SMiLE Sessions box set!

[18thofMay]

According to legend, Heros & Villian were Greek heros. Both had fallen in love with a virgin who danced in the court of the gods, and came to violent blows during a torrential rainstorm, fighting for the dancer's hand in marriage.

Just as each was about to slay the other with their raised swords, she threw herself between them and died instantly, both swords piercing her heart.

She was said to to haunt that spot ever more, dancing in the moonlight.

Her name? Margueritos.






I made that up.

I Believe

[Heysaboda]

BT's been around these boards long enough to deserve better.

By that logic, I should be utterly f**king revered. But I'm not. Life's odd that way sometimes. 

Among the cognoscenti, you are "highly prized".

[Zach95]

According to legend, Heros & Villian were Greek heros. Both had fallen in love with a virgin who danced in the court of the gods, and came to violent blows during a torrential rainstorm, fighting for the dancer's hand in marriage.

Just as each was about to slay the other with their raised swords, she threw herself between them and died instantly, both swords piercing her heart.

She was said to to haunt that spot ever more, dancing in the moonlight.

Her name? Margueritos.






I made that up.

The insane part of me wanted to believe that until I read "I made that up"...then I just started laughing uncontrollably 

[earcandy]

Of course, all will be revealed when this is released next month...




 
Soon to be a major motion picture!

[SMiLE Brian]

Earcandy is a photoshop and comedic genius...

[18thofMay]

How many fingers is Brian holding up??

[rab2591]

earcandy you just made my fantastic day even better! brilliant.

Even Bill will probably have to give you props on this one.

[Bill Tobelman]

Andrew G. Doe said:

Brian didn't spell it that way. That's not his writing, and it's spelled that way because whoever wrote the title on that tape box (and I won't embarrass them by saying who it was) couldn't spell psychedelic correctly, having never had to write it down before. Occam's Razor applies perfectly here. Bill, you're starting to make a fool of yourself again. Best stop.

Didn't Brian Wilson make a complete fool of himself when he searched David Anderle's painting for meaning Andrew? Why would he do such a dumb thing Andrew? He obviously is a fool (unlike yourself).

Frank Holmes is a fool too Andrew. Right? His dopey essay in the SMiLE Sessions booklet talks about discovery in science & relates it to discovery in art. Pretty stupid huh Andrew? That might lead someone to look to art for hidden meanings and we both know how insufferably stupid people who seek deeper meanings in things are. Right Andrew?

And that sickening Tom Nolan article in the booklet with that crap about about Van Dyke's lyrics and hidden deeper meanings. Ugh. Anyone who subscribes to such ideas must be an ignorant fellow. Right Andrew? Anyone who might even consider looking for such deeper meanings must be ignorant beyond belief, right Andrew?

All of those sickeningly stupid fools "best stop" right Andrew? SMiLE sure wasn't about looking for deeper meanings. We'll leave that task to the ignorant fools.

[hypehat]

Now come on, Bill, whose ego are we really talking about here?

Let's try this one again, shall we?

[Bill Tobelman]

Does truth have an ego?

[bgas]

It's the end of the truth as we know it, and I feel fine

[18thofMay]

Does truth have an ego?

The most striking feature of the paranoiac's delusional system is its inner consistency, and the patient's uncanny persuasiveness in expounding it.
AK.

[Bill Tobelman]

Thanks go out to David Beard for including my latest article in Endless Summer Quarterly.

ESQ is the best Beach Boys mag around & is highly recommended.

Anyway, the typesetting on my piece is different then intended. The parts from Koestler's book were meant to appear in italics. The idea was for the reader to pick up upon the distinction based upon the context & the visual (without explanation). Perhaps I screwed up trying to send David the file.

In any case the "as intended" article can be found here with a few extras.

http://www.smileriddle.com/page21.htm

I honestly tried very hard to present something special this time around that could explain things far better than the crappy job I've obviously been doing to this point.

[Micha]

Of course, all will be revealed when this is released next month...




 
Soon to be a major motion picture!

The European version contains a whole bonus disc filled with the sound of one hand clapping.

Sorry, Bill, I like you, but I couldn't resist.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Andrew G. Doe said:

Brian didn't spell it that way. That's not his writing, and it's spelled that way because whoever wrote the title on that tape box (and I won't embarrass them by saying who it was) couldn't spell psychedelic correctly, having never had to write it down before. Occam's Razor applies perfectly here. Bill, you're starting to make a fool of yourself again. Best stop.

Didn't Brian Wilson make a complete fool of himself when he searched David Anderle's painting for meaning Andrew? Why would he do such a dumb thing Andrew? He obviously is a fool (unlike yourself).

Frank Holmes is a fool too Andrew. Right? His dopey essay in the SMiLE Sessions booklet talks about discovery in science & relates it to discovery in art. Pretty stupid huh Andrew? That might lead someone to look to art for hidden meanings and we both know how insufferably stupid people who seek deeper meanings in things are. Right Andrew?

And that sickening Tom Nolan article in the booklet with that crap about about Van Dyke's lyrics and hidden deeper meanings. Ugh. Anyone who subscribes to such ideas must be an ignorant fellow. Right Andrew? Anyone who might even consider looking for such deeper meanings must be ignorant beyond belief, right Andrew?

All of those sickeningly stupid fools "best stop" right Andrew? SMiLE sure wasn't about looking for deeper meanings. We'll leave that task to the ignorant fools.

Looks to me like someone's misplaced their zen calm. I wasn't talking about them, Bill, but you. Last time you were beating us over the head with the "Surfing Saints" text until we - OK, I - discovered that it was nothing whatsoever to do with Smile or Brian but was rather merely magazine filler (and you had the grace and courage to admit you were wrong, major props for that), and now you've tried to prove that Brian was stating an intent by using something that isn't even in his handwriting, a fact which was established several months ago (and I know what Brian's script looks like because I studied it when those faked 1964 letters came up for auction at Christies some time back, and they accepted the evidence I provided for them). I'm reminded of something I heard at the beginning of a course in statistics I took back at college: the tutor said this - "Statistic is a wonderful science: if you assemble enough data and juggle it long enough, you will get the result you're looking for". That's what you're doing here. Rather than developing your premise from the evidence, you're looking for evidence to fit your theory and distorting said evidence as required.

Oh, and as for all the above, well, maybe they're lying to preserve Brian's great cosmic joke - that Smile is just music. Great, important, amazing music to be sure, but just music. The ultimate humor album. :-)

[Andrew G. Doe]

Phooey. Double post.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Is it really that big a deal to have a very specific theoretical model applied (and re-applied...) to a really exciting work? I mean, I'm not a fan of psychoanalytic literary theory, but if an article appears in a journal using that model, I don't have to engage with it. But if I do, frustratingly, I usually learn something I hadn't considered before.  And it never hurts to be civil, or at least, to tone down the condescension.  BT's been around these boards long enough to deserve better.

Well, at the risk of sounding condescending, I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare Bill's thoughts to arguments that appear in scholarly journals.

From an academic standpoint, the discussion is not very provocative or illuminating. Under legitimate circumstances, if you are applying a specific theoretical model, you are doing it to help illuminate your own argument that you might be making about a text. That's not what Bill is doing. Rather, he is taking two texts (an album and a theory) and showing how they validate each other. In other words, he's setting out to prove Koestler's argument by suggesting it was fulfilled by Smile. This isn't an argument - or, if it is, it's simply making Koestler's argument for Koestler, since Koestler, as far as I know, never formed an argument about Smile. This is the sort of blatant mistake that one hopes can be overcome after being in an undergraduate program. Consequently, it is enormously unconvicing when Tobelman suggests that Wilson et al. were visionaries because they merely set out to prove someone else's philosophy - hardly visionary. If Bill's claims were at all true, then that would make Smile precisely the opposite of what Bill says it is - it would be utterly creatively bankrupt. Thankfully there is more to the album than just fulfilling someone else's theories. So the fact that there really is no argument is a striking and crucial problem to begin with.

But once you get passed that, what you'll find is a serious lack of understanding of how to draw conclusions on the basis of real evidence and this is mostly a consequence of not knowing what evidence actually is. When doing a textual analysis, the first thing you are taught is that whether you like it or not, you have to deal with the text and then draw your conclusions from there, not shift the text around to suit the conclusions you've reached. So, for example, in the thread "I'm in Great Shape", Bill suggests that the lyrics to Heroes and Villains are connected to a hallucination that Brian had in a bookstore. The evidence? Heroes and villains are commonly found in books. This, I'm afraid, is not a serious analysis - there is absolutely no logical sense in such a speculation.

And more over, there are times when he doesn't seem to understand his central source material, namely Arthur Koestler. In that same thread, Bill notes that "'heroes and villains' are opposites which Arthur Koestler maintains coexist quite well in dreams & hallucinations, and since this surreal bookstore scene was a hallucination this phrase works quite well." Bill somewhat misses the point here when he suggests that opposites "coexist quite well in dreams & hallucinations." Whether they coexist quite well is not really the point. Koestler is particularly interested in paradox - and the role that paradox plays in humour. Sure, I suppose, opposites can coexist quite well in dreams and hallucinations but they can coexist anywhere - apples and oranges can coexist on my fruit tray, a Master and slave could live on the same grounds pre-Civil War, etc. What interests Koestler is the thing that is both hero and villain at the same time, apple and orange at the same time, and Master and slave at the same time. Those sorts of things are harder to imagine in real life. One can see how this collapsed opposition works better in dreams and hallucinations. So the fact that Brian simply uses two oppositional figures has really, absolutely nothing to do with Koestler here. What he would have to do would be collapse the boundary between hero and villain and I really don't get the sense that he does this in Heroes and Villains.

So, the discussion, as far as I'm concerned has very little use value but it is nice that it helps Bill enjoy the album. But the fact that he presents his claim and then virtually calls Brian, Van Dyke, and Frank Holmes geniuses for coming up with an idea that only Bill himself has ever suggested makes the whole thing seem like a vanity project and the rhetoric itself is enough to de-legitimize the whole facile production, in my opinion.

[earcandy]

How many fingers is Brian holding up??

Three...one for each "movement"!   

[18thofMay]

Is it really that big a deal to have a very specific theoretical model applied (and re-applied...) to a really exciting work? I mean, I'm not a fan of psychoanalytic literary theory, but if an article appears in a journal using that model, I don't have to engage with it. But if I do, frustratingly, I usually learn something I hadn't considered before.  And it never hurts to be civil, or at least, to tone down the condescension.  BT's been around these boards long enough to deserve better.

Well, at the risk of sounding condescending, I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare Bill's thoughts to arguments that appear in scholarly journals.

From an academic standpoint, the discussion is not very provocative or illuminating. Under legitimate circumstances, if you are applying a specific theoretical model, you are doing it to help illuminate your own argument that you might be making about a text. That's not what Bill is doing. Rather, he is taking two texts (an album and a theory) and showing how they validate each other. In other words, he's setting out to prove Koestler's argument by suggesting it was fulfilled by Smile. This isn't an argument - or, if it is, it's simply making Koestler's argument for Koestler, since Koestler, as far as I know, never formed an argument about Smile. This is the sort of blatant mistake that one hopes can be overcome after being in an undergraduate program. Consequently, it is enormously unconvicing when Tobelman suggests that Wilson et al. were visionaries because they merely set out to prove someone else's philosophy - hardly visionary. If Bill's claims were at all true, then that would make Smile precisely the opposite of what Bill says it is - it would be utterly creatively bankrupt. Thankfully there is more to the album than just fulfilling someone else's theories. So the fact that there really is no argument is a striking and crucial problem to begin with.

But once you get passed that, what you'll find is a serious lack of understanding of how to draw conclusions on the basis of real evidence and this is mostly a consequence of not knowing what evidence actually is. When doing a textual analysis, the first thing you are taught is that whether you like it or not, you have to deal with the text and then draw your conclusions from there, not shift the text around to suit the conclusions you've reached. So, for example, in the thread "I'm in Great Shape", Bill suggests that the lyrics to Heroes and Villains are connected to a hallucination that Brian had in a bookstore. The evidence? Heroes and villains are commonly found in books. This, I'm afraid, is not a serious analysis - there is absolutely no logical sense in such a speculation.

And more over, there are times when he doesn't seem to understand his central source material, namely Arthur Koestler. In that same thread, Bill notes that "'heroes and villains' are opposites which Arthur Koestler maintains coexist quite well in dreams & hallucinations, and since this surreal bookstore scene was a hallucination this phrase works quite well." Bill somewhat misses the point here when he suggests that opposites "coexist quite well in dreams & hallucinations." Whether they coexist quite well is not really the point. Koestler is particularly interested in paradox - and the role that paradox plays in humour. Sure, I suppose, opposites can coexist quite well in dreams and hallucinations but they can coexist anywhere - apples and oranges can coexist on my fruit tray, a Master and slave could live on the same grounds pre-Civil War, etc. What interests Koestler is the thing that is both hero and villain at the same time, apple and orange at the same time, and Master and slave at the same time. Those sorts of things are harder to imagine in real life. One can see how this collapsed opposition works better in dreams and hallucinations. So the fact that Brian simply uses two oppositional figures has really, absolutely nothing to do with Koestler here. What he would have to do would be collapse the boundary between hero and villain and I really don't get the sense that he does this in Heroes and Villains.

So, the discussion, as far as I'm concerned has very little use value but it is nice that it helps Bill enjoy the album. But the fact that he presents his claim and then virtually calls Brian, Van Dyke, and Frank Holmes geniuses for coming up with an idea that only Bill himself has ever suggested makes the whole thing seem like a vanity project and the rhetoric itself is enough to de-legitimize the whole facile production, in my opinion.

Wow

[UK_Surf]

Well, I take your point, and the academic journal analogy was never going to stand up to serious scrutiny when compared with an MB. But pushing that point to a further extreme, by that logic, each of our pet smile theories is actually an ego-driven vanity project at some level (which is actually well worth remembering in a 'casting the first stone' kinda way). 

But I think what you're objecting to is the lack of a transactional conversation, a bit of give and take, which is a fair point in this case.  What I'm objecting to is trying to surmount that obstacle by condescension, name-calling, and ganging up on people (and I'm not the first to point it out). 

Look, everyone goes off on tangents from time to time, and takes arguments to a fairly unreachable place; and assuming it doesn't cross the line into insults and/or hate, is that really such a big deal that we can't just shrug our shoulders, say 'fair dues', and maybe shift the conversation for a while?  I've enjoyed reading Bill's posts over the years, most folks are fairly familiar with his position, and although I don't often agree with his main arguments or rhetoric, his insights have deepened my understanding  of the Smile scene, and many excellent MB conversations have been enriched by his contributions (and those of the scholarly force that is AGD). Just thought it needed saying.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Well, I take your point, and the academic journal analogy was never going to stand up to serious scrutiny when compared with an MB. But pushing that point to a further extreme, by that logic, each of our pet smile theories is actually an ego-driven vanity project at some level (which is actually well worth remembering in a 'casting the first stone' kinda way).  

But I think what you're objecting to is the lack of a transactional conversation, a bit of give and take, which is a fair point in this case.  What I'm objecting to is trying to surmount that obstacle by condescension, name-calling, and ganging up on people (and I'm not the first to point it out).  

Look, everyone goes off on tangents from time to time, and takes arguments to a fairly unreachable place; and assuming it doesn't cross the line into insults and/or hate, is that really such a big deal that we can't just shrug our shoulders, say 'fair dues', and maybe shift the conversation for a while?  I've enjoyed reading Bill's posts over the years, most folks are fairly familiar with his position, and although I don't often agree with his main arguments or rhetoric, his insights have deepened my understanding  of the Smile scene, and many excellent MB conversations have been enriched by his contributions (and those of the scholarly force that is AGD). Just thought it needed saying.

Just as I take exception to someone calling me a liar, a thief and a phony, I'm consistent in taking exception to someone who, in the course of trying to impose their own highly debatable theory on all of us, is not only arrogant enough to believe that they and only they have happened upon The Answer but also informs us that we are too stupid, ignorant or insufficiently spiritual enough to even begin to grasp their discovery. When said individual also admits that "I use the Zen thing to basically bug squares" - that is, trolling - then shrugging shoulders and chuckling before moving on isn't an option. Bill's admitted he writes stuff to get a reaction (again, with the inference of superiority - we're squares, he's hip), so he should expect to be treated with something less than kid gloves in response.

Additionally, there is no transactional conversation, no give and take: Bill's hip, enlightened and right while the rest of us are square, stupid and wrong. Like I said, the very definition of a bigot. I'm right because you're wrong.

[18thofMay]

How many fingers is Brian holding up??

Three...one for each "movement"!   

Love it

[The Demon]

Is it really that big a deal to have a very specific theoretical model applied (and re-applied...) to a really exciting work? I mean, I'm not a fan of psychoanalytic literary theory, but if an article appears in a journal using that model, I don't have to engage with it. But if I do, frustratingly, I usually learn something I hadn't considered before.  And it never hurts to be civil, or at least, to tone down the condescension.  BT's been around these boards long enough to deserve better.

Well, at the risk of sounding condescending, I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare Bill's thoughts to arguments that appear in scholarly journals.

From an academic standpoint, the discussion is not very provocative or illuminating. Under legitimate circumstances, if you are applying a specific theoretical model, you are doing it to help illuminate your own argument that you might be making about a text. That's not what Bill is doing. Rather, he is taking two texts (an album and a theory) and showing how they validate each other. In other words, he's setting out to prove Koestler's argument by suggesting it was fulfilled by Smile. This isn't an argument - or, if it is, it's simply making Koestler's argument for Koestler, since Koestler, as far as I know, never formed an argument about Smile. This is the sort of blatant mistake that one hopes can be overcome after being in an undergraduate program. Consequently, it is enormously unconvicing when Tobelman suggests that Wilson et al. were visionaries because they merely set out to prove someone else's philosophy - hardly visionary. If Bill's claims were at all true, then that would make Smile precisely the opposite of what Bill says it is - it would be utterly creatively bankrupt. Thankfully there is more to the album than just fulfilling someone else's theories. So the fact that there really is no argument is a striking and crucial problem to begin with.

But once you get passed that, what you'll find is a serious lack of understanding of how to draw conclusions on the basis of real evidence and this is mostly a consequence of not knowing what evidence actually is. When doing a textual analysis, the first thing you are taught is that whether you like it or not, you have to deal with the text and then draw your conclusions from there, not shift the text around to suit the conclusions you've reached. So, for example, in the thread "I'm in Great Shape", Bill suggests that the lyrics to Heroes and Villains are connected to a hallucination that Brian had in a bookstore. The evidence? Heroes and villains are commonly found in books. This, I'm afraid, is not a serious analysis - there is absolutely no logical sense in such a speculation.

And more over, there are times when he doesn't seem to understand his central source material, namely Arthur Koestler. In that same thread, Bill notes that "'heroes and villains' are opposites which Arthur Koestler maintains coexist quite well in dreams & hallucinations, and since this surreal bookstore scene was a hallucination this phrase works quite well." Bill somewhat misses the point here when he suggests that opposites "coexist quite well in dreams & hallucinations." Whether they coexist quite well is not really the point. Koestler is particularly interested in paradox - and the role that paradox plays in humour. Sure, I suppose, opposites can coexist quite well in dreams and hallucinations but they can coexist anywhere - apples and oranges can coexist on my fruit tray, a Master and slave could live on the same grounds pre-Civil War, etc. What interests Koestler is the thing that is both hero and villain at the same time, apple and orange at the same time, and Master and slave at the same time. Those sorts of things are harder to imagine in real life. One can see how this collapsed opposition works better in dreams and hallucinations. So the fact that Brian simply uses two oppositional figures has really, absolutely nothing to do with Koestler here. What he would have to do would be collapse the boundary between hero and villain and I really don't get the sense that he does this in Heroes and Villains.

So, the discussion, as far as I'm concerned has very little use value but it is nice that it helps Bill enjoy the album. But the fact that he presents his claim and then virtually calls Brian, Van Dyke, and Frank Holmes geniuses for coming up with an idea that only Bill himself has ever suggested makes the whole thing seem like a vanity project and the rhetoric itself is enough to de-legitimize the whole facile production, in my opinion.

Great post.  In Bill's defense, what he's saying is really no different than scores of fans proclaiming Smile's masterpiece status, brilliance, importance, etc.  None of those arguments are made with evidence because those are subjective views.  You'll never prove them.  And in comparison, Bill's posts are way more interesting.

[Bill Tobelman]

Looks to me like someone's misplaced their zen calm. I wasn't talking about them, Bill, but you.

Yes, you were talking about me (meaning me) and how stupid I was to be looking for meaning from a tape box spelling which you assumed (meaning assumed) was due to a spelling error on the part of the person who wrote it (who wasn't Brian). Perhaps you are correct about the person's spelling, but your reference to me making a fool of myself was aimed at my looking into the tape box spelling for a deeper meaning.

And yes I was the one who then referred to Brian, Frank, Tom, and Van Dyke by pointing out that their SMiLE era actions and admissions indicate that the process of looking for deeper meaning is completely appropriate for this piece of art. Perhaps you missed my point (and is so you will likely blame me for the confusion and try to diminish & marginalize me for not meeting your impeccable level of standards for which you are judge & jury).

Much if not most of what I've been presenting over the years has been precisely this: looking for deeper meaning in SMiLE and presenting it to the public.

This obviously results in original ideas for people to hear and consider. People often have trouble with new ideas for to accept them means to reconfigure one's previously held beliefs.

When these original ideas fit the larger framework of events better then previously held positions and theory they then seemingly deserve to be adopted as the better explanation of things (until an improvement or better explanation comes along). You find this process in science.

This is essentially an evolutionary process and therefore it continues.

[Steve Mayo]

jesusf*ckinhchrist...i hope not...