Your SMiLE mix...for the fun of it

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

Thanks for the kind words, Sherrif. I was feeling a bit that I'd danced to this number before - and might put some of the dancers off with my textual flailing -but there's a lot happening on this thread I'm still really intrigued by.

This, for instance:

As the Sheriff theorizes, HV caps off the whole thing with a recap of the events just transpired over the course of the album.  He's the same man from the opera (SU), but now he's found the way and all is well, and off into the sunset he goes.   Smiley

Not sure if I can apply this (really lovely) interpretation to my mix without a major overhaul/equivalently major rethinking of my assessment of the album, but it's a great notion. I've tried not to apply too much lyrical analysis to my sequence 'cos I think one of the big problems faced in '66 was BW and VDP's increasingly divorced stance on that issue. This said, there's something quite evocative and appropriate there in this idea, and if I get the energy I might mess around with something along those lines myself.

If you're referring to me, you didn't "put me off" but you have to expect that if you accuse someone of double standards and not having any evidence for their own theories, they're going to defend themselves and their arguments.

Anyway, it's done. Let's just move on.

For what it's worth, I like this idea of Heroes coming last too. Could definitely be the last song in the Americana side especially. And if you're assembling your Heroes like Brian originally did, ending with OMP, even more so.

[The_Holy_Bee]

If you're referring to me, you didn't "put me off" but you have to expect that if you accuse someone of double standards and not having any evidence for their own theories, they're going to defend themselves and their arguments.

Anyway, it's done. Let's just move on.

Rather what I was trying to do, Mujan. And, just to be clear, I never claimed you did "not have any evidence for [your] own theories" - nor conscious double standards as such - simply that your posts sometimes seem to expect a higher burden of proof on some points than they do on others. And that this was making this thread a lot less fun for me, at least, than it was two days ago. It was the thought that we in collaboration might be doing the same for other readers and posters - that our rehashed debate might potentially be putting off "the other dancers" I was referring to - that made me consider opting out.

Anyway, I don't intend to engage with you any more on these issues. My last post was actually a relatively polite attempt to move past it, which seems not to have been read as such. What I'd really like to do now is continue to read, enjoy and contribute to this thread while, as I think soniclovenoise managed to say earlier in a much better way, making it clear I have no interest in continuing to do so in the style you seem to prefer.

On which basis, I've been intrigued by a lot of what has been discussed above re: Elements (and other aspects) and am currently trying to put together a possible  rough timeline for the various conceptual phases of the "The Elements". If that still seems an appropriate subject to discuss in this thread, I'll fire something through when I knock off properly in an hour or so. In the meantime, I'm loving the various approaches to and angles on all aspects of SMiLE coming out of this discussion.

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

If you're referring to me, you didn't "put me off" but you have to expect that if you accuse someone of double standards and not having any evidence for their own theories, they're going to defend themselves and their arguments.

Anyway, it's done. Let's just move on.

Rather what I was trying to do, Mujan. And, just to be clear, I never claimed you did "not have any evidence for [your] own theories" - nor conscious double standards as such - simply that your posts sometimes seem to expect a higher burden of proof on some points than they do on others. And that this was making this thread a lot less fun for me, at least, than it was two days ago. It was the thought that we in collaboration might be doing the same for other readers and posters - that our rehashed debate might potentially be putting off "the other dancers" I was referring to - that made me consider opting out.

Yes, and what I was going along with. That bolded text is exactly what I was referring to before tho, you realize. You say potato I say potato it seems.

Anyway, I think the best way to move forward for everyone is put the conversation back in its original context, taking Guitarfools points in mind especially. Perhaps focus on our personal SMiLEs and not *The* SMiLE. Because as I even admitted in my response to him, there's unanswered questions about EVERY track. Not just Elements and IIGS, much less the sequence. There really never will be a consensus on anything. I still think it's worth discussing, Brian's intentions, but not if I'm gonna be made to look like a jerk for putting forth my arguments.

Anyway, I don't intend to engage with you any more on these issues. My last post was actually a relatively polite attempt to move past it, which seems not to have been read as such. What I'd really like to do now is continue to read, enjoy and contribute to this thread while, as I think soniclovenoise managed to say earlier in a much better way, making it clear I have no interest in continuing to do so in the style you seem to prefer.

Neither do I. I presented my case as best I can, which is all I'd want to do. I'd still love to read any new evidence either you or sonic could present for your ideas, but it seems like a genuine request for information has been taken as some kind of mean-spirited challenge, and now I feel like I'm getting looked down upon for it, and for fighting for my own interpretations in an admittedly thorough (or long winded) way. But anyway, if we're agreed to keep this about opinions and not debating the historical record it's irrelevant anyway.

Yes, I realized that dude. I just thought it'd be a good idea to address the elephant in the room--that you more or less accused me of ruining the thread and stormed out. Silly me.

I acknowledge I get extremely passionate about the issue. From now on, I'll operate under the assumption that we are discussing opinions and not Brian's intentions or *the* SMiLE. I just figured before that we were trying to debate what the real SMiLE was, and if that were the case, it seemed bad form to me to put forth grand assertions and offer "feelings" as evidence. Similarly, it would seem unfair to essentially shame and disengage with me for having the stronger argument.

It's not necessarily the method I prefer, it's just...if you're having a disagreement...well, for me the best way to support your theories is to disprove the opposing argument and put forth your own as completely and persuasively as possible. That applies even if the topic is SMiLE. Anyway, like I said, from now on I'll assume we're just discussing opinions. In any case, my views have been stated more or less completely these past two pages so it's unnecessary to keep reiterating the same points.

[The_Holy_Bee]

Okay, so here's a synthesis of my own views and the various points re: "The Elements" that have been made above, the most revealing of which for me was guitarfool's reference to the Pete Brown quote about "The Four Elements Suite".

There is some basis, I think, to the argument that "The Elements" was always more Brian's baby than Van Dyke's. To support this, I'd use the comparatively very few comments from VDP on the track/suite/sequence, at any point in the last 50 years; the fact he has said that "Vega-Tables was the only part of 'The Elements' I worked on"; and his rather disparaging view of the Fire sessions. Anderle and Vosse both speak about the increasing tension between BW and VDP as the sessions wore on - drawing a deliberate distinction from any tensions involving the Beach Boys - and make note of a difference of approach specifically in view of the part the lyrics were to play in the piece.

In the "positive" evidence category: "Fire" is notated as "The Elements: Part One", a session produced and written, apparently, without any input from Van Dyke. A track called "The Elements" is on the Dec '66 tracklist, which Cam Mott has comprehensively argued would not have been submitted without Brian's approval. Anderle speaks about Brian's "obsession" with the elements, his active interest in elemental forces. Vosse talks about recording water sounds. They both reference "the Fire tapes" as part of Brian's intended "Elements" track. At no juncture - and I'm just saying this as a fact, not to say there aren't possible justifications for it not being said - do either of them refer to "Wind Chimes", VT, "Surf's Up", Psycodelic Sounds or "All Day/Dada" as pieces of a suite that was, even in '68 or '69, fairly well-known in the relevant circles and readerships to which those magazines were directed.

So, on the basis of actual testimony/paperwork, in Oct-Nov we have two known "Elements": "Fire" and "My Vega-Tables" (vis-à-vis the Van Dyke quote above, Frank Holmes' booklet illustration based on lyric sheets provided by Van Dyke). According to Anderle, "We were aware, he made us aware, of what Fire was going to be, and what water as going to be. We had some idea of air." We also have - as Jason points out above - contemporary audio tape of Brian trying to mesh/augment different water sounds (such as it splashing from a teapot) into a melodic whole, which seems to tie in with Vosse's recollections of being sent out to "record water sounds" in Fusion.

[My conjecture, in context of both that statement and an interview in which a few minutes earlier Anderle spoke about the "Psycodelic Sounds"  session  - in which he was an active participant - at some length, is that if the remaining elements had anything to do with the vocal chanting done by "the Posse" and intended for full execution by the band, he would have mentioned it at this point in the interview.]

Dec: Things are fracturing, the Nov 28 "Fire" sessions being - again, Anderle: "the first sign that we were going to have problems with the album." A tracklist still has to be compiled, for printing purposes, so "The Elements" (a session/tape notation used only for "Fire") is employed, along with a partial title for the only other piece ("My Vega-Tables") that appears to have been actually recorded for the suite, at least with band vocals. The pressure for a single suddenly increases (again, see Crawdaddy!) and so, though other material is worked on, H&V completion starts to become Brian's focus as the month goes on. The fate of "The Elements" remains in flux...

Jan/Feb: H&V becomes a vacuum into which almost anything can be absorbed. Most other work on named album tracks suspended.

Mar: End of month, H&V temporarily abandoned. A new potential single is identified in "Vega-Tables."

April: Sessions continue, with a new focus on VT. Mid-month, Paul McCartney and Mal Evans visit, as recorded by Pete Brown in his memoirs - specifically noting "The Four Elements Suite" on a day on which a VT session occurred. "Da da" sessions kick back in around the same time, the last two of which are:

May: Cancelled, not long after Derek Taylor announces the album is "scrapped".

TOTAL CONJECTURE - 2012-2015: My own mix, originally made as "proof of thesis" that something happened in early Dec '66 to throw the album off course, uses "Fire" and "Cornucopia VT" as separate elements/tracks, because I'd set the task for myself of proving the album was "totally conceived" [Vosse] and largely instrumentally tracked in 1966. Following the facts given above, and the dictates I set for myself, I had only two known Elements to work with - so used MOLC to open "the suite", VT next and then Wind Chimes (the tag being "a piano piece" and also, according to Fusion, not finally "finished" in any version we now have to listen to). Surf's Up followed, partly because it gave me a comfortable mid-sixties 16-min runtime for the side, but also because of the Frank Holmes quote about "more than one element" I gave above. Each of these three tracks is linked with excerpts from Pscodelic Sound chanting. I don't now believe a completed '60s SMiLe would have gone that way; I feel it works quite nicely.

Subsequent thoughts? Corrections of the data? (TSS book being currently hidden in an unremembered corner of the bedroom.)

[The_Holy_Bee]

I said I wasn't going to do this, but Mujan, in the context of our discussion (on both threads to date), and bearing in mind you a) have time to write enormously long posts, often asserting other people's lack of evidence or claiming an entrenched position, b) have acknowledged you own a copy of LLVS and c) could just google all relevant articles in question in the space of thirty minutes if you wanted to (I don't own LLVS, and I managed to find and read them), then this:

I'd still love to read any new evidence either you or sonic could present for your ideas, but it seems like a genuine request for information has been taken as some kind of mean-spirited challenge

and this

I really got get around to reading LLVS...

can only be read as taking the proverbial.

EDIT: I already regret posting this, but seriously, how much of your contradictory bullying are these boards expected to take? Because bullying, though I absolutely believe you don't see it as such, is just what you're doing.

[The_Holy_Bee]

EDIT: Accidental quote, now deleted.

[buddhahat]

Interesting thread.

I think what strikes me most here is that we have some real learned (and in some cases old school) smile devotees posting, yet when it comes to subjects such as the contents of The Elements Suite or whether Dada is/isn't water, there is very little hard evidence and the arguments get pretty subjective.

I, for one, was convinced that Dada started life as a song about a baby, but it's only from reading this thread that I realise the sole 'hard evidence' for that is the Marilyn quote in the Smile box book. The rest is subjective, based on the fact that fatherhood was a subject BW revisited in other songs, namely When A Man Needs a Woman, but also the baby sounds in Child suggest it was a fascination at that particular time. In fact the idea of babies (and the blurring between adults and babies) crop up quite a bit, especially the Love You period. I think this tells us a lot about Brian's psychology but that's another topic for another day ...

As for Fire, I'm in the 'Workshop is rebuilding after the fire' camp. Again, outside of the Carol Kaye quote, this is subjective. I remember reading Priore making the case for it in his post BWPS smile book. I was in the airport at the time and I could just about reshuffle the pieces on my iPod so that Workshop immediately followed Fire. Talk about an 'a ha!' moment. Never have two Smile fragments flowed so effectively to my ears. Not only did the two pieces flow musically, but they also create a very effective joke in the contrast from dark and scary (Fire), to the arched eyebrow humour of the loungey vibe of Workshop. It just seems exactly the type of gag Brian was into at the time. I think Brian used humour as a defence against the darker aspects of himself so it fits that he would create a very dark, serious piece of music and then flip on his head with a gag as if to say  "No need to get bummed out - I'm just messing with you folks!"
I'm a big fan of BWPS and support whatever revisions the team chose to make when they put it together. However I do feel a trick was missed in not grouping Fire & Workshop. By following Fire with the water chant it becomes a very heavy, dour section of the album and that fabulous joke is lost.

[buddhahat]

Was it AGD that suggested Country Air may be a reworking of the Air Element? Not sure if he still stands by that but I always loved that idea.

[Sheriff John Stone]

I think what strikes me most here is that we have some real learned (and in some cases old school) smile devotees posting, yet when it comes to subjects such as the contents of The Elements Suite or whether Dada is/isn't water, there is very little hard evidence and the arguments get pretty subjective.

I, for one, was pretty convinced that Dada started life as a song about a baby, but it's only from reading this thread that I realise the sole 'hard evidence' for that is the Marilyn quote in the Smile box book. The rest is subjective, based on the fact that fatherhood was a subject BW revisited in other songs, namely When A Man Needs a Woman, but also the baby sounds in Child suggest it was a fascination at that particular time. In fact the idea of babies (and the blurring between adults and babies) crop up quite a bit, especially the Love You period. I think this tells us a lot about Brian's psychology but that's another topic for another day ...

And, you're absolutely right. The evidence and arguments can be/are subjective. So, I'll add another one!

I also believe that "I Love To Say Dada" started out as a song about a baby. And, I'm aware that some of Brian's song titles were working titles. "I'm Grass And You're A Power Mower" comes to mind, although that's an extreme case, but you know what I mean. Anyway, with "I Love To Say Dada" you have the story of Marilyn Wilson and the bottle of milk - AND YOU HAVE THE WORKING TITLE! I'm sure somebody can come up with another guess, but I can only think of one meaning for Dada or Da Da or DaDa - on an album with other song titles like "Child Is Father Of The Man" and other "child/children" references in various songs.

[buddhahat]

I think what strikes me most here is that we have some real learned (and in some cases old school) smile devotees posting, yet when it comes to subjects such as the contents of The Elements Suite or whether Dada is/isn't water, there is very little hard evidence and the arguments get pretty subjective.

I, for one, was pretty convinced that Dada started life as a song about a baby, but it's only from reading this thread that I realise the sole 'hard evidence' for that is the Marilyn quote in the Smile box book. The rest is subjective, based on the fact that fatherhood was a subject BW revisited in other songs, namely When A Man Needs a Woman, but also the baby sounds in Child suggest it was a fascination at that particular time. In fact the idea of babies (and the blurring between adults and babies) crop up quite a bit, especially the Love You period. I think this tells us a lot about Brian's psychology but that's another topic for another day ...

And, you're absolutely right. The evidence and arguments can be/are subjective. So, I'll add another one!

I also believe that "I Love To Say Dada" started out as a song about a baby. And, I'm aware that some of Brian's song titles were working titles. "I'm Grass And You're A Power Mower" comes to mind, although that's an extreme case, but you know what I mean. Anyway, with "I Love To Say Dada" you have the story of Marilyn Wilson and the bottle of milk - AND YOU HAVE THE WORKING TITLE! I'm sure somebody can come up with another guess, but I can only think of one meaning for Dada or Da Da or DaDa - on an album with other song titles like "Child Is Father Of The Man" and other "child/children" references in various songs.

Yes you're right - that is two pieces of evidence. I have seen it argued that dada is a reference to the art movement but I think that's less likely given the bottle of milk anecdote.

If it is a song about a baby, then does it belong with Child Is Father Of The Man? That is another song that contains a baby reference (the trumpet cry). This sets me up to explain another pet theory   ...

The slow piano and bass section of Child represents a father's anxious wait for the arrival of his new baby. The bass sounds just like a ticking clock to me. Then of course it breaks with the trumpet wail as the baby arrives. I'm sure the sections of this song are designed to clearly illustrate something and I suspect the baby plays a significant role given Brian's exclamation in the sessions: "There's our baby!".

[shangaijoeBB]

I sincerely don't believe that either sides of the LP would start with any other tracks than Heroes And Villains and Good Vibrations. They were the singles selected at that time (see all the press coverage in 1966) and Brian started sides with the singles.

Considering that these were the songs mainly recorded by Brian from Early August to late December 1966 (when the LP was conceived as a full entity, according to Michael Vosse):

(song with partial and/or complete mixes are highlighted)

Good Vibrations
Wind Chimes
Look
Wonderful
He Gives Speeches
Holidays
Cabin Essence
Prayer
Child Is Father Of The Man
Im' In Great Shape
Heroes And Villains
Do You Like Worms
Barnyard
Surf's Up
Psychedelic Sounds
Talking Horns
Vegetables
My Only Sunshine
Vegetables arguments
The Elements pt 1: Fire
I Wanna Be Around/Friday Night
You're Welcome

And considering that 2004 Ear Candy interview with Brian from after the release of BWPS:

E.C.: Also in "Beautiful Dreamer" you said - "We touched up the first two movements and we created a third movement. Now we have a rock opera - a three movement rock opera." Did you originally think of SMiLE as a "rock opera" or was that a recent…

Brian Wilson: We thought of it as 2-movement rock opera. Then we added a third then we called it a 3-movement rock opera.

"We added a third." Bingo. So, imo, there is a good possibility that side A and B were the Americana and Life suites presented on BWPS with a few alterations and with 12 "banded" tracks as Van Dyke Parks once confirmed.

I wanted to include both Look and Holidays so parts 3 & 4 of The Elements are Holidays mixed with the Psychedelic Sounds. Maybe not what The Elements track of 1966 would have been, but as with Im' In Great Shape there is so little that we know about the backing tracks both these tracks that imo it's up for grabs for anyone to mix them:

Side A (Americana Suite) 20:00

Prayer (first 15 seconds)
Heroes and Villains (Cantina version until distortion - then Barnyard)
Do You Like Worms (with added lead vocals)
Im' In Great Shape (Eggs And Grit/I Wanna Be Around/Friday Night)
Vegetables (Vegetables demo/Vegetables arguments/Smiley smile version ending from ''I know you'll feel better'')
The Elements (Mrs. O' Leary's Cow/Holidays/Psychedelic Sounds "Down On The Ocean Floor" and "Breathing")
The Old Master Painter (My Only Sunshine Pt. 1 & 2 with "Barnshire" fade)
Cabin Essence

Side B (Life Suite) 17:45

Good Vibrations
Wonderful/hard edit into Look
Wind Chimes (piano tag with "Moaning & Laughing" Psychedelic Sounds)
Child Is Father Of The Man (3 minute BW edit with added lead vocals)
Surf's Up (Smile Sessions version of part 1/Bruiteur mix with strings for part 2/"Talking Horns" mixed with part 3 and ending on the demo piano version fade)

Total LP running time: 37:45

http://www69.zippyshare.com/v/qqotF7ya/file.html

[Sheriff John Stone]

I sincerely don't believe that either sides of the LP would start with any other tracks than Heroes And Villains and Good Vibrations. They were the singles selected at that time (see all the press coverage in 1966) and Brian started sides with the singles.

I agree with you, and I also DON'T think "Prayer" - partial or otherwise - would've preceeded 'Heroes And Villains" opening Side 1, but I admittedly have a problem with "(Our) Prayer" as an opening track.

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

I think what strikes me most here is that we have some real learned (and in some cases old school) smile devotees posting, yet when it comes to subjects such as the contents of The Elements Suite or whether Dada is/isn't water, there is very little hard evidence and the arguments get pretty subjective.

I, for one, was pretty convinced that Dada started life as a song about a baby, but it's only from reading this thread that I realise the sole 'hard evidence' for that is the Marilyn quote in the Smile box book. The rest is subjective, based on the fact that fatherhood was a subject BW revisited in other songs, namely When A Man Needs a Woman, but also the baby sounds in Child suggest it was a fascination at that particular time. In fact the idea of babies (and the blurring between adults and babies) crop up quite a bit, especially the Love You period. I think this tells us a lot about Brian's psychology but that's another topic for another day ...

And, you're absolutely right. The evidence and arguments can be/are subjective. So, I'll add another one!

I also believe that "I Love To Say Dada" started out as a song about a baby. And, I'm aware that some of Brian's song titles were working titles. "I'm Grass And You're A Power Mower" comes to mind, although that's an extreme case, but you know what I mean. Anyway, with "I Love To Say Dada" you have the story of Marilyn Wilson and the bottle of milk - AND YOU HAVE THE WORKING TITLE! I'm sure somebody can come up with another guess, but I can only think of one meaning for Dada or Da Da or DaDa - on an album with other song titles like "Child Is Father Of The Man" and other "child/children" references in various songs.

Yes you're right - that is two pieces of evidence. I have seen it argued that dada is a reference to the art movement but I think that's less likely given the bottle of milk anecdote.

If it is a song about a baby, then does it belong with Child Is Father Of The Man? That is another song that contains a baby reference (the trumpet cry). This sets me up to explain another pet theory   ...

The slow piano and bass section of Child represents a father's anxious wait for the arrival of his new baby. The bass sounds just like a ticking clock to me. Then of course it breaks with the trumpet wail as the baby arrives. I'm sure the sections of this song are designed to clearly illustrate something and I suspect the baby plays a significant role given Brian's exclamation in the sessions: "There's our baby!".

I always saw the bass as their shared heartbeats. Like, the dad can express himself in this profound way when all the baby can do is cry and yet what unites them is their heartbeats that'll stay the same all through their lives.

[guitarfool2002]

There should be a separation between discussing the historical issues versus the aesthetic, the latter especially in the way of decisions made by those editing their own "Smile". If it's aesthetic, anything goes. If it's attempting to be a historically accurate attempt, as tough as that may be due to the state of flux certain parts always seemed to be in during the process, then I think a debate or a challenge is appropriate. Having said that, I won't debate aesthetics because it's all subjective as to what sounds better to the person doing it.

That said, let's tackle "Love To Say DaDa" historically and musically to start.

Is there something to be challenged in the labeling and placement of this music in the Smile Sessions box set?

Consider there are several attempts dating from December 1966, one specifically with the taped piano strings where Brian even takes it into a 3/4 "waltz" section with the familiar chord progression. Then there is the clip of Brian playing the piece on a Fender Rhodes electric piano, what must have been one of the first of those instruments around the LA music scene since it was a fairly new invention at the time.

So that's December, 1966, taped piano strings and all, and those tracks fall under the 'Love To Say DaDa' title.

Then in late January 1967, we have a full reel of sessions labeled/titled "All Day", it's the same chord progression played by Brian where he cycles through various takes including doing the taped piano strings which are also treated with tape echo (if I recall). Yet these attempts - keep in mind, the same chord progression, feel, and in sonic terms it had the same taped piano strings effects - are placed under the "Heroes And Villains" sessions.

Then we move to May '67, as has been mentioned in this thread already, and now it has a part 1 of "Dada" and a part 2, which is the same material heard since December 1966 and those first piano run-throughs. This time it's actually slated as "Love To Say Dada", replacing "All Day".

So what does that mean in terms of what this piece actually was?

There is a pretty modern term that has been popping up in the collectors world, "re-purposing", as in buying an old beat up table at a yard sale and "re-purposing" it into something else for resale.

Question is - This chord progression and feel, called All Day, Love To Say Dada, whatever the case...it seems to be Brian re-purposing the idea as almost all songwriters do as a general rule. It's a good idea or fragment for a song, but where can I take it to call it finished? What else can I do with it?

So the question becomes with this piece, historically which of the possibilities is the more accurate one, was it "Love To Say DaDa" when Brian played it in Dec. 1966, and if so why did it become "All Day" a month later, and how did it become a part of Heroes instead of elemental? Or was it actually elemental at all in Dec 1966, meaning where did the label come from that was in the Smile Sessions tracklist? Was it a tape box?

OK, assume it was "DaDa" even if it was or wasn't labeled that way from Dec 1966...It was on a full reel of "All Day" sessions a month later, and assigned to the Heroes batch of session work. Repeating myself, same music, same chords, same sounds, same feel. But now it's labeled part of "Heroes" according to the box set.

Then May 67, as stated in this thread, it's "Love To Say DaDa" again, this time with a part one and part two along with other ornaments. Well, press reports at the time already pretty much sounded the death knell of the original Smile, entirely accurate or not, and within weeks of this DaDa session the band would be in the home studio cutting Smiley Smile tracks like "Hawaii Song" or whatever the working titles of the tracks were. THEN in the fall of 67 Brian does "Cool Cool Water"...same basic music framework as he had demo'ed in December 1966.

So even a piece like this "All Day" or "DaDa", what was it? Did it change shape and purpose from December '66 to May '67? Is the labeling as we saw in the box set accurate as far as placing it in "Heroes" versus a fragment called "DaDa"?

Food for thought.

[buddhahat]

There should be a separation between discussing the historical issues versus the aesthetic, the latter especially in the way of decisions made by those editing their own "Smile". If it's aesthetic, anything goes. If it's attempting to be a historically accurate attempt, as tough as that may be due to the state of flux certain parts always seemed to be in during the process, then I think a debate or a challenge is appropriate. Having said that, I won't debate aesthetics because it's all subjective as to what sounds better to the person doing it.

That said, let's tackle "Love To Say DaDa" historically and musically to start.

Is there something to be challenged in the labeling and placement of this music in the Smile Sessions box set?

Consider there are several attempts dating from December 1966, one specifically with the taped piano strings where Brian even takes it into a 3/4 "waltz" section with the familiar chord progression. Then there is the clip of Brian playing the piece on a Fender Rhodes electric piano, what must have been one of the first of those instruments around the LA music scene since it was a fairly new invention at the time.

So that's December, 1966, taped piano strings and all, and those tracks fall under the 'Love To Say DaDa' title.

Then in late January 1967, we have a full reel of sessions labeled/titled "All Day", it's the same chord progression played by Brian where he cycles through various takes including doing the taped piano strings which are also treated with tape echo (if I recall). Yet these attempts - keep in mind, the same chord progression, feel, and in sonic terms it had the same taped piano strings effects - are placed under the "Heroes And Villains" sessions.

Then we move to May '67, as has been mentioned in this thread already, and now it has a part 1 of "Dada" and a part 2, which is the same material heard since December 1966 and those first piano run-throughs. This time it's actually slated as "Love To Say Dada", replacing "All Day".

So what does that mean in terms of what this piece actually was?

There is a pretty modern term that has been popping up in the collectors world, "re-purposing", as in buying an old beat up table at a yard sale and "re-purposing" it into something else for resale.

Question is - This chord progression and feel, called All Day, Love To Say Dada, whatever the case...it seems to be Brian re-purposing the idea as almost all songwriters do as a general rule. It's a good idea or fragment for a song, but where can I take it to call it finished? What else can I do with it?

So the question becomes with this piece, historically which of the possibilities is the more accurate one, was it "Love To Say DaDa" when Brian played it in Dec. 1966, and if so why did it become "All Day" a month later, and how did it become a part of Heroes instead of elemental? Or was it actually elemental at all in Dec 1966, meaning where did the label come from that was in the Smile Sessions tracklist? Was it a tape box?

OK, assume it was "DaDa" even if it was or wasn't labeled that way from Dec 1966...It was on a full reel of "All Day" sessions a month later, and assigned to the Heroes batch of session work. Repeating myself, same music, same chords, same sounds, same feel. But now it's labeled part of "Heroes" according to the box set.

Then May 67, as stated in this thread, it's "Love To Say DaDa" again, this time with a part one and part two along with other ornaments. Well, press reports at the time already pretty much sounded the death knell of the original Smile, entirely accurate or not, and within weeks of this DaDa session the band would be in the home studio cutting Smiley Smile tracks like "Hawaii Song" or whatever the working titles of the tracks were. THEN in the fall of 67 Brian does "Cool Cool Water"...same basic music framework as he had demo'ed in December 1966.

So even a piece like this "All Day" or "DaDa", what was it? Did it change shape and purpose from December '66 to May '67? Is the labeling as we saw in the box set accurate as far as placing it in "Heroes" versus a fragment called "DaDa"?

Food for thought.

It is a bit baffling. I'm not sure if he still subscribes to it, but I like Cam's theory (apologies if I misrepresent it here) that the b side of H&V was at one point to be a sampler for the album - Smile in microcosm - featuring small fragments that reference the larger songs. This then explains the existence of anomalies such as All Day (it is a reference to Dada), Heroes Intro (ditto Fire), Tag To Part One (Vegetables? Wind Chimes?) etc.

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

I said I wasn't going to do this, but Mujan, in the context of our discussion (on both threads to date), and bearing in mind you a) have time to write enormously long posts, often asserting other people's lack of evidence or claiming an entrenched position, b) have acknowledged you own a copy of LLVS and c) could just google all relevant articles in question in the space of thirty minutes if you wanted to (I don't own LLVS, and I managed to find and read them), then this:

I'd still love to read any new evidence either you or sonic could present for your ideas, but it seems like a genuine request for information has been taken as some kind of mean-spirited challenge

and this

I really got get around to reading LLVS...

can only be read as taking the proverbial.

EDIT: I already regret posting this, but seriously, how much of your contradictory bullying are these boards expected to take? Because bullying, though I absolutely believe you don't see it as such, is just what you're doing.

I think you're being pretty ridiculous and unfair. I acknowledge there's more out there SMiLE-related I need to read and hope to get around to some day, hence saying "I wouldn't mind being proven wrong" and "I'd like to see what evidence people have to argue different theories."

Maybe you're right, and I could finish it faster than I think. But in my mind it's a lot easier and less time consuming to type a few posts, even enormously long posts, off my phone between classes or between home work assignments for a day or two when theyres an interesting thread going on than commit to reading and taking notes on a fairly large book when I've got chapters to read in textbooks and novels to read for a literature class. It's definitely something I want to get around to tho.

Honestly, i think that bullying assertion is pretty uncalled for. I haven't called anyone names, insulted their character, essentially question their right to post here, and accuse anyone of ruining the thread and make a big self-important show of storming out like you have. All I've done is try to discuss and debate in good faith. I acknowledged that the latter approach may be unnecessary in this particular thread and that I get carried away, tried to explain where I was coming from and offer to just move past it. But you can't seem to let it go. For whatever reason you seem determined to call me out personally and paint me to be some kind of malevolent person the past two pages. You're not even acknowledging anything I've been saying to you. You just go from one condescending smear to the next outright attack.

And somehow I'm the bully? I've dealt with actual harassment on these threads and real life. If you think I'm being a bully for writing long posts and not getting around to reading a specific book just yet, I'd say you need to toughen up. And that's coming from ME. Anyway...

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

There should be a separation between discussing the historical issues versus the aesthetic, the latter especially in the way of decisions made by those editing their own "Smile". If it's aesthetic, anything goes. If it's attempting to be a historically accurate attempt, as tough as that may be due to the state of flux certain parts always seemed to be in during the process, then I think a debate or a challenge is appropriate.

Exactly

[buddhahat]

FWIW Mujan, the Vosse article that was discussed earlier isn't in LLVS if memory serves. I think it's on the internet (or buried in these threads somewhere) but if you can't find it I can scan it.

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

FWIW Mujan, the Vosse article that was discussed earlier isn't in LLVS if memory serves. I think it's on the internet (or buried in these threads somewhere) but if you can't find it I can scan it.

Appreciate the tip.

[guitarfool2002]

That theory doesn't hold up as well with me because we have Vosse specifically saying there was a Heroes with a 3-minute A side and a 3-minute B side, then there was, of course, Chuck Britz saying he remembers a side A/side B version of Heroes...but a "Sampler" of the album? If anything I'd think it was more along the lines of a more tightly edited version of "Heroes And Villains Sessions" from the '93 box set on the B-side, with the A side being that Chuck Britz "Cantina" mix...***at that point in time***.

And that also beings up the point that Vosse knew this and heard something that he remembered a year later, Chuck Britz did something and remembered doing it, and those are firsthand sources who were actually there in the process if we're trying to figure out things that happened at specific times, and this was obviously before magazine columns reported Brian was going to go with Vegetables as the lead single rather than Heroes in spring '67.

[guitarfool2002]

Click here for the Vosse Fusion scans: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,17157.msg430386.html#msg430386

[guitarfool2002]

I was hoping to zero in more on the All Day and Love To Say Dada topic, but since it was raised, the influence of Child Is Father... has been pretty definitively addressed by Van Dyke, and the inspiration comes from a Wordsworth poem "My Heart Leaps Up" aka "The Rainbow":

My heart leaps up when I behold
   A rainbow in the sky:
So was it when my life began;
So is it now I am a man;
So be it when I shall grow old,
   Or let me die!
The Child is father of the Man;
And I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety.

Van Dyke told Brian about the poem after what I'm assuming were one of their songwriting talks like Tony Asher described, where they'd talk about life and philosophy and love during the writing sessions, and Brian (according to Van Dyke) was dealing issues of growing up, adulthood, becoming a man, and there is a quote where Van Dyke remembered thinking of the song "When I Grow Up" that Brian wrote a few years before that was on the same issues. So he tips Brian on the Wordsworth poem, and the inspiration came from the verses in the poem as well as the talks about religion, spirituality, and dealing with growing up, as summed up by the Wordsworth verses.

The notion of getting excited by seeing a rainbow as a child, that excitement continues as an adult, and Wordsworth both states it as fact and hopes he never loses that childlike wonder for natural beauty, and if he does..."let me die". And the feelings as a child are what can and should govern the adult (man) as well, may the man never lose that childlike wonder as something as simple as looking up at the sky and seeing a rainbow.

That pretty much sums up the "Teenage Symphony To God" aspects of Smile (and Brian's mindset during the project) as well, separate from the Old West and other pioneer/America aspects that sprung from the Heroes And Villains themes.

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

I think what strikes me most here is that we have some real learned (and in some cases old school) smile devotees posting, yet when it comes to subjects such as the contents of The Elements Suite or whether Dada is/isn't water, there is very little hard evidence and the arguments get pretty subjective.

I, for one, was pretty convinced that Dada started life as a song about a baby, but it's only from reading this thread that I realise the sole 'hard evidence' for that is the Marilyn quote in the Smile box book. The rest is subjective, based on the fact that fatherhood was a subject BW revisited in other songs, namely When A Man Needs a Woman, but also the baby sounds in Child suggest it was a fascination at that particular time. In fact the idea of babies (and the blurring between adults and babies) crop up quite a bit, especially the Love You period. I think this tells us a lot about Brian's psychology but that's another topic for another day ...

And, you're absolutely right. The evidence and arguments can be/are subjective. So, I'll add another one!

I also believe that "I Love To Say Dada" started out as a song about a baby. And, I'm aware that some of Brian's song titles were working titles. "I'm Grass And You're A Power Mower" comes to mind, although that's an extreme case, but you know what I mean. Anyway, with "I Love To Say Dada" you have the story of Marilyn Wilson and the bottle of milk - AND YOU HAVE THE WORKING TITLE! I'm sure somebody can come up with another guess, but I can only think of one meaning for Dada or Da Da or DaDa - on an album with other song titles like "Child Is Father Of The Man" and other "child/children" references in various songs.

The sticking point I have with this is that Brian used that title for months even coming back to it a second time after a long hiatus. That grass/mower title was just a one-off funny quip he said behind the board one day. I'm fairly confident Dada was the real title myself.

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

I sincerely don't believe that either sides of the LP would start with any other tracks than Heroes And Villains and Good Vibrations. They were the singles selected at that time (see all the press coverage in 1966) and Brian started sides with the singles.

Considering that these were the songs mainly recorded by Brian from Early August to late December 1966 (when the LP was conceived as a full entity, according to Michael Vosse):

(song with partial and/or complete mixes are highlighted)

Good Vibrations
Wind Chimes
Look
Wonderful
He Gives Speeches
Holidays
Cabin Essence
Prayer
Child Is Father Of The Man
Im' In Great Shape
Heroes And Villains
Do You Like Worms
Barnyard
Surf's Up
Psychedelic Sounds
Talking Horns
Vegetables
My Only Sunshine
Vegetables arguments
The Elements pt 1: Fire
I Wanna Be Around/Friday Night
You're Welcome

And considering that 2004 Ear Candy interview with Brian from after the release of BWPS:

E.C.: Also in "Beautiful Dreamer" you said - "We touched up the first two movements and we created a third movement. Now we have a rock opera - a three movement rock opera." Did you originally think of SMiLE as a "rock opera" or was that a recent…

Brian Wilson: We thought of it as 2-movement rock opera. Then we added a third then we called it a 3-movement rock opera.

"We added a third." Bingo. So, imo, there is a good possibility that side A and B were the Americana and Life suites presented on BWPS with a few alterations and with 12 "banded" tracks as Van Dyke Parks once confirmed.

I wanted to include both Look and Holidays so parts 3 & 4 of The Elements are Holidays mixed with the Psychedelic Sounds. Maybe not what The Elements track of 1966 would have been, but as with Im' In Great Shape there is so little that we know about the backing tracks both these tracks that imo it's up for grabs for anyone to mix them:

Side A (Americana Suite) 20:00

Prayer (first 15 seconds)
Heroes and Villains (Cantina version until distortion - then Barnyard)
Do You Like Worms (with added lead vocals)
Im' In Great Shape (Eggs And Grit/I Wanna Be Around/Friday Night)
Vegetables (Vegetables demo/Vegetables arguments/Smiley smile version ending from ''I know you'll feel better'')
The Elements (Mrs. O' Leary's Cow/Holidays/Psychedelic Sounds "Down On The Ocean Floor" and "Breathing")
The Old Master Painter (My Only Sunshine Pt. 1 & 2 with "Barnshire" fade)
Cabin Essence

Side B (Life Suite) 17:45

Good Vibrations
Wonderful/hard edit into Look
Wind Chimes (piano tag with "Moaning & Laughing" Psychedelic Sounds)
Child Is Father Of The Man (3 minute BW edit with added lead vocals)
Surf's Up (Smile Sessions version of part 1/Bruiteur mix with strings for part 2/"Talking Horns" mixed with part 3 and ending on the demo piano version fade)

Total LP running time: 37:45

http://www69.zippyshare.com/v/qqotF7ya/file.html

I agree 100% with your structure. I never thought I'd see the day someone else supported a American/Life mix  

I disagree about H&V and GV tho. This was supposed to be a very innovative little record, even then. Not the 3 movement symphony it became, but still a groundbreaking experiment recorded modularly, with humor worked in and with meaningful groupings along the sides of vinyl. I see no reason one of the rules broken couldn't be starting off with the singles.

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

There should be a separation between discussing the historical issues versus the aesthetic, the latter especially in the way of decisions made by those editing their own "Smile". If it's aesthetic, anything goes. If it's attempting to be a historically accurate attempt, as tough as that may be due to the state of flux certain parts always seemed to be in during the process, then I think a debate or a challenge is appropriate. Having said that, I won't debate aesthetics because it's all subjective as to what sounds better to the person doing it.

That said, let's tackle "Love To Say DaDa" historically and musically to start.

Is there something to be challenged in the labeling and placement of this music in the Smile Sessions box set?

Consider there are several attempts dating from December 1966, one specifically with the taped piano strings where Brian even takes it into a 3/4 "waltz" section with the familiar chord progression. Then there is the clip of Brian playing the piece on a Fender Rhodes electric piano, what must have been one of the first of those instruments around the LA music scene since it was a fairly new invention at the time.

So that's December, 1966, taped piano strings and all, and those tracks fall under the 'Love To Say DaDa' title.

Then in late January 1967, we have a full reel of sessions labeled/titled "All Day", it's the same chord progression played by Brian where he cycles through various takes including doing the taped piano strings which are also treated with tape echo (if I recall). Yet these attempts - keep in mind, the same chord progression, feel, and in sonic terms it had the same taped piano strings effects - are placed under the "Heroes And Villains" sessions.

Then we move to May '67, as has been mentioned in this thread already, and now it has a part 1 of "Dada" and a part 2, which is the same material heard since December 1966 and those first piano run-throughs. This time it's actually slated as "Love To Say Dada", replacing "All Day".

So what does that mean in terms of what this piece actually was?

There is a pretty modern term that has been popping up in the collectors world, "re-purposing", as in buying an old beat up table at a yard sale and "re-purposing" it into something else for resale.

Question is - This chord progression and feel, called All Day, Love To Say Dada, whatever the case...it seems to be Brian re-purposing the idea as almost all songwriters do as a general rule. It's a good idea or fragment for a song, but where can I take it to call it finished? What else can I do with it?

So the question becomes with this piece, historically which of the possibilities is the more accurate one, was it "Love To Say DaDa" when Brian played it in Dec. 1966, and if so why did it become "All Day" a month later, and how did it become a part of Heroes instead of elemental? Or was it actually elemental at all in Dec 1966, meaning where did the label come from that was in the Smile Sessions tracklist? Was it a tape box?

OK, assume it was "DaDa" even if it was or wasn't labeled that way from Dec 1966...It was on a full reel of "All Day" sessions a month later, and assigned to the Heroes batch of session work. Repeating myself, same music, same chords, same sounds, same feel. But now it's labeled part of "Heroes" according to the box set.

Then May 67, as stated in this thread, it's "Love To Say DaDa" again, this time with a part one and part two along with other ornaments. Well, press reports at the time already pretty much sounded the death knell of the original Smile, entirely accurate or not, and within weeks of this DaDa session the band would be in the home studio cutting Smiley Smile tracks like "Hawaii Song" or whatever the working titles of the tracks were. THEN in the fall of 67 Brian does "Cool Cool Water"...same basic music framework as he had demo'ed in December 1966.

So even a piece like this "All Day" or "DaDa", what was it? Did it change shape and purpose from December '66 to May '67? Is the labeling as we saw in the box set accurate as far as placing it in "Heroes" versus a fragment called "DaDa"?

Food for thought.

It is a bit baffling. I'm not sure if he still subscribes to it, but I like Cam's theory (apologies if I misrepresent it here) that the b side of H&V was at one point to be a sampler for the album - Smile in microcosm - featuring small fragments that reference the larger songs. This then explains the existence of anomalies such as All Day (it is a reference to Dada), Heroes Intro (ditto Fire), Tag To Part One (Vegetables? Wind Chimes?) etc.

But again, isn't Brian quoted saying he wanted to keep as much of the SMiLE material a secret as possible until it was released? It's definitely an interesting idea, but I'm not sure I buy it.