The Smiley Smile Message Board

I have always been a SMiLE freak (got the boots, read the books etc) but BWPS, the emotional concerts and the closure of the original SMILE SHOP put an end to my postings although I remain a lurker.

Like many, the recent announcement has got my juices flowing again and comments on the various threads here have reminded me what I have been missing for the last five years. The flame is very much alive. My main regret is that I have probably missed newly discovered recordings but hey........

Whilst I love BWPS to bits, I am really excited about the forthcoming release in many way. BWPS has its own charm - IIGS is a great example of this - and hats off must go to Brian's band for recreating what I consider one of the greatest achievements in popular music. It stands on its own as a piece of art.

I also think its as close to the original SMiLE as we can get bearing in mind that many vocal tracks were not completed back in the day. For me its the finished SMiLE - just about. My only slightly negative comments are its length - at 47 mins its too long for two sides of vinyl, not sure about the interludes, as good as they are, and whilst the first two suites are perfect, the third one does sound a bit forced. I don't have any problems with the running order - its makes sense to me for what it was.

The new release opens up a whole host of stuff for me.

Whilst Brian's band deserve a lot of kudos - without them I don't believe Brian would be where he is today - they would admit that they aren't the Wrecking Crew. For me the original backing tracks have a power that BWPS couldn't match. Even something as minimal as YAMS boasts something that doesn't come across on BWPS in the same way. Ditto H&V, CE, and DYLW.

Likewise the vocals are different in feel and the BBs do have that special blend that no one else has. Hearing the tracks and vocals in pristine mono or stereo ( don't care which) will IMHO further enhance Brian's status.

From what I read, it seems as though we will get something very similar to the PS Box Set which I can tell you is still being examined by music students all over the world. This would mean a 'SMiLE album' in the intended running order, the intended versions in their latest state of completion with or without vocals plus a whole load of session stuff similar to the way the PS boxed set panned out but obviously in an 'unfinished' state on some of the tracks.

It should be welcomed as what it is - a snapshot of SMiLE when it was abandoned. It and BWPS should stand alongside each other as the final pieces in the puzzle. And I hope we as fans will accept it as the final word on this mystery. For me it will be solved.

And now to some questions/comments for those who are interested.

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
How involved is Brian in putting this together? Are Darian/Paul involved as they did extensive research/work for BWPS
Any ideas about what new stuff may surface on the new release - any wants
I hope they don't fly in stuff from other version a la SU and  Brian solo version
What is the right version of H&V - I love the BWPS version
Please use Frank Holmes a/w
Is Dominic's order in LLVS now defunct?
Sadly whatever it comes out as - I am sure there will be a lots of us who still won't be satisfied.

There we go

Cheers

Richard

Surf's Up part two - do we know it was all done as per BWPS back in 66 or is that just a guess?

No hard proof it ever existed in the first place. The assumption there was a Pt. 2 rests on a session being labelled Pt. 1.

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

From the participants, except (currently) from Durrie Parks

How involved is Brian in putting this together?

He's OK'd the release, he'll get to OK the final product. In between those two points, I'm doubting he'll have much direct input.

Are Darian/Paul involved as they did extensive research/work for BWPS

Why should they be involved at all, especially Paul - there's no new arranging to be done. Very odd question.

Any ideas about what new stuff may surface on the new release - any wants

Apparently previously unbooted material has been discovered.

I hope they don't fly in stuff from other version a la SU and  Brian solo version

Me too. That would be so wrong.

What is the right version of H&V - I love the BWPS version

No-one knows. Maybe no-one ever knew.

Please use Frank Holmes a/w

Hell, yes !

Is Dominic's order in LLVS now defunct?

I think that fell out of favor some years ago.

Thanks Andrew

Re the Darian/Paul question - if I was Mark and Alan I would at least ask Darian stuff I may be unsure of because he had a big MUSICAL input into BWPS - not suggesting more than that - DS must have had a lot of conversations with Brian about it and probably the most important question for Mark will be WHY NOT? presumably Darian can help with that - agreed on Paul tho

Re Acetates - I may have misunderstood your reply but my point was that the acetates must have been made from a mix done on tape. If those tapes are in the vault then Durrie's acetates are irrelevant as is Bruce's

LLVS - interested in the order falling out of order - was this because of BWPS or something else and to what extent to you and others accept BWPS as the running order (see my original post)

And one other thing - what is your view on the 12 song back cover - is that what we are going to get - \

Sorry for what may be dim questions but it has been six years - lol

Richard

Since Darian has been involved with and researching Smile for decades, not to mention the fact he was smack-dab in the middle of the creation of the 2004 project alongside the two creators, I'd think he'd absolutely be one to get involved somehow. I'm assuming his musical role with BWPS might have overshadowed his work years before with the likes of Rev. Bob Hanes and others who helped spread the word to a larger audience before the Web scene took over.

If, as reported, BWPS forms the template for The Smile Sessions CD1, then Darian's work was completed in 2003.  If those reports aren't accurate, what else could he contribute ?

Again, since he was researching and writing about Smile well before BWPS, and has an intimate knowledge of it, I'd be interested in a few opinions and perhaps some perspective from someone like Darian who got interested in Smile as a young man before Smile was "mainstream" and eventually became directly involved in getting some of that music to the general public. It's a pretty amazing story.

I think the main stumbling block could well be sectional politics.

Darian continues to work with Brian and I get the impression that he is trusted musically by the big man. I would have thought therefore his involvement continues as a representative of the Brian camp particularly on a subject as sensitive as this.

DS had long musical conversations with BW about Smile when he helped put BWPS together and whilst it is the template, I would be surprised if Disc One turns out exactly to be BWPS minus the missing parts that were never recorded.

Of course this is conjecture on my part but I think DS can provide a great deal of thinking into BW's musical view of SMiLE

Andrew - yes of course sectional politics will undoubtedly play a part but the fact that everyone involved has signed off on this, including VDP I presume, then perhaps some of those walls have been lowered in the interest of getting the best from the project.

After all it is in everyone's interest to make this as good as it possibly can be - it will be the BB's last hurrah

I would really love to believe this would be the case, more than you could imagine. it's just that, given past history, I can't see it.

I say it was not so much the musicians, but Brian's EAR that gave the music it's magic....he could get people, almost anybody to play with heart not just notes...on Bicycle Rider on BWPS there lacks the punch that is on the original tapes...Brian's band could've played that back in the day if they were around because Brian would've heard it that way..


...This is the Holy Grail....IMO

I would like to hear Linnett fly in Brian's demo vox at some point on the disc...I know he would do a better job than what I haven't heard...and H&V will be a bit different than what we are used to , I HOPE!!

I thought Scott Bennett is BW's main squeeze now...

Anyway, not to thrilled of BWPS being the template of anything...where's that hand written track list Carl turned in??? :p

Over on the Hoffman board, just seen a post stating that Marilyn has said the writing on said list is Diane's, which is of course entirely logical.

So... Alan can sound like Brian and vice versa... Carl & Diane's handwriting is nearly identical...  jeez, why wasn't I a Beatles fan ?

Which means: Brian gave her the titles. "Brian never saw the list" is just more hogwash.

All good points in Darian's behalf, but what can he add that Alan and Mark, who are every bit as knowledgable and more so, especially given their time in the vaults, can not?
 If I was Mark/ Alan / Capitol,  and wanted additional information, I'd want it straight from Brian; not filtered thru Darian's perspective of what he thinks Brian would add

I guess the only way that the track listing will be correct for you guys is if Brian can use Mr Peabody's Way Back Machine and comes back with a hand written list from 1966. Personally, I don't care what order it is in, because I have no control over any of it, as do any of you. Like the old saying "You will take what is given to you, and like it." I am sure that using BWPS as the template is because Brian now considers it his running order. Just the fact that 3 sides of the LP will be Smile proper should tell you that Brian even considers the Beach Boys version a three movement program.

Oops, funny that I remember this being talked about here (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,8551.msg143208.html#msg143208 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,8551.msg143208.html#msg143208)), here (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,7057.msg113546.html#msg113546 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,7057.msg113546.html#msg113546)), and here (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,5859.msg94573.html#msg94573 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,5859.msg94573.html#msg94573)). Incidentally a certain someone popped up with the same answer in all of those discussions. :afro

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?

No bgas, the Brian of today is sequencing the Smile of yesterday. Just for arguement's sake, in 1966, side 4 might have been the single versions of GV and H&V, You're Welcome, maybe Carl or Dennis' tunes. Though, like most say, it was likely to be one LP. My point is that in 2004 and now in 2011 this is how Brian thinks of Smile; sequenced as a 3 movement piece of music. This is what he wants and it will be what we get, like it or not.

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.

Brian is past, present and hopefully, future. It will be as Brian wants, not how we want it. Why is it that we all know better than Brian? This is his and The Boys' album. Smile is getting released primarily the way Brian wants it. His sequencing, his movements, his mono. Smile is Brian's vision to do with it how he pleases.

Right and if he does decide to do it BWPS style, I hope he calls me first so I can tell what he really intended. hmph.

I hope you read Linett's interview, because if you haven't you're in for a huge letdown. Did Brian approve a tracklist? For all we know he had Diane jot down the most likely candidates at that point in time to appease the suits at Capitol. Unless there is some Wayback machine, you have people living in the 21st Century making decisions on a 45 year old scrapped album.

Who told you about the Wayback Machine?

Sherman, of course! ;)

I like Cam's response!

To what, Smile or the Wayback Machine?

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.

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...
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/tracklist_composite-1.jpg)

The next are a handful to compare and contrast Brian, Carl, and Diane:
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/1q.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/2q.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/3q.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/4q.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/5q.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/6q.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/7q.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/8q.jpg)

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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". :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

What they would have to have is Brian1967's participation.
Brian2004/2011 has too much CCW under the bridge to know/remember( if even he ever really knew) what the sequencing would be.

With deference to plans underway by those in charge and confessed ignorance about what is available, I would probably have made a (mostly) mono version for purists that adheres to the 1966 tracklist and incorporates vintage mixes where available, and a mostly stereo version that roughly follows the BWPS sequence. It would leave the question of what's definitive open ended.

I hope they release as much as they can reasonably fit.  I can cut it down to a dozen or so essential tracks if I so desire.

I don't recall Linett (in the article that I read at least) saying that he was using the BWPS tracklisting as a template  tracklisting that will be followed in CD1. Where does he say this?

AGD's quote should be pinned at the top of this board for a long, long time.

As for the tracks on the back cover, people should keep in mind that (1) Capitol put a big investment into printing the cover, so Brian really would have been bound to at least approximate that list - not in the order, but in the titles; and (2) with a couple of minor exceptions (including Prayer and You're Welcome), all of the Smile sessions between October '66 and April '67 were for one of the 12 listed song titles.  It seems like a lot of folks want to say that Brian had no idea what the tracks were going to be back then, so we should throw our hands up and use an after-the-fact reconstruction.  But I think it's clear that Brian did have a very good idea of what the tracks would be--he was basically required to once the covers were printed.

I think that there were certainly going to be tracks as indicated on the back. But there were going to be many little hidden non listed snippets. Maybe Mr taylor flew that across the ditch. The running time may have been indicated  but the "actual" running time may have been longer. Teenage Symphony's to God run as long or short as they want to run!!

Thank you, my point exactly. The idea that Brian was tragically lost is a romantic fan-tasy imo. Mainly because Brian documented in some way exactly what each section he recorded was for, in what song, in what place in that song. He did change his mind and would record something new or a replacement and each time it is noted what it was for in what song. He wasn't just casting around recording crap hoping he found a place for it. Anyways, it was exactly the way he did GV, noting what each recording was for and where it fit in the song.

Calm down Cam. Well, you know.....it just...... Go lay down, pard.

Don't recall? Here it is in Billboard:

Linett says Wilson's 2004 "Smile" album has served as a blueprint for the current project, which will be mixed in mono because that's how Wilson‹who's deaf in his right ear‹intended it. But Linett adds that other selections from the 30 hours of "Smile" session recordings will more than likely be issued in stereo.

"Some of these questions are hard to answer because not only haven't we assembled them yet, this has to be played for Brian and the other members of the group to see what kind of input they have," he says. "Just because Brian did it the way he did it in 2004 [doesn't mean] he won't say, 'Well, let's add "You're Welcome," ' which was the B-side on the 'Heroes and Villians' single."

Well, hold on. In the interview Linett does happen to be answering a question about a tracklisting. But when he is talking about BWPS as a "blueprint", he is not talking about it in terms of the structure of the tracks. Here is the quotation in context:


Note here that Linett is not talking about the order of the tracks at all, certainly not when he is talking about BWPS as a "blueprint". Rather, in this entire quotation he is only talking about what music is available. What he means here is that BWPS serves as an indication of the parts of music that exist in the old archives. Granted, his choice of the word "blueprint" is perhaps misleading.

Maybe BWPS will ultimately serve as the guide for the tracklist but I don't think this is what Linett is suggesting in this quotation. Also, as has been indicated in discussions elsewhere, many of "the little segues" were created specifically for the 2004 production so following that tracklisting will be much more difficult.

Linett too would not be saying flatly that BWPS track order is a blueprint for the CD1 track order by starting a sentence with "If". 

As far as I'm concerned nothing in this quotation indicates the kind of conclusions you are drawing - though in all fairness you seem to be basing this on a quotation that has severely editorialized Linett's comments to the point where they are quite different from what he actually said.

Being not the biggest fan in the world of BWPS, I hope they come up with a tracklisting that is a little bit different from that release.  I mean in my opinion there are some things when arranging a SMiLE mix that are pretty much standard regardless of whom is arranging it.  Nine times out of ten, "Prayer" always opens the set, "Heroes and Villains" is usually found near the beginning of the set and "The Elements" are usually placed back to back.  Beyond that it's open to wide speculation and interpretation as to how this thing will likely be sequenced.

I mean Linett could just use the BWPS sequence and create something that works quite well as regardless of my own personal opinion of that sequencing it does mesh.  He could also arrange it differently and for instance stick "Surf's Up" on at the end like many of us have being doing for years.  

Again personally I'd lean away from the three movements concept.  In my opinion the album in that format was enjoyable to listen to a few times (and was especially enjoyable to hear in concert presented in that context) but soon became a challenge for me to listen to.  It just seemed to elongate the entire album.

Well, I do love BWPS. That's not to say it's perfect by any means. At times it sounds a bit too theatrical (and I don't mean "Queen" theatrical, I mean, the score of Guys & Dolls theatrical) and I still don't quite understand the compulsion to add lyrics to everything but Mrs. O'Leary's Cow. I mean Pet Sounds had two instrumentals on it, is it entirely inconceivable that something like Love to Say DaDa or Holidays or Look were conceived as instrumentals?

Anyway, BWPS is it's own thing. I think that replicating its tracklisting might demean not just the original possibilities of the 66/67 album but also the accomplishments of the 2004 production.

You better look up the word "blueprint". If I was building a house, an industrial park, or practically anything else, if there is a blueprint, I follow it. If I want it built correctly I follow the specifications, no? This Smile will have 3 sides, so possibly 3 movements. I grant you that the tracking could change, but I'm betting not a whole lot. It may not have segues or fading, but if they stay fairly true to the tracklisting, then that could be taken as following the blueprint. So far this is looking quite a bit like BWPS. It would be cool if they do things differently, but like I said earlier, I'm staying pragmatic and not having too many expectations. I will be happy with whatever they deliver.

Like I said, his use of the word is misleading. In context (which you can read above, and I suggest you do), he uses the word only to discuss the music that is available for the boxset, not for its sequencing. Again, feel free to demonstrate exactly where in that quotation I provided does Linett indicate that he is talking about the sequence of the tracks.


Linett says the segues are available (again, read the context). Why do you not trust this but firmly trust his use of the word "blueprint"?


So far all you have is the word "blueprint" which in context does not indicate what you are suggesting at all.


Everything you said so far suggests precisely that you expect the album to be sequenced like BWPS. Just because you won't be upset if it turns out differently doesn't make it any less of an expectation. You better look up the word "expectation".

But doesn't throwing out the 2003 template just reopen the entire pre-2003 sequencing/editing dilemma?  (e.g., starting from scratch to compile H&V, or  sequencing 2 sides?)  What template should be used other than the one Brian has already decided as his final word on the subject?  Or are you opposed to the idea of a "as was envisioned" CD1 and propose a package of all sessions?

I can see both sides; I can certainly see an argument to limit the "as envisioned" CD 1 to the back cover song listing.  But that would mean answering questions that Brian probably considers already answered.

It will be hard not to see BWPS as a template of sorts.  It was the first "finished" version.   As the Zen master said; " we'll see" :smokin

It better be under 40 minutes or we'll have to get the lawyers involved. 


Just release it - program your own sequence if you are that uptight about it.  I've been waiting for this for 35 years - I'll believe it when i have in in my hand.

I can see your point that Linnett's comment is misleadingly phrased but I'll bet he does mean they'll be using BWPS as a template.

Providing they don't hack up the tracks to match the exact structure of each BWPS track I have no problem with BWPS as an overall sequence. It's the only Brian & VDP endorsed sequence. I don't see there being any alternative. Besides I think worrying about it before we have the actual product in hand is pointless - we just don't know what their intentions are at this point.

I'd even go as far as saying we should count ourselves lucky BWPS happened as it's a major reason this boxset is going to (hopefully) see the light of day. Besides changing Brian's opinion of the material, the fact Brian and VDP created a tracklisting makes this archival release (specifically the playable album bit) easier to realise.

Things haven't changed since the Smile Shop days and its great fun - lol

I get the impression, from Mark's quote, that the "album" will be presented as envisioned in 66/67 using what is available from that period rather than just reproducing BWPS with 66/67 recordings. That would be a lazy way out.

To me that means the "album" part won't/can't be longer than 40 mins with the rest of the first CD taken up with the first bits of the session stuff - just like disc one of the PS box set.

BWPS would not have happened like it did in 66/67 because of the technical limitations. This doesn't mean that BWPS can't be used as a blueprint or a template IMHO as it clearly indicates what Brian had in mind. Despite what was said at the time BWPS WAS Brian finishing Smile - hence the new lyrics and some of the segues. On A Holiday, Blue Hawaii and Song for Children are good examples of this - perhaps it was a question in 2003/04 of here is the all material - how does it all fit together.

The forthcoming should be a historical document - here is SMiLE as it was envisioned in 66/67 and as far as it was recorded and here are examples of the sessions to show how it was all done.

Mark has an unenviable task which is unlikely to satisfy everyone. Good luck to him

I am just glad the stuff is being officially released and even though I don't have a turntable will no doubt get the adult version

It's strongly inferred - the vinyl BWPS was also three sides, plus it's the only cut and dried sequence we have.

 I can't see what is so hard to grasp here.
 
Yes, obviously the list was not in sequence but there is no reason to doubt that the tracks, the song titles, ARE accurate. Regardless of who wrote the list it made it to the Capitol art department. I know the 400,000+ slicks printed refers to the front (not rear) cover but we know Capitol received the tracklist. Said tracklist very likely the list came from the LP's producer. Whether he remembered writing it when it was shown to him in the 25 years later or if it was sent under duress in all probability it came from Brian. Owing to...
 
a) the list (likely) coming from Brian
b) the fact that Brian didn't work outside of the titles on the handwritten list from October 1966 to April 1967 to any significant degree
c) there aren't ANY other lists, dubious or not, from 1966/67
 
I don't get the "Smile was never finished and Brian went crazy therefore anything goes how do we KNOW Teeter-Totter Love wasn't the last track" line of thinking. Just because it wasn't finished doesn't mean it is prudent to project our own fanboy fantasies on the project. If an attempt at a reasonable facsimile of a 1966 LP is going to be is included then the evidence matters. What evidence? The massive amount of info re when/where each section of each song was recorded and (more importantly) the extant 1966 Brian Wilson edits/mixes. Any half-a** attempt at a recreation of a 1966/67 LP should stick to titles in the list in their most complete form before it was announced the project was scrapped. It isn't unreasonable to expect the attempt at the album to represent the fullest extent of what Brian accomplished during the sessions. It makes no sense to take the 1966 tapes and mold them into a 2003 form.

Sorry for the rant, I really am thrilled this is coming out. I'm sure even the worst case scenario will yeild some massive upgrades of the material. No matter what happens my favorite Beach Boys album will still be Wild Honey  ;D

Chris

Hurrah - totally agree with all of that - not sure about the Wild Honey thing tho - lol

Three cheers for Chris Moise!  :drunks

To all who expect CD1 to be the definitive Smile, the COMPLETE SMiLE, you are going to be disappointed.  Smile will not and can not ever be finished.  I don't think the producers should even attempt to present this music as a "quote album".  The December handwritten list...historically accurate, you say?  Yeah, I like that idea.  Okay, lets start with Heroes and Villains, we have that one.  We'll just put the one from the middle of December on there.  What's that you say?  We have never heard a version from the middle of December?  Well, let's just stick the February one on there, it's close enough.  Next?  I'm In Great Shape, hmmm, that's a little tougher.  Just how does that one go again?  It's attached to Barnyard?  Well, it was when it was a part of Heroes and Villains, but since it's listed as it's own track we know it's not in H&V.  Oh, it's attached to I Wanna Be Around?  Isn't that one part of The Elements?  No, The Elements is Fire, and...umm...what else, again?  Well, let's just skip to Surf's Up, we have a recording of that one from the middle of December.  Say what?  That version doesn't have the brilliant instrumental backing track?  Well, we can digitally manipulate Brian's voice from the December solo/piano version and fly that one in.  Then it'll be more historically accurate to what Brian had in mind in 1966.  In November.  

I'm going to stop now.  I'm sure you get my drift.  Yeah, it's fun to speculate.  But at the end of the day isn't Smile really what each of us thinks it is?  We have formed our opinions, we have changed our minds, and we have discussed.  If we hear new pieces, we will likely change our minds again.  I say put all the songs on there, in the best '66-'67 carnation(s) and the best fidelity possible.  Maybe there will be two (or three) cool versions of H&V.  You like the 'cantina' version from February?  Put that one on your mix.  You like the October 'Great Shape' version from Al's acetate (just speculating)?  Put that one on there.  Make your own Smile.  It's what we have done for years.  And any mix that we come up with won't be any more or any less historically accurate than what the producers come up with.    

I really believe this comes down to which particular stage of SMiLE should be presented with this release. While it is true that things like "Holidays" and "Look" appear to have been abandoned by the time the hand-written note was delivered, it seems pretty clear by looking at the session dates that SMiLE as an album was abandoned early in '67. Brian starts focusing on just getting a workable version of "Heroes & Villains" together as a single, then goes about trying to come up with a new version of "Vegetables" when it looks like that is going to be the single. Tracks like "All Day" or "I Love To Say Dada" are probably as inconsequential to the SMiLE album as "Look" or "Holidays" were near the beginning of the sessions.

I don't believe Brian's working methods were irrational, but all the shuffling around of parts from one song to another gives the impression that he's not exactly sure how some of it is going to fit together. It's not a fanboy fantasy to think that Brian's uncertainty is one of the reasons the album wasn't completed.

If the current press/interviews have been misleading, it is in the statements regarding presenting the "album" as envisioned in '66/'67 in the most complete form possible on Disc 1. That album is SMILEY SMILE  ;D. If the tracks from the SMiLE sessions are to be presented in the most complete form possible, then we should see all tracks worked on from August '66 to May '67 on Disc 1 - not as an album, but as a collection. Looking at it this way, it comes much closer to what was done with BWPS.

Sorry - that album is NOT Smiley Smile

Roger, that is not what Disc 1 is about. It is to be an approximation of what the original album might have been. You guys read into stuff and question everything, even when the people working on it explain what they are doing. It's not crystal clear, but clear enough that I know what to expect come release time.

I agree that uncertainty killed SMiLE but not uncertainty about what went where and how he wanted the tracks to be but uncertainty about how what he wanted was working for him. You know, you know what you want to do but then sometimes when you do it, you aren't really that wild for it.

I doubt that Smile was sequenced before the vocals were finished. That's not to say that Brian wasn't thinking about it, but I think you get it all recorded first, then you start thinking about how it will be released.

'Xactly - and in 1967, that wasn't three sides of vinyl.

Abso*********ly right Andrew

SMiLE would have been two sides of vinyl - no more than 40 mins of music - any other thoughts are complete nonsense

In terms of sequencing it would have been possible to sequence before vocals were completed - I think the very nature of SMiLE with its modular core and slightly narrative lyrical style would have meant that. I do agree that sequencing can be difficult if we are talking about a normal album - eg PS - but SMiLE wasn't normal

 It is to be an approximation of what the original album might have been

I think getting hung up on exact, pin point historical accuracy, and keeping smile firmly bottled up within it's 12 month or whatever time-span is missing the point. It wasn't finished. There was no definitve end point, and you could argue that work on smile continued sporadically right up to 2003 (in fact 2011, if we take the boxset work in progress).

I think when Mark and Alan say they will create an approximation of the original album, they are not 1/10th as uptight about it as we are here. They just want to collate all the best bits and arrange them in playable fashion. Fortunately for them, Brian and VDP did exactly this 7 or 8 years ago. They won't be beating their heads against a wall trying to envisage a 67 sequence that never was. They'll just say, let's use BWPS as a starting point to arrange the sessions.

Does using the 03 sequence devalue the authenticity of the project? As it's the authors' sequence I'd say it's more legitimate than Mark and Alan making one up based on the handwritten tracklist from 67 that wasn't sequenced. If they do that we'll have Mark and Alan's fanmix, not Brian's.

From Mark's interview as published 3/1/11:

"it was surely never proposed than more than a single album to Capital at that time... we will certainly going to present the whole piece as close to it as was envisioned, or as is envisioned, as possible. "

BWPS is Brian & Darian's 2003 vision, not the original 1966-67 vision. Does the word "bowdlerisation" mean anything to you ? Look it up.

We're getting into Queen of Hearts territory here.

My best case scenario:

40-44 minutes (22 minute sides were not uncommon in the 60's - Dylan had close to 30 minute sides on some albums but they were acoustic and didn't suffer as much from the necessary compression).

CD1: 12 tracks from the list.  A new mix of Heroes reconstructed from acetate versions, but using the original tapes.  New mix of Vegetables using the mono mixes of sections Brian did in 67 including the fade.  I suspect that Look and Holidays will be included in the CD1 "original album" because of Mark's comments about using BWPS as the template, but I hope not.

rest of CD1:  outtakes - Heroes Feb mix, Heroes sections, Look, Holidays, Speeches, French Horns, "Jazz" (hopefully we'll finally get to hear this).  Workshop.  Midnight Hour?  Dennis track and Carl's Tones.

CD 2-4:  Session excerpts, finished instrumental tracks, alternate mixes, acetates.

I forgot about "Jazz"! That would be neat, although the pessimist in me says it's more like that section on the Good Vibrations sessions where the musicians are just noodling around with jazz phrases and not making much sense of it. Kind of like an off-night jam session at the Baked Potato. :-D

I think what no one has acknowledged here is that what Alan and Mark come up with will need approval from voting members of BRI. That would be Brian, Mike, Al, and Carl`s estate. I think they will defer to Brian, as it was his baby. So it really doesn`t matter what the "experts," myself included think...

If you take BWPS - take out Barnyard, Song for Children and On A Holiday, take off Gee from Prayer, substitute original GV single and accept Elements is just MOC and Dada - its the 12 track list under 40 mins - you don't even have to change the order

And it sounds pretty good

And Brian will defer to Melinda - what are her thoughts on track list and sequence?

You are entirely correct, sir.

(I thought that interpreting the meaning of all Bible books, including the Apocryphal ones, and all secondary literature that surrounds them, is a difficult task. No so anymore. SMiLE scholars prove me wrong all of the time these days. But please go on.)

I think that question has already been answered... or at least hinted on...

Some here act like Mark Linett doesn't know the english language and what words like blueprint and template and approximation mean. I'm sure he chose his words carefully when being interviewed. But of course, we all know better than the actual people working on the project. Also, as Peter stated, BRI, and especially, Brian have to approve what he and Alan are working on. I know I'm reading into this a little bit, but I can see that Brian is leaning toward what he did with the material on BWPS.

Yes, granted, if they use the BWPS sequence and tell us it's vinatge that will be bowdler territory but note the "or as is envisioned" part of the quote - I think that's relevant and  leaves this wide open to be based on the 03 sequence.

I think there's a danger in getting too caught up in this ideal of historical accuracy for an unfinished piece of work. You're a historian, so historical accuracy is of utmost importance to you. I'm a commercial illustrator and know from experience that artistic ambitions need to be compromised sometimes in order to communicate something clearly to Joe Public. I think we are setting the compilers of this box an unrealistically high benchmark if we declare that the Smile box they produce must exist in some sort of 1967 bubble, untainted by Smile's subsequent history and BWPS. Most people outside Beach Boys fandom, if they know about Smile, will know that Brian revisited and 'finished' it in 04. He, VDP and Darian also came up with a brilliant, critically acclaimed sequence. Commerically it makes very good sense to tip a nod to that sequence with this box. Politically, as far as Brian Wilson, Melinda, whatever, are concerned, it will also make good sense.

If they can produce a sequence from the 66 tracklist then good luck and I'm sure it will be great. But don't set this up to fail by demanding a release that meets your ideal of historical accuracy. It would be great but I just don't think it's realistic.

I would accept this kind of arrogance if you didn't carelessly rip the word "blueprint' from its context and pretend like it means something different than what Linett actually meant what he used it (something we can see clearly by reading the context - again, I suggest you do so because you might be surprised with what you see there).

One thing that I am in agreement with here is that Linett is choosing his words carefully. In other words, he doesn't want too give too much away, nor does he want to say anything definitive about a project that is still in the works. Note that in answer to the question of whether BWPS will "serve as a guide line for the Smile 'Sessions' track listing", he certainly never answers in the affirmative. In fact, the first thing he seems to say on the subject of the track listing is as follows:


In other words, they seem to be relying on the 66/67 vision of the album where and when they can.

And this position is summed up by Domenic Priore in his recent press release:


Of course, if BWPS is now understood by Linett and Boyd as the authoritative sequence or the "blueprint" sequence for the new collection, then why on earth would Alan Boyd need to seemingly investigate this further, as Priore suggests here? Granted, Priore is not necessarily the most authoritative figure here, but what he says in many ways corroborates Linett's own remarks in the Billboard interview.

Again, I am all in favour of taking the people working on the project at their word. However if we do that, we have to do more than just rip a word out of its context and then arrogantly scoff at people who actually examine what the person really said. The fact is that Linett was a bit cagey in that interview and that is perfectly understandable. The project surely isn't entirely figured out yet so what is he ultimately supposed to say?


First of all, I should make it clear that I don't think that "the Smile box they produce must exist in some sort of 1967 bubble". In fact, that's impossible since if it did, it wouldn't ever see the light of day since it didn't in 1967. That being said, I think that if Linett and Boyd are doing some very serious research for this project that may work to uncover some information about the 66/67-era Smile that BWPS didn't account for, then they will probably defer to that. And I think that everything that has been on the subject so far seems to reinforce that.

I might also add that commercially it wouldn't make sense to simply reproduce the exact same tracklisting. I would imagine that something a bit more distinct would compel people (not the kind of devotees like we are who would buy anything related on the matter) who bought BWPS to buy Sessions.

You go ahead and believe whatever you like about Disc 1. You are going to get all kinds of goodies on discs 2 through 4. No matter what track listing or sequence is used, the fact that it is all on CD allows you to make your version of Smile. Oh, and I'm not being arrogant, just realistic, and I don't tend to read more into things than what is actually stated. You have been way more outlandish in your thought processes than I have throughout this thread.

I don't care what's on Disc 1 as long as it's good mixes of Smile material. I find it hard to believe that I could possibly be disappointed in what I get.


And prey tell, how does telling me that I need to look up words in a dictionary constitute being realistic?


In fact, that is precisely what you have done. You have taken one word that Linett said and assumed that he was talking about the sequence of the album when he wasn't. That is exactly "reading more into things than what is actually stated". Again, I highly encourage you to read the quotation from Linett that I posted above because it will put this entire matter to rest.


What you mean, actually, is that Linett and Priore have been "way more outlandish in their thought processes" since I have done nothing other than provided their quotations and then summarized them. So if anyone is being outlandish, it's them, since I am merely quoting them directly.

I would imagine it would be very easy to counter my position. All you would have to do is look at the quotations I have provided and explain why it is "outlandish" that I have reached the conclusions I've reached based on those quotations. You've had ample opportunity to do that, and you have entirely neglected to do so. Instead you keep harping on this one word, "blueprint" (well, initially it was "template" until I provided the actual quotation that came from the interview rather than Billboard's summary) as if we should ignore everything else Linett said, and then telling me that I need to look at a dictionary or that I am not taking them at their word, or other nonsense on that level.

@rockandroll

I don't even want to pretend that I know a lot about The Beach Boys. I used to think I did, I wasn't even close. I suggest that you care more what is commicated here from Andrew and Peter and others that have studied, researched and commicate with those close to the inside. You will always get the best information from them.

I will only add that the copy editing job done on Mark's interview was pretty weak and left a number of responses unclear. Certainly the syntax of the quote regarding the "slightly longer version of 'Heroes & Villains'" was so screwed up as to make the quote unintelligible.

Most of this thread has been devoted to Disc 1, best you reread. Boy, you sure like quote a lot. I do remember what I posted. I'm done. Let's move on before this gets ugly. I don't like ugly. ;)

You are infuriating. Have I said anything that in any way suggests that I don't know we've been talking about Disc 1? I've been talking about Disc 1 as well. It just so happens that when I say I have few expectations when it comes to Disc 1, I really mean it.


Kudos to your memory. Sometimes I like to think that the others who are reading this might like to know exactly what it is I'm responding to, for the sake of clarity and organization. After all, you and I are not the only people here.

I think this is the paradox that upturns the whole "no Cabinessence lead vocals" argument. There's no end point with Smile so those Cabinessence vocals are still legit imo, besides being essential. What's more important if you ask me, are the aesthetic judgements that are made. I wouldn't be concerned if they use parts of the 71 Surf's Up due to historical reasons: More that the moog would sound way out of place.



This is a good point. Wouldn't it be incredible if the above turned out to be true?

I hear you and I agree. As Andrew pointed out, even Mark isn't quite sure how this will all work out in the end, but he does have a conondrum with the 3 sided album when the original Smile was ony two. That is pretty clear. Three sides most likely means three movements. That is getting into BWPS territory. As I stated earlier, after waiting 45 years, at this point all I care is that it is finally getting released.

Al said in the 'quotes from band members' thread somebody else started, that he just listened to some of his acetates from SMiLE recently.  So now there's more confirmed stuff that may be cool and unbooted.  What if, What if for Al's birthday, Brian made him a rough mix of the whole album?

BTW when was Al's birthday?  lol

Was just going to point out the minor flaw in your theory.

September 3rd.  ;D

So... the Smiley Smile sessions were really for Smile, as were those for Wild Honey, Friends, 20/20... you get my drift ?

Brian stopped working on Smile on May 18th 1967, in truth probably somewhat earlier in his own mind. Wild Honey was not Smile.

Yeah the leap in logic there was pretty incongruous to say the least.  Just because certain tracks were salvaged for later release doesn't mean that Smile, as a recording project, wasn't finished (as in, recording was permanently ceased) in 1967.

I think he means that the words and melody were pre-May 1967. So it would be ashamed to just wash those away because there were never actually put to tape before then.

OK... the name of this release is The Smile Sessions, that is, sessions for the Smile album - care to explain how sessions from, say Surf's Up fit into this picture ?  Suppose they did a 1974 Sessions project - would you include the 15BO version of "It's OK" ?

Devil's advocate: Can't continuing work on a Smile track be considered a Smile session? Now, if Box Set is named: The Smile Sessions (1966-1967), then by all means, I agree with you whole heartedly.

My point being here, if Smile was to have been released in 1972 and work commenced on the the unfinished tracks in 1971, technically they would still be Smile Sessions.

I understand that. Really. Even the first time you posted that, I understood it. I was just saying I can see where buddhahat is coming from.

Mike's birthday was yesterday, reckon that's a better fit?

Yes. But it wasn't. And they didn't. So they aren't.  ;D

Simple question - two, actually: what album was "Cabin Essence" with Carl's vocal released on ? Was Carl recording that vocal specifically for release on Smile ?

Should warn you, I can keep this up for a very long time. You'll get bored long before I do.   :deadhorse

Sgt. Pepper clocks in right at 40 mins i believe.

it's silly for anyone to insist that SMiLE would have been under 40 mins.

and it was entirely possible for an album to go 25 mins or so per side.

we're only talking a few extra minutes of music here people...


I have no problem with the 3 Movements. It's perfectly logical.
I think if you flip Movements 2 and 3 on BWPS, you are very close to what SMiLE's original tracklist would have been.

I really just hope they don't close the sequence with Good Vibrations, as that seems to be a completely 2004 decision.

I like Good Vibrations as the first song on SMiLE, it's a killer opener and you get it out of the way for the real mind-blowing stuff.
Prayer sounds great on the heels of GV, imho

I guess you told me!

lmao

Given that no such thing ever existed, that's a truly audacious statement. Care to amplify ?

You are right, of course, but I will still bet you Carl's vocal is included on Disc 1?

Bookending the project firmly between the end of the Pet Sounds sessions and the start of Smiley makes fine, logical sense, but this type of inflexible, black and white thinking will strangle any creativity that Mark and Alan care to bring to the project if you ask me. That's why I'm pretty sure we'll see the lead for Cabinessence on the box, along with some influence from the BWPS sequence.

Smile exists beyond 1967. No of course Wild Honey isn't Smile, although AGD suspects Air is in there somewhere, and we know a bit of Vegetables made the cut. Smile wasn't finished. It bled out into subsequent albums. Stop trying to constrain it within specific dates, or at least don't set yourselves up for huge disappointment when it doesn't conform to your idea of what it should be.

Let's muddy the cool cool water further: isn't the accepted wisdom that the 1966-67 Smile was to be one banded LP, no segues?   Or has the subsequent research and the new "science" revealed a different likely outcome?  The banded-LP version would have been well under 40 minutes, cloer to 35 would have been the likely norm.

Strictly speaking, the 3-movement BWPS still could easily fit on one LP - 47 minutes long.  The sound would have been more compressed, though, 23 minutes per side instead of 16 minutes, plus the second movement would be broken up for the side break.  Hence the "audiophile" 2-LP pressing with one movement per side plus stack-o-track side.    Three sides for this new configuration might be overkill - unless they have enough interesting stuff to fill  three sides so it isn't.

The only reason Smile 'bled out into subsequent albums' was purely mercenary - the band were hurting for material. That's all.

I think that is advice we would all do well to heed no matter what our opinions are.

Maybe Al's really big on Valentines day.  So Maybe, for Valentines day...  .... eh, no that probably won't work either.  I'll keep dreamin.

agreee 100 percent w/buddhahat

Given that this is The Smile Sessions, is it really necessary for there to be an attempt at compiling the album at all?  Clearly this is going to be the point everyone complains about, especially since they're complaining already.  If anyone wants to hear a cohesive album from the material we already have that.  I know this cat isn't going back in the bag, I'm just saying.

I'd say so, and not just in his own mind, given the May 2 press release announcing that Smile had been scrapped.

If Brian were thinking of this "rock-opera" suite stuff during Pet Sounds we'd have a 'life suite', a 'love suite', and an 'exotica/carribean-trip suite' - But Brian and the record companies didn't think this way at that time. The tracklisting on Pet Sounds goes fast song, slow song, fast song, slow song for the most part....with the hit single starting up side two and closing side one.

I still think that the songs on that handwritten note were to be the only songs on SMiLE - only few tracks didn't have lead vocals on that list (and some of those probably were recorded, but have been lost in time). Abandoned songs like 'Holidays' and 'Look' (they would be the equivalent to 'Trombone Dixie' had SMiLE come out) were only stepping stones to his main goal as a songwriter on SMiLE.

Had BWPS never come out none of us would be thinking of a 3 suite set of songs - Brian never mentioned this type of tracklisting in any interviews in 66/67. From what I gather, SMiLE was meant to be a jigsaw puzzle of sorts - nothing too organized, but still a cohesive work - just like Pet Sounds.

I bet it was earlier too. Didn't Taylor announce it in the May 5 iss? That was a Friday and at one point earlier Taylor's feature had been titled something like "Hollywood Tuesday" I think I remember, so if Tuesday was his deadline he knew on or before Tuesday May 2nd. His previous deadline would have been April 25 and he was still explaining about the album cover and tracks of the SMiLE release so presumably he found out that week sometime between April 25 and May 2.

My theory is that Brian knew in March that he was going to scrap SMiLE, but so far it's a theory.

...I have this CRAZY idea that the Powers That Be are much further along in putting this together than we are understanding.
All this talk as to sequencing and all that makes for great fun in anticipation of this most cherished music but can be too much...Everyday until this gets released is going to be a trip...

Personally, I hope that the H&V Cantina version has the Swedish Frog chant layered underneath the Cantina break....sounds amazing, and fits nicely...

18th of may was the last session for Smile

How do you know?  I think there are good arguments that the last session for Smile was April 14 or even March 2.

A wild guess... Argue away!!Show me what you got!

http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs67.html

I don't think that ILTSDD was a SMiLE track proper, anymore than Tones was. What's the proof that it was a SMiLE track?

It's on AGD's Timeline that way, so that makes it so.

Just change your moniker to "ProbablySomeTimeinMarch".

May
18 - Smile session: Love To Say Da Da [Gold Star]
19 - Smile session: Love To Say Da Da [Gold Star - cancelled] [7]

If he knew in March why the recording sessions for Smile after that date?????????????? - In fact two months after

And anything Andrew says I trust 99.99% of the time.. I have better ears, he has better connections!! :lol

Things in life tend to be gradual rather than cut and dry. A person who gets divorced usually knows it's coming long before they announce it and they may even take measures to try and save it even if they believe it is doomed. I think SMiLE can be seen like that.

OK, but apart from that, how do you know?  How do you reconcile (a) the early May press release announcing that Smile had been scrapped and (b) the fact that the only May recording sessions were for DaDa, which (except for the somewhat different "All Day" sessions) had not been recorded for Smile?

So Brian knew he was going to get a divorce, but he kept recording Smile because he thought that might save the marriage?

I agree!! Sometimes it can be worth it!!

LOL Something like that. But only as long as Marilyn doesn't mistake all those fan mail packages of Vega-tables for LSD. That might blow the whole thing!  :o

While there most certainly wouldn't have been "movements" on a 1967 SMiLE, I'm just saying if you flipped movements 2 and 3 on BWPS and then dropped the idea of dividing the music into movements, you would have a tracklist very close to what SMiLE would have been in 1967. IMHO.



do you like worms? here's another can of them:

has anyone considered that Da Da might be the Air section? what about the version with all the bird whistles?

Mr Taylor was always a little premature with most things. And he is not Brian! Nor is he Capitol!

What?!?  He was the press agent, and was supposed to promote the album.  Why would he conceivably jump the gun with an announcement like that?

Why would ILTSDD be recorded for SMiLE if SMiLE was already cancelled?

There is only one person that can cancel SMiLE!! And the press have never got it wrong before!! Derek felt he built part of the "genius" Brian myth. He could see the project unraveling..

Exactly

I seriously doubt Brian's publicist canceled the project without anyone's approval....
unless it was some type of misunderstanding, but even then, it just doesn't seem like something that would happen.


I really wish we had a better idea of what went on during the planning of BWPS. Brian must have had some inclination as to what Da Da was. Where it would have gone, whether it was an instrumental, whether it was air, etc etc. So when they played it for Brian in 2004, what did he say "oh yeah that's water!" or did he just sort of shrug and go along with other people's suggestions.

The whistle version of Da Da (those are some weird sounding whistles...) was from the "second day" of sessions. That's May 17th. Is the version that is on the GV boxset the version from day 1 or day 3? if it's from day 1, what did Brian record on May 18th?

Also it should be noted that the press release does not say SMiLE was canceled. It actually states very clearly that it was to be "shelved" and makes a distinction between the two.

And the vocal element of Smile was not present during most of April and early May. What are we left with in 2011?? All the tracks!! But not all the vocals!!

I don't know about "shelved," but the term "scrapped" was certainly used.

"Every beautifully designed, finely wrought, inspirationally welded piece of music made these last months by Brian has been scrapped."

There's no implication there that Brian would be coming back to Smile in the days, weeks, months or years ahead.

Not for nothing, but "Dada" has the same project number on the session worksheets as all of the other Smile sessions - maybe it doesn't mean anything by itself, but that's how it gets lumped into the time period with everything else.  There's always the possibility that they just wanted a project number to throw on there, or Diane just assumed that it was for Smile.  

As far as the cancellation goes, maybe Brian told Taylor the project was scrapped, had a momentary idea to revive it by working on "Dada," but (as usual) his enthusiasm for the project died again very quickly.

It says it was "srapped" and it was in the May 6th iss not the 5th like I said.

Let's put it another way, what is the evidence that SMiLE was not scrapped before May 6? What is the evidence that ILTSDD was to even be on the SMiLE album?

I don't have that type of documentation for those sessions but I believe that project number continued on through Smiley even after Brothers was supposedly the label. So I don't think that is a help unless all of Smiley was actually recorded for SMiLE. Just kidding.

Taylor was a stooge for The Beatles..A mind gangster

Of course, there is Andrew, who has said it on his site. So, I have a feeling that when he wakes up he will wade in and explain why ILTSDD is a SMiLE recording.

I think at that time Taylor was the BBs [and Beatles] former press agent and he was a correspondent for several music and teen mags/rags and on the committee for Monterey Pop.

I hope so!!

That could very well be - all I've got in front of me are some of the Smile session worksheets (from LLVS), so I'm sure there are others out there who would know better than I.  We'll see what AGD has to say on the subject!

Even if by some fluke I turned out to be right, ILTSDD, Tones, possibly Vegetables, etc. could be included as 'tweener tracks.

Ok, I can't keep up with all the threads about this. Having not read this entire thread, I hope what I am going to say hasn't been talked to death already.  ;D

I think that whoever compiles this set shouldn't go past 1967 for material. I also think that there should be one cd reserved for presenting music "as is". That means no second half of Surf's Up. The track should end abruptly, where work on the song ended. I know, it won't make the song sound "complete". But historical integrity should be taken into consideration. That also means no lead vocal on Surf's Up. Same goes for "Cabinessence", "I Wanna Be Around", "I'm In Great Shape", and any other song that I may be forgetting at the moment.  ;D

Having said that, I think that there should be a cd of "experiments". They could try to synch Brian's vocal from the "studio demo" of "Surf's Up" with the backing track of "part 1" for example. They could also use the "studio demo" for the second half of "Surf's Up as well. They could also synch Brian's vocal on the "demo" of "Barnyard" with the backing track. They could also try the same with "I'm In Great Shape".

One thing I think should NOT be done in any circumstance is "manipulation" of the original recordings. Meaning, no looping of sections that weren't meant to be looped, and no "artificial lengthening" of songs to make them longer than they were intended to be. However, this raises at least two major questions(there may be more that I'm forgetting at the moment). Should Carl's 1968 vocal of "Cabinessence" be put on the 1966(?) track? Does that fit the "experiment theme", as I have discussed above? Or is it "manipulation"? The same goes with "Do You Like Worms?". On the 1993 box set, there are "backing vocals" in the melody where the second verse would go. Should they also be in the melody where the first verse would go? Is there any indication that there would have been backing vocals being sung as Brian or Carl sang the verses? If not, would that count as "manipulating" the song?

Hey all! SMiLEY has returned after about five years away.

In the aftermath of BWPS, I was not so much burned-out on Brian, and SMiLE, and the Beach Boys as I was just tired of talking about it, or arguing which was just as often the case, and I really got tired of political rants.

But, good old SMiLE has brought me back. From what I've seen in this thread, not much has changed - lots of opinions, and everybody demanding that SMiLE be done their way.  ::) Haven't seen too much in the way of
politics yet, thankfully. Anyway, my .02 worth --

I couldn't give two hoots about the so-called running order on Diane Rovell's list, there was so much done after it was written that it is useful only in being a snapshot of what might have been in December '66, but the album continued to evolve after it, and I believe the running order could have been different on any given day before May 6, 1967. All I care about is that all the tracks be released as exhaustively as possible (multiple mixes, different versions -- I want them all!). Judging from Mark L's comments -- I have high hopes that is exactly what will happen. If Brian is happy with it, I see no reason anyone else should feel differently.

Anyway -- it's good to be back.

I think Brian told Taylor he'd had enough and was canning Smile then - being Brian - changed his mind while the band were touring Europe and had another crack. And then gave up. Twilight's last gleaming.

or, alternatively - because I damn well say so ! ;D

Welcome back Smiley, and agreed on the above!

I think you are right, he couldn't stop tinkering with it even when he's supposedly canned it. Later, there was to be a ten-track version after Smiley (which is itself a rethinking of SMiLE), even much later on his conversations with Peter Reum showed he was still rejiggering it in his mind.

[/quote]

Welcome back Smiley, and agreed on the above!
[/quote]

Why thank ye!  :)

Well, I guess this is another issue where there will be two camps; that will leave us something to SMiLEboard about in the future.

BTW it is a dobro on CE

I was just re-reading DPs book that came out after the release of BWPS and he seemed quite certain that the Elements section was "not right"

He seemed to be saying that Wanna Be Around/Workshop was supposed to have gone after MOC - has this any substance??

There is a quote from Carol Kaye to that effect, who apparently is going on what Brian told her during sessions. How much you trust Carol Kaye, Motown's greatest bass player, is entirely up to you.... ::)

I just spat tea all over my monitor.  ;D

Haha - thanks

She and Bernard Purdie made a great Beatles rhythm section

Tut tut, chaps, no jokes at the expense of the lady who played bass on all hits by the Doors, please.

I think I may be the only one, but I totally buy this theory. Put them together and judge for yourself, but make sure you use an edit of Fire that actually has the last drum beats (that sound like crashing timbers). The way these move into the first notes of IWBA was a revelation to me.

What I see, starting in Feb. '67, is a series of sessions designed to finish "Heroes & Villains" as a single. Whether or not he has admitted it to himself or others, it appears that Brian effectively stopped working on SMiLE the album (as conceived by himself and Van Dyke Parks) in January. By April he gives the news to Derek Taylor regarding the "scrapping" of the album and decides to re-record/complete "Vegetables" as the next single in place of "Heroes & Villains". After several sessions that don't produce a result Brian is happy with, he cancels some subsequent sessions and decides to work on a new track that he plays around with the arrangements on ("I Love To Say Dada"). At this point, there is now pressure for both a single and some kind of album. Brian believes building a home studio could be the answer to his creative conundrum, but while that's being built, he goes back to Western to re-record "Vegetables" once again to get a usable version. Happier with the stripped-down arrangement he has chosen, and with his home studio in operation, he moves forward to complete "Heroes & Villains" and determines that a stripped-down home-made approach will work for the next album.

I don't think that even in '67 Brian thought only in terms or recording albums. Certainly he intended PET SOUNDS to be an album project, but it still comprised material that he had written or recorded up to a year-and-a-half earlier along with a track primarily considered a single. "Good Vibrations" was thought of only as a single, but like with "Sloop John B.", Brian agreed it could be part of the next album, the one he conceived of with Van Dyke Parks. That collection of material was worked on from August '66 until Jan. '67 at which time Parks left. Knowing he already missed a deadline for the album itself, Brian attempts to move forward and complete a single which he assumes he can get out quickly. When that proves to be problematic (and I'm not even mentioning the Brother Records/Capitol dispute), a seemingly simpler track is chosen to be the next single. At some point around here, Brian decides he won't be able to finish the album as he thought.

In my mind, we call the sessions from mid-January '67 to May 18th, '67 SMiLE sessions and they are certainly from the SMiLE era, but it really could just be Brian working on two different singles.

Just done it - sounds good to me thanks

Speaking of IWBA, did the band (or anyone for that matter) ever clarify what possesed them to add the hammering effects to the end of Do It Again LP version?

Yeah. They figured it would a fun thing to do, according to Carl.

Can somebody confirm for me that one of them added the "OUCH" in the background, years later when they added it on Do It Again? 

It's there on the boots of "IWBA/Workshop". I doubt they would have dubbed the "OUCH" in on those multi-tracks just to add it to the end of "Do It Again".

Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it!

I Love to Say Dada is one of the great mysteries of Smile - what did Brian have in mind for it?  An album cut for a post- Smile album, an attempt to finish The Elements for Smile, a single B side to go with either Heroes or Vegetables?

The first linkage of Dada with the water section of The Elements that I know of was Carl's list circa 1972, where he listed "I Love to Say Dada (incorporating Cool Cool Water)" as a track.  Subsequently Preiss also identified Dada as the water section of The Elements, but when he described it it's clear he's describing the water chant rather than what we know as Dada (if I remember correctly).  Project number same as Smile, recorded with studio musicians in a proper studio like the rest of Smile . . .

But other than working on the potential singles (Heroes, Vegetables, Wonderful and probably With Me Tonight, all possible A or B sides) Brian stopped work on Smile in January.  After the "crow cries uncover the cornfield" debacle in December.  Press reports in March indicate Brian was still working on Smile but having "problems" with one track The elements.  But in May everything is scrapped.

BWPS would indicate that Brian planned Dada as part of water all along - or was that a convenient 2003 construct based on the prior association of the track with Water by Preiss and Carl?

I'd like to hear what Anderle and Vosse would say about Dada, if they remember it . . . Van Dyke wasn't around and has said he wasn't involved with The Elements.

the "wa wa ho wa" section of Da Da is basically "cool cool water" with different lyrics.

I really think
VegaTables = Earth
Wind Chimes = Air
Fire = Fire
Da Da = Water

whether Brian intended to do an all-instrumental Elements suite or not, I think this is what the Elements would probably have ended up being.

at the same time, i hope the new release proves me wrong.

If Brian really was trying to record for Smile in May '67, AFTER the announcement that Smile was scrapped, why would he focus on one part of a track that he hadn't worked on for 6 months, especially when he already has a minute-long "water" chant in the bank?  And if DaDa was supposed to be water, why was he recording a second part (bird noises), and even a third part?  It makes no sense.

Seems to me that anyone who actually believes DaDa to be water would also have to believe the second section of DaDa to be air.  Because why would he record a section specifically to be an element, and then record a second section that isn't anything?

Really guys, I just don't think the DaDa = water thing has ever been well thought out.

Vosse did describe it didn't he. Was his description anything like ILTSDD or the whadoo chant?

Vosse wasn't even around in May '67, was he?

No.

Alright, in the other thread I talked about how Vega-Tables is really a thinly-veiled drug song.

Now I'd like to mention that, Wind Chimes is not about wind. It's seemed really weird to me how so many insist that Wind Chimes is "air", yes Win Chimes has the word wind in it. But that's just a coincidence. Wind Chimes have a long history in the east, and they are often used to symbolize the passing of time.

Consider the line,
"In the late afternoon you're hung up on wind chimes."

Now consider, the definition of Hang Up from How To Speak Hip:
"There are all types of hang ups, in fact talking about hang ups is a hang up, and the more you talk about it...it could become a drag. If you say Max is a very hung up cat, the meaning is different, because you're saying he's got psychological problems-he's very twisted-he's blocked. Anything that can command your attention-your attention exclusively-is a hang up."

Or how about this bit from Goodbye Surfing:
"A person who thinks of himself as understanding would probably interpret this episode as an example of perhaps too-excessive artistic perfectionism. One with psychiatric inclinations would hear all this stuff about someone who actually believed music could cause fires and start using words such as neurosis and maybe even psychosis. A true student of spoken hip, however, would say hang-up, which covers all of the above."

Now what are wind chimes?...
...well, I know many will disagree and say "wind chimes are just wind chimes" but I'll go ahead and say it, the Wind Chimes in the song are Death

The lyric, "in the late afternoon you're hung up on wind chimes", in this case the "late afternoon" is, well, the late afternoon of life, old age, the twilight years. Being hung up on Wind Chimes means your preoccupied with your own death, with mortality. "Though it's hard I try not to look at my wind chimes".
Our own mortality is what we're all so often hung up on. And the acceptance of death figures into many eastern religions and new age beliefs. Check out this passage from the book On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are by Alan Watts. Brian read this book, and I believe it had a major influence on SMiLE:





Wind Chimes is not a song about Wind or Air at all. It has nothing to do with the elements. That connection is just the result of the title. Wind Chimes is about death, it's about how we as a culture are hung up on death, and how we need to let go of our hang ups and flow with life, and recognize the beauty and necessity of death.

Wow, Fishmonk, this is great.  Maybe someone can dispute what you're saying, but you make a very strong case.

Fishmonk is trying to make a lot of good cases. But I think he's reading way too much into all the lyrics.
Still, I think he probably needs a "time out" to meditate. maybe some time getting in touch with his lost soul/inner being.
Something to keep his mind off SMiLE and this board

Nah, I think fishmonk is doing a great job at finding some of the hidden meanings.  Smile is multi-layered both in the music and the lyrics.  No reason to think we're going to understand it all without exploring it, which is what fishmonk is doing.

I don't mind it at all. I think reading his ideas and interpretations has proven quite interesting to read.

Please don't take offense, but I think many of you are seriously overthinking the lyrics.

Smile ain't no surf music.

That's a revelation.

So you guys think Wind Chimes was just about Wind Chimes?
Considering we're all here because we think that Brian was some kind of genius on the cutting edge of psychedelia, you guys aren't giving him much credit. You just want to play it safe and assume that there was no depth, no metaphorical or philosophical content of any kind, and that everything about SMiLE was right on the surface. Brian wasn't about literalism. He's not a straightforward, easy to understand, direct, practical person. He hired a lyricist that was a master of word play and pun.

I dunno, I think you SMiLE literalists are underestimating Brian.

What are your smile theories bgas? You seem to be the one guy around here who doesn't take the bb or their discussion very seriously.

Never said Smile was surf music. Please hear me out on this...

I think those meanings can be attributed to the music, but more after the fact, sort of. I don't think the songs started out that way. I think it happened more on an unconscious level. Most genius is like that.

Fishmonk consider this in 66

http://troun.tripod.com/smilebrian2.html

BRIAN WILSON
pop think in
This article originally appeared in Melody Maker, Oct. 6, 1966.

PEACE - Relative peace must be nice in New York.

FEAR - Not knowing what to expect is the only reason for fear.

DRUNK - I don't know anyone who gets drunk. In fact, I haven't been drunk myself for 3 years. There's no point in it. It isn't really fun. Why bother?

HONESTY - It's great and groovy and kicks all roleld into one big mind-blower. No one should be without it.

SUICIDE - It only makes things worse. You can't solve anything by killing yourself. I mean, things can always get better, but if you're dead, they may not.

WATTS - It's only 4 miles from my original home, where my mother still lives. We didn't panic - she just didn't go outside the house.

CRIME - Very consistent.

POLICE - They're nice men, I think.

KOREA - I was 11 years old and primarily concerned with baseball.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY - There seems to be a trend toward non-violence today. More and more kids are thinking love and peace and friendship, instead of hate and spite.

SCHOOL - I wonder how much longer school will be compulsory? Very soon, I think, education will not only be free-form, but free for the taking or leaving.

TIME - Time is fine when its in cadence.

STEREO - I can't enjoy stereo much. I'm deaf in one ear.

EAR - The right one.

DRUGS - An underground train.

PATRIOTISM - Beer and brass bands.

HYMN - I think I could write one someday.

ORGAN - My dad gave me a pipe organ for my birthday - that's what i'll write the hymn on. Or at.

DOOR - The door has been opened to a whole new universe of experience for me.

NEWSPAPER - I don't read the newspapers too much because they depress me.

SWIMMING POOL - I have just rediscovered the delights of swimming. I'm completely turned on to swimming pools again. For a while, they bored me. Now I take a swim once a day and I'm completely healthy.

ALBUM - Our next album will be better the Pet Sounds. It will be as much an improvement over Sounds as that was over Summer Days.

RECORDING STUDIO - My recording studio has become a castle, with a wing for everyone.

TELEVISION - Someday I want to make commercials for TV - with a new twist.

DRUMS - Someday I want to write a symphony for drums.

HOLLYWOOD BOWL - The sound men at the Bowl are not rock n' roll sound men. I would advise people who want to play there and sound good, to change their plans or plan their changes.

SURFING - It's a very challenging sport. I've never been able to meet the challenge.

LYRICS - Let's make them all free-form, so we don't get hung up on making rhymes.

DRUG SONGS - There are myriad drug songs on the pop music market today. I don't know which they are.

MIRROR - Have you tried the mirror technique or the subconscious? I'm reading a book about it - I'm fascinated by the mind and hypnosis and things like that.

CAR - One day everyone will sit up in his car and fall out to the groovy sounds of cartridge tapes. Do I sound like a commercial?

SUCCESS - Came very easily to me, professionally speaking.

GLASSES - I would recommend that everyone who gets eye strain when they read to go to an optometrist and get reading glasses so that they can read more and longer. This is what I did, and I really do think everyone should do it.

RAIN - It's purifying. It cleanses the earth and helps things grow. It's spiritual too.

AUTOGRAPHS - I would suggest to every girl who collects autographs that she has them analyzed. Amazing revelations.

THE MOON - Funny you should mention that - I've been reading a book about moon dieties and about how the moon affects women's personalities. Fascinating.

PUBLICISTS - Professional wordsmen.

Fishmonk, I know I haven't been supportive of your efforts thus far, but this is really a bit much.

I respect your points about the complexity of Smile, but picking two songs the lyricist never took much pride in doesn't strengthen matters.

I mean, Occam's razor. VDP turns up at Brian's house, and Brian starts off about how healthy eating is important and all that. He then goes to the piano, and tells VDP he wants a song about that. How likely is VDP going to be able to think up heavy drug allusion quickly?

Small problem with this premise - Marilyn has been quoted as saying (in the Preiss book, I think) that they bought some wind chimes one day, and Brian was inspired to write a song about them. It's a song about... wind chimes. That's all.

You remind me of an overly religious person, combing the sacred texts of their creed and extracting meanings never intended (examples: Rastafarians and Jehovahs Witnesses).

I think he hired VDP because he liked the sound of his words, not necessarily because he understood the word-play behind them.

I think Brian is much much smarter and more articulate than people make him out to be.

Van Dyke Parks once said that he came up with all the SMiLE material, and that Brian just gave him "dum dum dum dum" and that he came up with the words.
However we know that's not exactly true, now is it? Brian an Van Dyke spent a lot of time together, and Van Dyke even lived with Brian for a period didn't he? They hung out with eachother, worked on Brian's weird little skits, wrote songs. They talked to one another. They were mutually responsible for developing the thematic basis of SMiLE, of cultivating Brian's inspiration, and refining it.

Think about Tony Asher on Pet Sounds, Brian went to him and told him what he wanted for the lyrics. There's a quote from Asher about I Just Wasn't Made For These Times, where Asher says that was the only song where he didn't "get" the feelings Brian wanted him to evoke. On these Pet Sounds tracks, Brian had something in mind, he had an idea, a theme, a direction. He was using Tony to sharpen the point. The same thing happened on SMiLE, none of these ideas I'm describing are beyond Brian's intellectual sphere, he understood them, and mutually worked with Van Dyke to refine them.

Brian had a vision for things, he had an idea, a plan, an inclination. He didn't always know exactly how to make it happen right from the start, but it was there festering in his mind. Brian was the "director" of these projects. Like a good film director, a good music producer needs to know what he wants. He needs to give the people working under him space enough to let their talents shine, but its up to the producer to provide the vision that brings everything together.


That's Marilyn's perspective. Not Brian's. She wasn't necessarily privy to Brian's every thought, every inclination, ever whim, every flight of fancy or association. It really depends on the details. It could have been:
"I brought home some wind chimes, then right there on the spot Brian and Van Dyke sat down and wrote the song all in one go and I was privy to the whole session and they never mentioned anything other than wind chimes."
or it could have been
"I brought home some wind chimes, Brian had a strange fascination with them for several days, sort of gestated on them, had conversations with Van Dyke I wasn't privy to, and then the next week played me a version of Wind Chimes."

In the one case sure, the song is about wind chimes, in the other case that version of events doesn't really preclude the song from having metaphorical content. I don't believe Marilyn's impression of the songs inspiration is wrong, but again, she's not Brian, and I don't think her vague undetailed story is in any way shape or form damning evidence to my "theory".


I've heard that Van Dyke came up with Heroes opening line "I've been in this town..." on the spot. But did he come up with all the songs he wrote on the spot with no thought or discussion. Van Dyke and Brian would sit up at night, in Brian's sandbox writing songs together. They would talk, discuss, collaborate. The writing of SMiLE was not an episode of $100000 Pyramid. It's not like Brian had an egg timer on his piano and demanded Van Dyke to drop lyrics on the spot or be fired.

I mean, Occam's razor: Brian and Van Dyke or whoever are hanging out smoking a joint. They get the stupid idea to use vegetables as a euphemism for weed (this type of activity is pretty common while under the influence), they laugh their heads off and Brian says "you know man that'd be great". Maybe he already had the idea to do a song about vegetables, maybe that was what caused him to bring them up in the first place, maybe the idea added a whole new dimension to the song that Brian loved.
I don't see anything terribly complex about the explanation, in fact it feels much more organic and honest than your explanation that SMiLE songs were quickies that they pounded out in five minutes without discussion....

Again, What's with the giggling and laughing and coughing on this track? Do you all honestly believe that Brian put coughing on the track because well...vegetables make people choke? I thought the song was about how vegetables were *GOOD* for you, why would Brian want to have people think veggies make you cough and choke to death? That doesn't fit in in any way at all with the "it's just about veggies" explanation.
And once more, why did Van Dyke use the word "tripped" in the early lyrics? Trip is a very very very very loaded word when spoken among a group of proto-hippie consciousness seekers who mystified psychedelic drug use. Van Dyke is admired for his wordplay and his puns, why is this the one time a pun was NOT intended? Nobody has yet answered that.
Furthermore why did Brian remove the lyric in subsequent versions? If it wasn't about drugs...what was he worried about...?

Finally, I'd like to repost the end of the Goodbye Surfing article. I think this is very strong evidence that Brian was a very intelligent man who was well aware of the depth behind the lyrics and themes of SMiLE. It's a very articulate description, that shows Brian knew exactly what was going on with all this stuff. AGD you say Brian hired Van Dyke just because he liked the sound of his lyrics, but that he didn't understand them. I think that's totally bogus, Brian understood all the lyrics on SMiLE for sure. He was really well aware of all the nuance, and helped Van Dyke develop the ideas.


Pay attention to that last part. "the song of God, hiding his love from us, but always letting us find it again"
now read this bit from Alan Watts' book The Book On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

hm....I wonder where Brian got that idea from...
that's really the sentiment of Watts' book. That the point of life finding the hidden beauty of God in the world as if a giant game of hide and seek.
Brian was up on his stuff. He wasn't just some bumbling weirdo who couldn't comprehend the ideas behind his own music.

But this is just my outlook on SMiLE, which I think does it much more justice than just avoiding saying SMiLE was about anything. You have to read between the lines, try and put yourself in the mindset of Brian and his friends during their whole crazy adventure. There are hours, days, weeks, months of conversations and experiences that nobody captured on tape. SMiLE didn't happen in the confines of a few hours of studio time and a couple writing sessions. SMiLE was life, and everything around Brian flowed into it, and Brian's vision tied it all together neatly.

Are you actually aware of the basic premise behind the phrase "Occam's Razor" ?  Here it is from the man himself:

"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora"... which translates to...

"It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer."

The most commonly quoted version is that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. The most generally accepted, if slightly inaccurate, modern meaning is "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one". I think you'll agree that this is entirely at odds with your increasingly fantastic (in the strictest sense of the word) assumptions.

Do you know everything about...everything? Man, you're a walking encyclopedia,Thesaurus, and Wiki Reader all rolled into one.  ;D

Well I suppose AGD is well set in his ways after all these years.
You're all welcome to disagree, but I think I'm doing a much better job of getting into Brian's mindset and inspiration than many of you who want dismiss there being any deeper meaning to anything on SMiLE.

AGD you wanted to use that story of wind chimes to blow my theory out of the water. I painted two equally plausible scenarios that could each fit into her version of events. I thought I made a valid point, that her perspective is only a fraction of the true picture and didn't preclude the types of metaphorical associations I was suggesting.

You obviously disagreed. Why?

Take a look at the points I made about Vega-Tables. Why do you think they are invalid? Why do you believe Brian wanted to record coughing for the backing track? Because vegetables make people choke?
What do you think about the original lyrics to the song, why do you think Brian changed them, why do you think Van Dyke's pun was unintentional?

I'd love to hear some refutations of the individual points that make up my theories. I'd love to hear some alternate perspectives. But I don't think you SMiLE literalists have any, no offense. Your assumption is that none of it had any reason, and Brian was just drifting along without any reason as to why he was doing any of the things he was doing. Which I don't really buy.

Even in Wind Chimes. Why does a tear roll down the cheek of the person in the song? Why is the singer trying to avoid looking at his wind chimes? The term "hang up" also really suggests sort of an unhealthy preoccupation as well. Brian was a "true student of spoken hip", hang up was part of that language, it had a certain connotation, a certain meaning beyond just "interested in". You have to think about the language in the way they thought about the language, some of these hipisms hadn't yet really entered our culture in their modern innocuous forms. Square people were left scratching their heads at spoken hip. So considering that, why did Wind Chimes cause a hang up?

I also have to admit I am an ardent adherent to romantic Hermeneutics, which encourages these types of close readings, or thinking about the language the same way the author would have, and "reading your way into" the author. The good practitioner of hermeneutics seeks to know the author on a deep level, better than the author knows himself. I don't really think the literal interpretation does that, it mostly hand waves away everything as being "a stretch" or as "reading too much into things". However your method doesn't answer the questions I've posed, mine at least makes an attempt.

No, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say anything about drawing a line in the sand at the date the handwritten list was submitted. What I said was the attempt at a recreation of a 1966/67 Smile LP should stick to titles on the handwritten list in their most complete known form before it was announced the project was scrapped. This means Heroes & Villains is the Cantina mix (unless a later mix turns up), Fire is the '66 mono mix with the cracking noises, Child is the 11/66 Brian mix/edit or, maybe, an edit keeping that structure but using sections with the vocals.

Fishmonk, more power to you and I enjoy a lot of your dissection of the lyrics. However, I think VDP, like Dylan, was into creating ambiguous lyrics. Ones that could be interpreted a multitude of ways. If VDP stumbled upon a fun alliteration or pun, why not toss it into the mix and see what meanings are generated. Maybe Windchimes is about death. Maybe VDP's subconscious was oozing death symbolism without VDP even knowing it! Or maybe it's just about windchimes. I think no one can say with certainty what the smile lyrics are specifically about. I think VDP enjoyed the art of obfuscation.

Likewise with Vegatables, VDP enjoyed the delicious irony of inserting the occasional drug allusion into a song about vegetables, but this doesn't mean the song is about drugs. If anything these guys were into bucking the trend - out and out drug songs would be too obvious and out of place in Smile if you ask me. But a casual wink to the drug users: "Did they just mean what I think they meant?" - I can see VDP getting into those sort of games.

BTW always love the way we see Brian's actual windchimes in that photo in LLVS where he's sat in his living room.

Everybody's entitled to their opinion and mine is I bet we sort tend to over romanticize and interpret but on the other hand, having been a twenty-something male myself, I don't doubt that these two slipped in plenty of Beavis and Butthead kind of double meanings while snickering up their sleeves.

I had a friend who swore up and down that Hey Jude was about heroin. There was nothing I could say to convince him of how dumb that sounded either.

I don't doubt that there are some drug references in Smile, as that was the thing to do in that era. To say that whole songs have all this hidden meaning is overstated. Plus, these are mostly Van Dyke's lyrics, not Brian's. Cam Mott is correct in my opinion; that we over romanticize Smile to the n-th degree. Almost or should I say exactly to the point of obsessiveness. I will admit Fishmonk that what you say is interesting, but I'm not buying into it- fully. ;)

I don't think any of the SMiLE songs are first and foremost about drugs or death...however, those ideas could easily exist as a subtext, one that Brian and Van Dyke may have discussed (or even just felt without articulating). Violence or death is certainly not absent from SMiLE: it's there in the bullets that brought her down, in the "hall a cost (ly)...", in the deadly Chicago fire and, most prominently, in the decimation of the American Indian. Those aren't happy ideas and yet they are easily contained within a set of songs that appear upbeat and full of joy. I believe this is possible because they are presented from a Zen-like position of being above the fray, of finding enlightenment while accepting the hardships.

Something about the song "Wind Chimes" has always struck me as being sad/happy. Why is there an occasional tear rolling down the cheek? Is it a tear of joy? Maybe. But I always thought that symbolized a sort of wistfulness, that life was passing. When one meditates on life, or removes oneself from daily routine, the bigger picture emerges and that picture has to encompass both life and death. Three years later, Brian writes (on his own) "'Til I Die" which I think deals with similar subject matter. Now that song has been used as an example of "depressive" Brian (certainly by Mike), but the song isn't that depressing; it's from the same perspective as "Wind Chimes" in that the singer has stepped back and sees himself as part of something larger, something that diminishes his ego. Whether the term "hung up" is intended to be negative or positive (as in fascinated by), it implies that the singer has removed himself from a routine and is contemplating a greater meaning to his existence. It's only natural that death would be a part of those musings. On a more mundane note, since wind chimes are "hung up" on a tree or roof overhang in order to work, there is a play on words going on here which could very well have come from Mr. Parks.

As to "Vegetables": I assumed the coughing comes from having swallowed the wrapper instead of the candy bar. Could be innocent enough, but as I pointed out earlier, I believe the reason one band member says "wink wink" while the wrapper line is being sung is to clue us in to an alternate interpretation of the lyric.

I was just thinking about the words "Hung Up" as in "...hung up on Wind Chimes". Could be the person is just messmerized by or fixated on the tinkling sounds. He just can't continue with what he was doing at that time. I grew up in that era, and that was usually how we used the expression.

i see "hung up on wind chimes" just word play, since wind chimes are "hung up". 

I wasn't directing my post at anyone specifically.  I was just saying that there is no way to make CD1 historically accurate, and I stick to that.  Look at all of the arguing and bickering that is going on in these threads about what should be allowed and what shouldn't...what should be presented and what shouldn't.  Everyone here, everyone, has a different opinion of what CD1 should be.  There was one poster above who said, regarding what songs should make up The Elements, "at the same time, i hope the new release proves me wrong."  Nothing about this release is going to prove anyone right or wrong about what was intended 45 years ago.  

The point to my post is that CD1 is going to be someone's interpretation.  It may use the same tracklisting as BWPS.  It may use a tracklisting more similar to the handwritten list.  However, whatever the tracklisting, it is going to be the same thing that BWPS is, and that is a presentation of the best available music, not as it would have appeared in '66 or '67 (because we have literally no way of knowing how it would have appeared at any given point in time during those months of recording), but rather in a way that is listenable and enjoyable.  And since there is no way to present the material in a way that is historically accurate or definitive, I say just give us the most complete versions of everything that is available from the '66-'67 sessions in the best possible fidelity, and let each of us choose the correct way to put it together.  We're all going to do that anyway, so what does it matter if a song is on CD1 or CD4.  That's all I'm saying.  

Now, I understand that their mission is to present a listenable version of the "quote album", and I'm smart enough to understand that they can't release this package without that.  If they want to put Carl's stereo 20/20 vocal on a mono version of Cabinessence (or Cabin Essence, or Herbal Essence), that's fine, as long as we also get the best possible version from the '66 sessions.    

It's just freaking fantastic news that the sessions are finally being released, and I'm going to enjoy the hell out of whatever the producers put together on CD1, just as I will enjoy what gets put on the other discs.  I'm sure we all will.  

P.S.
Fishmonk, are you 'nobody'?        

I really think the layout of Disc 1 will be the way Brian wants it. Although the tracklisting may vary a bit, it seems pretty sure that it will be in 3 Movements. Just that in itself says a lot. But we'll see. I'm sure they will be tinkering with that all Spring and into early Summer before they settle on all the hows and whats.

Interesting thoughts and I agree about the sadness in the song. I have often wondered if the tinkling pianos coda, with the little descending runs Brian plays, is echoing the tear rolling down the cheek and slowly building up to a rain shower - sure sounds like rain if you listen with that in mind.

At what point does an analysis of a song like "Wind Chimes" need to enter the subconscious of the person who wrote the lyrics in order to prove or disprove a theory? And at that point wouldn't it create a situation where even the person who wrote the words could say "this is what I had in mind when I wrote it", or the person who was married to that person could say "this is what they had in mind as they wrote it", and anyone analyzing from a distance could rebuke that in any number of ways by offering theories on hidden meanings and deeper thoughts than perhaps the creator ever imagined based on their own perception of the lyrics? It's bordering on analysis based on imagination and the subconscious mind with only a set of lyrics as proof.

Like a Rorschach test, it's basing a theory on individual perception of an object when there is no hard evidence to back it up, only theory and analysis. If I'm shown an inkblot image that I think looks like a bird, and someone else sees it and says it looks like a cloud, then the person who drew that image comes along and says they actually drew a picnic table, whose analysis is correct? Would we argue the person meant to draw a cloud when he really drew a picnic table?  I never thought of the "Wind Chimes" story until reading the above posts, and yes, it would seem the person who lived in the house with the set of wind chimes that inspired the song would be a pretty reliable source on what inspired the song. I'd say that person would know more intimately than anyone analyzing from afar.

The coughing sounds don't happen during that part, they happen in another part of the song so I don't think there's a connection. If that was really what Brian had in mind, why wouldn't he have put the coughing under that lyric?


This was essentially my interpretation as well. so...
The song is not about death, it's about preoccupation with death. It's not depressive in the same way as 'Til I Die. That song is more grim and nihilistic, about how life is so difficult and Brian is just waiting for Death. Wind Chimes is not like that at all, Wind Chimes is about fear of death, and overcoming that fear.


I dunno, you guys act like I'm some type of nutter for even suggesting that maybe the songs on SMiLE were about something. I don't think great art is unconscious, I don't think that all meaning is unintended. What are you guys a bunch of post-structuralists? I think there's a lot of evidence that there's subtext in vegetables, evidence that you guys have yet to confront.

One of the great things about Brian's songs is that they are able to capture fairly sophisticated emotions/ideas in a simple setting. "Won't last forever/it's kinda sad" floors me every time I hear "When I Grow Up". Sure the song is an adolescent musing on confronting adulthood, perfect for the Beach Boys' audience. But it doesn't stop there; the backing vocals count off the years as we hear "won't last forever", an objective statement on the fleeting nature of life. Then Brian adds the subjective "It's kinda sad" and we realize that thoughts of entering a new stage in one's life come with a price (recognizing how temporary it all is).

For me this is a fairly profound moment and it's captured in basically seven words. "Now and then a tear rolls down my cheek" is another such moment and it changes how I view "Wind Chimes".


I agree that the tone of "'Til I Die" is more nihilistic, but for me the vocal round at the end emphasizes that the singer has made peace with his place in the universe and recognizes that these things will be unchanging throughout the remainder of his life. It's a way of accepting one's circumstances and moving on and, therefore, I feel the song is not that pessimistic.

i think it's him accepting that he's gonna feel like nothing till he dies.  pretty pessimistic. 

I don't think you are a nutter. I thinks its cool that the lyrics are written in such a way that you can take out of it whatvever you want. It's part of what makes me want to Smile when I listen to it. Can you dig it? ;)

Feeling like a cork on the ocean, a rock in a landslide or a leaf on a windy day is NOT feeling like nothing. Those are tumultuous images; they are all related to the feeling of not being in control of one's life. But that feeling is fairly universal. The first statement in a common 12 step program requires that you admit you are not in control and religions, both Eastern and Western, request that you give up (the illusion) of that control. Because this state of being is impossible to change, you could see the song as pessimistic. Acceptance of this state of being makes the song optimistic. Which one is it? I guess it depends on the listener.

I would classify a song like "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times" as being somewhat pessimistic in that the singer sees no hope for how he will fulfill his ambitions (or how those ambitions will be recognized by his peers). But "'Til I Die" is about coming to grips with one's ego; it's a more mature, more spiritually affirming song than IJWMFTT.

well i don't think that's the state.  Didn't he say it was written from realizing how "infinitesimally small in the universe" we are.  So he thought of images of things that give off that.  Which i guess isn't "nothing", i just like how blunt that sounded.  To me, it's a rock in a landslide, not too important in the gist of it.  but how can it be optimistic if you're accepting that till the day you die you'll never have peace.

I understand what you're saying though. 
but then again, "it kills my soul". DAMN. 

I just want to say that I appreciate your efforts Mr. Fishmonk. I agree that there are obvious drug allusions in the first version of "Vegetables". The first thing I thought of when I heard the "tripped on a..." and "stripped the stalk..." lyrics was the singer taking mushrooms and pot. It's obvious to me, and they're not the kind of lyrics that I'd imagine would take Van forever to think up. I'm willing to believe that they were casually thought up in an afternoon. I think the concept of "Vegetables" being about drugs was lost somewhat when Brian made the move to turn the song into a single. He had to make it more radio friendly. But the lyrics on the released version of "Vegetables" still make you wonder if the singer's ludicrously absent-minded behavior (and corny sense of humor) is the result of a drug high.

Anyway, I have to go now. I'm writing a letter to Brian. Right now, here's what I have:

Dear Brian,
My favorite vegetable is marijuana.

I'm just going to throw this one out here. This is going to drive some of you nuts, but I was thinking about the actual lyrics of I'm In Great Shape, and if you look closely at them, from a grammar standpoint, they don't quite seem to mean the obvious things that you just assume them to mean. Now I know this is open to interpretation, and not every thing I'm about to say is 100%, but I just wanted to take a closer look at the lyrics:


Now this lyric is pretty disputable, it could be "Fresh Zen Air..." or "Freshened Air..." and it was even altered to "fresh clean air..." on BWPS
But let's consider "Freshen Air Around My Head", which is what it sounds like to me on the demo.  

It's an imperative statement. Not a description of the state of the air, not an adjective. It's the singer telling himself to clean/purify/naturalize/clear the air around his head. This could mean a bunch of things, perhaps a call for fresh ideas, perhaps a call for an open mind. Perhaps most controversially, this could be a line like Tomorrow Never Knows' "Relax, Turn Off Your Mind and Float Downstream", an invocation of the mental state leading to ego death, of turning off your mind, clearing away the bramble of thoughts swirling around your head.

Even if you think the line is "freshened" and not "freshen" you still have to wonder, what made the air fresh? What process occurred to clear the air?

And if you interpret the line "Fresh Zen Air" it's even more interesting...


Alright, the regular way to think about this line, is "It is morning, I tumble out of bed", but that's not what the line says, is it?
Again, this is a imperative statement directed at "mornings". The singer of the song is talking to the dawn, asking it to begin. Perhaps he means to call for a new dawning of consciousness, a new beginning, a new birth. The dawn isn't dawning of its own accord, its dawning at the behest of the singer.


Alright, when it comes to this one, the regular interpretation would just be "I eat breakfast and then go off to jumping, to activity". There doesn't seem to be much going on in "Eggs and grits" than just breakfast. Eggs often symbolize barrier breaking, birth, transformation things of that nature. Grits don't seem to mean anything, it's a crushed corn porridge of Native American origin. Perhaps "grits" could be taken as "true grit" as resolve, strength, courage, etc. The courage to pursue down new, unexplored paths of the mind.

Then there's "lickety-split", it's a colloquial phrase meaning "in a hurry". However break it down, look at the origin of that phrase. The exact etymology is open to debate:

"Where it comes from is open to argument. Some dictionaries prefer to say cautiously “origin unknown” but others consider it combines split with a fanciful elaboration of lick. The latter turned up at about the same date in expressions we still have: at a great lick or at full lick, also meaning to move fast. This might have something to do with an animal persuaded to go fast by means of a “lick” from a whip, a figurative use of the standard sense that’s also the source of lick for giving somebody a beating. Another form around in US dialect in the nineteenth century was lick it, as in “he went as fast as he could lick it” and some writers think that lick it was the source of lickety, though the dates of recording of the various forms suggest otherwise.

Split is just an intensifying word that happens to have formed a satisfying combination, perhaps because splitting implied a violent separation. If things had turned out differently, we might now be saying lickety-click instead, which is just as meaningless. In settling on split, however, Americans provided a springboard for split in the sense of leaving or departing, recorded from the 1950s."

Now how do you do LSD? Well, you lick the stamp first of all. And what does LSD cause you to do? Split from regular consciousness in a "violent separation".

Finally what about "look at me jump"? I suppose the regular interpretation of this is "look at my physical vigor". But just jumping isn't a typical exercise, why not "look at me run"? or "look at me go"? or anything like that?
Consider jumping, where do you go when you jump? ... high up. You could also read this as "look at how high I get"  


Again, look at this line more closely. This is NOT a line that says "I'm in great physical condition" it's saying "I am in the form of the agriculture, and that form is great". The singer of the song has assumed the shape of "the agriculture" that's the shape he's in. So what does it mean to take the form of agriculture? Well agriculture involves planting seeds, letting them grow, and cultivating them. Perhaps this is about cultivating your inner self, cultivating ideas, growing as a person, assuming a more organic natural mode.




So...I'm In Great Shape, a song about being in great shape, or a song about LSD induced states of expanded consciousness...

Okay, the only problem is that "agriculture" is a 2003/2004 lyric. 

The 1966 lyric is "open country."

Honestly though, you could take any poem/lyric/whatever and do that sort of analysis. I may attempt to if I get a moment.

You're right, I was listening to it and I kept hearing Agriculture for some reason. Brian's vocal is really strained and faint on that part on the version I have.
I think Open Country makes more sense in line with some of the stuff I pointed out. He assumes the form of the open country. A more natural organic mode, perhaps a state of consciousness that's "open" free of pretention, free of thoughts, tie this back to the first line of freshening the air around the head.

While this is true, you should consider the grammar of the lines, I think we assume they mean one thing, but when you actually look at the lines, grammatically they don't mean what you think they mean.

"Freshen air around my head" is a imperative statement a command, not a description of the air.
"Mornings Tumble Out of Bed" is not "It's morning, I tumble out of bed."
"I'm in the great shape of the open country" is not "I'm in great shape in the open country" This like should be read as "I'm in the form of the open country and that form is great". Which is really interesting and not at all what we traditionally assume.

I had a dream last night that somebody had the booklet to the Box set and I didn't want to see it because I wanted to wait...but I gave in....It was weird. There were song titles and lyrics we never heard of.

I've gone 7 days without listening to SMiLE! stuff, and it hasn't been easy. Lots of Love You and Pet Sounds though...

You are a braver man than I! I might wait for a release date to take said vow...

Brian rather rushes his way through the H&V demo and often mumbles his lines but after repeated listening on headphones (come on and try it - millions of others have) you will agree it ain't 'open country' he's singing.
This was discussed on this board before (way back) and the general concensus was that  'I'm in the great shape of the agriculture' is 100% 1966 vintage. Actually it's more like 'I'm in the great shape of the 'agrrrrhuture'.

Fishmonk, you've got some ambitious interpretations and I'm quite enjoying them. Especially "lickety split"  :lol

It is an odd line: I'm in the great shape of the open country. (i refuse to accept agriculture... headphones and all)

Psychedelic experience is clearly an underlying theme of SMiLE. Brian was absolutely attempting "enlightenment through music"

and I like the idea of songs like "Wind Chimes" and "Vega Tables" being like Children's songs in their simplicity, but having deeper meaning as well.

I took your challenge no name! Only two days maybe three for me so far. Tis not easy and probably should've waited for a release date like someone else just suggested. Could be smile fasting for a looooong time ....

Lets hope it's not too long...but I know it will be worth it to hear these tracks fresh, with a clarity that is like a clear natural spring as opposed to the county swimming pool. Couple that with some (hopefully) new stuff and it my be just like hearing this stuff for the first time...although you can never regain your virginity, it is the next best thing to do...

I've sometimes interpreted that line as meaning that there's marijuana smoke floating up around him. And "lickety-split" could be licking the joint before you close it.

^^^That's a good point Dada.

I'm torn on open country vs agriculture. It's really hard to tell on the demo. On my headphones I lean a little bit towards open country. I'd like to hear some of your thoughts though, what does it mean to assume the shape of the open country vs assume the shape of the agriculture?

Barnyard:


Things happen as usual. The chickens go about their routine. Number is often used as in "dance number", maybe the chickens are preforming. Chicken is also often used to describe a coward. Perhaps this line is "The square people go about their days, preforming their routines"


This one seems pretty simple to me. I've always wondered about it, why is there a cook? Do farms keep a dedicated cook on staff? Why is the cook chopping lumber? That's not a job one would normally think of a cook doing.

But it's easy really, the cook is chopping lumber to cook the chickens. What else would a cook need lumber for, if not to make a fire in his stove?

These two lines together seem really simple "The chickens (i.e. the average unhip/unenlightened fellow) go about their days, business as usual, perhaps unaware of the cook who's going to roast them.


The singer of the song gets dirty, he dives into life, and it's a messy affair, he makes mistakes, his shoes get dirty, but he learns that next time he can do better.


Two and a half of what? This line suggests a sort of "drop and give me twenty" type thing. One would assume that he was talking about pushups or situps or something. But how do you do 2.5 of an exercise? I've read somewhere that Brian considered his three LSD trips as really 2.5 trips, that one wasn't a full one, or a really real trip. That seems to be what this line is referencing. But I'd like to hear any theories on what the 2.5 is. 2.5 of what? It's a weird number to pick.


Why would he leave his hat on? If he was dropping to do push ups and sit ups, why would he want a hat on? This could be a way of saying "next time I'll keep my wits about me"? Hats can symbolize jobs or roles. Hats can also protect from the elements, they can keep your head warm and dry.

What exactly is the point of leaving the hat on, I'm not sure. But I think the general point of Barnyard, is to live life by the fullest, make mistakes, take chances, get your feet dirty, and that's better than dancing around while you wait for the cook to throw you in the pot.

I always thought 2 and half was a reference to summer saults. Not even sure why, really.  :lol

Maybe Brian was a Charlie Sheen fan.

It's more like he hits the ground and then "ONE.....TWO....THRE-sod this". Not a physically fit kinda guy, was our Bri. Maybe he should smoke more marijuana eat more vegetables!  ;D

Mate - this is just about living on a farm - no more - no less

I don't think so. Do you often go jumping into the pig pens on a farm? Is it standard farm procedure to take your shoes off before hand?

Since when do farms have dedicated chefs? When I think of a farm I certainly don't think of them as having their own cooks, I rather think of probably the farmers wife as being the one doing all the cooking and the farmer being the one who chops the lumber.
What would a cook need lumber for? If not to cook?

What is the two and a half about? Doing two and a half of what? What could that possibly be a reference to? What common farm activity do you do in half intervals?
Why would you want to leave your hat on when you do that?


Really the lyrics don't make much sense as they stand. If Brian wanted to just portray a farm, why would there be lyrics like that? You could easily rewrite this song in a way that fit the meter that was much less esoteric.
I mean, why not just do a cover of Old Mcdonald?

I just don't buy it. Your "it's just about farms" thing doesn't answer any of those questions. You don't attempt to answer them, you avoid it and just want to hand wave all the inconsistencies away by assuming that there was no meaning to anything.

There was a thread a while back that discussed the barnyard song: and it made perfect sense. Someone went through and discussed what taking your shoes off meant, and when taking your hat off meant (something to do with fighting, I think....but my memory is terrible). It was all based off of old-timey language used in the west or something. I may be totally off...but anyways, I'll try and find it. It was a great thread.

Dang, I found that fast:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,6645.msg109081.html#msg109081 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,6645.msg109081.html#msg109081)

post #58,

Sometimes great art just doesn't need an explanation. It just is.

Great post, hits on lots of the same things I did.

Jeesh, I didn't even see your post lol....I have enjoyed your slew of posts on this subject (SMiLE lyrics) by the way. Well, Dada really did a great job on that post anyway. It got me thinking about every SMiLE lyric and how they all have the possibility of having incredibly deep underlying meanings.

Smile! Talk about your musical High. After 4 CDs worth of music, I'll be in drug induced coma.

lickety...spliff?

a two-and-a-half is a dive: the diver performs two-and-a-half revolutions in the air.


that line in particular sounds made up on the spot, like it should have been the other way around:
Do a two-and-a-half, THEN hit the dirt

but maybe it was just Brian being goofy.... like eating the wrapper instead of the candy bar.

perhaps he's alluding to do a a two-and-a-half roll in the dirt/mud, as a pig would do in a barnyard?

That's a really great observation.
We know that Brian loved to swim, right? So it's like he's diving into the pig pen and doing a two and a half dive on his way in.
But I suppose you're right, the lyric should be reversed.

And if he was doing a dive, why would he leave his hat on

Not an uncommon style with Smile lyrics.  See:

The crow cries and hover(s) the the cornfield.
The thresher uncover(s) wheat field.

Pretty straightforward that way.  If someone would have pointed that out to Mike maybe he wouldn't have freaked out.  :lol

Thank you Bill for being the voice of sanity  :lol  Has Van Dyke Parks ever said he decided to change "open country" to "agriculture" for BWPS? I see Brian and co. being slavishly faithful to Parks' original lyrics when they existed. Sure, Brian sings "barnyard" twice instead of "farmyard" and I suspect he sings next time he'll leave his hat off on BWPS, but there is not another example of lyrics being drastically changed as has been suggested here. Brian is singing a track off-the-cuff for a DJ and blows the word "clean" so it comes out "fresh...un...air around my head". I mean which sounds like a real lyric: "Fresh, clean air around my head" or "Freshen air around my head"? I kind of like "Fresh Zen air..." but Brian's not singing that either. The few lyrics that exist to "I'm In Great Shape" are pure Parks and what sounds more like a SMiLE lyric written by Parks: "I'm in the great shape of the agri-culture" or "I'm in the great shape of the open country"?

The latter is kind of bland whereas the former has a nifty little pun. By splitting the word, Parks draws attention to the term "culture" which is normally associated with high art. Here it is used to describe the exact opposite: nourishment from the ground, farmland, salt of the earth. Again, this ties into the reoccurring themes of Americana and reminds us that the "iron horse" of "Cabin Essence" signals that the agrarian society will be superceded by an industrial one. Could this be why "Workshop" is now positioned after "I'm In Great Shape", to echo the idea that industry will transform the "agri-culture"?

so Van Dyke wrote the lyric: "Hit the dirt, do a two-and-a-half" ?!!?

no.

Well, the "concensus" (sic) was wrong.  I too have listened many times with headphones.  "Agriculture" ain't there.  The word "country," however, is clear as a bell.  I agree that the first part is hard to understand, and, as a result, for a long time there was debate over whether the preceding word was "open" or "upper."  Then, however, David Oppenheim's "Inside Pop" notes were discovered and included this reference:

"Heroes & Villains plays
        Vandyke Parks has been working on lyrics
        sings open country song "

So there you go...   An independent 1966 account of a different rendition of the song...

It's so awful that we don't have those inside pop reels. I wonder what happened to them, if they're just sitting in a landfill somewhere now.

I really want to believe that if we all put our heads together we could find them. In one of the old threads trying to track them down Jasper posted,

"She also stated that they used to archive unused film reels in a archive in New York. The usual blabla I guess. But, I took the time to contact all film archives I could find in New York and even other ones that could possibly hold old CBS material all over America.
There was a positive answer from CBS News Archive, etc. I don't want to go into details."

But he never elaborated what that meant. If he received definite confirmation if they exist or not, or if he was told by CBS to quit bugging them or what.

I'd really like to put up a kickstarter project to receive funding to track down the inside pop reels.

Just listened to Wind Chimes (albeit the Smiley version - which actually IMO is THE version) with this in mind, and it clicked in a way that was amazing (kinda creepy too).  Who knows if it was meant that way, but it works.   

I think Wonderful is the most esoteric and mysterious of all SMiLE songs.
I've always sort of thought the song was just about, I guess, puberty? But I think it's so much more than that.

Firstly, who is the woman in the song? Most of the SMiLE songs seem to take a first person perspective. "I've been in this town"/"I heard the word"/"I'm in the great shape..."/"I'll give you a home on the range"/"next time I'll take my shoes off"/"I'm going to be round my vegetables"

Wonderful isn't like that. The song is entirely about a mysterious girl/woman. Who is it? Mrs. O'Leary? The innocent girl? The average young girl who might be listening to the song? The feminine ideal of Goethe's Faust?

How about Maya, Mother of Buddha, or Mary, Mother of Christ? Mother Earth? I've even read a connection to Queen Lili'uokalani of Hawaii.

There are a couple of things I thought when listening to the song,

The song starts with, "She belongs there, left with her liberty" and ends with "she returns in love with her liberty"
One gets a sense of journey from this, that at the start she felt left behind, and at the end she's come to love her condition.

The line "She knew how to gather the forest..."
to me conjures an image of Mary in the manger, surrounded by animals. I've also seen depictions of the birth of Buddha, where, since his mother went into labor while traveling, was surrounded by animals who came to witness his birth.

"God reached softly and moved her body"
To where? Could she literally have been moved by God to somewhere, as Maya was in the dream during which Buddha was conceived? Or was she moved emotionally, as in, "moved to tears". You could also read this as the beginning of puberty, or as a description of miraculous birth, or even just birth/conception in general.

What about the repeated "won-won-won-wonderful" Maybe this is drawing attention to the word "one" as a signifier of the grand unity of the universe and everything in it. maybe the wonderful represents the womb. After all she starts out staying in the "wonderful" and in the end she returns to the "wonderful".

"through the recess the chalk and numbers"
Here we picture school, recess, chalk, and numbers on blackboard. The line could be saying that the girl in the song had to go through these things in her journey down the path mentioned in the previous line. It could also be connected to the subsequent line "A Boy...", perhaps saying that the boy used these three things in order to bump into her, through them. But recess can also mean a hidden place, chalk could mean rock formations of chalk, and numbers could mean people, as in "masses". What exactly would that mean? I don't really know. Maybe it is just about school, but there's an air of mystery there isn't there? Maybe the journey through the recess, the chalk, and the numbers somehow symbolizes the passage through life. "The Chalke" is also the name of the gate that lead into the palace at Constantinople. Perhaps there's a link to some historical figure or martyr. I did try and look for one but it seemed like a wild goose hunt.


What do I think the song means?
Well from the Goodbye Surfing article:

SMilE was largely about spirituality and sincerity. About faith, and belief. Those things were very important to Brian I think. Wonderful seems to capture the importance of those qualities, innocence (or perhaps naivety), sincerity, faith, spirituality, religion. On one hand its a song about a young girl growing up. But I also think it's about birth, about not only literal birth but artistic birth; creativity. Creativity, play, artistry, those things are very important to Brian's overall mode of spiritual enlightenment, and I think in order for those things to happen innocence and faith are required.
Finally I see the song as being about birth, life, death, and rebirth. I see the first stanza and the last stanza as being bookends of a journey of life, from womb to womb. It has the sense of being about reincarnation, about the cycle of the universe, like, as Brian would put it, waves rolling in.

I think that's what makes the song so strong, it subtly blends all these different things together, and somehow manages to be about all of them simultaneously.

Let's just get the various naysayer comments out of the way now.

"It's just a song about a girl."
"You're reading way too much into it."
"You sound like a religious nut I know."
"Brian didn't really care about lyrics and wasn't even capable of thinking beyond a surface level."
"Anyone can interpret anything to mean anything."

That about cover it?  Did I miss anything?

Wonderful has really nice lyrics. I was thinking of them the last couple of days, trying to pick out any allusions or things like that, but the lyrics are so mysterious it's hard to really get a handle on them.

I don't think what I posted was really very far off from what a lot of us sort of understand the song to be about. It's not just about one person's innocence or spirituality, but about the importance of those things in a general program of enlightenment.

I tell you, I don't really think SMiLE would have had a "cycle of life" part, where Wonderful was the beginning and there was some literal progression of "getting older" or something across multiple songs. I think Wonderful by itself is the cycle of life movement from BWPS, it didn't need to be followed by any other songs, but in 2004 I guess they decided to pad it out into a "movement".

the combination of Wonderful and Look was a stroke of genius, not to mention Child into Surf's Up.

I dislike the parts that were added however.

I really like the simple lyrics over 'Song For Children' - but I was unhappy with the instrumental. They took out the flute part when Brian sings "When is the Wonderful Me, Wonderful You...." in the middle of the song. That and the bass was incredibly lacking compared to the 66/67 version.

As has been mentioned before today: BWPS sounds way too clean!

FWIW, it IS supposed to be a song about a young woman being deflowered. Van Dyke has never made a christian, indian, buddha, or otherwise connection to it, and one would figure Van Dyke of all people to talk up the most intellectual position on his lyrics. He has related to it in terms of his wish to write the 'great love song' (without consulting my Priore for the exact quote).

I mean, you are closer to the mark than before. I, personally, see a lot of overanalysis of literature in my course. I'm suspect to it, I suppose. You are overstepping the mark on Vegetables, in my opinion, and Barnyard and Great Shape are not obvious 'Farmyard' or 'Country' lyrics, but then VDP was hip to Brian's musical innovation - These are not country songs in the Nashville sense, and so Van did not decide to talk about how his dog left him.
He had to think quickly, and given his lack of lyrical innovation since that period I imagine he had to write fast and under pressure. They are country forms not used in typical country ways, much like Brian in his music - The banjos and tack pianos, but not playing simple twelve bar or even simple chords - and this, along with the chemical influence that you suppose made him so much smarter, I reckon he acted simpler (You can't honestly tell me you're smarter after a joint, can you?). Not using simple country, or romantic cliches, is Van Dyke's forte. Have you heard his early records? The man can not write a pop song to save his life. What he can do is express ordinary things in a unique, but verbose manner. He is familiar with cliche, but the challenge of any writer is to make them fresh. This, I believe, is the extent of Van Dyke's country lyricism. Old things done anew. The same matters Hank, Marty Robbins, etc got with, but from another, smaller perspective.  

And Vegetables, I believe he could not have given a fig about. Round about the time Brian got obsessed with Vegetables, VDP got disillusioned with the project. Infer what you will.

Smile, for all its innovation, is not self-consciously complex. It started life as a 'Dumb Angel', after all.  

This is one of the greatest posts in this thread.

The notion of this word being a Parksean pun -- and your explanation -- is so obviously right that the matter is settled as far as I'm concerned. And if that wasn't what it actually was in the 1960s, it's what it SHOULD HAVE been.

Then again he also refused to "explain" his lyrics.


Firstly, it's not about being smart. Joints don't make you smarter, that's not what I was trying to say. It's about connections. Doing psychedelics increase your ability to connect things. When you're on an LSD trip language can "change", in that you perceive it in different ways. Alternate meanings can become clearer, the origin and etymology of words and phrases can strike you. It's hard to explain. Making connections is something the mentally ill often do, in the form of paranoia and delusion. But making those connections carries over into everything, into new and interesting metaphors. So do I think drugs make you "smarter", no, that's a misreprsentation of my point. Do psychedelics affect thinking in ways that would enlightening and interesting for artists? Absolutely.

Secondly, I don't think Barnyard or Great Shape are strictly "country" songs. I think reading Great Shape as strictly a song about being in physical great shape requires you to willfully ignore the actual lyrics. What does it mean to Freshen the air around your head? What does it mean to be in the shape of agriculture/open country? What does it mean for "mornings" to tumble out of bed. The lyrics are more complicated and nuanced than I think you recognize. The song isn't "I enjoy the fresh air/I wake up/I eat breakfast/I'm in great shape", there's more than that there.

I don't really understand what you mean when you say Van Dyke was under "pressure", he and Brian were friends and they were collaborating with one another. You assume that Brian and Van Dyke never really spoke about the lyrics or discussed the songs. I guess that's just something we can't get on the same page about. You think that Brian supplied a theme, played the song on the piano, and Van Dyke filled in the lines while they went along, but once Brian supplied the theme, discussion stopped. I don't believe that, I think it was more collaborate and that Van Dyke helped in the actual composition of the songs, and that Brian fully understood the lyrics and made suggestions and corrections as they went along.


Why do you say this?


I don't think that's what this name means, I've never interpreted it as an angel who was intellectually undeveloped. In SMiLE, dumbness is a good thing, it's a positive quality of spirituality that has nothing to do with "book learning". As in, being so overawed that you can't speak, that type of dumb.

Just my .02 but that reads like a parody of someone reading way too much into something.

This type of thing used to be encouraged. What was the name of that piece Stan Shantar did? What happened to Stan?

I always listened to the H&V demo and heard Brian sing the opening "Hero's" verse, then go into "I'm in great shape" and presumed that the lyric was "Flashing arrows 'round my head, mornings tumbled out of bed". I pictured Brian dreaming the opening "H&V" section and just as the arrows flashed around his head, he woke up from the dream. It has never sounded like ".... ..... air" to me.

I always hear "Upper country" also.

And on the Oppenheim notes, the "Open Country Song" is followed by "Sunshine".
So, on this mid December day, Brian sat there in his living room, played "Child Is The Father Of Man" for the camera, then"Hereos & Villains", "Open Country" and "Sunshine", followed by "Surf's Up".

I always thought it was pretty clear that Wonderful is about a girl growing up and hitting puberty-'God reached softly and moved her body'; 'through the recess, the chalk and numbers';   and losing her virginity-'A Boy bumped into her Wonderful'. And 'lost it all to a non believer'-She lost her virginity so someone who wasn't as pure as she was, who didn't share her ideals.

Not bothering to quote cos it's huge, but hey Fishmonk. Btw I'm sorry if I'm coming off as hostile, this sort of thing should be encouraged really.

Being smart IS about making connections! I'm struggling to think of another way to describe the analysis of literature. Trying to find the links of wordplay. But what I'm trying to say is that it's more of a question of Van Dyke's intent. They wrote all the songs in an atmosphere of what all parties seem to agree was incredibly creative and quick for Brian, who never had the longest attention span, and so Van Dyke had to keep up. Did they sit about and discuss them? I bet they did. Brian was also into his Subud and oriental psychology and the rest of that, so obviously he could keep up with Van Dyke's allusion. I'm guess I'm saying you are reading things into Van Dyke's lyrics that he did not intend to go there. But then that's cool. People read Freud into Shakespeare, despite the obvious. So again, I should not be dismissive of your efforts.

But i think we disagree about the nature of intoxication of the mind. I have not experienced 'new and interesting pathways of thought' (to paraphrase your line of reasoning) upon inhaling, indeed the opposite has occured. I think that whole drugs issue, bear in mind we are talking about a guy who took acid THREE times, is mostly responsible for the silliness of SMiLE - laughter, humour records, vegetables (which is actually quite a modern POV, so it seems a shame to cheapen it with drug connotations) etc - than the intellectual side. Intoxication doesn't really help the intellectual faculty, imo - my previous post, for example, composed after a large quantity of rum.  ;D

Why should he explain his lyrics? He doesn't have to. He has said very disparaging things about his own lyrical ability, though. Something along the lines of 'I just throw words that sound nice together in there'. I don't think he was talking about Smile, though, and hell he's probably just being modest. He does talk a lot about them in the latest Priore smile book, fwiw.

And of course they're country songs! One's called Barnyard and has animal noises on it, you know. Great Shape is harder to pin down, I'll grant you. But then it's hard enough to decipher the damn lyrics anyway  ;D I think it's 'Fresh clean air' and 'Open country'. But the eggs and grits and lickety splits are just a) fantastic sounding b) the cliches rearranged a lot so they sound 'new'. And it's another matter entirely to think it could have been part of H&V at one point.... This sort of close criticism is tricky to pull out of your hat, isn't it?

My Vegetables point was supposed to mean that he and Brian didn't actually see eye to eye on the humour stuff - fire hats, vege-tables, goofing off around the recording studio. I think VDP (not unreasonably) would have wanted Brian to finish things like Cabin Essence instead of gathering around the mic and joking about. He always seems kinda awkward in those situations, which is obviously just my take on what I can hear.

We agree on the 'Dumb Angel' point. I was referring to guitar clad idiots making concept albums and thinking they're smarter than they actually are, as opposed to Smile which isn't about being smart at all. The whole Smile concept is very Romantic (and not just 'Child Is The Father Of The Man', but the entire thing), but I don't think I can formulate the Wordsworth-Wilson connection without a few more cups of coffee  ;D

God, that's a long post.

This is a good point, I think. 
Different senses of humor brought on by different ways of being brought up?  Brian and family had a  west Coast somewhat suburban upbringing.
Van Dyke was southern/eastern/ anda child actor correct? So maybe a bit more "grown-up?" at an early age, and less into the self-deprecating humor brian had.

This brings to mind the so-called 'SMiLE era party', where Jules Siegel, Brian, Van Dyke, Vosse and a few others are playing a game of 'lifeboat'. At one point early on, Van Dyke suggests to 'veto the whole scene', which I gather to mean he has zero interest in playing along.

Sorry, somehow I posted something in the wrong thread -- so I deleted it.

I actually don't think its clear at all. That theory doesn't have any basis other than intuition. You've assumed that's what the song is about, but there's no concrete reason to think "it"=virginity or having your body "moved"=puberty. Can we say that with any certainty? I don't think so, I think it's grounded in certain assumptions.

You have to consider what "through the recess, the chalk and numbers" means, in the "it's just a girl being deflowed" interpretation, how do you account for that line? What does it mean in that context? Is the recess her vagina, that the boy must pass through to bump into her? In that case what are the chalk and numbers?

"Farther down the path was a mystery"
"Through the recess, the chalk and numbers"
"a boy bumped into her..."

So how does the second line fit it? Is it tied to the first line, saying that to get to the "mystery" you first need to go through the recess/chalk/numbers. How can you interpret that? This reading is really tantalizing because passing through a "recess" makes sense, but its hard to know how you pass through "the chalk" and the "numbers". There are cliffs and caves and tunnels of chalk, and "numbers" could mean "people". Do you think these things represent some type of challenges that must be overcome, some type of journey in the metaphysical sense that we all pass through?

Or is it saying that the boy bumped into her "through" the recess/chalk/numbers? What could that mean, that the recess/chalk/numbers were some type of barrier that the "boy" needed to get through in order to reach the girl? Or could it mean that he bumped into her indirectly, "through" those things, that by them she experienced his presence. In that case we could read "he" as being God, with the line saying perhaps, through the mundane everyday things we experience we feel God's presence. This is actually so far my favored interpretation, it seems to make the most sense of any of the possibilities we have.


And what about "she knew how to gather the forest"? How does that fit into the virginity thing? Even if you stick with that strict interpretation that this song is only a love song, you must consider that line and place it in the context of your interpretation. You must account for it, otherwise you're willfully ignoring what the song actually says, picking and choosing the parts you want to give primacy too, which is a dishonest mode of analysis.
So what does it mean to gather the forest? To me that brings to mind the image of Snow White or some other Disney character doing chores with the help of animals. That's just the image that it gives me. If anyone has anything better, let me know.

I just think that going out of your way to do crazy, wild interpretations is one thing, but what we're talking about here is just actually looking at the actual lines of the song and trying to sort them out. What some of you want to do is to just wave away parts that don't obviously fit into the common interpretation, and you want to read some lines in an overly simplified manner without really paying attention to what they actually say, like in I'm In Great Shape.

Perhaps "the path was a mystery" refers to life itself? For a teenager, the path of life is indeed a mystery. Perhaps "recess" and "chalk" are nothing more than references to school? It is only after you go through the "chalk " and "numbers" that you reach a legal age of boys being allowed to bump into you.  ;D

If SMiLE as a whole is "Americana personified", then I tend to think that Wonderful is "innocence personified".

Just one slight problem with that that struck me,
why is it THE recess and not recesses? Honestly if you have to go through 15 years of school to get to "the mystery", and "recess" is only supposed to refer to the thing you do at school, would you have to go through a lot of them? I dunno about you guys but when I was in grade school we had recess twice a day.
The fact that it's singular is a good sign that there is something going on more in this song.

If we are really going to examine these lyrics we could say that Brian's humor had something to do with the "she knew how to gather the forest" line - "Hey Parks, write a lyric that will confuse the hell out of everyone trying to interpret it." - highly unlikely, but if we are going to look into every possibility, this is one.

To me, 'Wonderful' is a matured version of any previous Beach Boys song - It is a girl wanting to get independence (Fun Fun Fun). It is a girl who travels down a path and "bumps" into a boy (Don't Worry Baby). It is just Brian's baroque pop homage to previous Beach Boys songs (regarding love) - while at the same time saying "We've grown up."

Excerpt regarding the song 'Wonderful' from a Stylus magazine article about SMiLE by Ed Howard


Part I: http://www.stylusmagazine.com/feature.php?ID=59 (http://www.stylusmagazine.com/feature.php?ID=59)
Part II: http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/smile-the-definitive-lost-album-part-two.htm (http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/smile-the-definitive-lost-album-part-two.htm)

Hey, you know what I did? I looked up what VDP said in Priore's book!


So it's about boys and girls. And ascribing sexual metaphors to absolutely everything is lazy criticism. 'Boy bumped into her 'wonderful'' i can see. Through the 'recess' is you searching for cheap inneundo.

And you know why it's 'recess' and not 'recesses'? 'Recesses' doesn't scan with the melody, sounds stupid, and everyone gets the damn reference with the singular anyway. Somethings are really just that simple. Go get some fresh air or something.

There's no question that "recess" is a play-on-words evoking both a crevice and free-time for children at school. "Chalk and numbers" is there to make sure you don't miss the second meaning.

Perhaps this has been suggested before, but reading the opening line "She belongs there left with her liberty" again, I was struck that perhaps "she" is America. Certainly, Parks is writing about a boy-girl relationship, but maybe he's using that as a metaphor for the loss of innocence in the U.S. The ideal of America, or perhaps freedom itself, is what the boy bumps into. But that freedom becomes mishandled. The "non-believer" represents those who wish to put limits on freedom, political freedom or freedom of expression. But like the idea in "Surf's Up" that the children will triumph over the collapsing traditions of their parents, America will return with her liberty intact if it can rediscover its innocence.

"Through the recess, the chalk and numbers"

maybe i'm crazy... but could this possibly refer to birth control pills?

You are crazy  >:D

And what I think you want to do is try and argue with everybody's view point. I told you that the lyrics to me are about a girl growing up, plain and simple. And you told me I was wrong. So from now on, I guess when I 'think' a song is about something, I'll get your OK first. I mean, I get your schtick-you're one of the 'deep thinkers' on here, the ones that want to find deep meanings in everything, even if there aren't any. It's cute, to a point. Nah, not really.

My opinon is that even Van DYke would have trouble explaining what he meant because he meant everything and nothing by free verse. I have a feeling he riffed and left us to find our meaning if any.

Just to get back to the very first post for a moment...

When we say Surf's Up Pt. 2, do we mean the music for the second half of the song? The second movement?

Personally, I can't fathom why it would have never been recorded? The music for almost all of the major pieces appeared to be complete and while Brian went on to revise some of the songs, all the vocals were overdubbed onto songs that we could pretty much call complete. Why, then, would Surf's Up (clearly an important track to Brian) be left unrecorded and why would the boys be putting vocals on a song that was incomplete?

 :lol
Seriously guys, you're just as bad as I am. You're the ones getting pissed off that someone is, in your opinion, over analyzing lyrics on a message board.

Yes, when folks around here talk about "Surf's Up Part 2," they mean a studio instrumental track for the final two minutes or so of the song (i.e., corresponding to the lyrics, "Dove-nested towers..." onward).  It'll be a dream come true for diehard fans if this piece has finally been located.

Indeed it would be.

It would seem strange that Brian never recorded anything for it, but my guess has always been that he intended to come back to it later (after the new year, perhaps), but once his primary objective became finding a single, the album tracks took a back seat.  Finishing "Surf's Up" became secondary to getting the next single finished and released.  Of course, we all know how that turned out and what it meant for the album as a whole.

Certainly, that's possible.

But I just don't understand. According to AGD's site, there were three full sessions for Surf's Up before a vocal session, which also included Cabin Essence, Wonderful, and Surf's Up (incidentally, what happened to these December 15th recordings? And I apologize for asking because surely this has been asked and answered repeatedly). I find it difficult to believe that all that would happen and we'd only end up with half a song. After all, this all seemed to be happening at a time when Brian was voracious in the studio and, also, quite focused. The idea that he put it aside, while being indeed a possibility, doesn't quite jive with everything that was going on.

But, then again, there's also the fact that so much has been released through boots and that hasn't.

But, then again, it was years before we knew there was music for I'm in Great Shape that wasn't I Want To Be Around/Friday Night.

That's brilliant!  ;D I never made the connection myself, but now it seems so glaringly obvious. Good catch.  ;)

Everyone, check out this image: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=6358897&postcount=35 (http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=6358897&postcount=35)

The poster claims that these are real. Enjoy!

Anything that shows DaDa as water can't really be real.  Not in the sense of what would have been.

I suspect that if VDP were a member of this board, or reading our comments, he would be amused and intrigued. I don't *think* that he would be overly annoyed or angry. Hell, he might gain an insight or two himself and even agree with us.  ;D Or at least see our point(s) about certain lyrics.

Interesting observation but it doesn't quite ring true with several of the album's thematic concerns. In the words of Van Dyke Parks: "There was an obsession to reject anything that smacked of patriotism." This is certainly the case in several songs that work to undermine traditional American assumptions of manifest destiny. Do You Like Worms? calls attention to the displacement and ultimate destruction of Native American society, while Cabin Essence uncovers (and I use that word on purpose) the repressed history of Asian workers who helped bring white Easterners to the West (or the frontier) to make the fortune that said Asians were themselves kept from having. The lyrics typically challenge the conception of an "American ideal" rather than support it. I think Wonderful does fit in here -- we've been treated to Plymouth Rock, with DYLW? which puts us squarely in the location and time period of the height of New England Puritanism. Indeed, she belongs there, in the Puritan dream of the city upon a hill, treated to liberty, but also repressed sexuality. Again, Parks and Wilson challenge this by having the girl encounter someone who is sexually open. Instead of rejecting her religious beliefs, she simply revises them to account for her new found sexuality.

Yeah, they look like Capitol labels from what, 2005?  
Nice of him to post his fakes, tho...

Here's a Wild Honey for comparison:  
(http://i730.photobucket.com/albums/ww302/bgasnow/scan0002-4.jpg)

Well, the 23 Jan. 1967 Surf's Up tracking session that has never turned up anywhere. It wasn't in the vault in 1971 when Desper was working on Surf's Up and it hasn't turned up since unless something changed recently. AFAIK we don't know if he was re-recording Part 1 or a backing track for the 2nd half of the song. We do know it was for Surf's Up and the collection of instruments at the session doesn't match any other Smile session in circulation. There was another session that night but I don't think it is known if it was for Surf's Up or something else. I'm sure c-man and others here have more info..

Mike Love would have had something to say about not being given a credit on Good Vibrations.

I think you may be using Parks' quote out of context. My understanding is that he was distressed that all things American were being ridiculed and dismissed as phony patriotism (especially in the way the British rock music invasion had culturally overshadowed American musicians). His lyrical concern for SMiLE was an attempt to present what he perceived as the truth about America, both good and bad. Writing about this was something he thought was so uncool that it would become cool.

I didn't want to politicize my fanciful analysis of "Wonderful", but the "non-believers" could very well be something like the House On Un-American Activities Committee, destroying lives through misguided patriotism. I agree with you that Parks' lyrics are not blindly patriotic, but I believe he was attempting to address a core value that the country was founded on and the ways it had deviated from that value. It's not surprising that only a few years later Parks released an album entitled DISCOVER AMERICA with songs about "G-Man Hoover", FDR and Bing Crosby!

Yes, I would agree with this. Certainly Parks believes it is crucial for Americans to write as Americans. His songs, after all, are riddled with American references and are highly indebted to Poe (he elsewhere described Cabin Essence as Gothic).


Here's where we might part ways a bit. I think that bringing in the House of Un-American Activities is somewhat of a stretch - there's not much in the song or elsewhere in the album that alludes to this sort of thing. Parks appears to interested in reaching further back in American history to, really, the origins of American mythology.

I think the lyrics of Do You Like Worms unsettles this notion of "core American values" suggesting instead that America was founded on an act of aggression and repression. This, incidentally, runs though a lot of Parks's lyrics. In Song Cycle he has a song where he brings up both Jim Crow laws and the taking of Mexican land in the same song!

To be honest, I think it is impossible to not politicize Parks's lyrics since they demand that kind of reading.


Well, yes, but even in that album, Parks is challenging what we mean when we call ourselves "American". After all, the definition of American, from the point of view of the United States, typically excludes places like Trinidad & Tobago, which play a big role in that album. When Parks says "Discover America" he is calling attention to the imperial practices that are at the very core of "discovery" (Columbus's "discovery" for example, was part of an imperial and consequently exploitative mission) as well as the voices that are typically excluded in the name "America". And it is precisely these excluded voices that he calls our attention to in Smile as well.

*Koff* Parks didn't write any of the songs on Discover America. They are calypso tunes originating from Trinidadian musicians (and Lowell George).....

Yes. But that doesn't challenge my point about what the album is doing or what Parks is doing by calling the album containing those songs and the music, "Discover America".

That is true!  ;D

I really think we're generally in agreement here and just getting hung up on semantics. "Core American values" is not a very appealing, or appropriate, term when referencing the SMiLE lyrics (or Parks lyrics in general), but I couldn't think of another way to state it. I'll only suggest that I believe Parks is attempting to comment on the America of 1966 by way of reaching back into history. "Surf's Up", for example, seems to be more "present tense" despite it's historical allusions.