My Last (?) Crack at the SMiLE Jigsaw

[Julia]

I think Little Pad is a rewrite of DYLW - obviously a very loose one.

I could maybe see the "dreamy Hawaiian section" being a reworking of the timpani Worms verse melody now that you mention it. The vocal scat section possibly too--but Im not good at identifying instruments or notes on listen like many here, so if I'm wrong I'm wrong.

But I also think it's Brian paying homage to his original conception of Water (or one of the competing ideas for it). If Fire was expressly linked to a place and time in US history it stands to reason the other Elements would've been too. Veggies and IIGS ("fresh clean/zen air...") or Country Air are the midwest breadbasket and tornado alley, Hawaii is water.

Notice the water drop sounds during the "sure would like to have a little pad in Hawaii..." It's not definitive evidence but I've always maintained Brian would've used those sampled Vosse recordings. There's even very brief sawing sounds to my ears during the "by the sea that's where I'll build a pad" with repeated water dripping--a reference to Workshop? (Which I've sometimes wondered could've been Earth, and almost certainly would've linked Fire to whatever element came next.) I think there's something to this, and I wonder if it wasn't one of the things Brian remembered in 2003 when trying to restore the Water element? Like he knew it was supposed to be Hawaiian themed and Dada had become CCW so he used its melody with new lyrics from Van to do that concept justice. If not for that, I wonder if he wouldn't have just stuck CCW in the setlist and called it a day. Although I hate to use BWPS as a source, sometimes there was a genuine memory from '66 managing to cut through the decades of Priore/bootleg haze, I think...

[zaval80]

IMO Milward's not far off the mark here, the second medley on "Abbey Road" is basically this, bits of "songs" thrown together (and now that it is known that the "bonus", "Her Majesty", was originally a part of that medley, it's even more fitting).

I'm sure the book has other positive qualities and I can't pretend to know the goals or constraints of the author. I'm only reviewing each book in the context of how accurate and revelatory the info on SMiLE is.

What I've meant was, Milward saying "a suite of songs" was perfectly expectable from him or understandable since the time "Abbey Road" came out. Maybe he wasn't that aware of "SMiLE-speak" Sometimes writers do not seem to describe things in a more straightforward way, so it's always useful to think, if something catches attention, what does he mean under the words he used, could it be just his way of designating something already known in other terms. (Not just the writer, but it could be somebody the writer quotes, too.)

[mike s]

I think the opening 'if I only etc' is a reworking of the opening of DYLW - loose but you can sing the LP bit over the DYLW section - rhythmically it fits.

I think Little Pad is a rewrite of DYLW - obviously a very loose one.

I could maybe see the "dreamy Hawaiian section" being a reworking of the timpani Worms verse melody now that you mention it. The vocal scat section possibly too--but Im not good at identifying instruments or notes on listen like many here, so if I'm wrong I'm wrong.

But I also think it's Brian paying homage to his original conception of Water (or one of the competing ideas for it). If Fire was expressly linked to a place and time in US history it stands to reason the other Elements would've been too. Veggies and IIGS ("fresh clean/zen air...") or Country Air are the midwest breadbasket and tornado alley, Hawaii is water.

Notice the water drop sounds during the "sure would like to have a little pad in Hawaii..." It's not definitive evidence but I've always maintained water would've used those sampled Vosse recordings. There's even very brief sawing sounds to my ears during the "by the sea that's where I'll build a pad" with repeated water dripping--a reference to Workshop? (Which I've sometimes wondered could've been Earth, and almost certainly would've linked Fire to whatever element came next.) I think there's something to this, and I wonder if it wasn't one of the things Brian remembered in 2003 when trying to restore the Water element? Like he knew it was supposed to be Hawaiian themed and Dada had become CCW so he used its melody with new lyrics from Van to do that concept justice. If not for that, I wonder if he wouldn't have just stuck CCW in the setlist and called it a day. Although I hate to use BWPS as a source, sometimes there was a genuine memory from '66 managing to cut through the decades of Priore/bootleg haze, I think...

[Julia]

I'm finding some more books lately, gonna give the rundowns...

In The Beach Boys by Dean Anthony (which wasn't on that earlier list) SMiLE gets a few paragraphs. Nothing new to the likes of us except VDP says he met Brian "during Pet Sounds" (which doesn't contradict the May '66 date but I can't recall seeing Van say it in these exact words before.) The project's failure is attributed to the BBs distrusting Van's lyrics and commercial sensibilities. Veggies is said to be a co-production with Paul McCartney (false, but too enticing of a story to die). I like the description of Smiley as "pretty spooked out stuff." That's all there is to say, it's a very bare bones account--possibly the second most simplified version of the tale I've seen in a published book (the worst is yet to come...).

The Beach Boys (Rock and Roll Hall of Famers) by Mark Holcomb is next, and another I can cross of my reading list (so 7 more to go). The basic "Brian bought Van a car" story is relayed without the detail of the cop, Van is mentioned as being offended by the sanbox. They're said to have written "over twenty songs" together. Bizarrely, the author claims "[the songs] lacked the political awareness and activism central to [the youth] movement. They were mostly expressions of Brian's innermost thoughts and fears." This would be an accurate description of Pet Sounds but in what way is SMiLE's racial commentary (Worms, CE), or celebration of youth rebellion against a decadent system (SU), advocacy for vegetarianism (VT) or acknowledgement of women's struggles (Wonderful) not perfectly in-line with the perspectives of the New Left?

Brian helping the guys rehearse a live version of GV is mentioned including his bow on stage, but the taxi cab anecdote is missing.

Holcomb mentions working at Gold Star but no other studio and claims that SMiLE "was still not ready for the vocal tracks." Both are misleading statements. He relays the tension between VDP and the group, claiming Van was "fired" (exact word) because he wouldn't explain his lyrics. Mike isn't singled out as the main antagonistic force--"Mike, Al and Carl constantly pressured [Brian] not to change the BB formula." The *April* release of Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane is said to have been the moment Brian gave up. Nevermind the single was released in mid-February and Vosse was there to witness Brian's reaction (so he heard it in Feb or early March). Now, I've come to the conclusion SMiLE in its "original" conception was dead by around March based on the sessionography and some other sources, so SFF being the final blow is possible--but it wouldn't have happened in April in any case. Either way, while the SFF incident is brought up sometimes in SMiLE discussions, it's actually rarely cited in the published literature as I recall, so it's interesting this book makes that specific connection.

Capitol is said to have announced on May 2 that SMiLE was canceled. I'd have to look back through my notes when Taylor announced the cancellation according to other sources, but a quick review of the wikipedia just now says it was actually May 6. The Monterey no-show is mentioned but he quotes Hendrix as saying "You heard the last of surfing music,” (which is not the lyric to the song Third Stone From the Sun--IE this book got it wrong).

When talking about the Heroes single, Holcomb describes it against the "originally conceived [...] seven minute epic" no mention of 12 minutes or the other various cuts of the song. The KHJ DJ initially refusing to play the song is mentioned.

Capitol is said to have released the second "best of" comp to "salvage the band's reputation" as opposed to a quick cash in. Also apparently they "demanded an album assembled from the wreckage of SMiLE" as opposed to "still wanted an album ASAP and Brian obliged with what he could from what he had" which I feel is more accurate. Every BB is claimed to have participated, where elsewhere I've read Bruce refused to have anything to do with it. Besides that, all we get of SS is that it was recorded in Bellagio, the home studio, and production credited to the BB. This tangent is yet again christened with Carl's "bunt instead of a grand slam" quote.

I also found another book I didn't know about before, The Beach Boys Center Stage by William Sanford, but it's not even worth mentioning except to say I've seen it. It is by far the shortest, worst written, least informative account of the SMiLE sessions I've seen. 4 paragraphs of sentences an elementary school kid could've written (small word count, simple vocab, no analysis or depth) one of which is just background info on hippies. Among other things, VDP isn't even mentioned nor is Heroes (Veggies and SU are but how in the hell can you talk about SMiLE and not mention fucking Heroes and Villains?!!?) and the author claims the album was made in 1967 rather than primarily 1966. Smiley isn't mentioned either--the book skips straight to Wild Honey. May I officially present to you, ladies and gentlemen, the single worst source of SMiLE info ever published.

This is a link to the 7 books I'm still looking for: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,28647.msg687570.html#msg687570

What I've meant was, Milward saying "a suite of songs" was perfectly expectable from him or understandable since the time "Abbey Road" came out. Maybe he wasn't that aware of "SMiLE-speak" Sometimes writers do not seem to describe things in a more straightforward way, so it's always useful to think, if something catches attention, what does he mean under the words he used, could it be just his way of designating something already known in other terms. (Not just the writer, but it could be somebody the writer quotes, too.)

Ah, I understand what you mean now. Yes, that's very likely. Not everyone is as persnickety or lawyer-ly in their use of language as I.  

[Julia]

I was generously donated a copy of one of the books on my list (Surf's Up, the Beach Boys on Record 1961-1981 by Brad Elliot). So, let's take a look...

With regard to SMiLE, there's only ~6 pages unambiguously devoted to it (two of which I'm thinking of are reproductions of the cover art). This book mentions the previous title, Dumb Angel, but doesn't say when the change occurred. VDP is said to have met Brian during the PS sessions.

Elliot dates the sessions from "Mid 1966" to "Mid 1967" and elsewhere says "a year's worth" of work was done. I don't totally disagree--I could quibble that things only got started in earnest come "late summer" (per Vosse), either just before or just after the WC sessions, which is somewhat later than "mid-year," IE one third of a year rather than half as that term implies. But while I lean towards this understanding based on other sources, there are enough counter examples claiming the two started collaborating as early as May '66 (and that perplexing Heroes session lends weight to that, though it could be argued it predates Van's contributions we can't know for sure). Plus Van famously pitched at least one idea during a GV session...so I think Elliot's chronology is more than fair. Sorry if I sound like a nit-picker with stuff like this, but one of the reasons for reading ALL the sources was to try to pin things down as tightly as possible (and frustratingly, I'm learning it's a fool's errand).

Here's where it gets dicier though: "GV should be considered the lead single from the SMiLE album. At the time [it] was was released, Capitol had prepared the front cover artwork for SMiLE. A month later, with the success of GV evident, Capitol redesigned the cover to herald the song's inclusion," (pg 271). That last sentence isn't in dispute, but the rest is debatable. If one trusts Frank Holmes' testimony in the 2005 Priore book, Elliot's timeline of the cover makes sense...but we have WillJC (who's proven himself an invaluable researcher) offering a conflicting account where Holmes was only just being contacted at this time, rather than ready to submit finished work. Similarly, Vosse gives the distinct impression the SMiLE scene/project was only just starting as GV was coming out. Also, I can't cite any one definitive source offhand but the overall impression I've gotten is that GV was conceived as a separate entity from the rest of SMiLE--a Pet Sounds leftover if anything--rather than the lead single of a conceptualized new project. There's no doubt it would've been included on the next album, but we do have sources claiming Brian was against it even then. ANYWAY, nothing Elliot is saying here is egregiously wrong--and it might even all be totally correct--it's just an ambiguous point in SMiLE archaeology right now. I don't think we'll ever be able to settle when Holmes was hired and when he delivered the illustration with 100% certainty. The record's been so fraught with contradictory evidence and to the best of my knowledge he never spoke on the record until decades later--and if you believe WillJC, he misremembered his account.

[ASIDE:]Personally, I choose to believe the cover had more to do with the project's slide into an overly silly direction than has been commonly stated. In the absence of definitive evidence to the contrary, I like to think Holmes spoke to Brian and Van sometime between June and late August. He probably listened to the two men ramble about the general concepts they wanted to express--including Van's "American innocence" interpretation and Brian's childish humor/whimsy, then came up with the cute mom & pop storefront as drawn by a kid. This was meant to evoke the fun happy memories I think most children have of going shopping with their parents, being taken to "exciting" new places, having other adults fuss over how cute you are and give you a free lollipop, feeling like your smile was "bought" or "found" with the cool new stuff you saw in a store. That and, as Holmes says, it evokes a universal institution across America--the family-owned small business where the shopkeep is a member of the community who knows your name. Anyway, after seeing what Holmes drew, with the many smiles across a banner and in the windows, I think it's possible that inspired Brian to rename the album and at least somewhat rethink its focus. (I can't help but notice the comedy skits only start coming in very late October through November, when by almost all accounts the cover was delivered.) I don't think Holmes is what brought comedy/humor to the project per se, that was clearly always on Brian's mind, but I think Holmes' overt depiction helped push Brian to more strongly emphasize a particular aspect of the project that had been to then a smaller piece of the overall puzzle. Brian always wanted humor on there of course, but maybe not so overtly before, in order to make room for Van's history music and the angsty Pet Sounds style holdovers like Wonderful and I Ran. Then, as Holmes' cheery cover seemed perfect yet ill-fitting for some of the music they were making, Brian indulged the "funny" side of his original vision more. (How many people have commented on the weird disconnect between that cover and music like CE, Worms & SU?) In short, it's possible a "Dumb Angel" cover delivered by Holmes, with a more bittersweet look, might've pushed Brian to stay the course longer and still use techniques like the WC false start chorus but not try full-blown comedy sketches as he did, which threw off the delicate balance his collaboration with Van had relied on up to then. Just a theory, and we can never know for sure.[/ASIDE]

Elliot claims Capitol worked with a tracklist "furnished by the group" from late November. I've often defaulted to December for the tracklist, but I have no real proof and this is yet another detail that's hard to pin down. But late November makes a lot of sense considering they originally planned a Christmas release and I have no reason to doubt it--it's not like the tracklist mentions "All Day" or "You're Welcome." That does mean though, that the earlier the tracklist was made, the more likely Brian would've changed his mind by the time he finished a '67 SMiLE.

There is mention of a 7 minute double sided Heroes single, but nothing of Anderle's role in it. (At first I thought this was because Elliot didn't want to introduce a new "character" in the story just for one throwaway anecdote, but then he mentions Anderle elsewhere and quotes David Leaf's first book...so there goes that theory.) The tracklist order given to Capitol is listed flawlessly from Worms to OMP. Regarding the elements, the line "air was a piano instrumental" is mentioned, the quote attributed to Brian, almost certainly referencing Preiss' book. Dada is given as Water, Cow as Fire. To be expected. Elliot mentions the speculation of Veggies as Earth but denies it due to the separate listings on the back cover. (Good on him for using actual hard evidence and applying it consistently rather than just repeat easy, cheap "oral tradition" like so many other writers do!) I don't necessarily agree with this opinion that Fall Breaks represents what Earth might've been, but I admire him for putting in some detective work rather than rely blindly on bootlegs/Priore for all the answers.

On page 74, when discussing the many titles associated with SMiLE not found on the tracklist (which must've seemed so much more tantalizing before widespread boots and TSS showed that many are just the same riffs by different names) he mentions "Indian Wisdom." I forgot about that title, and it just goes to show there's so many weird tidbits associated with this project you could do a deep dive of every major source and still find something that makes you go "WTF is that" or "oh...yeah...I vaguely remember coming across that title before at some point on the internet...what was it again?" And then you google it and can never find that weird website or YouTube video from 2011~2014 where you saw "Indian Wisdom." Long story short, it's "New Song" aka "Spanish Guitar" (and I could swear I've seen it called "Doves of Peace" or something similar, but so help me I can't find that title anywhere anymore). Then, once you find out what it is, you're left thinking "that's it--all that intrigue for the worst outtake that's not even SMiLE era?" as well as "how in the hell did that false title even gain steam with fans when it's not what's written on the tape box*?" Such is SMiLE.

When discussing the various cuts of Heroes, the 12-minute version is said to have only been mentioned in 1972 during the half-hearted attempt at revival. "Capitol files show there were at least 5 versions of the song besides the one released..." It is pretty nuts that we have only heard, what, 3 different versions of the song and TSS to my knowledge is not vintage so it can't count towards that total. There was at least one 6 minute version across two sides according to witnesses (including Keith Altham in this very book), Mike had (has??) a longer-than-released version, Bruce in this book claims to have a shorter version that what came out. If all this is true, and I have no reason to think it's not, it goes to show there are/were acetates of radically different versions of SMiLE material floating around (including those of Durrie Parks!) seemingly lost to time. I maintain the SMiLE we have, the versions we can reconstruct from what's left, are still a pitiful fascimile against the sum total of what Brian recorded in '66. We know a lot of those tapes went missing or were wiped, and a ton of acetates were given away or stolen and subsequently forgotten about. Probably nobody knew they were holding onto the last copy of XYZ until a full inventory was done which revealed the gaps in the sessionography, and by then they realized "oh sh*t, I lost that" or "crap, who'd he give that one to again?" and "damn, Bob Gordon's dead and no one knows what happened to his record collection!" Anyone stumbling upon an old acetate in their attic, if they're not a fan, won't know what they have and/or will assume it can't possibly be THAT important--surely a major band would have a copy in their vaults, right? I can just toss out this dusty old thing, nobody will be worse off...

With regard to Veggies, Mike is quoted from '71 claiming "about 4 versions" exist. I'm guessing that's Smiley, the so-called "demo," then that leaves two versions of the Spring single. Something that was news to me: Roger McGuinn and Rodney Bingenheimer attended Veggies sessions as well as Paul McCartney.

Mike is quoted from '77 saying there are "maybe five different versions" of Wonderful. I guess we have the three from SMiLE plus Smiley, so it's up to you if you think that's it or want to speculate on a fifth version/edit out there somewhere.

Fire is called Mrs O'Leary's Cow, so the name originated in the 70s sometime. Otherwise we get pretty standard and correct info for Worms, CE, Dada/CCW (the connection between the two is explicitly discussed), SU, even a sentence for CIFOTM.

CWTL is erroneously included as a SMiLE piece but considering the book's age, its placement on boots and that its melody is legitimately from SMiLE, that's fine. Elliot isn't aware of YAMS' vocals existing, because although he knows Dennis "was to have sung the lead" he calls it an instrumental and speaks of the vocals as if they weren't recorded. The author describes what we now call "False Barnyard" (IE OMP/YAMS fade) as Barnyard based on his transliteration of the backing vocals. Also, he's aware of the main BY lyrics but makes it clear he's never heard them. He also doesn't realize OMP and YAMS are two halves of the same song. He's never heard Holidays. The Byron Preiss "Air" quote is repeated verbatim here, for the second time in the book. IIGS is presented as the biggest SMiLE mystery--the author never heard the Humble Harv demo, much less anything else of it. This may still be the biggest WTF of all prospective SMiLE songs today--certainly among those on the back cover. (To me, the most likely explanation is IIGS on the back cover is the "new" name for the Barnyard suite--Brian preferred the name IIGS to Barnyard, probably out of a desire to manifest greatness/health in the listener.)

Elliot mentions Inspiration, I Ran, Friday Night, Tones, Good News, Hawaiian Song and Good Time Momma as mysterious SMiLE tracks. We now know what all of these are, including that the final 3 are Smiley-era. I wonder if Brian ever realized the confusion he'd caused by arbitrarily calling a few GV sessions "inspiration!"

*The theory of a separate SMiLE song called "Indian Wisdom" utilizing the quote from the SS album as a lyric is thrown out. So I guess that's where that title on boots came from, and hence the author addressing it here.

What's surprising is that for all the author doesn't know, he was still aware of all three Jasper Dailey tracks--he even gives their names, which is hardly ever done in these books.



I also recently got a copy of Why the BB Matter by Tom Smucker but I'm not really impressed. Just looking at the SMiLE chapter, it's not in any way a history nor deep analysis, just a personal review/reaction to the music. He makes no secret of his preference for BWPS, which is fine, but he also repeats a lot of nonsense myths like "SMiLE was never going to be popular in the sixties" without any compelling argument. I just don't like that--I hate how so many of these writers/"fans" parroting the majority line that's dominated the discourse since Priore, always treat their unfounded conclusions as unquestionable gospel. (Whether you like me or not, whether you agree with me or not, the SMiLE conversation needed someone like me to boldly state differing opinions and shake things up in BB discourse. I hope that can be my legacy as a fan.)

The chapter then devolves into a self-important ponderous diatribe on Vietnam, the Sixties, and how Brian not finishing his work is somehow representative of the struggles America faced then. (It's perhaps an intriguing metaphor but somehow I doubt Brian was having 'Nam flashbacks in the 70s preventing him from working. I think it's more likely his muse had moved on and he didn't want to waste time fighting last year's production race just to be remembered as an also-ran.) There's weird areas of focus, like Smucker makes a point of how "columnated ruins domino" ends with the same "no" syllable as "Caroline No" as if there's some deep connection there instead of an obvious coincidence. I'm glad Tom loves the music and has a unique perspective on it, but I don't share his interpretation and it's not a useful source of hard info.

This book/chapter actually represents everything I've come to dislike about SMiLE discussions--somewhere along the line, it became all about myth-building and pontificating wildly about what the listener thinks/wants SMiLE to be about instead of historical research, informed theory-crafting and deep-read analysis of the material itself. A lot of the resurrected '90s internet essays are much less interesting to me now because they're often an exercise in trying to build up Brian's rise-fall-redemption as a symbol of America itself, or some other high-brow unproven pretentiousness. I blame David Leaf (despite the great work he's done) for always dressing it up in "deep" quotes and fairytale garnish, as well as Priore playing hard and loose with facts in order to manufacture evidence of his fantasies. I dislike how much of each men's most recent books was devoted to cute but ultimately unimportant history lessons of the fans in the '80s and audience reactions to BWPS. It's their book to put in what they want but I feel like it reeks of self-congratulations and "inbreeding" the conversation. Like they've both managed to frame SMiLE analysis/speculation within a narrower box than it could and should be because it suits them.

[Julia]

I know it's bad forum etiquette to "spam" these posts, but hardly anyone else participates here anymore and the site is officially winding down, so I guess it doesn't matter. I recently posted these two essays on other threads and thought they ought to be preserved here, along with the rest of my "SMiLE journal," for the sake of convenience and comprehensiveness.

Unless I find some stunning new piece of evidence, like say a long lost PJR article about the sessions, or one of those last few books & ESQ issues has some revelatory interview...I think this is it. I'm comfortable saying this theory below is as close to a comprehensive solution for the SMiLE enigma as can be determined with the evidence we have. There may be contributing factors I forgot to mention, and I'm sure someone can find an outlier quote somewhere (but, there's so many contradictions that literally ANY explanation will have its inconvenient quibblings*). All the same, I believe the majority of sources points toward this conclusion.

*ASIDE: Anyone else ever take an AP History class in school, with the DBQs (document based questions) where you are given a pile of primary accounts and have to select which ones form the most coherent narrative that leads to a persuasive thesis? There's always stories that don't quite fit the overall perspective you get from everything else, and they have to be ignored--in fact the teacher straight up tells you not to try to use everything because it'd undercut your argument. The point is to find a balance of including as much as possible to formulate a well-cited conclusion but not so much as to muddy the waters. That's what this is.

There's never going to be complete consensus among all primary accounts, as the well-attributed unreliability of witness testimony shows. History is messy, memories are subjective and not everyone experiences the same things or considers the same details important. (I always use the example of the Synoptic Gospels, which agree on most big picture stuff but the specifics, the order of events, theology and tone are often different in subtle-to-substantial ways...and then John is just off in the corner doing its own thing.) There's always going to be some misalignment that has to be overlooked and it's up to the researcher to determine what that is, then persuade others they chose the correct evidence to prioritize. Put succinctly, the presence of one or two "gotcha!" quotes doesn't necessarily negate an otherwise harmonious explanation./ASIDE

My "Final" Overarching Theory of How/Why SMiLE Became Smiley

Im now more convinced that Smiley is, in a very real sense, closer to Brian's original vision than BWPS or Priore's Americana/Elements. The lo-fi home studio acoustics and lack of Wrecking Crew production weren't the original plan but the "mistakes left in" and comedic edge certainly was. And ultimately these were the aspects of the project Brian chose to prioritize when the first-run effort started coming apart under its own weight. Brian wanted a comedy album first and foremost--he was willing to go with VDP's American history vibe and continue to experiment with impressive arrangements in addition to that, but only until they clashed with his primary goal. (Also the touring issue and uncool stigma of using outside musicians and troubles getting studio time factored in.) To truly understand SMiLE, Smiley, and how one became the other is to accept the bizarre reality that Brian only cared about those gorgeous compositions and witty lyrics as long as they also served his primary purpose of making people laugh.

The whole "epic journey across America" angle was always secondary to the humor, and if you look at the witness testimony it seems everyone knew this except VDP which is why the collaboration was on such shaky ground to where Mike asking about the lyrics one time was enough to tear it apart. I think Brian realized he and Van were not on the same page about what SMiLE's key thesis was (and this is clear by what Van describes the original conception to be versus literally everyone else) but he's famously non-confrontational and subtly manipulative. I think, to some extent, Brian allowed the famous CE incident to happen as a proxy for venting his own doubts about Van's work and thereafter Mike became a convenient excuse to let things fall apart naturally. This would explain why Mike is frequently cited as the main antagonist but nobody can recall anything he actually said or did except that one minor anecdote. It would also explain why Brian never really wanted to go back to that material, why he was so bothered by Bernstein's praise of Surf's Up (he wanted people to LAUGH not be awed by a bittersweet lament), why Van didn't like the comedy skits, why he never called Van to work on BWPS until he had to...

That all said, there is clearly still a sense of bitter compromise with Smiley, like Wonderful's "don't think your God, just be a cool guy" and the creepy oppressive undertones of the songs (especially Wind Chimes). I think this all reflects a self-loathing in response to the failure of his original loftier ambitions as well as spite towards the group (or Van) for not "getting it" that was leaking from Brian's subconscious. Similar to how Fire was probably a cry for help, a musical expression of the anxieties and paranoia he was feeling just as the original sessions were falling apart. It's not like Brian was completely satisfied with how things turned out on Smiley, is what I'm saying, like "he axed Van indirectly and now he could REALLY make his symphony!" If Brian could've worked his will, he'd have had it all on one impossibly perfect, still cohesive album...but he had to give up some elements (pun intended) of that original fanciful dream in order to make the humor work--and humor was the most important thing. You can't make exploited coolies or decimated Indians funny. You can't interrupt those gorgeous compositions for a weak joke (ala the WC chorus false start) without the goofy undercutting the pristine or vice versa. You have to pick one or the other and the aspects Brian chose to prioritize don't make sense with what we the fans would've wanted him to keep. I think almost everyone would've preferred "Pet Sounds 2" aka just a collection of all great songs with wall of sound arrangements. (That and an epic concept album that put's Sgt Pepper's lame, forced "theme" to shame.) But for reasons that've been debated and analyzed for decades now and are still not 100% clear, that wasn't as important to Brian as melding humor with music. 

So, Smiley kind of deserves to be in SMiLE's shadow actually--it represents the final form of a very unwieldy creative endeavor that tried to juggle a bunch of tangentially related concepts and failed. It's a peek at what Brian really wanted his next album to be from the very beginning--at least conceptually/thematically, if not sonically/aesthetically. Also, I strongly suspect the track placement reveals clues to what SMiLE's sequence was naturally morphing into*: Veggies (Earth), Fall Breaks (Fire analogue) and Little Pad (with water dripping sounds) as the remnants of the elements rubbing elbows with the Americana leftovers (Heroes, LP itself being a Hawaii song Brian has said he wanted the Americana journey to end on) thus disproving the conventional wisdom of separating the two. Similarly, WC is decidedly NOT included with all the other element-offshoot tracks because WC is not, was not, and never was intended to be air (until BWPS, inspired by decades of thrown-together bootlegs, used it as such to fill a conceptual hole). Comedy sketches (She's Goin Bald), audio verite (cork popping, water glass pouring), chanting (Whistle In) and spoken word asides ("Good!") as well as actual laughter (LP giggling) are mixed in with the music--just as SMiLE would've used the same techniques. (Veggie Fight, Vosse water tapes, "You're Under Arrest!" Psychedelic Sounds chants and Moaning Laughter, respectively).

*ASIDE:I'm choosing my words carefully here--morphed into--because SMiLE never had a set in stone sequence until Smiley's final mixdown. But certain songs/concepts were more interrelated than others and gradually came together the longer the process took, just like any album. So, it's true that "there was no plan!" and "Brian changed his mind all the time!" but it's also true that, say, elements was always tied to the American outdoors and therefore those songs drifted towards the likes of Heroes. Or Brian always vaguely knew he wanted the Americana medley of "feels" to end with Hawaii somehow...hence the song about a pad in Hawaii closes side 1 of SS. Things like that. /ASIDE

It's all there--everything fits. SMiLE's blueprint was right under our noses the entire time, it's just people were too disappointed by Smiley's sparser arrangements and off-putting vibe to accept it. It was easier to believe the whole thing was a slap-dash effort that Brian hated, that somehow Mike cancelled SMiLE for being too weird but accepted Smiley as the logical follow-up to GV and Pet Sounds. And to be fair, the fact that virtually no source ever talks about this album except in a few brief sentences as the sad placeholder of abandoned greatness doesn't help. Carl's quote, while a fair assessment of SS's reception at the time, has since been used as a stage-setting, prescriptive determiner for how everyone approached the album from then on--which isn't fair. The hype of the genius and the greatest album of all time, which was a PR campaign that Brian was never comfortable with and that got away from him, raised our expectations of SMiLE so high that no one wants to believe the seemingly pathetic self-sabotaging Smiley could possibly have anything to do with it beyond some recycled lyrics because the group was desperate. But the truth is somewhat more complicated than that. While its recording was rushed and influenced by the desperate need to release a long-overdue obligation, no one told Brian to include the off-putting eccentricities that most people take issue with...because that's the record he wanted to make. If his heart were totally not in it anymore, he'd have made another "Party!" album, or let Mike write lyrics to the SMiLE backing tracks. That would've been easier AND better received at the time. But then it wouldn't be the humor album Brian envisioned.

^I submit that this is as good of a solution to the SMiLE myth as anyone else has proposed, it's backed up (or at least certainly not disputed) by the vast majority of evidence I could find--nearly every book, documentary and interview as my exhaustive thread attests to--and it's a coherent theory that doesn't require any wild leaps of logic or ignoring any major details to work. (At least to the best of my knowledge.)

A Half-Serious Theory on the Evolution of SMiLE to Smiley

In my personal experience, surprisingly and disappointingly, psychedelic rock isn't actually fun on psychedelics. SMiLE included--I mean, you can imagine that was the first album I tried in that state! It's too loud, too busy, too distracting. I think Smiley, ironically, would be the best thing to listen to in that mindset just because it's so mellow. Friends might work well too. On that note, I had a thought; this isn't like a serious theory that Im going to stake my reputation on, just an interesting possibility...

What if the "fact" that SMiLE sounds too overwhelming on psychedelics was itself the reason Brian pivoted to the Smiley aesthetic? What if, at some point, he listened to the music he was working on while tripping and was like "nah man, this ain't it, I wanted to make something that would enhance the psychedelic experience--not overpower it!" Then that inspired him to go in a quieter, mellow, understated direction for Smiley? Again, there's not any direct evidence of this, so I'm not going to die on the hill that it happened, but it's not impossible either.

It's still completely up in the air how many times Brian took acid and when. We know the first was pre-California Girls, we know the second was a scary fire bad trip at some point pre-Fire (probably pre-SMiLE, maybe even pre Pet Sounds), then it gets murky. Probably the most popular understanding is that Brian did it one more time, Tobelman would say in Big Sur and it involved the pristine elements as a conduit for God. Danny Hutton thinks Brian probably did acid the night before he called him in to hear a session of GV (date unknown, sometime in summer '66). There's a Carl quote about Brian doing it a few times during the GV/early SMiLE period and never being the same after. David Leaf's original book claims Brian did a bunch of acid AFTER SMiLE to cope with its demise (this I don't believe). It's one of many details that can never be pinned down, where the more sources you gather the murkier the story becomes, where we'd like to think if we could just pin it down to specific calendar dates it might explain everything...

No one specifically says Brian tripped in, say, December through February, where interest in the project gradually waned. That'd be the most likely window for him to listen to his work in progress on acid and decide it was a detriment to the feel-good spiritual experience he intended rather than an enhancement. But there's no way to know for sure. Cam Mott on the other forum has said that Brian eventually listened to what he'd been making sober for the first time, since the early sessions were a haze of constant hashish, and thought "nah, I don't like this, without the drugs it just isn't that good." That's certainly possible but unprovable and not something I can specifically recall from my research. I think it's just as likely though that it may've been the other way around, with harder drugs facilitating the change in perspective. (I mean, Brian couldn't have been stoned 24/7 right? He's always said to have been totally professional in the studio--he must've been more or less sober while recording the music and at home at least some of the time.)

Just another angle to consider. Carry on.

[MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm]

Excellent stuff. Thank you! 

For sure, wrap up the thread if that feels right or if there's nothing left to say. But I've enjoyed the whole thing.

[zaval80]

But for reasons that've been debated and analyzed for decades now and are still not 100% clear, that wasn't as important to Brian as melding humor with music. 

Julia, IMO you're leaning on that angle (humor) too much. Music people tend to be into the music. When they want to represent humor in music, or with music, then a Scaffold or a Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band appears.  I also think a total precedence of a concept over music is yet to be achieved by somebody in the pop/rock field; usually people abandon their music, wholly or partially, because they feel it's not up to what they want it to be, only not because of the concept behind music - for earthier reasons. So, Bernstein lauded "Surf's Up"...was only a right thing for him to do, and of course it was Brian who chose to perform it in the way he chose.

Very probably the real reasons lie in the sphere of music designs being too complex. A highly complex music which his band wouldn't be able to take on the road. There is a rather important IMO example, that of the unissued first album by Quicksilver Messenger Service, also from 1967, from which an acetate and the session takes exist (can be found at Guitars101, in the lossless section). The version of the long psychedelic track "The Fool" on that acetate is sublime during the second half, while the version on the resulting LP is unquestionably great - but not sublime  It's hard to get an understanding what (and how) went wrong - the only existing book on the band appeared just in the last year, and the memoirs of one of the album producers, Harvey Brooks, are totally blank regarding his involvement. But the gist is, the band were losing their heads among the overdubs they were adding and adding to the tracks, and then one day they had a meeting - they realized they won't be able to reproduce the achieved complexity live in a way satisfactory for them. So they decided to ditch it all except one track, and to lose something like $50 K in the recording costs spent so far, and to start anew, so what appeared was their "SS".

[Julia]

Excellent stuff. Thank you! 

For sure, wrap up the thread if that feels right or if there's nothing left to say. But I've enjoyed the whole thing.

Thanks so much, I really appreciate it!

But for reasons that've been debated and analyzed for decades now and are still not 100% clear, that wasn't as important to Brian as melding humor with music. 

Julia, IMO you're leaning on that angle (humor) too much. Music people tend to be into the music. When they want to represent humor in music, or with music, then a Scaffold or a Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band appears.  I also think a total precedence of a concept over music is yet to be achieved by somebody in the pop/rock field; usually people abandon their music, wholly or partially, because they feel it's not up to what they want it to be, only not because of the concept behind music - for earthier reasons. So, Bernstein lauded "Surf's Up"...was only a right thing for him to do, and of course it was Brian who chose to perform it in the way he chose.

Very probably the real reasons lie in the sphere of music designs being too complex. A highly complex music which his band wouldn't be able to take on the road. There is a rather important IMO example, that of the unissued first album by Quicksilver Messenger Service, also from 1967, from which an acetate and the session takes exist (can be found at Guitars101, in the lossless section). The version of the long psychedelic track "The Fool" on that acetate is sublime during the second half, while the version on the resulting LP is unquestionably great - but not sublime  It's hard to get an understanding what (and how) went wrong - the only existing book on the band appeared just in the last year, and the memoirs of one of the album producers, Harvey Brooks, are totally blank regarding his involvement. But the gist is, the band were losing their heads among the overdubs they were adding and adding to the tracks, and then one day they had a meeting - they realized they won't be able to reproduce the achieved complexity live in a way satisfactory for them. So they decided to ditch it all except one track, and to lose something like $50 K in the recording costs spent so far, and to start anew, so what appeared was their "SS".

I don't disagree that what you said was going on too and its own huge factor, along with the lawsuit taking the fun out of things and distracting from the process, then between all that and Van suddenly leaving March (with the move) provided the perfect excuse to just start fresh without worrying about untangling the gordian knot he'd set for himself.

I think what you describe is more or less exactly why the "aesthetic/sonic" component of the project changed, along with issues getting studio time with the Wrecking Crew and not wanting to be like the Monkees. What I was more focusing on though was the consistent use of humor as the keystone theme of the SMiLE epoch, from October (at least) through July. This is the one thing that never changed, in my estimation, and the offbeat aspects of Smiley I think I've proven have clear analogues from the original sessions. So what I'm saying is, Brian chose to do a lot of things when switching to Smiley--simplify the arrangements, carryover the sound effects / laughing / comedy / spoken word, the silliness...but what he didn't keep was the Americana "journey" which I think is clear (there's even a quote from Van admitting it) was Van's idea not his own. It's totally possible, perhaps even likely, that Brian was initially more willing to go in an Americana and/or bittersweet angsty direction at first (look at those early songs, the name "Dumb Angel," not shutting down Van's "stick it to the Brits" ideas) but by late October at the latest, with the Holmes cover delivered and sudden inclusion of comedy sketches in the sessions, I think Brian was on a humor kick and anything he perceived as a hindrance to that design was suddenly on the chopping block.

I submit that if the problem was solely the need to make these Van-influenced compositions work on stage --and nothing else-- Brian would've just simplified the production but kept the original songs/themes. We'd still have Worms, CE, SU just scaled down. Something like solo SU from 1967 on the boxset. Surely that would've been so much easier to do and even there, the beauty of the song carries through without all the "wailing horns" and handed-down beads mimicking jewelry or even the CIFOTM reprise. Putting that recording (or one like it) on the next album would've been infinitely simpler and a much safer bet commercially than what they actually did by making the Smiley we have. Or, as I said, barring that Brian could've made "Party 2" with acoustic-y covers to stall for time and put Mike at ease "still the same old stuff." There were options available that make a lot more sense if following the path of least resistance, if assuming all that mattered was simplifying what was there or rushing something out as a stopgap and worrying about the grand artistic vision next time.

The fact that Brian chose not to do these things but go in that unique avant garde Smiley direction complete with those same eccentric touches I mention is, I would say, proof he was still following his muse and making what he wanted to make...which was a strange experimental humor album. You say he wasn't satisfied with the music itself and I would agree--the music no, but the weird-whimsy vibe yes and he wanted the music to match it better. I might possibly take it further and propose he was purging as much of Van's influence as possible, either because he realized it was incompatible with his original humor vision which the earlier collaboration had taken way off course or maybe out of spite for Van's leaving. The only VDP lyrics kept were substantially reworked (Shes Goin Bald) or sunk cost with all the single work (Heroes, arguably Veggies), thene there's the only one Brian and/or the BBs actually liked with no qualifiers (Wonderful) as well as the least in Van's style (Wind Chimes). Everything else VDP brought to the table was purged, lyric and theme alike, either to remove him as much as possible from the project he "abandoned" (as Brian probably saw it) and/or because Brian wasn't confident in that direction anymore (as Siegel's article alludes to as well as Anderle and Vosse).

In short, I dont think what you and I are saying is incompatible, I'm just focusing on why Brian chose to keep certain aspects in the new direction but not others. There's more to the story than solely wanting to simplify the music they had or else they might've done just that in less time and without producing the most bizarre album by a major band in history which killed their reputation. An album of solo-SU style tracks might've been seen as a disappointment next to Pepper but still viable product. But while Brian's MO makes sense in this context, what's really weird to me is why the others went along with it. I can only assume they were just happy to be making any kind of music together as a band again, and Mike specifically was placated with the GH single in his name. Plus, with their next release coming so late, I guess they didn't feel they had time to argue for something else--"just get this one out the door then we can do that R&B shtick Carl's always wanted" was probably the mindset.

[Don Malcolm]

I’ve been slammed with other projects and am catching back up to where this discussion has traveled…here are some thoughts related to the “three principles for creating credible spring SMiLE tracklist variants” (for wont of a better term!)—

1) that what you put in a "reconstruction (of Brian's intents best they can be determined*)" includes only music from the SMiLE sessions or those that can be convincingly argued as derived from something he did in that time.

Agreed. Note that for a book to pass muster with the not so young-and-often finicky target audience, however, a cluster of possible “spring SMiLE” configurations should be developed, each supported by some hisortical/aesthetic justification.

2) that you follow the list given to Capitol for the back cover or the Smiley tracklist, or some convincing midpoint between the two (which seems to be your MO and makes total sense) with well-reasoned arguments for any deviations from the two (which you have done).

Why the Smiley tracklist—it’s way outside the timeline. (?)  [I do see how you elaborated on it, and it's interesting, but I'm not quite convinced of it...] Sure, there are a lot of one-to-one title correspondences, but so many of those are significantly different versions (WC, Wonderful, H&V) from what we’d expect to hear on a “spring SMiLE.” What seems to happen in these discussions is that the real-life failure cannot help but overwhelm the prospect of (non-existent) “success” that is eternally tantalizing but remains too murky to seem sufficiently definitive.

But let’s persevere anyway… in terms of tenet, #2, leeway is provided to us via the existence of the back cover slick, where it reads “see label for correct playing sequence.” I think four variants can be supported, including one that deviates from the two-sided “Americana/innocence” structure.  My guess is that a couple of these variants are likely to be the same set of tracks, only in a different order.

Now let's segue to some of your more recent related thoughts:

My last attempt at doing a 1:1 "sub in the SMiLE version where it is in Smiley" isn't the most likely outcome, that was just a fun thought experiment to pitch an idea I'd never seen anyone else try. From a historically accurate perspective, the "problem" with my 1:1 "SMiLE version of Smiley" mix is that I placed songs such as Worms where their Smiley-analogue (Whistle In) go. In real life, that new song (WI) was placed on side two after being stripped of its verses, chorus and lyrics--leaving only a hollowed out version of the bridge with a chant. While one was derived from the other, they're so different that where one may fit the other does not. Similarly, She's Going Bald appears on SS because they were desperate for material that could potentially be funny, and I presume the "silken hair" line made Brian imagine a woman going bald. But that isn't proof the original HGS would've been included when SMiLE had so much better material to work with. The SS sessions didn't have time to spare or higher ambition ("don't think you're God, just be a cool guy") like SMiLE did--the band just used what was in the can that was serviceable. So, again, while there are very likely CLUES to what SMiLE would've been in Smiley, I'm not suggesting they'd be exactly the same.

As specific examples, I choose to see significance in SS Veggies rubbing elbows with Heroes (the other most overtly fun, bouncy song + the other single) as well as the "candle version" of MOLC but not WC, which is its own thing on the opposite side. (Need I say again--WC is not and never was air!) I also think it's noteworthy that Side 1 has the closest thing to a watery track in Little Pad, (perhaps an early "In Blue Hawaii" maybe Brian always intended to tie his water with Hawaii the way his fire was tied to Chicago) and thereby ends with Hawaii--the newest and westernmost state. Admittedly this was more in the BWPS era, but Brian did speak of Americana going from Plymouth Rock to Diamond Head and that could definitely have been a vintage idea at some point in the process.* On Side 2 of SS, I notice all the songs are sadder and more romantic than the previous--this is the boy/girl "suite" with less than half the funny asides of its preceding half. In its way, SS still has a side of "rockers" and "ballads," or two halves of larger than life concepts of American nature against intimate personal longings. (Also, I know there's an interview earlier in the thread where Brian explicitly says he likes to split up the slow and upbeat songs...but Today and Smiley don't really bare this out as a "no exceptions" rule and he always contradicts himself on the record anyway.)

As always, interesting musings, and one might decide that Little Pad was a mash-up replacement both for the Hawaiian elements of Worms and for the sheltering shack in “a meadow filled with rain there” from Cabin Essence (Home on the Range). 

But again, that was all much later. However, I am in total agreement that the specific genesis of Smiley is the most fascinating and the most overlooked aspect of the band’s career. We await the Sessionography project turning itself loose on that, but let’s examine some of your more recent musigns about Smiley:

I'm just focusing on why Brian chose to keep certain aspects in the new direction but not others. There's more to the story than solely wanting to simplify the music they had or else they might've done just that in less time and without producing the most bizarre album by a major band in history which killed their reputation. An album of solo-SU style tracks might've been seen as a disappointment next to Pepper but still viable product. But while Brian's MO makes sense in this context, what's really weird to me is why the others went along with it. I can only assume they were just happy to be making any kind of music together as a band again, and Mike specifically was placated with the GH single in his name. Plus, with their next release coming so late, I guess they didn't feel they had time to argue for something else--"just get this one out the door then we can do that R&B shtick Carl's always wanted" was probably the mindset.

Let’s recall the Engemann memo regarding a 10-track SMiLE following Smiley once it had been submitted in July. It creates more questions than answers but it does strongly suggest that the band had not formulated a strategy to “go R&B” in tandem with the work on Smiley. (And kindly remember, Julia, that a lot of folks really love Wild Honey: recall also that a lot of astute folk recognized the “avant-garde R&B” aspects of Good Vibrations—and rightly see it as one of the elements that make it such a transcendent track. CWTL might have been the bridging element of all those components percolating in Brian’s musical toolkit at that time, but it’s clear that he “lost his way” in the summer of 1968.)

3) that the album be "funny" in some way.

Comic moments in the music might have to suffice for this, unless the “whistle” version of MOLC can find a place in the track sequence (somehow adjacent to a variant of H&V later on in the Americana side, perhaps?). And/or: IIGS-Barnyard as an offbeat snippet?  We’re going to have Vegetables in all the track lists, right? Dry humor there, even without Brian & Hal’s bickering...

Given our mutual antipathy for the overweening influence of Priore, the natural inclination for “spring SMiLE” variants is to leave off the Elements, but I think a discussion of that ill-fated errand into the wilderness is necessary to show how Brian could have worked around it.

A “spring SMiLE” clearly has to have the Americana material and Surf’s Up in some configuration, otherwise there isn’t a really robust rationale for a book that has its own two sides—1) a more comprehensive examination of the real-life project’s failure, which leads to 2) a series of educated conjectures for how that failure could have been avoided, and what a “spring SMiLE” could have been if Brian had threaded the needle.

I encourage you to consider the four variant approach as the finale for what would surely be the most intriguing, thought-provoking recasting of SMiLE to appear in print...hopefully creating a permanent niche for a world within the SMiLE music cluster that can legitimately co-exist with the imposed orthodoxy of BWPS...

[BJL]

It's totally possible, perhaps even likely, that Brian was initially more willing to go in an Americana and/or bittersweet angsty direction at first (look at those early songs, the name "Dumb Angel," not shutting down Van's "stick it to the Brits" ideas) but by late October at the latest, with the Holmes cover delivered and sudden inclusion of comedy sketches in the sessions, I think Brian was on a humor kick and anything he perceived as a hindrance to that design was suddenly on the chopping block.

Fascinating and thought provoking conversation as always, but I take strong issue with this statement. I think the session tapes themselves for the album as a whole and for heroes, through at least February 1967, strongly suggest that Brian believed the Americana theme, the bittersweet, angsty direction, and his interest in humor were entirely compatible and could be combined into an album that combined all three seamlessly. Heroes the single combines all three, and the album sessions as a whole combine all three. What you see as evidence for Brian turning away from serious themes and towards humor (the newly uncovered Windchimes experiments, the Rock with me Henry Wonderful, the psychedelic skits), I see as evidence that Brian believed these things could be successfully combined within one project, but wasn't exactly sure where the line should be.

I think your arguments about the turn to Smiley when it happens later in 1967 are more compelling. But there, too, I think there is an alternative explanation that needs to be considered, which is that Brian's primary motivation was not about the content of Smiley Smile, but rather the *way* in which it would be recorded. I would posit that what Brian wanted, above all, was to hold sessions for Smile's replacement in a chill, relaxed, atmosphere, at home, without sessions musicians, and with all the members of the band involved. And I would further suggest that Smiley brought out the humor side of the project because Brian felt it was most compatible with the atmosphere and approach he wanted to bring to the process of making music at that time, rather than that Brian turned to a chiller, more laid-back, and less studio-intensive process *because* he cared more about the humor side of the project than its other aspects. I agree that the historical record clearly demonstrates that Brian valued the humor element of the project very highly, but do not agree at all that the historical record clearly demonstrates that he valued it *more* than the project's more serious side, which was clearly also of immense importance to Brian, as evidenced by the tremendous care he took in arranging and recording songs like Surf's Up and Wonderful in the first place.

[Julia]

I’ve been slammed with other projects and am catching back up to where this discussion has traveled…here are some thoughts related to the “three principles for creating credible spring SMiLE tracklist variants” (for wont of a better term!)—

1) that what you put in a "reconstruction (of Brian's intents best they can be determined*)" includes only music from the SMiLE sessions or those that can be convincingly argued as derived from something he did in that time.

Agreed. Note that for a book to pass muster with the not so young-and-often finicky target audience, however, a cluster of possible “spring SMiLE” configurations should be developed, each supported by some hisortical/aesthetic justification.

2) that you follow the list given to Capitol for the back cover or the Smiley tracklist, or some convincing midpoint between the two (which seems to be your MO and makes total sense) with well-reasoned arguments for any deviations from the two (which you have done).

Why the Smiley tracklist—it’s way outside the timeline. (?)  [I do see how you elaborated on it, and it's interesting, but I'm not quite convinced of it...] Sure, there are a lot of one-to-one title correspondences, but so many of those are significantly different versions (WC, Wonderful, H&V) from what we’d expect to hear on a “spring SMiLE.” What seems to happen in these discussions is that the real-life failure cannot help but overwhelm the prospect of (non-existent) “success” that is eternally tantalizing but remains too murky to seem sufficiently definitive.

But let’s persevere anyway… in terms of tenet, #2, leeway is provided to us via the existence of the back cover slick, where it reads “see label for correct playing sequence.” I think four variants can be supported, including one that deviates from the two-sided “Americana/innocence” structure.  My guess is that a couple of these variants are likely to be the same set of tracks, only in a different order.

My reasoning for that is SS and the Capitol tracklist are the two times we know of, during the greater SMiLE sessions (of which I include Smiley but not everyone does) where Brian signed off on a list of tracks. So those are the two flagpoles we have to mark the endpoints, where "at the height of the original sessions it was this, by the end of the entire project where they finished the new album and moved on, it was that." A spring SMiLE logically will fall between those two "extremes."

I acknowledge though there's a lot of gray area. Like I've been saying, the original conception died by March or arguably before and I think an argument could be made even late October with the first comedy sketch, with the Holmes cover delivered (and by some accounts the change from Dumb Angel) represents a turning point in itself. So my rationale for including Smiley, and therefore its tracklist, is that there's enough crossover between it and SMiLE (as Ive argued at length already) that I think it's highly related, and if we say "no, the project changed too much by then" it becomes a problem without an answer of where you make that cutoff. If not Smiley, is it the last Dada session, or April, March, February, December, Fire, the name-change to SMiLE?

A valid argument could be made for all of them, so I just include the entire overarching "post Pet Sounds sessions" as one long evolving saga with humor as the most obvious throughline connecting all the other sub-tangents together. To me, there's enough clues that Brian incorporated a lot of the more "iconic" and unique innovations he wanted to do with SMiLE in Smiley that they represent a continuation of the same project. Not to mention the similar names and recycled songs. Smiley didn't convince me that the Elements was interrelated with Americana and WC was its own thing, I noticed those correlations after the fact. Similarly, I wasn't initially sure those aforementioned Psychedelic Sounds moments like the chants/laughing were more important than many had assumed because of Smiley, that just became additional evidence after I knew to look for such things, I was convinced solely because of the fact Brian devoted so much time to these seemingly throwaway recordings, so it's not circular reasoning I'm using.

Now let's segue to some of your more recent related thoughts:

[...]

As always, interesting musings, and one might decide that Little Pad was a mash-up replacement both for the Hawaiian elements of Worms and for the sheltering shack in “a meadow filled with rain there” from Cabin Essence (Home on the Range). 

But again, that was all much later. However, I am in total agreement that the specific genesis of Smiley is the most fascinating and the most overlooked aspect of the band’s career. We await the Sessionography project turning itself loose on that, but let’s examine some of your more recent musigns about Smiley:

Let’s recall the Engemann memo regarding a 10-track SMiLE following Smiley once it had been submitted in July. It creates more questions than answers but it does strongly suggest that the band had not formulated a strategy to “go R&B” in tandem with the work on Smiley. (And kindly remember, Julia, that a lot of folks really love Wild Honey: recall also that a lot of astute folk recognized the “avant-garde R&B” aspects of Good Vibrations—and rightly see it as one of the elements that make it such a transcendent track. CWTL might have been the bridging element of all those components percolating in Brian’s musical toolkit at that time, but it’s clear that he “lost his way” in the summer of 1968.)

You're right, that final line about the R&B album to come was just me being cute. I just meant, they probably knew on some level even then SS was a "write-off," making the best of a bad situation, not one they were particularly proud of, ala Carl's quote. The point is, the mentality was likely "let's just get this one over with and then we can do something we actually care about--like Carl's always wanted to do R&B, if Brian doesn't have any new ideas, there's that."

I'll admit I forgot about that memo actually (there's always something more, when it comes to this topic!). I can't even begin to explain it except just Brian telling people what they wanted to hear. Capitol was probably pissed they printed up all those slicks and booklets (they did mass produce those by then, right?) and wanted assurance it wouldn't be for nothing. Brian said "sure...eventually" and eventually never came, not in '72 or any other time they were expected to deliver. I think after Smiley, that "era" or "artistic direction" or "body of music" or what-have-you was laid to rest as far as he was concerned. I dont think at any time after he had any burning desire to revisit it, even resenting when the others pilfered it for material as they did. When he brought out something from those days, it was under the expectation that the original would never be heard so might as well use it for scrap--but on his terms, and in a substantially reworked way. CCW isn't exactly what Dada and/or water would've been, though obviously cut from the same cloth. The little bird horn too. And CWTL is the same melody but completely different arrangement and lyrics from original-WC. When the group wanted to revive SU as originally conceived Brian threw a fit, cried on the swings, only helped at the last minute and then took some time off to produce Spring. He never seemed to want to talk about SMiLE but people kept asking because it's legitimately the most fascinating anecdote in their history and he wouldn't have done BWPS without Melinda's goading (and honestly, I'm grateful that she did that, for his sake and ours).

I admit again, Im not the biggest fan of WH but I wasnt trying to be disrespectful, sorry if it came off that way. It's just my flippant sense of humor I guess. I would've said something similar if Mt Vernon came after SMiLE ("we'll let Brian make that weird fairy tale he's been bugging us about.") I dont dislike WH or see it as a bad album, just too short and far less interesting than the ~3 odd projects that had come before, that's all. It's still a solid record overall.

Comic moments in the music might have to suffice for this, unless the “whistle” version of MOLC can find a place in the track sequence (somehow adjacent to a variant of H&V later on in the Americana side, perhaps?). And/or: IIGS-Barnyard as an offbeat snippet?  We’re going to have Vegetables in all the track lists, right? Dry humor there, even without Brian & Hal’s bickering...

Given our mutual antipathy for the overweening influence of Priore, the natural inclination for “spring SMiLE” variants is to leave off the Elements, but I think a discussion of that ill-fated errand into the wilderness is necessary to show how Brian could have worked around it.

A “spring SMiLE” clearly has to have the Americana material and Surf’s Up in some configuration, otherwise there isn’t a really robust rationale for a book that has its own two sides—1) a more comprehensive examination of the real-life project’s failure, which leads to 2) a series of educated conjectures for how that failure could have been avoided, and what a “spring SMiLE” could have been if Brian had threaded the needle.

I encourage you to consider the four variant approach as the finale for what would surely be the most intriguing, thought-provoking recasting of SMiLE to appear in print...hopefully creating a permanent niche for a world within the SMiLE music cluster that can legitimately co-exist with the imposed orthodoxy of BWPS...

Yeah those are good suggestions of additional humor. And for the elements, I wish we could know for sure if the Badman book's dating of the Smog tape is accurate or not. If it was in November with the rest of that material as I'd always thought, that's one thing, but if it really were April of 1967 that shows the concept was still heavily weighted on Brian's mind--perhaps even proof he wasn't done with SMiLE/elements yet after all. It may even serve as proof he was returning to that most difficult of hangups with regard to the overall project when he took a second crack at Dada. But it's just hard to say for sure, especially without a date.

With what he have, if you're trying to make a Spring SMiLE, I think it's a matter of deciding whether to acknowledge there are spots we just can't fill with what we have or try to do your best with what's in the vault. I usually opt for the latter, or have in the past, hence using the Vosse Posse chants as imperfect placeholders for Water and Air. Or you can use Dada (with or without the Blue Hawaii lyrics, maybe nowadays with AI you could make something decent with the 2003 vocals as a baseline subbed out for BB vocals). Or just nix the entire elements concept, say Brian abandoned it and just use the other material that gets you to the ~35 minute mark. I'd like to take a fresh stab at all three, especially since we have so many new tools from when I last made a mix. I'd be interested to see what an Undersea Chant of AI'd BB vocals sounds like, or Breathing, or new BB vocals over the TSS session track of IIGS for air.

I appreciate the kind words, and believe I will be doing that eventually! I was juggling two other major writing projects when Brian's death recaptured my attention and I've let them go so long that I started working on them again, but I bounce between them pretty regularly now. When I hit a certain benchmark I'll come back and take a stab at bringing a few of the more promising sequence ideas to life.

Fascinating and thought provoking conversation as always, but I take strong issue with this statement. I think the session tapes themselves for the album as a whole and for heroes, through at least February 1967, strongly suggest that Brian believed the Americana theme, the bittersweet, angsty direction, and his interest in humor were entirely compatible and could be combined into an album that combined all three seamlessly. Heroes the single combines all three, and the album sessions as a whole combine all three. What you see as evidence for Brian turning away from serious themes and towards humor (the newly uncovered Windchimes experiments, the Rock with me Henry Wonderful, the psychedelic skits), I see as evidence that Brian believed these things could be successfully combined within one project, but wasn't exactly sure where the line should be.

^Maybe I didn't communicate it as effectively as I should've but yeah I think Brian initially thought it could all work together and then realized it couldn't. That's what I was trying to convey when I said: I think this all reflects a self-loathing in response to the failure of his original loftier ambitions [...] It's not like Brian was completely satisfied with how things turned out on Smiley, is what I'm saying, like "he axed Van indirectly and now he could REALLY make his symphony!" If Brian could've worked his will, he'd have had it all on one impossibly perfect, still cohesive album...but he had to give up some elements (pun intended) of that original fanciful dream in order to make the humor work--and humor was the most important thing. Basically, there was a bright shining moment at the beginning of project where Brian thought his humor thing and VDP's American history thing were compatible. We can never know for sure, this is all just guesswork based on what we have, but I think VDP is accurate with regards to that first brainstorming session: they probably expressed mutual resentment at the British Invasion sucking all the air out of the room, and how that plus Vietnam meant a lot of young people were ashamed to be American. (Van talks about people speaking with fake British accents at the time in, as I recall, Priore's 2005 book.) So they probably spoke about wanting to assert a uniquely American character, reclaiming the innocence America had lost (another Van quote) and doing it in a humorous way.

Where I think the fracture started is, Van took the "Americana" thing more literally than maybe Brian would've done if left to his own devices. I think without Van Heroes stays a one-off silly cowboy song, maybe some old standards like You Are My Sunshine get mixed in with new music and otherwise we get the kind of silly juvenile humor found on Smiley. What Van brought was the idea of historical vignettes, more high-brow lyrical puns and things like that. (I think the angsty Look, CIFOTM and even SU music was the last remnants of Pet Sounds working their way out of Brian's system--as Van says "he still had a little 'When I Grow Up' in him." For a few months Brian thought it could all work together, then realized it couldn't and that one of the problems was the lyrics/subject matter. That's why/when he didn't defend Van's work to the other guys and set Van up to be confronted by Mike, which Van took as being blindsided and disrespected.

I hear what you're saying about "wondering where the line should be" and I think that was the struggle--can you really put George Fell next to Surfs Up without one diminishing the other? Is it possible or in good taste to put CE and its message right next to Veggies? Is anyone going to be in the mood to laugh after Fire? And I think ultimately Brian decided the answer is no*, or at least "maybe but I don't feel like tinkering with it endlessly to find out." I can't claim to know for sure, but my best estimation is ultimately Brian knew the thing had become a mess and just wanted to work from the ground up with solely humor in mind. I think the period between Pet Sounds and Smiley is a spectrum where his MO gradually shifted from "angsty, bittersweet, yearning" to "goofy fun whimsical" as time passed, with the breaking point coming in November with all the comedy skits recorded. While there was still a lot of sad/heavy music getting made at that time, like the SU sessions, I think that's when humor was beginning to overtake it in importance.

*I think for our purposes as fanmixers it IS possible but admittedly tough and something major has to be left out without diminishing the whole.

It's all good if we don't agree, there's so many angles to this story I think it's a fool's errand to try to enforce one singular narrative as the only one (and it won't be accepted by everyone no matter what it is). But for myself, my opinion on how things went down, this the reading of the tea leaves that makes the most sense to me. Otherwise, the weirdo "how could they think that was a good idea" Smiley release just makes zero sense outside that context, at least in my opinion. As I've said, if the sole problems were "the music is too complex to play live" or "we've got all the material we need but Im not sure how to edit it" or "Van left and there's lyrical holes" or "I still want a journey across America but don't like Van's words" the answers were clearly to: just scale down the arrangements but keep what you have, just have the guys vote what sequence is best, hire another arty lyricist (gotta be a dime a dozen in '67 LA), or give the melodies to Mike to work on. The fact that they chose to do the Smiley thing tells me that humor and the desire to "freak people out" (a frequent Brian quote) were the most important things above all, the aspects he chose to hang on to, and I think that's significant.

I think your arguments about the turn to Smiley when it happens later in 1967 are more compelling. But there, too, I think there is an alternative explanation that needs to be considered, which is that Brian's primary motivation was not about the content of Smiley Smile, but rather the *way* in which it would be recorded. I would posit that what Brian wanted, above all, was to hold sessions for Smile's replacement in a chill, relaxed, atmosphere, at home, without sessions musicians, and with all the members of the band involved. And I would further suggest that Smiley brought out the humor side of the project because Brian felt it was most compatible with the atmosphere and approach he wanted to bring to the process of making music at that time, rather than that Brian turned to a chiller, more laid-back, and less studio-intensive process *because* he cared more about the humor side of the project than its other aspects. I agree that the historical record clearly demonstrates that Brian valued the humor element of the project very highly, but do not agree at all that the historical record clearly demonstrates that he valued it *more* than the project's more serious side, which was clearly also of immense importance to Brian, as evidenced by the tremendous care he took in arranging and recording songs like Surf's Up and Wonderful in the first place.

That's totally reasonable, and to be fair I don't think it's incompatible with what I'm saying either. There clearly was a push to simplify before Smiley started, as the March sessionography proves. Suddenly, while he's still working on a few SMiLE songs and leftovers (Dada) there's only one to three players a take, at a studio he hadn't used before (as far as SMiLE work is concerned) and a mellower vibe. There's so many overlapping reasons for why this would be, including possibly hearing Strawberry Fields Forever and deciding "if the Beatles got THERE first, I need to beat them to the NEXT thing" and predicting the "back to basics" movement a year early. (He was just too early on that front for his own good.) In the process of this research, I've even come to believe that SMiLE was dead by March for this reason and already playing around with ideas trying to find a new direction for the project.

So, as you say, he gets the BBs together when they return from touring and he's already predisposed to go in the simpler direction. Here's where it gets weird though, and why I really wish one of them had gone on the record more in depth about this period. If you follow the "classic/Leaf" narrative, he was giving them exactly what they wanted (sorta) with the simpler arrangements. Presumably they also would've liked more relatable lyrics too but this was post-Pepper (and post Monterey, so Hendrix and Jefferson Airplane's influence was now mainstream) so I suppose even "square" Mike would have to admit weird lyrics/subject matter is "in." So we'll say between that and the desperately late hour, they weren't in the mood to quibble about some leftover Van lyrics and whacked out Shes Goin Bald moments. (Even then Mike's big contribution is another guy-girl song in GH.) But then, "67-lyrics" aside, the simpler arrangements should've made them happy but presumably it didn't considering Carl's famous quote, Bruce checking out and Mike's extremely dismissive attitude towards Smiley in his book.

With the scant info available it's hard to say but I get the impression the other guys weren't especially enthusiastic about Smiley either--like, as or more indifferent to it than SMiLE. They probably had fun making it and on some level were pleased to be a truly collaborative band again but seemingly knew even then the scaled back sound and weird theme wasn't gonna be a big hit with the public. This suggests to me that Brian was still firmly in the captains chair, with the "produced by the BB" credit an act of charity and encouragement that they could do things without him in the near future as he produced Redwood. That and the (at least) 4 distinct offbeat moments with clear precursors from SMiLE I mentioned suggest there was a bit more of a deliberate effort to salvage what he liked best from those sessions rather than solely making new things up on the fly--though I'm sure to some extent that was going on too. Basically, I'm saying I think Brian still followed his muse and didn't care about the other guys' (implied) trepidations anymore than he had during Pet Sounds, more so than Smiley was a spur of the moment project that organically came together in the moment. (To some extent maybe, but I think Brian knew what he wanted and prioritized that--same as with Van, he'd let other people pitch ideas as long as they worked with his overall goal for the album.)

Your perspective is definitely plausible and I dont want to come across as discouraging alternate viewpoints by holding firm in my own interpretation, but that's the reason I settled into the opinions stated. (I feel like sometimes Im too passionate a debater for my own good and come across as hostile to alternate views so Im hoping that's not the vibe Im giving off here. And for the record I want this thread to encourage other people to check out the links to these sources for themselves and come to their own conclusion. What Im really hoping to accomplish here is to get what every source actually says on the record in a convenient place so that people aren't tossing around uncited half-remembered quotes they read in some book whose name they dont recall 20 years ago, not lay down some new dogmatic belief all must subscribe to.  )

[Don Malcolm]

With what he have, if you're trying to make a Spring SMiLE, I think it's a matter of deciding whether to acknowledge there are spots we just can't fill with what we have or try to do your best with what's in the vault. I usually opt for the latter, or have in the past, hence using the Vosse Posse chants as imperfect placeholders for Water and Air. Or you can use Dada (with or without the Blue Hawaii lyrics, maybe nowadays with AI you could make something decent with the 2003 vocals as a baseline subbed out for BB vocals). Or just nix the entire elements concept, say Brian abandoned it and just use the other material that gets you to the ~35 minute mark. I'd like to take a fresh stab at all three, especially since we have so many new tools from when I last made a mix. I'd be interested to see what an Undersea Chant of AI'd BB vocals sounds like, or Breathing, or new BB vocals over the TSS session track of IIGS for air.

I appreciate the kind words, and believe I will be doing that eventually! I was juggling two other major writing projects when Brian's death recaptured my attention and I've let them go so long that I started working on them again, but I bounce between them pretty regularly now. When I hit a certain benchmark I'll come back and take a stab at bringing a few of the more promising sequence ideas to life.

I think the book has room for both options, if for no other reason that it's going to have to thread the needle between "things are being force-fit to scenarios that are unprovable" and "this is so nebulous that it doesn't address the issues that needed resolution "--which will be the main objections that such a volume will be receiving. Some of that is going to be unavoidable--visit "the nearest faraway place" for immediate confirmation of this...  --but four scenarios,  three sans the Elements and one with it, seems to me to be the way to cover all the bases. If things really go right, there might be an actual product to emerge from it--call it "The Spring SMiLE Variations," where the four track listings/track orders are presented in a box set of their own. (OK, that's likely pie-in-the-sky, but you can say that I'm a dreamer...  )

So, as you say, he gets the BBs together when they return from touring and he's already predisposed to go in the simpler direction. Here's where it gets weird though, and why I really wish one of them had gone on the record more in depth about this period. If you follow the "classic/Leaf" narrative, he was giving them exactly what they wanted (sorta) with the simpler arrangements. Presumably they also would've liked more relatable lyrics too but this was post-Pepper (and post Monterey, so Hendrix and Jefferson Airplane's influence was now mainstream) so I suppose even "square" Mike would have to admit weird lyrics/subject matter is "in." So we'll say between that and the desperately late hour, they weren't in the mood to quibble about some leftover Van lyrics and whacked out Shes Goin Bald moments. (Even then Mike's big contribution is another guy-girl song in GH.) But then, "67-lyrics" aside, the simpler arrangements should've made them happy but presumably it didn't considering Carl's famous quote, Bruce checking out and Mike's extremely dismissive attitude towards Smiley in his book.

With the scant info available it's hard to say but I get the impression the other guys weren't especially enthusiastic about Smiley either--like, as or more indifferent to it than SMiLE. They probably had fun making it and on some level were pleased to be a truly collaborative band again but seemingly knew even then the scaled back sound and weird theme wasn't gonna be a big hit with the public. This suggests to me that Brian was still firmly in the captains chair, with the "produced by the BB" credit an act of charity and encouragement that they could do things without him in the near future as he produced Redwood. That and the (at least) 4 distinct offbeat moments with clear precursors from SMiLE I mentioned suggest there was a bit more of a deliberate effort to salvage what he liked best from those sessions rather than solely making new things up on the fly--though I'm sure to some extent that was going on too. Basically, I'm saying I think Brian still followed his muse and didn't care about the other guys' (implied) trepidations anymore than he had during Pet Sounds, more so than Smiley was a spur of the moment project that organically came together in the moment. (To some extent maybe, but I think Brian knew what he wanted and prioritized that--same as with Van, he'd let other people pitch ideas as long as they worked with his overall goal for the album.)

I think some of these notions also need to find a place in the book, to show how Brian decided to "strip-mine" a portion of the SMiLE tracks for a home-brew stew of the guys' singing and a whole lotta Baldwin organ. What really stands out after all these years is the singing, right? The weird, kinda stoned atmosphere is the signpost for how Brian found a seam to get most of an LP out of the portions of SMiLE that weren't Americana-esque (save H&V, which had to be the single)--LP, WMT and GH deviate in their various ways but have some strange edge permitting them to more or less blend into the record's still-mysterious gestalt. (I think GH was written at the tail end of the sessions both to placate Mike and to keep the LP's running time up above twenty minutes!)

That discussion is necessary, I think, to show how different Smiley is from SMiLE (BWPS, with all three "movements," or a "spring SMiLE" that featured the Americana tracks).

I am convinced that you can pull this off and expand the thinking of at least some of the folk who have either formed too-pat opinions about the SMiLE material, or who have followed the path of least resistance and accepted BWPS as the "final word."

(PS--while I do love Wild Honey, I take no offense at your perspective--I just wanted to express how its connective tissue can be traced to GV. It is clearly far less ambitious than what came before it, and it shows the signs of Brian no longer having the follow-through to make an LP with the length and cohesiveness of Pet Sounds, but it has some absolutely riveting melodies and it radiates a kind of joy that is uniquely its own.)

[zaval80]

I'd suggest two things:

1) Just as there is sense in checking which songs from the December tracklist made it to SS in any guise - that is, everything bar She's Going Bald, With Me Tonight, Little Pad, Whistle In and Getting Hungry on the album - there is IMO a practical sense to consider the ones which were used on the next albums, that is, CE, OP, SU/CIFOTM and "DaDa" as CCW. Adding these would make a nifty "spring 1967 SMiLE". Everything else, which did not make the transition to SS, like TOMP/YAMS, is to be excluded.

2) It'd be useful to make as complete as possible list of primary historical documents describing the period of interest. Starting with, obviously, the December 1966 tracklist, the Engemann memo, 2 front cover and 1 back cover slicks, the booklet, and including whatever items can be found throughout the books like LLVs, book for the box, and others, and a certain selection of thematic articles with memoirs of Vosse, Anderle, etc.

[Julia]

I'd suggest two things:

1) Just as there is sense in checking which songs from the December tracklist made it to SS in any guise - that is, everything bar She's Going Bald, With Me Tonight, Little Pad, Whistle In and Getting Hungry on the album - there is IMO a practical sense to consider the ones which were used on the next albums, that is, CE, OP, SU/CIFOTM and "DaDa" as CCW. Adding these would make a nifty "spring 1967 SMiLE". Everything else, which did not make the transition to SS, like TOMP/YAMS, is to be excluded.

2) It'd be useful to make as complete as possible list of primary historical documents describing the period of interest. Starting with, obviously, the December 1966 tracklist, the Engemann memo, 2 front cover and 1 back cover slicks, the booklet, and including whatever items can be found throughout the books like LLVs, book for the box, and others, and a certain selection of thematic articles with memoirs of Vosse, Anderle, etc.

Thats not a bad methodology, #1. If you include Fall Breaks as Fire and maybe even the Workshop sounds from Do It Again that could be combined in a single song--but these inclusions are optional. Then SS has Heroes, Veggies, GV, WC, Wonderful + the ones you said, so the only "significant" exclusions are OMP and IIGS/Barnyard (which coincidentally I consider the weakest tracks anyway) and Worms, which admittedly is a pretty big loss both musically and thematically. Holidays and Look weren't on the tracklist anyway so "purist" mixes already exclude them. It all makes for a nice 10 track album and Brian said 10 or 12 tracks, so there's even a historical justification for leaving that many songs off. (Still, just saying for the record, I think the inclusion of the zodiac signs on the back cover indicates Brian wanted 12 tracks by that time, but I still really like this idea especially as something different.)

(YW) Heroes/CE/Fire/Dada/Veggies
GV/WC/Wonderful/CIFOTM/SU (Prayer)

^Something like this ought to wind up around ~35 to ~40 minutes, which is the window we ought to be aiming for in a "historical mix." I know albums could go up to 45 minutes and I usually aim for that number so as to include as much of this awesome music as possible, but I think Brian would've been a lot more "stingy" with his inclusions especially considering BB albums tend to be on the short side anyway. Pet Sounds, I believe, is their longest LP or at least one of the longest and it's just shy of 36 minutes. Revolver, which as the most recent Beatles album would've been Brian's primary benchmark for the competition, is only 35 minutes (and Pepper, for the record, is just shy of 40).

With regard to #2, I agree. It'd probably be a good idea to categorize the "evidence" into tiers, like I mentioned several pages back. Starting with what's on tape, especially during the session window but a level down including the things he came back to like CCW. Then the primary documents you mentioned and others. Then, unless Im missing something, the primary source accounts by their reliability, and I'd rank them:

1) Vosse Fusion + TeenSet considering their proven accuracy, attention to small details (like he talks about the Psychedelic Sounds chants and Taxi Cabber skit that others overlooked) and closeness to the events described, the former only 2 years removed and the latter contemporary with them.

2) Anderle's accounts in Leaf's first book plus the Crawdaddy articles. I rank them a step lower because Crawdaddy isn't nearly as in-depth as Fusion and he focuses on a lot more than just SMiLE so it's a smaller part of the article. His account in Leaf's book is fantastic but it's also 10-odd years removed so there's details he didn't remember.

3) Siegel's GSHG article in Cheetah. I rank it at third because he's been accused of stretching the truth in places and his article prioritizes style and dramatic flair more than a straight-up memoir prioritizing the bare facts.

(Anything after that I'd have to think about, and usually they're just one-off memories rather than all-inclusive accounts of the entire story. VDP frustratingly didn't speak on the record until the 70s as best I can recall, and most of the others also didn't speak on the record until 1-3 decades later plus they weren't around during the entire endeavor. Brian's an unreliable and reluctant witness. Marilyn I get the impression was kept in the dark regarding his artistic process--I don't think Brian ever told her any private revelatory info and if he did she either hasn't shared it or couldn't remember by the time she spoke on the record. The BBs weren't there for a lot of it and when they were Brian only taught them their parts as needed, never sharing the big picture--this was even a source of contention. Several people in the airport photo or mentioned in the Psychedelic Sounds like Bob Gordon have never spoken on the record, as best I can determine. Guy Webster only spoke in the 2000s in some magazine I can't get a copy of.)

Anyway, then after that you've got the secondary sources--all the various books written after the fact--which only sometimes have new info (like the Preiss "Air" quote) but otherwise just summarize, analyze and theorize about the same info we're all working off of.

[Julia]

I think the book has room for both options, if for no other reason that it's going to have to thread the needle between "things are being force-fit to scenarios that are unprovable" and "this is so nebulous that it doesn't address the issues that needed resolution "--which will be the main objections that such a volume will be receiving. Some of that is going to be unavoidable--visit "the nearest faraway place" for immediate confirmation of this...  --but four scenarios,  three sans the Elements and one with it, seems to me to be the way to cover all the bases. If things really go right, there might be an actual product to emerge from it--call it "The Spring SMiLE Variations," where the four track listings/track orders are presented in a box set of their own. (OK, that's likely pie-in-the-sky, but you can say that I'm a dreamer...  )

I think some of these notions also need to find a place in the book, to show how Brian decided to "strip-mine" a portion of the SMiLE tracks for a home-brew stew of the guys' singing and a whole lotta Baldwin organ. What really stands out after all these years is the singing, right? The weird, kinda stoned atmosphere is the signpost for how Brian found a seam to get most of an LP out of the portions of SMiLE that weren't Americana-esque (save H&V, which had to be the single)--LP, WMT and GH deviate in their various ways but have some strange edge permitting them to more or less blend into the record's still-mysterious gestalt. (I think GH was written at the tail end of the sessions both to placate Mike and to keep the LP's running time up above twenty minutes!)

That discussion is necessary, I think, to show how different Smiley is from SMiLE (BWPS, with all three "movements," or a "spring SMiLE" that featured the Americana tracks).

I am convinced that you can pull this off and expand the thinking of at least some of the folk who have either formed too-pat opinions about the SMiLE material, or who have followed the path of least resistance and accepted BWPS as the "final word."

(PS--while I do love Wild Honey, I take no offense at your perspective--I just wanted to express how its connective tissue can be traced to GV. It is clearly far less ambitious than what came before it, and it shows the signs of Brian no longer having the follow-through to make an LP with the length and cohesiveness of Pet Sounds, but it has some absolutely riveting melodies and it radiates a kind of joy that is uniquely its own.)

Thanks so much, man. I dont have much to say to this right now except I agree and appreciate your contributions!