyone had been left off besides Guy Webster. The name that seemed a most obvious omission was Jules Siegal. I know he's a bit controversial among the other primary sources and uber-fans have revealed some "creative use of facts" but the man was there and he wrote the article that started the myth. If Priore and Leaf get prominent essays, (despite being flawed accounts with obvious agendas,) presumably for their past literary efforts to elevate the stature of this project, it seems only fair Siegal get one too. I couldn't tell if he wasn't asked at all, or was but declined, nor why either should happen, but in my efforts I found these rebuttals he apparently wrote to Paul Williams against Anderle's "libel" which occurred in that same "SMiLE is Done" chapter of the Williams book I commentated on previously. I'm not gonna weigh in on this personal feud, but these are the correspondences I saw in chronological order for readers to make up their own mind. I dont know or care enough to side with either man, but I hope Siegal was at least offered a spot in the book.
As far as I can tell this is the first time these have been referenced on the forum.
https://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=9806&msg=27654&
https://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=9806&msg=27727&sort=date
https://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=9806&msg=27742&sort=date
https://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=9806&msg=27749&sort=date
18. Thoughts on the I Just Wasn't Made For These Times Documentary
Whether I like it or not, get it or not, here again Brian cites the group's lack of enthusiasm as the main reason for SMiLE's undoing. It seems like an overstated problem or forced narrative sometimes, and there's so little real concrete anecdotes to go by beyond the CE thing, but maybe it's the blow that cut deepest. Maybe, after decades when all the trivialities of BRI positioning itself against Capitol, the depressive drug effects have worn off, the feelings toward VDP made positive again with the Warner deal & Orange Crate Art, that's the one unprocessed trauma that's visceral enough to still feel raw. ("I poured my heart out to the guys I thought I was closest to and they didn't like it--they made fun of it, said it disgusted them, said it was unreleasable.") I could see that kind of thought process internalizing itself in a way that "I have to cut tape and sign documents" maybe doesn't. It begs the questions why not soldier on anyway like with Pet Sounds and why are there no specific stories of Mike sabotaging it then? I think the answers must be because Brian already had some doubts (Marilyn doesn't get it either), is so sensitive that any blowback makes him retreat and he wasn't the type to air specific dirty laundry in public if it'd hurt someone. This is the man who still sings Spector's praises after getting humiliated by him. I have to assume Mike said some nasty things (the wikipedia quotes both Jardine and Brian saying Mike called the lyrics "disgusting") behind closed doors and that's what convinced Brian it wasn't worth it dealing with all the other stuff.
This is the first time I've seen the "Brian is a genius" campaign not only making Brian doubt himself, if he could live up to that expectation, but also driving a wedge between Brian and the others. Now he felt guilty about getting all the credit. Also, we get Carl's perspective which is incredibly rare. Carl blames the drugs primarily, which I'm noticing is a theme (the band blames drugs, everyone else blames them including Brian).
The VDP interview says SMiLE was to explore "modular recording, the innocence of youth--maybe the innocence America had lost." He even comes back and references that again "Brian wanted to explore the innocence of childhood." I find this such an important quote because notice he emphasizes and repeats the innocence of childhood as the only theme. VDP doesn't even mention Americana here (usually the first, or even only, thematic bent discussed if themes are brought up at all) let alone some silly elements thing. It's youth and innocence--he then immediately talks about Wonderful (one of the four first songs, plus SU ending on children's songs) in this context.
Guys...guys...can we just admit I was right all along by championing an Americana/Childhood Innocence (or Cycle of Life as BWPS & TSS call it) structure and be done with it already? I was bullied off the board, told I had no right to discuss these things if I didn't read all the books, that if I just shut up and looked at the facts, the standard Americana/Elements foundation would make sense to me...well, I've looked at all the info there is (Priess, the new Leaf and LLVS pending) and it all seems to point in the direction I was able to intuit just listening to the music unbiased, with no baked-in, decades-repeated agendas clouding my thinking. If anyone has a stronger argument in the other direction, or would accuse me of selectively quoting to unnaturally strengthen my case, I invite you to follow the links I've provided at every turn and prove me wrong with better quotes in the other direction. I don't care if I'm convincing anyone along the way or not but I'm enjoying my deep dive into my favorite media subject and it's giving me piece of mind for sure. That said, to the detractors who still remain (and actually read all this sh*t) what else would it take to convince you at this point?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page