SMiLE release thoughts from a returnee and some questions for the scholars

[drbeachboy]

To what, Smile or the Wayback Machine?

[Roger Ryan]

Surf's Up part two - do we know it was all done as per BWPS back in 66 or is that just a guess?
Acetates - will there not be tape versions of these edits in the vaults? - maybe DP's collections isn't so rare. The acetates must have come from something

We know there should have been a "Surf's Up" Pt. 2 because the existing backing section doesn't cover the full song. Supposedly when Brian was asked (in 2003) about what he intended to do with the second section, he replied something to the effect of "Put some strings on it" which is what Paul Mertons did. Obviously the backing track didn't exist in 2003 and probably doesn't exist now.

The acetates may be of value because the tape mixes they came from may no longer exist. In other words, Brian mixes something down and cuts an acetate of it. He listens to it and decides it's not what he wants, goes back into the studio and records something new on the multi-track wiping out what was there before (or, say, wiping vocals with the idea that they will be re-recorded later but aren't). The multi-tracks exist with different vocals/music on them, the original mixtape is discarded and the acetate is the last remaining record of what was originally recorded.

[guitarfool2002]

It appears some people haven't seen the handwriting from the discussion on the old Smile Shop some years ago, or even the more recent ones linked a few posts ago. I've compiled some of the examples from earlier amateur sleuthing and handwriting analysis attempts. You'll see period examples of Brian, Carl, and Diane and examples to match them up with other samples.

The first one is the moneymaker: It would appear the same person who wrote the Smile tracklist wrote "I'd Love Just Once To See You" in black ink on the Wild Honey memo...


The next are a handful to compare and contrast Brian, Carl, and Diane:

[desmondo]

I hope they don't use the BWPS as a template either. This is a historical thing and BWPS ain't historical. Well....not historical in the sens....you know what I mean.

Unless something else from 1967 has turned up that says something different, I hope they use the good ol' tracklist. That was Brian approved in 1966/67 and is the ticket imo. All fades intact too with silence between tracks, unless you know, something else from 1966/67 that over-rides that has been turned up too. All just my opinion as always.

Cam

Yes - I hope the tracklist from the back cover is the template - if that translates someway into BWPS then so be it but in my mind that tracklist is the basis of what Brian had in mind back in the day - how it all fitted together only he knows

Richard

[desmondo]

I hope they don't use the BWPS as a template either. This is a historical thing and BWPS ain't historical. Well....not historical in the sens....you know what I mean.

Unless something else from 1967 has turned up that says something different, I hope they use the good ol' tracklist. That was Brian approved in 1966/67 and is the ticket imo. All fades intact too with silence between tracks, unless you know, something else from 1966/67 that over-rides that has been turned up too. All just my opinion as always.

Cam

Yes - I too hope they use the back cover tracklist as the template - imo that is what Brian had in mind back in the day - if that translates into something like BWPS then so be it

[drbeachboy]

OK, so it may or may not be someones handwriting, so? Still, it doesn't mean that the list was accurate or in sequence. Hell, Shut Down Vol II has the songs listed on the front cover and they are out of sequence. Now, if we only had album labels to check? I'll tell you, I'm not setting myself up for a big letdown. I'm going to let Brian, Alan Boyd, Mark and whoever else is working on this to get it as close to right, as each of their input allows. I really want to enjoy this release. I've waited 45 years for this to happen. I want it in a way that it makes Brian feel happy and comfortable releasing it.

[hypehat]

I....I......I like the BWPS sequence! *Runs and hides*


But seriously. The only thing wrong with it is that it cuts out a lot for the sake of live performance. But if the new set adheres to the vague guidelines of BWPS (You've got your 'H&V Americana on one side, your Child Is The Father on the flip and the rest of the crazy stuff on the other, I mean) whilst putting more stuff into that running order instead of slavishly copying it, I'm as happy as a pig in swill.

I mean, it's a really smart, smooth, accessible running order decided by Brian, VDP and one of the first Smile fanatics who ever was! How much more legit do you want?

[drbeachboy]

I....I......I like the BWPS sequence! *Runs and hides*


But seriously. The only thing wrong with it is that it cuts out a lot for the sake of live performance. But if the new set adheres to the vague guidelines of BWPS (You've got your 'H&V Americana on one side, your Child Is The Father on the flip and the rest of the crazy stuff on the other, I mean) whilst putting more stuff into that running order instead of slavishly copying it, I'm as happy as a pig in swill.

I mean, it's a really smart, smooth, accessible running order decided by Brian, VDP and one of the first Smile fanatics who ever was! How much more legit do you want?

I'm with you there. I think your right too. I can see pieces added that are not on BWPS, yet still running in a similar way. Mark said BWPS is a template, not that it will be BWPS verbatim.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I....I......I like the BWPS sequence! *Runs and hides*

But seriously. The only thing wrong with it is that it cuts out a lot for the sake of live performance.

Interesting - my view is that, given said sequence was created specifically for live performance, it includes too much, which is also the problem with just about every fan mix out there. Smile in 1967 would have been your regular single album, 12-13 tracks, 35-40 minutes tops. BWPS may be the only workable template to hand, but that doesn't make it a good one, any more than, say Purple Chick.

[drbeachboy]

The thing is, it is what they are going to follow. I would think, that to Brian CD1 can be anything that he wants it to be, as long as the recordings are from the Smile sessions. Maybe, towards the end, this was Brian's vision for Smile, but knew it was too late in the process. Hence, he abandons the project instead of going back to the one LP concept.

[Cam Mott]

I'll buy whatever but I just hope that is not what they do although it doesn't make much difference either way I suppose. Maybe it's just because I wasn't that big a fan of BWPS. Probably.

[desmondo]

I....I......I like the BWPS sequence! *Runs and hides*

But seriously. The only thing wrong with it is that it cuts out a lot for the sake of live performance.

Interesting - my view is that, given said sequence was created specifically for live performance, it includes too much, which is also the problem with just about every fan mix out there. Smile in 1967 would have been your regular single album, 12-13 tracks, 35-40 minutes tops. BWPS may be the only workable template to hand, but that doesn't make it a good one, any more than, say Purple Chick.

Yep 35 -40 mins tops but bear in mind that BWPS comes in at 47 minutes (pet Sounds 36 mins) - so that means taking 10 mins off and then we are getting somewhere

I think this is an important AGD point

[Wirestone]

I think BWPS works incredibly well as a sequence. Every other one before 04 had been based on trying to make two sides out of the material -- and while you can get a good "Americana" side, side two always seemed to break down -- Veggies meet CIFOTM and random instrumentals. The notion of pooling the material in three batches is truly remarkable, and with new lyrics and careful musical massaging, it works as a musical (and thematic, most of the time) whole.

That being said, it's also clearly not what Brian had in mind for the material at the time -- no mixes or contemporary documents suggest that Brian wanted to do it that way then. The 12-track album, with fades and blank spaces between the tracks, has -- to my mind -- been established as the form that was expected in 66-67.

But here's the problem. Brian did not have 12 tracks of the level of Good Vibes. At best, he had half of them. H&V, Cabinessence, Surf's Up, Wonderful, maybe a few others. But tracks like Vegetables -- as we know it today -- were clearly just the bones of bigger productions. Brian likely wanted inserts, contrasting sections, etc., etc. And with songs like "Child" left unfinished, who's to know how much he would have done, how far he would have followed his original notions? (And why are "The Old Master Painter" and "I'm in Great Shape" on that handwritten list anyway?)

Brian ended up with a lot of sections, but no rational way (given his mental state, and the various things swirling around him at the time) to make this 12 track album -- certainly not at the level he wanted.

So BWPS solves a problem -- but it's not the problem of the original sessions, which was a creative and motivational (and possibly existential) one. BWPS takes the music created as a given, and makes the best finished product possible from that. It also rationally looks at the themes dealt with at the time -- Americana, elemental, adult/child -- and teases them out. Again, though, I think it's doubtful that Brian thought in that straightforward a way about his subject matter in the 60s. It was simply what he was interested in.

So the problem is, we have a contemporaneous track list that would give us some -- but by no means all -- of the original material. No Our Prayer, for instance. And a track list that was never,  not really, completed.  In BWPS, you have a presentation of most of the music in a pleasing form, but in a reconfigured context. If you have to pick one or the other as a template, I guess you pick BWPS, since it has most of the best surviving music and serves to obscure the creative shortcomings of the original work (as in it was never really finished).

Still doesn't mean it's the best solution, but I can now -- with a couple of days' thinking -- understand why they're doing it.

[Roger Ryan]

Why do we want less SMiLE music?

I don't want to lose 10 minutes just to trim it down to what might have been a 40 minute album. As "Wirestone" has stated, Brian had too much material and no idea how to make it work on a two-sided vinyl album in '67. That album can't be recreated. However, Brian, Darian and Van Dyke fashioned something new using what Brian determined to be the best material at hand and it works quite well as a finished piece. I'm not certain how the existing Beach Boys sessions will work when based on that new template, but more SMiLE rather than less is perfectly fine by me.

[drbeachboy]

I'm buying too. I'm just trying to be pragmatic about it all. I just know that if I wish for this and wish for that or sequence this here and that there, I will be very disappointed in the end result. I can see by what is going on here that there are going to be some really sad people when this gets released. This is Brian's baby, and I have to trust him that what we get is as close to his vision as is possible. He and The Beach Boys have been my (sometimes flawed) heroes for 47 of my 53 years, so I'm going to trust his judgment on this release of Smile. "In Brian We Trust".

[Andrew G. Doe]

Why do we want less SMiLE music?

I don't want to lose 10 minutes just to trim it down to what might have been a 40 minute album. As "Wirestone" has stated, Brian had too much material and no idea how to make it work on a two-sided vinyl album in '67. That album can't be recreated. However, Brian, Darian and Van Dyke fashioned something new using what Brian determined to be the best material at hand and it works quite well as a finished piece. I'm not certain how the existing Beach Boys sessions will work when based on that new template, but more SMiLE rather than less is perfectly fine by me.

Because, this project concerns the Smile sessions 1966-67 - not what someone did with the same material 37 years later. If, as stated, the intent is to get something as representative of the 1967 (non-)release as possible using the original recordings, then having BWPS as a template don't merely fall at the first fence, it doesn't get out of the starting gate. Ican just about concede using Carl's 1968 vocal for "Cabin Essence" asit was the only important element missing and two years on he wouldn't have sounded much different. Not happy about it, really rather wouldn't, but if you must... but basing even a vague and partial recreation of a 1967 album on a 2003 template is, in my view, indefensible.

[Chris Moise]

So if I get this right, Smile in it's original unreleased form might have turned out to be ( If Brian Had finished it) the FIRST Great Double LP  set in Rock history;
Three sides featuring the three movements of Smile, and the fourth....  Maybe a side similar to Marcel Marceau's Greatest Hits, to present Brian's Humor?

Why do we want less SMiLE music?

I don't want to lose 10 minutes just to trim it down to what might have been a 40 minute album. As "Wirestone" has stated, Brian had too much material and no idea how to make it work on a two-sided vinyl album in '67. That album can't be recreated.

The existance of more than 40 minutes of material isn't relevent. There is no more evidence that Smile was originally intended to be a double album than Summer Days or Smiley Smile. By your reasoning Wild Honey was going to be a double album because Brian recorded Game Of Love and Lonley Days and didn't use them. If there is any notion of presenting a remotely accurate assembly of what form a 1966/67 Smile LP was going to take then it has to be around the 40 minute mark.

[drbeachboy]

Why do we want less SMiLE music?

I don't want to lose 10 minutes just to trim it down to what might have been a 40 minute album. As "Wirestone" has stated, Brian had too much material and no idea how to make it work on a two-sided vinyl album in '67. That album can't be recreated. However, Brian, Darian and Van Dyke fashioned something new using what Brian determined to be the best material at hand and it works quite well as a finished piece. I'm not certain how the existing Beach Boys sessions will work when based on that new template, but more SMiLE rather than less is perfectly fine by me.

Because, this project concerns the Smile sessions 1966-67 - not what someone did with the same material 37 years later. If, as stated, the intent is to get something as representative of the 1967 (non-)release as possible using the original recordings, then having BWPS as a template don't merely fall at the first fence, it doesn't get out of the starting gate. Ican just about concede using Carl's 1968 vocal for "Cabin Essence" asit was the only important element missing and two years on he wouldn't have sounded much different. Not happy about it, really rather wouldn't, but if you must... but basing even a vague and partial recreation of a 1967 album on a 2003 template is, in my view, indefensible.

If it is indefensible, then why are they doing it? This is not the Smile album, but the Smile Sessions. The so-called album is being (re)created in 2011 and not 1966 or 1967.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Why do we want less SMiLE music?

I don't want to lose 10 minutes just to trim it down to what might have been a 40 minute album. As "Wirestone" has stated, Brian had too much material and no idea how to make it work on a two-sided vinyl album in '67. That album can't be recreated. However, Brian, Darian and Van Dyke fashioned something new using what Brian determined to be the best material at hand and it works quite well as a finished piece. I'm not certain how the existing Beach Boys sessions will work when based on that new template, but more SMiLE rather than less is perfectly fine by me.

Because, this project concerns the Smile sessions 1966-67 - not what someone did with the same material 37 years later. If, as stated, the intent is to get something as representative of the 1967 (non-)release as possible using the original recordings, then having BWPS as a template don't merely fall at the first fence, it doesn't get out of the starting gate. Ican just about concede using Carl's 1968 vocal for "Cabin Essence" asit was the only important element missing and two years on he wouldn't have sounded much different. Not happy about it, really rather wouldn't, but if you must... but basing even a vague and partial recreation of a 1967 album on a 2003 template is, in my view, indefensible.

If it is indefensible, then why are they doing it? This is not the Smile album, but the Smile Sessions. The so-called album is being (re)created in 2011 and not 1966 or 1967.

INT: But will you attempt to present it as an album in a certain song order?

ML: Oh sure, we will present it probably on a single CD, and the vinyl will have to be three sides; I am not sure what the fourth side will encompass at this point. When we did Brian's version in 2004, it had to span 3 sides to fit. And there is another indication of I just don't know. I don't know if he was going to eliminate songs; it was surely never proposed than more than a single album to Capitol at that time. Fortunately we don't have that restriction anymore; the CD will allow us 80 minutes which is more than enough. But we will certainly going to present the whole piece as close to it as was envisioned, or as is envisioned, as possible.

Mark seems to be undecided on this front as well: on one hand saying they're going to present it as closely as they can to the original vision, that is a single album... then admitting they're not going to restrict themselves to that length. This needs to be resolved.

[Roger Ryan]

I should add here that I have always been the proponent of keeping such a release as representative of the SMiLE sessions. I'm not in favor of attempting to create a finished album (Brian already did that the best way possible by re-recording everything), but since it has been put forth that Disc 1 is going to be an attempt to present the material as finished as possible, I would prefer they follow a template that gives me the most SMiLE music for my money.

Put it this way: I wouldn't want "Holidays" left off Disc 1 and relegated to Disc 2 if that means something like "He Gives Speeches" or "Tag To Vegetables" gets bumped off the collection completely (not that I think that would actually happen). Since there's no way of knowing what would have actually ended up on the '67 album, the more SMiLE stuff on these discs the better.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I should add here that I have always been the proponent of keeping such a release as representative of the SMiLE sessions. I'm not in favor of attempting to create a finished album (Brian already did that the best way possible by re-recording everything), but since it has been put forth that Disc 1 is going to be an attempt to present the material as finished as possible, I would prefer they follow a template that gives me the most SMiLE music for my money.

I'm with you right up to wanting as much Smile music as possible in the 'finished' portion. The reasons I won't reiterate as even I'm getting bored with saying it, so I'm sure you're fed up with hearing it. 

[buddhahat]

I respect the purists' view to keep this release as tightly framed within the original two year time span as possible, but I think you have to be realistic. BWPS was critically acclaimed for a few reasons, but one of those reasons was the tremendous job Brian, VDP & Darian did in sequencing it. It's the best presentation of the material, and as Wirestone points out, the 3 movement format was a great way or maximising the lesser material, in much the same way that the medley on Abbey Road takes some of The Beatles' throwaway tunes and turns them into something majestic.

Otherwise what do you suggest they do? Use the handwritten tracklist? Even if they include the "see label' disclaimer someone would still need to sequence those tracks on the CD. You can bet that wouldn't be Brian. It would be Mark L and Alan Boyd with no input from the original creators. With a nod to BWPS, Mark and Alan can compile a sequence which can proudly bear the authors' seal of approval. It is absolutely the most sensible solution imo.

[pixletwin]

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems the releases intent is to present it both as a (1) finished album (as close to one anyway) and (2) historical tracks. In other works there is a duality to the release, Not just an "either/or" proposition.

[drbeachboy]

I would have to think that Brian will be involved in some capacity with the sequencing. Mark Linett says: "But we are certainly going to present the whole piece as close to it as was envisioned, or as is envisioned, as possible." I think to do that they would need Brian's participation, else they have mental telepathy.

[bossaroo]

it doesn't make any more sense to use the handwritten tracklist than it does to use the BWPS template.

we don't know if the handwritten tracklist was really definitive, or if it wouldn't have changed by the time the album came out.

Brian really revisited this material and finished it to the best of his ability in 2004.

and why stick to a 40-min format when we've got more space to utilize in this day and age?

Just say SMiLE should have been a double album after all, and release it that way.