The Smiley Smile Message Board

After all of the years and all of the theories about Smile collapsing, it seems to me that Good Vibrations being a monster hit had much more to do with the albums demise than perhaps anything else. This has been on my mind a lot since seeing L&M last June.  It really dawned on me after watching the scenes with Brian and Mike first touching on the song. Mike's lyrics, after Tony Asher and Pet Sounds, and while Smile is already in the works with some of Parks lyrics, Good Vibrations becomes their biggest single ever, as the scene with Marilyn reiterates.

I pulled up a thread, really good one by the way, started by The_Holy_Bee from 2012. This comment below by Wirestone is great.


Wirestone:
"This feels right to me. I think I posted last year that something clearly changes in the sessions as 67 dawns. Brian stops making an album and starts fixating on individual tracks. And as he does that, the re-recording and shuffling problems become greater. And he begins to see that H&V and Veggies and Dada -- none of them are surefire follow ups to Good Vibes. At which point he's screwed, right? Because what did he spend the last six or seven months doing, then?"

So, I'm not saying no one has considered this, but what I find baffling is that it seems to get lost in the Smile discussions and I would think it's the KEY reason things went awry.
 
Drugs...Mike and Parks...too many chunks of music to try and piece together....the label release date approaching .....ect.  Those reasons are not nearly as altering in the Smile timeline as Good Vibrations success. It's right there in front of us. In The_Holy_Bee thread he clearly lays out the FACTS that Smile was nearly ready in November, then this monster hit takes hold and things change.  I think Brian got spooked by GV success and wanted Smile to be a number one album, (especially since Pet Sounds did not soar)  and he became doubtful.  Then all of the unraveling began.

See below if you want the other thread I referenced. I rarely start threads but this has really been on my mind and I felt it's worth looking at freshly.
   
Holy Bee returns with latest crackpot theory: SMiLE almost done in Nov 66
« on: March 19, 2012, 08:08:38 AM »

Timeline doesn't seem to stack up: "GV" was released October 10th 1966, charted October 22nd and hit Top 20 November 5th,  #1 December 10th, thus it was an obvious hit by mid-November. Yet Brian was still holding Smile sessions late November and into December before he started concentrating on "H&V" in January 1967.

Right as usual on your dates but it does add up to me. TSS book among other things, like the track list being printed on the sleeve show that even though there were vocals to cut most of the tracks were done and not all piece mail as Holy Bee pointed out. It was 90 some percent in the can then GV just grows bigger and bigger and by January it's all on hold and Brian starts pulling a GV on Heroes and Villians. It just makes total sense to me.

90 % ?  Think not - "The Elements" alone was 75% unrecorded... "Vega-Tables" was barely begun (the "cornucopia" early version).

Not saying that in January Brian didn't loose focus big time, but I don't think it was due to "GV" being a huge hit so much as the realisation that he couldn't do a whole album that way, i.e. modularly.

Only way I can think that Good Vibes led to Smile's demise was perhaps in convincing Brian that he could apply the modular concept to basically an entire album which seems to have driven him batty and unable to complete the job.  Along with the numerous other factors.

90% in the can based on that 2012 essay by Holy Bee...and I think he is close. The elements were never supposed to be what legend turned them into IMO. I'm also talking about the twelve track listing on the back of the printed sleeve. Most people now agree since the album was only ONE record that the BWPS is not as close to what was intentionally planned. Most of that track listing on the sleeve was done by December minus some vocal sessions if I recall correctly.

Also,  the Mike and Parks clashing thing is always about personalities or "Mike didn't like the lyrics"...maybe so, but why is it never discussed that the album was progressing really well until Good Vibrations with Mikes lyrics became their biggest smash ever. If that wouldn't have caused friction, or caused Brian to rethink his work with Parks then what would. That's what hit me when I saw the movie. Like a light bulb. Guess it was just me.

I like this post a whole lot. First one in a while that's made me re-think things about The Beach Boys' history. Ambitious too.
Can't fully get behind the theory. It's just as plausible that Good Vibrations could have made him more confident in the whole modular method. Maybe it's a bit of both. I don't know.

I've been thinking if Brian was really that happy with some of VDP's lyrics. Is it coincidence that we basically have SMiLE era lead vocals for all of those songs that were rerecorded for Smiley Smile and no lead vocals for the song's that weren't? As if Brian was happy with those lyrics and not so much with the other ones.

Coming back to GV, it was kind of impossible to do a whole album the way he did GV, recording new versions again and again for months and then assemble a Frankenstein backing track from the best of the sessions. That way SMiLE would have been finished in about February 1972.

Fire - Mrs. O' Leary's Cow

Water - Various Chants and Water Sounds for 1966.

Air - Supposed instrumental attempt (as Brian hints in 1978), OR Smog Rant and Breathing skit.

Earth - Vega-Tanles Cornucopia, Earth Chants, Sleep A Lot, etc.

- Mark Linnet hinted "Child" lead vocals were once attempted.

- An I'm In Great Shape vocal session was held.

- Surf's Up Pt. 2 is rumored to be recorded instrumentally.

- Do You Like Worms? lead melody and lyrics were written.

- Fire instrumental was recorded. Water chant and sounds were recorded. Air instrumental was attempted (a piano instrumental as Brian suggested), and Earth was Vega-Tables in 1966.

All these points lead in favour that SMiLE corrupted due to financial and business related problems more than anything else, except maybe for band dynamics itself, which is a whole other area of disscussion.

I'm sorry, but I don't see a connection between your points and this conclusion. Really sorry!

Care to explain why it's listed separately from "The Elements" on the back cover ?

As for Smile being 90% complete by spring 1967... Brian has stated that he needed another year to finish it. Maybe he should have changed his name to Dennis Contrelle.  ;D

That is because of a total lack of coordination within the whole project. The printed booklet specifically claims that V-T is part of "The Elements", as we all know, while the back cover never got printed at all AFAIK. VDP also said V-T was the only part of "The Elements" he worked on.

Whether V-T was really an apt tune to be part of the same track as Fire, that's for everybody to decide for themselves.

I think the theory has merit as yet another factor that could have distracted/derailed the project.

- upped pressure to match it chart-wise
- upped pressure to top it artistically
- vindication of Mike's lyrics potentially changing the dynamic of their relationship at the time
- vindication of the modular approach

Also, I disagree that it "being a hit" is the same thing as it "hitting no. 1", particularly given the time and effort involved in producing it. The week of December 10 seems to line up with a shift in the project.

To be clear, I don't believe the Smile album was initially intended to be modular. A 30 plus minute album with a dozen separate tracks is what was apparently intended. Connected by a theme, yes, but not connected in the sense that one track flows into the next with parts of the same music interwoven. I just don't see it that way, even if that's how BWPS turned out. The reason so many Smile buffs prefer their own mix and  seemingly a majority now favor revisiting Smile as stand alone tracks rather than the 3 part suite that came out 40 years later, I would argue, is because MOST of a 12 track album was there before all of Brian's revisiting and tinkering that started after GV hit number #1. Revisit the session dates in TSS book closely and most of the pieces of music do not appear to be recorded snippets all over the place out of sequence that could all be spliced together later. It seems it turned into fragments and pieces because in '67 Brian started reworking and rethinking so much of it...especially Heroes and Villains. That seems to be where and when a lot of the material to go the modular route comes from.

The handwritten list was handed in mid-December, while the memo requesting orders for the booklet is dated December 3rd. Now, bearing in mind that Frank Holmes had to have several weeks to work up the drawings, his illustration with the caption "My Vega-tables" The Elements must date from late September/early October. Maybe the track was cherry-picked from "The Elements" to become a stand alone song. No-one knows...

Also - it is a fine distinction but - the booklet art shows "My Vega-tables" as a lyric rather than a title it seems.  So more mystery.

You can certainly make the argument that the tracking was 80-90% done, only Great Shape (whatever else was to be included in the song is unclear) and Elements are obvioulsy lacking (assuming Brian was going with the cornucopia Vegetables in November), the vocals . . . more like 50-60%.

I think it is valid to say that by September to early December of 1966, Van Dyke and Brian concieved Vega-Tables as Earth. Evidence to support this is:

- The Psychodelic Chants Boot (WHICH WAS TAPED IN NOVEMBER) includes many skits and chants, including chants related to ALL THREE of the remaining Elements. FIRE WAS CUT IN NOVEMBER. Water exists as various chants, Air exsits as the "Breathing" segment and the "Smog" rant. There also exists numerous Vega-Tables related-chants, therefore it is fair to draw the conclusion that Vega-Tables was concieved Earth in NOVEMBER or earlier.

- Van Dyke Parks has quoted that "Vega-Tables" was the only part of "The Elements" he worked on, therefore it WAS part of "The Elements"

- Van Dyke told Frank Holmes, who designed the album cover and the SMiLE booklet that "My Vega-Tables" was a part of "The Elements." The drawings and notations of the SMiLE booklet were reportedly submitted around October/December,

AFTER mid-December, Vega-Tables was SCRAPPED from The Elements. Evidence that supports this claim is:

-In December of 1966, Brian decided he had to issue "Vega-Tables" as a single. Therefore, he, Hal Blaine, and Mike Vosse(?) held a recording session in order to promote the new single.

- In late December/January, when Brian had to write a shortlist for the tracks that would appear on the album, he listed "Vega-Tables" as a seperate track from "The Elements."

Wait a minute, this is either news to me or you are rewriting history here, please backup your statements, they are pretty bold:
- What's this VT recording session to "promote" the single? are you talking about the skit on hawthorne with the backing fade? wasn't that a late 90's recreation?
- Where are you getting that Van Dyke told Frank Holmes that "My Vega-Tables" was a part of "The Elements."? I've never heard that. In light of the drawings, you can assume, of course, but did VDP actually tell FH that VT was part of the Elements?

On the contrary, I think this is actually a pretty common theory. Anyone looking at the sessions for the first time would be shocked to see work on nearly everything halted in December and come the new year suddenly its all Heroes for three months solid, followed by brief flirtations with Veggies and Dada and then back to Heroes and Smiley again. It seems pretty clear he wanted to have a big song equal to GV on the album and as a followup single, and for some reason I still cant figure out, he picked the least commercial song on the album and reworked it endlessly to try to make it more commercial. But Ive heard people say since I got here that it was all a lost cause from the get go. Heroes is just not a good enough standalone single to match GV and it was never going to be. Ive always felt he shouldve just done Surfs Up--even a stripped down one like the Wild Honey version--because it was demoed on TV and would be a surefire hit by that alone. Plus it would be the perfect counterpoint to GV if it was stripped down, and the title would be the perfect trojan horse. It wouldve really kept their audience on their toes, wondering what to expect from this new album with all the surprises from the Beach Boys camp with a one-two punch like that. Also, I dont see why there was this urgency for a new single anyway--youve already got one at the top of the charts. Take another two or three months to finish the album, Brian, and THEN worry about picking and possibly reworking a song for a second single. But...what's done is done, sadly.

You're confused - the idea to release Vegetables as a single instead of Heroes was in March 67 after sessions for Heroes came to a halt.  The Vegetables skit was never slated or referred to at the time as a promo- Hawthorne referred to it as a promo but there is no evidence for that, only speculation without any basis.  At the time the Vegetables arguments were taped Vegetables was presumably still part of the Elements.  So what did Brian intend to do with the Veggie skit?  Brian was talking about a comedy album separate from Smile . . . he was recording other skits at this time (falling into microphone, falling into piano, having Diane tell stupid jokes, etc) whose purpose is also unknown . . . Perhaps he was thinking of using a short excerpt from the Veggie arguments as an introduction or coda to the track, as he would do years later with the T.M. Song (and there is in the vaults a longer version of that TM song argument) . . . Brian seemed obsessed with putting on tape almost every idea that came into his head during the Smile era, whether nature sounds, a basketball game, a cab driver's monologue.

Well...Holy Bee is hardly the authority on the subject. Thats not a dig at him, but hes just a poster like us, using the facts available like us. He could be wrong--and personally I think some of his theories are--and he could be right, but like everyone here he shouldnt be taken as fact.

I'll tell you what the elements were never meant to be. They were never meant to be VT, WC, Fire and Dada as a separate suite and unlike most SMiLE theories, this one I am 99.999% sure of. Its just wishful thinking from those who want to think we've heard it all, and that Brian really did finish the old album as it would have been. The truth is, we dont know what the other 3 elements were. Its possible VT was originally an element--theres strong evidence for it. There's also evidence against it. There's NONE whatsoever for WC and Dada tho, but plenty for those two being the Breathing and Underwater skits, or else something else we have never heard and never will...maybe something never recorded or even written. But there's plenty of evidence of it being one track and none I can see of it being a whole side.

I agree, BWPS is very different from what we would have gotten.

Its a good point that GV going number one could make Brian rethink going in a different lyrical direction. I do think there's some evidence he wasnt gaga for Parks either. The Fusion and even Crawdaddy pieces mention he and VDP not getting along too well either. And Brian absolutely set him up with the Cabin Essence incident, I think he wanted them to both argue the merits to their approaches and pick the winner, and when VDP wouldnt do that, it made him doubt him and his ideas.


Thats another good piece of evidence for what I said just now. I dont think it wouldve taken THAT long had he knew what he wanted...and he did seem to know for awhile...but then he doubted himself and it just wasnt going to happen.


^Exactly. This, or something in that vein is the most plausible elements, imho. Had Brian not etched the earlier speculations about Dada and WC in stone by doing the third movement in BWPS, there'd be no debate about this. And again, I dont think BWPS should count as evidence.


Hmmm...I dont know about that. Werent the songs often recorded in pieces? Only the first half of Surfs Up, seperate sessions for different parts of Worms, Cabin, etc...the verses and choruses for both were played with back and forth, what would go with what wasnt really set it stone...And there's the Fusion Article which mentions a version of Heroes leading into My Only Sunshine. There seems to be evidence it was always modular, just maybe not as much as GV. You can have an album of modular songs and the occasional comedy skit without it all linking together. I agree BWPS shouldnt be used as evidence for how the original wouldve been, and I agree a 2-sided 12 track album works WAY better than the new 3-suite 17~19 track album that BWPS became. H&V is definitely the most modular due to the endless tinkering in '67, and I agree this is a source of a lot of misinformation, like people thinking both Heroes and Worms would use the same chorus, or that the whole album would be part of Heroes and Villains, etc.


Indeed. Certainly it lends credence to the idea the album was closer to completion in Nov~Dec than some give it credit for, which in turn means its fair to speculate what it was shaping up to be and all these "there was no plan/Brian had no idea what he was doing" posts arent fair or backed up by the evidence. Im not sure these necesarily means financial problems, tho. And Id like a source for that Mark Linett quote about CIFOTM--not that I dont believe you, but I want to read it. I wonder if hes ever said what they were, at least what he can remember.

I don't think there was a "plan" as "the definite tracklist" during the SMiLE era. He didn't record Holidays and Look in spite knowing he wouldn't put them on the December tracklist. The whole plan consisted of "making a great album, preferrably the best album there ever was".

And with that first version of Wonderful in the can, if you then record the Rock me Henry version as a replacement, you really don't know what you're doing! :-D

I agree that probably neither Wind Chimes nor Dada were written as part of "The Elements", especially as Dada had a childhood theme originally. But the decision to use them for "The Elements" with turning Dada into a water themed song is a decision Brian could just as well have made back then in order to finish the album, so claiming the way "The Elements" was handled on BWPS so to speak isn't the "right way" because at some point in time the concept was different isn't really justified.



Well, had Brian abandoned GV after the first 2 or 3 recording sessions, you could even claim 100% of its tracking was done, but in Brian's mind it wasn't.

Direct quote from Wikipedia article:

According to The Smile Sessions compiler Mark Linett, "When he's not singing, you can hear faint background vocal parts that no longer exist on the multitrack. They must have been in his headphones, and were picked up by the vocal mic. It could be that Brian decided he didn't need them, or that he was going to re-record them, but never did. You hear this sort of stuff throughout the tapes."

Ah, so its like the clarinet in Look, then. We NEED someone who's a wizard with this kinda thing to try to isolate that vocal or listen and try to write down the words they can make out! Ive been dying to know what the lyrics were for CIFOTM. I think for me, this and the Look lyrics are the holy grail of SMiLE--even moreso than SU part 2.

Here's more from the original source:


http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Oct04/articles/smile.htm

Keep in mind this was within a larger discussion about BWPS. And what I get here is that whatever Darian picked up was a background vocal (not a lead) that was put into the BWPS version so if we have BWPS it shouldn't be anything we haven't heard before.

is that the main lyric they got or just backing vocals? Just my intuition but I never believed those lyrics were vintage. While the project Smile ones arent either, I find them far superior. Very in keeping with the spirit of the project, especially the part where the vocalist makes baby noises over the piano part like the trumpet had during the choruses. This, to me, is like the vocalized doings in CE and the yodeling which matches the trumpets in Wonderful. That idea of vocals mirroring an instrument seemed to be a motif in SMiLE and its cool they kept it up.

Mujan...to clarify...right, Holy Bee even called his thread his latest crackpot theory so I'm not saying its totally correct. It was a good place to start though because of the way he detailed the sessions for specific tracks. I do think it shows very strongly that most of the key tracks, that were finished, had been recorded with a lot more focus to ( getting any said track in the can ) than a clear modular approach such as Brian just laying down all of his feels with the intent on putting them all together later. MUCH of the reading I do here or elsewhere concerning Smile seems to imply that it's a given Brian intended it to be that way. I'm not seeing that anymore.

I also agree with you in part that GV success has been accepted by many as a reason that negatively affected Smile, but rather than just the more common "Brian felt pressure to have another hit measuring up to GV" I think for a variety of reasons it was much more than that. I'm thinking it was as big or bigger factor than anything. Again...just my opinion right now.

I'm glad you and everyone else jumped in here. I know Smile has been discussed to death but it's good to get back to it now and then.

Fair enough, and just so its clear, I think hes right about a lot of stuff too. Its just the way you phrased it before it came off like his word was final on the subject but maybe I was reading too much into it.

I think its pretty well understood by those familiar with the sessionography that the 66 months were pretty focused and the chaotic "recording every random feel willy nilly" didnt start until '67. I recall someone here linking it to his use of certain recreational drugs--no, not LSD as commonly blamed for his downfall, but something else. I dont wanna say what because I dont remember what they said and I dont wanna slander the B-man accusing him of doing something he didnt do. But even with that said, there WAS a clear modular approach taken as evidenced by the Fusion and Crawdaddy articles which most here--including HolyBee himself--acknowledge are probably the best insights into the album and its conception that we have. Vosse in the Fusion article mentions how three working songs--Grand Coulee Dam, Home on the Range and Who Ran the Iron Horse--came together to make Cabin Essence. And how CE and Worms juggled sections between them a few times until the structures we know now formed. How Heroes and Villains lead into Barnyard and then My Only Sunshine at one point. So, while I definitely think we would get 12 clear tracks on the album, there was definitely a modular component to those tracks even back in the earliest days.

Yeah, I think you added more to the theory with the idea that the biggest hit WITH MIKE LOVE LYRICS must surely have cast doubt on using VDP. This then explains why he called him in to answer Mike's "questions" about CE without warning him what was coming. It wasnt poor sweet naive Brian unaware what he was getting VDP into, he probably wanted an answer as much as Mike, and wanted to see the two argue the merits of their approach so he himself could decide which way was best. At least, thats the way I see it now. And again, those same articles mention the two collaborators not getting along, with Brian constantly asserting dominance over VDP. Its implied the other Boys only felt comfortable speaking out against him because Brian himself seemed to do so.

I think, even if it has been discussed to death, its better than the usual Mike v Brian banter that comes up here. Its also a fascinating subject with a lot of room for analysis and speculation. I learn something new every time its brought up.

EDIT: Some people bring up Holidays and Look as evidence of not having a clear plan or being unfocused early on in the sessions. I dont really buy this. In the first place, PS and other sessions for the BB and even other bands have extra material that gets recorded and not used. Thats not evidence of recording every little feel so much as having some extra songs you like but dont think are quite as good as the rest and would rather leave off. Like with movies too--no matter how good the script and how focused the director--there's always a lot of extra footage shot and scenes cut out because they just dont fit. Id say this was just a natural part of the creative process and not evidence the album was already in trouble pre-67

Me neither. My hunch is that they were describing the backing vocals and even then it seems like they had somewhat limited access to them via headphone bleed.

My hunch is Mark was talking about background vocals too. Mainly because he said "background vocals".

Well that settles that, I guess...  :-\

Hey, just lurked in after a couple months away and saw this thread - not sure I have much to add to what I've written previously, but it's gratifying to see that thread I started in 2012 being referenced here. As Mujan correctly notes, I'm no authority - most of what I've said which is pretty much just supposition - but I'm always interested in any further discussion and debate on what SMiLE could have been, and why it (for a long time) wasn't.

As AGD remarks near the top of this thread, I don't believe the dates stack up to support the success of GV being a major contributing factor to the demise of SMiLE. On the other hand, one of my theses - which the rough edits and acetates seem to bear out - is that at least until December the majority of songs, while being recorded in a 'modular' fashion, seem to have had fairly definite and standard pop structures. So I'm not sure I buy the 'it was trying to do a whole album in the mix-and-match style of GV that proved too much' notion particularly either.

EDIT: At least not during what I think of as 'SMiLE Phase A' (August-Dec '66) - but perhaps in '67 and the concentration on the H&V single, with its multiple variations and stand-alone sections? Could the success of that approach in GV become more of a factor then, when the original conception for the album was being challenged and increasingly lost?

It has always been clearly documented on the slates and tapebox notes and sessions sheets that Brian knew what he was doing for what part of what song each time he went into the studio, that is even clearer now thanks to c-man and TSS. So not knowing what he was doing or why was not the issue and recording bits with no purpose hoping to eventually find a place for them in some song didn't really ever happen in my opinion.

What Brian chucked would be the best indication of what his issue with SMiLE was I'm thinking. To me it looks like Brian's problem was mainly with the sort of political/historical/lecture-y songs which my guess is did not fit well with his publicly stated goals of religion/spiritual and humor. We tend to assign a lot of drama to it but to me it seems like Brian probably just made a very straight forward and deliberate edit and cut what didn't suit his intentions. 

I think there are some valid points here many of you, and I greatly enjoy reading your contributions, despite the fact that I don't post much. Mujan, I love your passion and deeply reflective thoughts on the whole SMiLE era, and Micha, how I wish we had the time to discuss these things further when we met up in Australia!

What I find interesting about SMiLE's demise is Brian's current take on it as sourced from his bio on his webpage...

http://www.brianwilson.com/brian/ (http://www.brianwilson.com/brian/)

Notice how the incredible success the Beach Boys had from 1962 to 1966 is summed up in one paragraph, then how much of the 1966 era recordings (Pet Sounds/Good Vibrations/SMiLE) is mentioned thereafter. I also find it telling that there's a photo of his family, with his children, and not one but two video links to Surf's Up.

If I may quote the following from 'I Just Wasn't Made for These Times'

Every time I get the inspiration
To go change things around
No one wants to help me look for places
Where new things might be found

Where can I turn when my fair weather friends cop out
What's it all about

I can't help but feel how important Surf's Up was to the whole theme of SMiLE, both musically, lyrically and thematically. Brian's feelings of discontentment at the lack of support from many quarters must have been building up incrementally throughout late 1965 and throughout 1966, so that when your own family doesn't want to follow your vision on 'Manifest Destiny' (as summed up in Surf's Up), it surely must have been the 'final straw' so to speak.

Or at least that he thought he knew what he was doing when he was recording.


No, you're right, Brian did have a spot in mind for every bit he was recording... but obviously it just didn't work when he edited the bits together - maybe realizing he had not been knowing what he was doing after all.



Hopefully we will get another chance in the future! :) I'm looking forward to that!

Except old friend, the tracks that he tinkered and revised and fussed over were finished which would seem to show he wasn't in fact intimidated or stymied or lost in their creation but the opposite imo; he stuck to it and doggedly and methodical got them where he wanted them, just as he had GV.  To finish GV and H&V and Vt and even WC and Wonderful, he did extensive revision of tracks and lyrics, to me it shows a lot of commitment with everything in fact on the table subject to his vision (contrary to some of our theories).

The tracks he dumped weren't really fussed over and tinkered and revised as far as I remember. I think that is because, as he spelled out at the time, he scrapped them because he had various issues with them and wanted a different mood and approach.

Old friend, if you have that gorgeous first version of "Wonderful" in the can, and you go and record the Rock me Henry version, you just don't know what you're doing IMHO. :) So we will have to agree to disagree, if you're OK with that.

Or we just don't know what he was doing. Even then he didn't land on that version and saw it through to a finished version.

As always, we will cordially agree to disagree. Happy New Year.

I liked that thread of yours, hence the reason for referencing it. Things REALLY changed after December when GV hit number one. I'm really believing it was a huge factor. It could even be as simple as Brian feeling vindicated that he still had it, by scoring a huge number one, that he then did not care if .....

The album was behind schedule
Parks wanted to be more involved
He spent a crazy amount of time and money producing GV
Parks wants this...Mike wants that...the label wants this... the Guys want that.....I know what I'm doing and if I have to re-tinker and rethink this whole Smile album.... so be it.

I can see a lot of the '67 stuff falling into place very clearly when GV is factored into the Smile collapse.

Great discussion, guys.  Really enjoying this read.

When I think of that era, I think of the academic year from Fall of 1966 to the Spring/Summer of 1967, and what happened each week and month in a timeline.

In the Fall of 1967, GV was released and week-by-week, I watched it climb the charts to #1 and people fully expected it to be the Number One of 1966.  Enter the winner Winchester Cathedral. Go figure.  

At the same time, in December of '66, Brian is taping Surf's Up for Leonard Bernstein's Inside Pop.  Fans expected that to be the next single.  In January of 1967, Carl gets a draft notice.  He is arrested around the airing time (if not within a day of) Inside Pop, (in late April) which had a huge impact, as Bernstein is translating to the parents of America, just what rock music was, and how is was constructed.  Bernstein had the cred of parents, the parents of the boomers.  

In the Spring of '67, Carl is arrested, arraigned, and meets the band in the UK, finding alongside the rest of the band, that they were billed, as a surf band, and not the band who were post Pet Sounds.  This was sabotage, in a continuum and had to be a huge disruptor of any creative process, universally.

And, I have always felt, notwithstanding whatever else went on in their personal lives, that there was a sort of "evil spell" cast upon the whole BB sphere, which became their ultimate and universal challenge to meet, and ultimately saved them all on many levels.  The CO issue turned them into activists.  The rejection challenged them to take the music to the masses, in ways that other bands never would and certainly never did and find ways to reinvent themselves in order to do that, including creating the Brother Records company, where they could self-determine and neither be hostages to their former image, nor be hemmed into whatever the record company had predetermined (or thought) that they would be exploited and marketed as a "surf band" in 1967, as offensive as that was at that time.            

But, I think that that academic year running from Fall to Spring - 1966-67, needs to be taken "as a whole" to review all the events, personal and professional, before a concept of "demise" (which I absolutely disagree with.) is employed.  It was less a calendar year, and more of an overlap, from '66 to '67 when music moved at warp speed, and they, as a whole, needed to find where they would ultimately fit as they moved forward.       ;)
 

double post - sorry  :lol

I don't see how much of that has anything to do with the fact that Brian's planned masterpiece album was shelved. Spring of '67 was months past the January date Smile was intended to be released. Much of what Brian was doing in '67 was obsessing over H & V. Seems to me he started doing to H & V in '67 what he had done to GV in '66. The fact I'm basing this threads speculation on is that MOST of the tracks intended to be part of a 12 track 30 plus minute album, were already done or nearly done (minus some vocals) by December '66. I also hope I'm not being misread here as though I'm saying the fact that GV was a monster hit alone screwed up Brian's intended album. I just think it was a factor and a much bigger factor than most people ever seem to consider....for reasons I have already laid out. In any case  Brian went off in a different direction in '67 than most of the work he had done for Smile in '66. I don't see how things like Carl being arrested would change Brian's direction of an album he had worked on for months.

We've had pages upon pages on this site about Mike and Parks...and Mike and his reservations about Brian working with Asher on Pet Sounds. Well, between the completion of Smile (or lack there of ) and Pet Sounds, Brian obsesses over what would become GV with lyrics by Mike. Bingo...the biggest hit for them ever.  Then January hits and there is NO sense of urgency from Brian.  Seems very odd to me. Brian's mental health at this point undoubtedly was also playing into things.

Another thing I have neglected to mention concerning GV is that it could have fit well in a twelve track record but never seemed right tacked on the end of BWPS. I know I'm not alone in that camp.

Paul JB - This is just how I see it.  Looking back, once it was started, it took on a life of it's own.  And circumstances, all the way around, and I would not minimize Carl's impending draft to Vietnam, one it's effect on the band.  After Pet Sounds they broke, for the most part from about the biggest, if not the biggest record company in the world.  They were in their twenties.  That took guts.  If they got no back up from Capitol on Pet Sounds, which had a lot of concrete imagery, what would happen to Smile?   

We don't know if Smile would have been the biggest hit.  People speculate in 2015 as to what would have happened in 1966.  It could have fallen between the cracks.  If the promotion was as non-existent as it was for Pet Sounds, guess what?  I think they were becoming blackballed in the industry.  Or at least sabotaged.  JMHO.  I don't know how that is surmountable for musicians. 

Hindsight might like to put it in a category of a great blockbuster hit, but the reality was that there were lots of avant grade performers and composers coming out of the woodwork, even with one hit, in 1966-7.  Winchester Cathedral, number one in 1966.  Lots of musicians who had a couple of hits, competing for AM airplay. 

People might not have taken the time to truly listen to Smile because of the "noise" from everything else on the transistor radio.  Smile was not largely made for AM radio, and FM radio was just coming to the fore, as an alternative place for those who wanted not just a 3 minute song, but an LP, that told a story, with a beginning, middle and an end.  Smile told a story.   So, I think that the totality of those circumstances led to Brian "shelving" the work. 

Brian said this himself in an interview, saying he got "so close to it that he had to chuck it for a while." And it had, in my opinion nothing to do with internal division, or lyrics.  It was too far ahead of it's time for 1966 or 1967.  Once people got a taste of Surf's Up on Bernstein's Inside Pop, they got fixated on it, knowing there was a Smile project.  And when Smiley came out, the big question was what the heck happened to Surf's Up.

What do I know?  I guess just looking for it at the local record store every week.               

I think Pet Sounds was probably well promoted.  It had 4 singles from it on the radio for one thing.  There were full page ads to the trade including a 4 page fold out ad.  Anybody seen an ad even close to that for any album or group of the time?

Do you know if there's an image of that ad online? It would be cool to see.

Cam - I disagree. They got 4 singles, but that doesn't really relate to how as a whole themed body of work it was promoted.  The put GOK on the B side.  And then released Best of Vol. I, about 8 weeks later.   The singles got AM airplay and kept them on the charts, bridging the time till the release of GV but as far as a big promo push, I don't think so.  It never got the hype of Rubber Soul, and from the same company, coming out about six months prior to Pet Sounds, or Revolver afterwards.  Just saying'.  ;)

  

The singles were on the album and got a lot of airplay, I guess I don't see how they could not promote the album.  I know the album itself was featured across the country from May through October on several radio stations as their "Album of the Week" pick.   As I remember there was also promotion in the teen mags (and there also was some complaining in the magazines about the change in style). I just think the idea that its reception was down to lack of promotion does not seem to be well supported by the actuality.  I'm thinking there probably weren't many albums that were being/had been promoted nearly as well as Pet Sounds.

I wouldn't doubt it is, it has a giraffe on it.  I'm not a collector but I do have one of the original ads, if I could remember where it is.

Is it a cartoony giraffe? If so, it seems familiar. I'll search online. Thanks!

Eta - I think I found it on BeachBoys.com with a real giraffe photo with the BBs at the zoo. I think the cartoon giraffe was for BW Presents Pet Sounds. Does that sound right? I wonder if I can get my paws on one of the originals. I'm not a collector either, but I'd love that.

Cam - I think a couple of those teen magazines (I found out fairly recently) by record companies;  Teen Set was owned by Capitol.  As a naive pre-teen, I would never have known that the record companies were publishing the teen mags.  Before I bought it, I checked to see if there was a story about the Beach Boys, before I bought it, if they had one, fine, otherwise, not.  Guess I was narrow minded.   :lol

If I remember correctly, and don't have it at my fingertips, the back cover of the 1967 touring book even had a promo photo of Best of the BB Vol. I.  And, no Pet Sounds.  I wonder if the UK version of the 1967 touring book was any different?  (I'll have to check that.)

There would have been beaucoup TV appearances which likely would be on youtube.  They did a GV video on some variety show, in the white suits, in 1968, after by at least a year or year and a half, after the single release, but maybe closer to Smiley but after Wild Honey, with Darlin' as a single.   This was completely unconnected as a contemporaneous GV video.  

The singles did get airplay on AM.  The "sound" was taken out of the context of Pet Sounds, in terms of print media.  The hot orange and yellow swirl Capitol trademark of the singles of Sloop or WIBN/GOK, bore no resemblance to the green Pet Sounds, and it was treated in isolation.  

And, I just pulled up a website called afka.net (back channeled to this forum) which has covers of "Teen Set" magazine, which was a Capitol Records publication.  November, 1966 has no BB on the cover, but at the bottom of the front cover is "At Home with Al Jardine of the Beach Boys."  There is Dylan, Dave Clark 5, John Lennon and a few I cannot enlarge well enough to see.  January of 1967 had Paul Mc. on the cover.  Sept. 1968 has Janice Joplin on the cover. October, 1968, has Mick.

So, for this record company to have "America's band" as their clients, I'm not feeling the love.  :lol  

The next single, Heroes was on Brother. People expected Surf's Up to be the next single after GV.      

Collector extraordinaire bgas has some Teen Set uploads in the BB Media threads. 

Hi FilledePlage,
Afka.net only lists magazine issues that feature Frank Zappa.
Teen Set June 1966 features Brian Wilson
Teen Set September 1966 features Dennis Wilson
Teen Set October 1966 features Mike Love
Teen Set November 1966 features Alan Jardine
Teen Set December 1966 features Carl Wilson
Teen Set January 1967 features Bruve Johnston
I think all of the issues are uploaded by bgas to the BB media section.

Emily - they have articles, yes, but they are not the "cover guys" as are the others.  Pet Sounds should have made them "cover guys."

Somewhere, I have some of my own copies of those articles, cut from those magazines so I was delighted to see them uploaded by bgas.  I guess that is what my point is.  There was more or less a vacuum during that time.  Those articles were "puff pieces" - "at home with" - when there was the most creative release of it's time.  

Pet Sounds.  Seriously heady stuff, that made you think.  It was "not shelved" as was Smile.  And, I get that there is "lead time" that a publication needs, of a few months between the setting up of the articles and timely photos.  But, I guess what was released, in terms of publicity, was ultimately "not timely."    

Some of those volumes are 65'-ish and not "contemporaneous" to the music release and not going forward from Pet Sounds, in a timely fashion, that was appropriate to who they were as musicians, how and what they performed in concert, and how they had all grown up and were not still in high school.  One photo which was taken in Times Square, maybe in 1964 or so was used on a foreign copy of a Smiley Smile CD I have, with striped shirts on.   ;)  

Those are not the "Smile" BB's but the BB's Today era.  In terms of the difference, it is the difference between a 4 year old and a 7 year old and that is a huge amount of growth and evolution in the music.    

I think "God Only Knows" as a B-side was a huge mistake. It should have been an A-side after WIBN. Pet Sounds, being such a departure, was going to be a slow builder in terms of sales. Having GOK as another, separate single could have kept the momentum building, got the album higher than its peak of No. 10, and MAYBE prevented the "Best Of," which really led to Brian and the group beginning to mistrust Capitol.

Actually most people want to have Surf's Up as the ending. Even before BWPS my personal mixes ended with GV though, I always thought it was the perfect ending. (I think though that originally it was to open the album after Prayer - fits perfectly with the chords.)



Yes, it really was so ahead of its time that a typo like this is understandable. It's really not like any other 1966 recording. Before I really got into the BBs, I thought GV was a 1967 song like Strawberry Fields Forever and Let's Spend The Night Together (which has its middle eight definitely inspired by GV).

Fille, I think the evidence of extensive promotion is still out there but maybe we won't agree on how much was enough.

Re. GV:  wouldn't GV's success have embolden Brian to double down on whatever he wanted to do with GV being the proof his  instinct was the right track?

Filledeplage.... I really appreciate your insight and recollections. The part about releasing the Best of Vol 1 post Pet Sounds and the Beach Boys forming their own label in '67 stands out. Again, GV is smack in the middle of that as well. It could be Brian was emboldened by GV success and factored that into not only going in a different direction with Smile but also figuring he'd just do what he wants period and not have to answer to Capitol anymore.

Some of the answers might be found in The Beatles' decision to exercise full control of releases, with Capitol discography which differed, from the UK versions.  (From wiki - a good start, but not the end of research) In 1967, Capitol was not allowed final say over what was released and how.

In October, 1966 around the release of GV - the birth of Brother Records, Inc. In a way I respect the BB's more because they did it themselves, and didn't (for the most part) contract it out.  The Beatles established apple records in 1968.  Again, The Boys are ahead, conceptually.

The biggest change was the track listing, running order, to be released unmodified from what that band approved.  And no issue of 45 singles were to be "mined" in a manner of speaking from The  Beatles' album, and any singles would remain as singles, released between albums, and not to break the "work" up as a whole.  

It seems that Capitol also had "modified" Beatles' work, via engineering and the "duophonic" concept I've learned about here...I've learned that it was not customary to split the UK albums for singles, as in the US, but maybe as the world got smaller with air travel and communication, it was thought to be a better idea to use "anchor" singles coming from the album as a marketing tool.  

If someone can come up with proof of a multi-media, including print, radio, and TV spot promotions and a full promotional tour, commensurate with the quality of Pet Sounds, I'd love to see it.  I think the Teen maggie sums up the publicity..."at home with..."   ;)

Thanks Paul, for the kind words... but GV came out after Best of Vol. I.  

Roughly, Pet Sounds came out May 16, 1966. (Sloop was still on the radio after having been released in March of '66.)

Best of Vol. I came out in early July of 1966.

GOK came out on July 18, 1966 on the flip of WIBN.

GV came out in October of 1966.

2016 is the 50th birthday of both Pet Sounds, with GOK and GV.  It is a big and great year coming up!  :thewilsons
  

Filledeplage, Right on the dates..I may not have been clear. I meant GV came out between  Best of volume one and the boys forming their own label. Capital seemed to think the boys career was no longer viable as far as new music went by releasing the best of shortly after Pet Sounds. Then the monster hit of GV really makes them realize I guess Brian does know what he's doing.  But before Smile is delivered, it all goes haywire and the Beach Boys form Brother.

You have a ton of knowledge and you were there so yes, always good to read posts by you as well as many other great sources on this board.  2015 was great for Brian and 2016 will be great as well.  We are all fortunate it has gone on this long and so many of us still care so much.

Thanks again, Paul.  BRI was a concept in mid-1966.  The timelines sort of dovetail into the GV release in October, 1966.  And apparently it was over Capitol's squeamishness over the Smile concepts. And would be smack in the middle of the Pet Sounds singles (GOK/WIBN) and must have involved a lot of frustration, and not without the backing of the entire band at the time, which tells me that they were willing to gamble on Smile, alongside Brian, despite a lack of confidence in Brian's work, coming from the record company.  The band would have had to discuss this very bold move many times and at length, and take the leap of faith, in Brian, and themselves to be assertive going up against the music "mafia." 

It was "reactive," indeed, but instead of being micromanaged, they set some boundaries over creative control and "went for it" facing possible financial problems, for the sake of creative control. So, for me, the timelines tell me a better story than any sanitized and revisionist history that can be concocted later.
And, I think they could see the writing on the wall as they say, especially after Best of was released, diluting any chance of making Pet Sounds the star it was, and is. 

Barbara Ann on Party (November, 1965) (the cover was a big US hit) and album-wise, preceded the release of Pet Sounds.  The Boys had given Capitol no reason to doubt their ability to deliver quality.  Capitol may have thought that the band was at the end of their "life cycle" and preemptively released the Best of Vol. 1 to keep themselves in a good secure income stream. 

And, I gotta give credit where credit it due, by striking out, taking the risk, and creating some boundary lines for creative work. Guys in their early 20's. Sometimes you have to retreat in battle, and regroup to ultimately win the war.  It is the way I see it. They won the war.   ;)   

I have absolutely no dog in the 'Smile's Demise' discussion. I was just responding because it seemed in your post you didn't know that these issues, other than the Al one, existed.

Guys,
I'm so sorry you've spent so much valuable time on the question of what happened with Smile. There was just one public report of the truth, but Capitol and EMI worked together to bury it:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2gxKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cR4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=903,2323118&dq=mccartney&hl=en

Do you know why he got in that car accident in November? He had just listened to some of Brian's SMiLE tracks that Derek Taylor stole and played for him. Do you think I'm lying? Just ask Van Dyke Parks    :o

So what really happened is that Brian made some Smile music, the Beatles stole it and were making a whole Smile album, Paul McC was so blown away he got in an accident and died, the Beatles' Smile was turned back over to Brian to complete while the Featles went on to make Sgt. Pepper, but by that time Smile had gotten so muddled it had to be shelved?
The secret history, right there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_Records

"Motivated in no small part by the negative reaction of Capitol Records to some of Brian's ideas for Smile, the new company gave the band more control over their recordings." 

 :thewilsons

Is that what they call a Freudian Slip?  :smokin

Well, they can't be the Beatles if it's Faul instead of Paul, right?
I'm just playing.

As has been established, this was a cover story. The truth was suppressed. They drugged BW for the next 15 years to ensure he didn't remember.

Care to elaborate and particularize that, including whom "they" are?

And, I'm looking at time lines and incorporation dates, and actual promo (which was "illusory" - both for Pet Sounds and Smiley.)  Not the "installment" version of "at home with..."

But, I still have seen not promo spreads or national TV variety show dates or videos for either albums.   ;)

And they did Back in the USSR as a tribute to Brian? So Mike didn't have anything to do with that song?
Thought I was finally getting all the facts down and then I read this.
 ;)

The EMI and Capitol cabal. They dropped the Pet Sounds promotion because they needed Brian out of the public eye. He knew too much.

Mike did contribute. He was the runner between the Capitol cell and the EMI cell. The Featles wisely got all the EMI employees "in the know" out of there and started a new "company" to isolate them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_LaBour

Author of the article...

For me - and all further reading, viewing, listening and discussion about 'what happened' only strengthens this - it's clear that the crucial point in any discussion of 'SMiLE' (until 2004, at least) centres on the divide between December '66 and January '67. I'm not sure I've ever laid it out so plainly before, but here's my thesis:

May-July ("first love") - Brian, disappointed by Pet Sounds' comparatively low sales but bolstered by the reaction from critics and - especially - his pop contemporaries, decides to make a Definitive Statement. (In album form, at least - his production masterpiece, "Good Vibrations", is already well under way.) He requires a lyricist both adept and - crucially, considering recent history - willing to be a subordinate. He finds one. Together, they create an extraordinary run of songs, without having to think too closely about how they fit together.

Aug-Oct ("country love")  - Their efforts bear bountiful musical fruit. Into the studio go our gallant pair - a good half of the key SMiLE tracks are instrumentally recorded. The 'Boys' are, largely, away. Conceptual ideas are bounced around.

Nov-Dec ("mike love, not war") - The 'Boys' return. Some are not thrilled by, or at least confident in, what they hear when they get back. Recording continues along the originally planned lines - however, Brian starts to meet resistance. From the band, from the label. Usually - as in PS - he'd struggle through. But some of what they have to say strikes an internal chord. The lyrics he's commissioned are not, like Tony Asher's eight months before, erudite expansions on his own feelings. They're a whole other thing. He can't defend them. Maybe he doesn't like them all that much. He's not sure. His collaborator refuses to clarify, to enter a melee not of his making. Pressure is applied. 'You can't say "no" to Brian.' It's easier to think of one song, the required (for the spankin' new Brother Records) upcoming single. He can sort out the rest of it later.

Jan '67 - late 2003: For various, largely good reasons - he doesn't.

THB - it might be helpful to have a touring schedule to see why the Boys were "away." The Rusten or even Badman books might be helpful.  It might also be helpful to look into the summer of 1966 to look at the short window as between Pet Sounds release and Best of Vol. I, with the overlapping incorporation of BRI, Inc., and the underlying reasons for the BB's "seceding from the union."  Capitol had "said no" to Brian with the nonfeasance of non-promotion as they likely had a duty to perform upon.    

There is also a very busy late fall and early winter.  There is the release of GV, in October, the chart soaring, the taping of Surf's Up for Bernstein, and early next month, the draft notice for Carl, throwing a monkey wrench in the nascent (new) company.  The GV video is from 1968 not timed to coincide with the release of the single at least 18 months prior.  

The War in Vietnam should not be underestimated.  It was the first "TV war" and every night the newscasters reported a body count number. Today we have a voluntary military but back then it was a "draft" that was mandatory, unless you got a deferment, for study or some other reason.  War protest in the cultural context of live performed music and airplay was becoming a reality.  

There are reports coming out in late Spring of 1967 that verify that "the band" as a whole is very dissatisfied with the lack of promotion that is current and timely, and not "regressive promotion" as actually happened.  For the record company to behave in that way was nothing short of malicious.  It was not innocent and in good faith.  

http://www.popspotsnyc.com/beach_boys_pet_sounds/

If you scroll to the bottom, you will see the 1964 BB photo, taken in NYC, with Brian still part of the touring operation, on the French edition of "Smiley" (albeit a reissue) from the 1990's, which is completely out of time sync.  Smiley came out in the early Fall 1967.  The striped shirts were "interred" in the Fall of 1967 around the Thanksgiving Tour.  That is a classic example of the erroneous promotional imaging that dogged them for years.  If you pull up the Youtube from Gaumont Palace, you will see a 2-part interview with the band lamenting the miserable treatment from the record company with direct relationship to the regressive promotion.  

What is this "willing to be subordinate?"  I get that Brian was "patiently exacting" in the studio, but I am impressed that he worked collaboratively with fellow creators and not a dominator, running out ideas and concepts.  Artists often disagree and it is part of the process.   That is a given.  

By that Nov-Dec time you mention, that twenty-something band, had "seceded from the union" and, had taken the bull by the horns, physically (Johnston for Pet Sounds) promoting the album "on foot" in the UK, in the vacuum of the record company nonfeasance, and between touring.    

Brian has an interview from the late 1970's on YouTube, where he talks about "chucking it" (Smile) for a while. Brian seems candid, credible, and forthcoming enough that I believe him.

And, I suppose Smiley was a "snapshot" of the final product, but a classic nonetheless.  Those of us who have a place in the heart for our old Smiley, always knew it was a snapshot.  The SMiLE project likely required, what was not even in existence at the time; the use of computers and music, to come up with a way of synthesizing the work.  

The record company could not digest the brilliance, the self-actualization, and what we were waiting for - Surf's Up.  They wanted Surfin' USA.   ;)    

Is it in the Jules Siegel piece where it is said that VDP grew tired of "constantly being dominated by Brian"? It's somewhere in LLVS, anyway.

Micha  - my context which I may have explained poorly, was the "BRI band member" context.  ;)

I'd never have guessed that, as holy bee used the phrase "willing to subordinate" in context with Brian's lyricist. :o

Micha 1, FdP 0

Haven't read Siegel, and missed whatever LLVS context holds.

Was/am dealing with the incorporation date facts, and release date and charting trail as I understand it, contained in the public domain and not interpersonal working relationships on the project, as well as public interviews in that window of time.

And, BRI members are "fellow founders, etc" as opposed to workers-for-hire, where Brian was and should have been in director's role, absolutely giving direction.

Those outside BRI members were subordinate. Not so much with corporate members who function, a little more democratically and who are not subordinate.

Maybe that did not agree with some.  It is always good to know who is the boss.    ;)

Siegel is a canonical text, and required reading. It is the origin of the myth. Ignorance thereof  is no excuse.

Andrew - only "ignorance of the law" is not an excuse.  

In the USA.   :lol

I'll keep my eyes open for it, upon your informed recommendation.  ;)

Found an excerpt.  If someone has a link to the entire article, it would be much appreciated.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/goodbye-surfing-hello-god-brian-wilsons-tortured-effort-to-finish-smile-20111103

My analysis...much unchanged.  All this overwhelming in-your-face "pomp and circumstance" for The Fab 4, (in the wake the void of zero for Pet Sounds) an arrested and fearful Carl (and band members) hip-ly obnoxious dinner guests who should have been off their hip arses to help their hostess, Marilyn, get a meal on the table rather than seated like a entitled members of a defunct monarchy.

Working business models don't change overnight, striped shirts, even public promo imaging which might have been changed sooner, by the record company, had the record company had the BB's "best interest" and fulfilled their duty of loyalty.  It was their job. Just as an example, I saw Peter Noone, (Herman's Hermits) fairly recently and noted that they were wearing their "uniforms" which were part of their publicly recognizable personas.  The "shirts" had been part of their trademark look.

In the grand scheme of things, what maybehappened?  They "blinked." Not unlike a prize horse getting "spooked."  People tend to do that when they are overwhelmed and betrayed by those who are entrusted with their business interests and promotion. It is a temporary (hopefully) diminution of confidence.  They don't get a pass from me.

In trying to put myself as a human in their shoes and look at this from what they (the band members) might have been wondering with the universal betrayal from the corporate level, "domination" does not even have a place on my radar. The music business, not unlike the entertainment business is not a good one for those who cannot take direction and some level of criticism.  Overnight, they become uncool, irrelevant and passé?  Shirts were not the problem.  They had Pet Sounds in their wake. Shame on those pseudo intellectuals who disparaged them. Even now.   

Any one who worked with, and consequently learned from Brian's techniques, however unconventional, and there are many who witnessed as much, such as Leon Russell; it was their privilege.      ;)

JMHO of course  :lol

Nothing to add, other than: I love when people start geeking on Smile!!!! This is what made me fall in love with this board. Carry on  :3d

YES

Here's the "Goodbye Surfing, Hello God" article
https://read.atavist.com/goodbye-surfing-hello-god?no-overlay&preview

Also, from the article: "Earlier in the summer, Brian had hired Van Dyke Parks, a super-sophisticated young songwriter and composer, to collaborate with him on the lyrics for Smile. With Van Dyke working for him, he had a fighting chance against John Lennon, whose literary skill and Liverpudlian wit had been one of the most important factors in making the Beatles the darlings of the hip intelligentsia."

"Van Dyke Parks had left and come back and would leave again, tired of being constantly dominated by Brian."

Along with the Siegel article that, as AGD stated, should be required reading! so should the Vosse (fusion) and Anderle interviews (LLVS)..both share a similar sentiment about BW/VDP's relationship and include a few nuggets of SMiLE insight that for some reason get overlooked in discussions on this board

Thanks, very much...for that link...I found an excerpt from Rolling Stone...and linked it above.  ;)

Oh dear, I switched around the words "being" and "constantly" - very bad quoting! :-D

Micha - your English is excellent.  Don't be so hard on yourself.

What blew my mind is that the original article was slated for The Saturday Evening Post, which is an old favorite of mine, in large part because of the work of the American artist Norman Rockwell, whose work was often the cover art work for it. 

It came as no surprise that the article did not appear there, as it is/was a very conservative "motherhood and apple pie" publication and perhaps they were looking for the Surfin' USA Beach Boys.  And, hardly what anyone could call a "hip" publication.     ;)

I usually am, but this time I was only kidding. Hence the Smiley. :)

Yikes..."hip intelligentsia"...thanks but no thanks!

Is it any wonder things did not go well with Parks and Brian? Brian is and never was a guy that would meld with folk of that ilk. Asher came up with accessible lyrics to Brian's cohesive concept of Pet Sounds. In my view, Parks lyrics were a step too far. Some of the text in that article above I think supports this. Then 40 plus years later we get tweets from Parks such as "Brian Wilson's buffoonery" concerning Smiles collapse.

Again, its after GV with Mikes hip enough lyrics that Brian and Parks part ways....just saying

On the contrary, while I suggest everyone read those too, I was actually shocked at how much of them Id already seen parroted on this board. Vosse was certainly a fascinating read, and it was great to see so much of my feelings on SMiLE canonized in one place by someone we all acknowledge is a good source. But again, I already "knew" almost everything he said, by seeing the same tidbits here and elsewhere online. I was only able to read the first and third parts of Anderle and found it far less interesting or helpful by comparison. Id love it if someone could point me towards the second part, which Im hoping is more about SMiLE, because those were more about music as a whole in '67 and '68. Also, If I recall correctly, he criticizes Wild Honey in the first part but then praises it in the third. I know people change their minds on art, but such a big one eighty in just two months on that calls his recollections into question for me.

I havent read the GSHG article (I know, I know) but I plan to today or tomorrow since I have some time. When I do, Ill post my indepth analysis on the "Your SMiLE Mix, for the fun of it" thread, since thats where I posted my reactions to Vosse and Anderle's articles too. If anyones interested. Hopefully theres some new stuff in there I never considered, but if not at least itll be a great read, Im sure.

My understanding is that the Sat Evening Post rejected Siegel's article because it was too laudatory of Brian and his music ` it's unclear if they had prejudged this new rock music and wanted a critical piece or if they felt GSHG was too unbalanced in it's praise of Brian. 

As for choosing Van Dyke Parks - Siegel was on the money, Brian was listening to Dylan (Highway 61) and Lennon (Revolver) and knew he had to up his lyrical game to take the music to the next level.  Parks had clearly been listening to and influenced by Dylan but he was no Dylan, who used a plethora of surrealistic stream of consciousness images in his music, but always wrote in a conversational vernacular that anyone could understand - every line was understandable and made sense on its own, but when you put all the lines together the meaning became more obscure.  Parks' s lyrics had lines that often made questionable sense and used big words that were not in the common vernacular. 

I agree that Dylan and Parks have a different voice. However, I would say that what you say about Parks was pretty much true of Dylan around the Blonde on Blonde era. There, for the most part, he seems quite content to abandon "meaning" altogether in favour of word imagery ("Ain't it just like the night to play tricks when she's trying to be so quiet" for example). Even more that he would have song titled that flat out didn't make sense (It Takes a Lot to Laugh, It Takes a Train to Cry...)

^Agreed. VDP wasnt trying to make literal sense. Something like Cabin Essence was all about creating a mood, a scene, with words. Wonderful and Surf's Up are like spoken word surrealist poetry set to music. The real strength in those tracks, especially Wonderful, is the lyrics and their obscurity. The various interpretations Ive seen here are a testament to the fact that Parks succeeded with what he was trying to do. The lyrics from Worms are more straightforward, but even they have some double ententes with Rock Rock Roll Plymouth Rock Rollover which is a callback to rock and roll and the idea that we're looking under the foundations of America to the more disagreeable foundations of it. Under the rock is worms, etc. The worst lyrics on the album are Wind Chimes, which is on Brian (although VDP claimed credit in BWPS, I dont believe he wrote those lyrics personally). Heroes and Veggies are weaker than those other songs I listed, but even they have some really clever wordplay like Dude'll do referencing a rooster and the allusion to smoking a blunt in Veggies. Personally, Id say Heroes still needed some work in the lyrics department, and Brian should not have scrapped the cornucopeia lyrics in Veggies. The lyrics for everything else we have, even throwaway pieces like He Gives Speeches, are fantastic. I know VDP disowns HGS, but we all know those are his trademarks all over that.

EDIT: The frustrating thing about SMiLE, aside from knowing there are awesome pieces of music we'll never hear, is the pendulum of public opinion. It used to be Brian and VDP were buddy-buddy geniuses and big bad Mike ruined everything. Now, it seems like most are taking a sympathetic view to Mike, saying he only wanted to ask an innocent question once and thats it. And VDP's lyrics arent very good and he and Brian never liked each other. The truth is in the middle. Mike was aggressively antagonistic but in no way killed SMiLE. Brian and VDP respected each other but didnt work well together because of clashing egos. VDP's lyric style was very commendable and IMO suited the music very well, but its also understandable Brian would have second thoughts with the massive success of GV which used the simpler Mike Love approach. He obviously still liked at least some of VDP's work and his approach, because he knew since at least '66 that he needed a more mature lyrical approach and he did use at least some of VDP's lyrics in Smiley. I think his second thoughts were more about the whole Americana and epic symphony to God. But he still liked a lot of the music and the idea of humor elements so thats what he stuck with. Im not sure if the more simple arrangements was due to his supposed breakdown or a deliberate artistic choice or partly both. My guess is somewhere in the middle, again. I think it was partly a desire to be different than everyone else--who were just catching up to the Pet Sounds level of production in Summer '67, and partly because this thing had to get done FAST and part of the BBs complaints was they wanted something simple so he obliged--either genuinely or spitefully no one can say.

We will see what you think after finishing the 3 canonical witnesses to the era. 

I would suggest the more balanced view has been there in them all along but has just been ignored in favor of a sort of more one sided view.

Ive read 1.666 of those 3, and soon itll be 2.666 and this is with all the other interviews/articles Ive read as well  8)

And thats actually what Im basing this on. Both Anderle and Vosse mention feuds with Brian and VDP as well as with the other Beach Boys. It wasnt any one person responsible, it was the collaborators didnt gel as well as he had with Asher and others, the band was very unsupportive, and all the other various issues we all know about. I dont see how much more balanced an overview is possible. To deny that either feuds happened--that is, with Brian/VDP and Mike/VDP--is contradicting these primary accounts.

EDIT: Still hoping someone can show me where to find the second of the three parts of the Anderle interview online

Do you not have LLVS?i

Not on me, no. I own it, but its not at my apartment. I was able to find scans of Vosse, Anderle and a write up of GSHG here: https://read.atavist.com/goodbye-surfing-hello-god?no-overlay&preview but the place I found the Anderle article did not have the issue with the second part of the interview. Honestly, Im hoping thats the part that talked about SMiLE, because the 1st and 3rd mostly stuck to Brian as a person, the situation as a whole, the state of music in 1968, and where Brian might go next.

You should get LLVS for that interview. We can talk when you've read more than roughly half of the 3.   8)  

Im browsing thru GSHG as we speak.

As much as I enjoy reading these and understand how important they are as primary sources and all...I believe this attitude of "your opinion is null until youve read these" is a little over the top. As I said, I didnt actually learn much from Vosse except Brian wanted a slide to his bed and there was supposed to be a pool scene in the Inside Pop piece. Thats not to say Vosse doesnt offer a lot of good info--he does. Its just Id already heard it second hand thru this message board and other websites. And again, unless all the really pertinent SMiLE info was in the second part, I learned nothing whatsoever from Anderle. It was mostly semi-off topic musings on music as a whole, and optimisitc predictions that Brian would go back to melting people's brains with epic music again soon that turned out to be false  :(

Is there another particularly good interview/article from LLVS or otherwise I should look out for? Even before these recent bouts of SMiLE threads, Id heard of Vosse's Fusion article, Anderle's Crawdaddy interview and Siegel's GSHG piece. But are there any more that are "must read" status? The OCD, overly-dramatic SMiLE nut in me wants there to be 4, like the 4 gospels :lol

I don't remember anybody saying that and nobody is born knowing this stuff but on the other hand I'm a little surprised that you have gotten so prickly about and dismissive of the opinions of those who have done all of their homework.  Anyways, you may have to have your LLVS mailed to you or something, that Part 2 may not be available online.  The hunt is half of the fun.

Not that Im even that bothered by it, but isnt that pretty much exactly what you said your previous post?

Anyways, whos prickly? I think Ive been rather civil for the most part. Long winded and adamant, but certainly not dismissive. At least that was never my intent.

I guess it doesnt matter how many OTHER articles youve read, and retellings of 95% of the info in the big three if you havent read these three magic articles themselves? Even if none of what youve theorized about SMiLE contradicts anything that was said in them, and is actually supported by them, as my dissections of Vosse and what Ive read of Anderle show. Hell, even if youve read 2 and most of the 3rd, thats not good enough to be taken seriously. But, no, Im the one being dismissive  :angel:

Please tho, lets not get personal. That wasnt what I was trying to do, merely point out that the information within those 3 seems to be pretty well known already. I think anyone who's spent a good amount of time on this board will have heard most of it second hand, which admittedly is not as good, but its still there. Plus, Ive seen some here who claim to have read Vosse and the others then go on to push the idea that Mike and Brian were hunky dory and all Mike did was innocently ask about CE once--a theory which is flatly rejected by Vosse and Anderle. And thats just one example. Basically, just because you havent read those articles specifically doesnt mean you know nothing with so many around who have--or read second hand recounts of the info within--on the board here. And at the same time, just because you HAVE read those articles doesnt mean youre an unquestionable expert who cannot be bothered to address anyone who hasnt read one third of a single article from among dozens if not hundreds out there on SMiLE. Thats the very definition of being dismissive and its ridiculous.

From GSHG:

"“As for the Beach Boys,” an editor of The Saturday Evening Post chided his writer, who had filed the world’s longest Western Union telegram of a story, “I want you to understand that as an individual you can feel that Brian Wilson is the greatest musician of our time, and maybe the greatest human being, but as a reporter you have got to maintain your objectivity.”

“They want me to put him down,” the writer complained. “That’s their idea of objectivity—the put-down.”"

http://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Saturday-Evening-Post-August-12-1967-/1617372008?hash=item25ab846ae8:g:hZ4AAOSwd0BBVympFgt#

Hope it copies. 

Nothing there but an item removed message. As the article never appeared in the mag, not sure what the point is.

Andrew - there were several copies available from various sellers at the time of the link.  Front page is a cover page spread published on August 12, 1967, on "The Newly Discovered Dangers of LSD; To The Mind, To The Body, To The Unborn."  I am looking at a photo of the front page as well as some random pages contained within.

They had an "editorial opinion" that was arrived upon and that article was likely never being published.  It was unclear to me in the vague text in both articles that "a friend was writing an article for The Saturday Evening Post," as to whether this was one of their staff at Saturday Evening Post, or whether he was more in the freelance category. The point is that it was highly unlikely it would be published given the "position" on page one of that article that did appear within 5 weeks of the release of Smiley.  

"Another of Anderle's friends was writing the story for The Saturday Evening Post and a film crew from CBS TV was up at the house for a documentary to be narrated by Leonard Bernstein."  (from Rolling Stone)

It appeared that it was a "fait accompli" and it was not.  He was writing it "for submission" or for "approval" prior to its acceptance and ultimate publication.  ;)

I pretty much agree with this. Many times Brian has said that the music was not appropriate or some such comment. We tend to over think things.....take that at face value and ask appropriate for who....maybe, and I strongly believe this to be true now, it was BRIAN himself that felt it not appropriate for many reasons, the least of which that he and Parks were not two peas in a pod, even if they crafted a great piece such as Surf's Up. No way in hell was it the Label or Mike that caused Brian to let months of great hard work fizzle out.

Personally think DYLW is the worst lyrics, but I agree with you that they should have kept the cornucopia verse, my favorite VDP lyric along with the verses to Cabin Essence.

With all this fighting about the lyrics going on back then, I think whether the album would have been a success or not was more or less all down to the music, not the lyrics. As somebody pointed out many moons ago, in non-English language countries at the time the lyrics to, say, Sloop John B. (#1 in Germany) were just as obscure to the general public as the lyrics to Heroes & Villains (#34) or Do It Again (#4).

Mujan - Wind Chimes is one of my favorites, going back to old Smiley.  Oneiric (dreamlike) and any time I have ever seen wind chimes anywhere, I hear that "Hanging down from my window, those are my wind chimes..."  ;)

PaulJB - lyrics did and do matter, as it got to the people in a way they could digest it.  I think of it as a steak ( guess Brian likes steak!)  You can't digest it whole; you have to cut it up.  And that is where the lyrics come in.  It makes the music "digestible."  

At best the whole project it is like when a doctor makes an "educated guess" for a diagnosis, as to what the actual product might have been.  Does anyone know? Maybe not even Brian.  It reminds me of one of those unfinished symphonies in fragments. Brian is in good company; Beethoven, Bizet, Borodin, Bruckner, Schubert, Sibelius, Tchaikovsky...and that is an incomplete list. Maybe that is why Brian was chosen to help envision, working on a Gershwin "fragment."  JMHO  ;)

It can be fun and interesting to speculate...
      
It is still vague and "out there" notwithstanding those who claim expertise.  

The best and credible sources, for me, are those who are "primary" sources; The Beach Boys themselves, not anyone else.  I want to hear what Brian, Dennis, Carl, Al, Mike and Bruce have to say about their sessions.  (And, Dennis and Carl from whatever interviews are still available.) I like those best from the late 1960's and 70's where the band was "closer in time" to how things went down.  

Everyone else is a "secondary" source.  

And I like this series of connected to this interview.  Hope it copies.   ;)

http://youtu.be/h3J7YT9oiHY

  

They speak english in germany. Unless your point is the folk song SJB is based on, the idea of cowboys, etc would be foreign to them.

When I say worst in terms of WC I mean simplest. Theres no wordplay or deeper meaning to them like all the rest, theyre very straightforward and simply worded. Thats not necessarily a bad thing, but compared to something like, as you say, the verses to CE, they stand out.

Wasn't there the thought for a while though that German audiences wouldn't be receptive to non-German lyrics in songs - hence the German I Want To Hold Your Hand, She Loves You, In My Room, etc.?

I wasnt aware, but thats interesting

The second part of the Crawdaddy! Anderle-Williams interviews has by a large degree the greatest amount of SMiLE-specific discussion. All issues can be found in an online archive somewhere, or at least they used to be - I no longer have the link, and probably shouldn't post it here in any case.

I agree with Mujan that:


Except, weirdly, I think it's possible to agree with both at once. Not sure a middle ground is strictly necessary. There was a lot going on at the time, in the country and the world as well as 'BB-land', of course - as FdP comprehensively points out - but the record (yes, particularly 'those 3 magical articles') strongly suggests both Mike/The Boys' disapproval and the faltering relationship between Brian and Van Dyke played crucial roles in the collapse of the original conception. To swing closer back to the original topic of this thread, the success of GV - the production method and the provenance of the lyrics - might have been another, contributing factor.

But the fundamental issue, it seems to me, remains - to quote myself from above:

Incidentally I did end up finding the second part last night and made a post about it in another thread. Once again, aside from a few points where he diverges from the popular narrative, I didn't learn too much I hadn't already. That's not to discourage anyone else from reading it or trashing Anderle as a source. I'm just annoyed at this "you have to read those specific articles to be taken seriously" attitude. I think the main points from them have leaked thru into later articles and this board to the point that most people are familiar already. Of course, it's nice to get it straight from the source undiluted too.

To Holy Bee: The Boys publicly praised Brian and the SMiLE music at the time. Brian did say he nearly/did split up the band over his decision to scrap SMiLE songs because he didn't have a commercial feeling about them.

It's nice to see a calm discussion of this, this interpretation used to generate a lot of heat and earn you a lot of guff.

Agreed, Cam. I've been around (lurking, mainly) since the Smile Shop Board days, and it's nice to see the debate (as it often is) has taken a decisive turn in this direction.

And yet, all of the big three articles you claim as the most reliable, must read sources go out of their way to hammer in the fact that the boys were very unsupportive and there was a lot of fighting. Anderle says that had they been supportive, the album would've been finished. GSHG has Brian accusing Mike of making too much money for what he does. You can't have it both ways. You can't dismiss people for not reading those and then refute one of the main ideas they all agree on. I'm not, nor have I ever, stated Brian and VDP didn't fight either--which they also mention. But anyone deny the BBs were abrasive and that this abrasiveness played a part (however small or significant) in the project coming apart is being ignorant, and if they've read these all important articles, willfully so.

Anderle mentions Brian discussing breaking up the group and releasing it anyway, but commercial worries WERE NOT a factor in his decision not to. According to Anderle, it was because they were a family that stayed his hand.

I guess I would explain it as they are the big three, not the only. They were with the band, not in the band.  Anderle also says the Boys were working hard and singing beautifully take after take and that the most antagonistic relationship was not even antagonistic but a lot of mutual love.

Didn't Anderle say he proposed Brian leaving the band and Brian wasn't having it?  Something like that. In 1967/68 Brian himself directly contradicted "commercial worries WERE NOT a factor" by saying his commercial worries were his reason for scrapping SMiLE and almost splitting up the band over it.  

The way I see the collapse of SMiLE (based on everything I've read) is that it was a combination of factors. Brian's psychological issues were tough enough for him to deal with but they were worsened by his drug abuse. In some ways, it's the same old rock-n-roll story: a creative leading light takes drugs to expand his mind and it works at first but eventually they only leave him confused. I think if he had stayed focused and sober we could've got something, but it was always going to be a tough road because of who these guys were.

I know that the group having doubts about the material or being abrasive is often keyed on as the main culprit in all of his. Frankly, I'm amazed The Beach Boys were able to get ANYTHING done right from the very beginning of their career. Session tapes reveal it was nearly impossible for Brian or anyone else to corral them. They sound like a bunch of rowdy teenagers...well, I guess they were, right? There's constant bickering, talking on top of each other, second-guessing each other, etc. I know if it were me, I would've had a nervous breakdown. I'm no fan of chaos.  It's like listening to a cacophony of voices that are never in sync, and as much as Brian is supposed to be in charge, he joins in as well, making him just as guilty. Sometimes listening to these sessions can be eye-opening fun but a little annoying (and The Beach Boys were never noted for their great wit, which is why listening to The Beatles engage in the same tomfoolery is more entertaining because at least they're funny). The main thing is, they DID the work and that includes SMiLE too, no matter if Mike or Carl questiond this or that...they sang the heck out of it.

I'm surprised that someone..anyone..either within the group or at Capitol didn't just sit the guys down and say "We need a record. Play me what's close to finished and we'll put that out next week". I know that sounds insensitive, but a LOT of money had spent. If there had been a record with just SMiLE versions of  "Heroes and Villains" "Wonderful", "Wind Chimes", Cabin-Essence" and "Surf's Up". Well, hell...that's a perfect album side right there! Who even cares what would've been on side 2? It would've been better than releasing bits and pieces over the years to bolster other albums.  

Also, as we've heard in the sessions with the studio musicians, it's a completely different story. THAT'S what a session should sound like. Easy-going and getting a lot accomplished. It's no wonder that Brian had his eye on working outside of the group from the get-go.  
I'm reminded of the Help Me Rhonda session where a drunken Murry takes the guys to task. Brian says "we would like to record in an atmosphere of calmness". I'm thinking "Gee, you could probably count on one hand the times that's happened."
So the attitudes and reactions of the rest of the guys seem just par for the course when it comes to SMiLE. I don't see it like some sharp left turn and then suddenly they were hard to deal with, and I don't begrudge any of them for it either. They were what...early to mid-20's at best? Expensive cars, disposable income, women throwing themselves at them, etc. Who wouldn't have behaved like spoiled brats who never had to grow up?  >:D

And as a strange aside, it's odd how we as fans, or anyone interested in the subject, look back on this era and sort of envision the Beach Boys as being older and more mature than they actually were. It's like when you look back at a high school yearbook from the 1950's and everyone who's 17 looks like they're pushing 30. I think people do that with The Beach Boys (and other entertainers from the past), expecting more out of their past selves than you would a 22 year old pop star today.

Right, which is exactly my point. Theyre pretty in depth articles from people who were there and dont have a reason to be biased (unlike say, Brian VDP and Mike). I understand why theyre so regarded, I just think its elitist to insist everyone read them in order to be respected when talking about SMiLE.

He does. Still, gotta take into account the rest of what he said tho. He doesnt blame the guys for acting the way they did, and neither does Vosse, but they do flatly state there was a lot of bickering and that tension negatively impacted the work. Anderle mentions how if someone hurt Brian's feelings he'd be unproductive for days at a time.

The way he describes it in the article, Brian himself openly mused about letting the band break up and saving the album, but ultimately decided not to mostly because they were a family. He even speculates that Brian must be regretting that decision considering the drop in fidelity, sales and accolades Smiley and WH got in comparison to Pet Sounds and GV.

Can you provide a source for that Brian quote? I genuinely am not asking to be antagonistic but Id like to read it. If its in LLVS, even just the page number or article title would be fine.

I guess if there is a possible bias for Vosse/Anderle and Siegel it would be to downplay Brian's drug use. It makes sense they wouldnt go into that, and Im factoring that into this reply. All the same, I used to buy into that but now I think its at least slightly overblown as well. This idea of a big dramatic drug induced breakout. I think that was happening too, but in a less dramatic way, and yet the primary causes were...a million other things. Since we're focusing on the big 3 articles lately, Ill stick with them. And they all point to 3 or so big causes: VDP quitting, tension from the band and the whole legal limbo with Capitol. I think trying to do too much at once was also an issue, with Brother and going into films, etc. Anderle lists these as distractions even, because Brian was putting off doing anything on the album after VDP left. Im sure drugs and neurosis had their own part to play too. Brian just comes off as a very sensitive, eccentric guy especially in these articles. Anderle talks about how the vibes werent good with so much negativity around, and it was extremely hard to get Brian productive. I think the real key to the demise, is the Elements, and Ive said as much the past 2 years now. He hit a road block with that track, not knowing what to do with the other parts, fear of fire, and not knowing what to do without VDP.


I wasnt aware of that with their early sessions. Very eye opening. Yes, they sang the heck out of it. But again, Anderle mentions specifically how Mike sang one song but it wasnt quite how Brian wanted it...and they literally wasted the better part of a week rerecording that same song again and again until Brian decided to just do it himself. Its not a case of big bad Mike ruining everything so much as they were on such different wavelengths and Brian was such a perfectionist that they just couldnt communicate anymore. That and, I do believe Mike was jealous about being passed over yet again as lyricist. Anyway, I think the problem was with Brian as well as Mike; he was treating them like instruments rather than real people and it finally got to be too much.


The clear implication from Vosse and Anderle is that Brian will do what he wants to do. You cant make him do the album if hes not feeling it. Which, actually, is why I think the Smiley aesthetic was his idea. That and the crucial "dont think youre god, just be a cool guy" lyric in Wonderful. Plus, with the legal wrangling going on, Capitol probably wasnt in much of a position to order him around. Again, according to Anderle, he went to all the legal meetings for Brian. I get the idea Brian wouldve just blown Capitol off. The Beach Boys bossing him around wouldve just caused more strife. I agree that an album of what was done by, say, April wouldve been preferable to Smiley and then leaking the rest out piece by piece over the years. Wouldve been better for their careers and the musical world. He had enough material to release a kickass record at that point. Maybe not the exact one he imagined, but still. And the unfinished songs are mostly unfinished because of lyrics. Those couldve been done in a week if Brian either lowered his standards just a bit or did them himself. BUT thats the key, I think. He realized his expectations were too high and he was doing everything himself. I really think thats why we got Smiley; he decided it was more important to do a laid back fun album as a group than this pretentious (not that I think that, but y'know) symphony to God that he essentially made all by himself.

I see Brian as like Orson Welles, just a total genius willing to experiment and push his medium to its limits. SMiLE is a young man's project, not an older mans.

Mujan - they are not The Four Gospels.  I had read the Jules' article, somewhere along the line and did not connect the dots.  When I read, I always look for any bias, inconsistency or vagueness.  Then, I look for bias in the point-of-view and the lens from which the story is told.  What kind of lens are they looking through?  There seems to be some factual info which I appreciate.  

First, Parks was brought in, or appears to have been brought in to correct a "perceived weakness" (that was just a lack of confidence and validation) for Brian as I see it for a "perceived" parity of lyrical ability to compete with John Lennon, which was spun out of control with the record company's poor conduct.  Simplicity remains a form of genius, in my book.  

Any one who could write Surfer Girl, or Til I Die, doesn't need help outside of the core "sphere."  Brian didn't need to be "hip" and somehow these intimidating pseudo intellectuals convinced him otherwise.  It is predatory bully behavior. The whole "I'm intellectually smarter than you attitude and you need me" attitude.  The indicia of Brian's ability was crystal clear in the earlier albums.  Those albums were a prefiguration of this enormous talent.  This was an attempt to change Brian's authenticity - to make him "hip."  Did his help Brian (and the rest of the band?) Professor Henry Higgins?
 
Second, David Anderle was Parks' manager.  So, does he have a bias one way or another?  He did have industry credentials but that does not change the viewpoint and the perspective.   Nor, does it even call into question whether he did the job he (or any of the others) was/were hired to do.   Work product is not in issue.

Third, Jules was a friend of Anderle.  Bias?  Something to think about.  And the vagueness, in terms of whether, for me, it has credibility..."In the foreground was The Saturday Evening Post writer." - But, was Jules a staff writer or was he a freelance writer? This whole association with the magazine seems a very frail one, since they had taken an anti LSD position on the front cover of the August 12, 1967 cover, with a half page spread announcing that position. It looks like "puffing"  to me.   His credentials at the end of the reprinted article appear to me to be more of a freelance and not on-the-payroll writer at The Saturday Evening Post.  Just because you have one article published, that passes editorial muster, does not confer that ability across-the-board. It looks "illusory" to me.  

Michael Vosse was a friend of Anderle.  Bias? Also, something to think about.

Just "unpack who the players are" and see if they are a "good fit" for the overall organization and look at it with the same critical eye that you approach the music with.  Parks is said to "leave and come back" due to this allegation of "Brian dominating him."  When I look at these facts as laid out by Jules, what I read is that, of course he could come back; Parks appears to have brought Anderle into the organization who likely helped to keep the door open for that coming and going.        

Just sayin' ;)

Bias goes two ways.
Regarding lyrics, of course these are opinions, but while Brian Wilson has written a few excellent lyrics, I think it's very much not his forte and he was maybe not insecure but realistic in recognizing that. Also, he was really busy. Writing the lyrics on his own would have dragged out the production of new work even more.
As to looking for new collaborators, again individual tastes will determine one's opinion, but I think many people, at that time and now, would agree that it was a sensible idea to try to develop lyrics that were a bit more adult than the earlier Beach Boys lyrics.

Emily - along the line they brought in lyricists who had a particular gift for a specific topic.  For example, when they were doing the car songs, Roger Christian was brought in to help with that verbiage for lyrics.  They never professed to know-it-all and reached out for expert advice when needed. Gary Usher was another contributor.  They did very good work but apparently didn't try to mess with Brian's authenticity. There are "kind" ways to bring people "up to speed" without being offensive or intimidating.  It is how I see it. 

When people have a working relationship, there is an inherent bias and pre-existing loyalty. 

The prime issue is that this coterie attempted to mess with Brian's authenticity.  That is my opinion.

I agree with all of this except the idea that they were "mess[ing] with Brian's authenticity." Or that Brian Wilson was necessarily intimidating. A lot of people at that age seek out new ideas and Brian Wilson particularly seemed curious and interested in expanding his creativity. The previous BB albums and lyricists and his outside work show that he was constantly seeking. I don't think he was victimized by the people he associated with and he seems to have been willingly and happily engaging with them. They might rub you the wrong way, but that doesn't mean they did him.

Edit to say: I meant "... Brian Wilson was necessarily intimidated."

There is some blatantly false information being posted in this discussion, and wherever it's coming from it should be researched a bit more prior to posting as fact.

One that stood out, to start: David Anderle was introduced to the band through a relative and mutual friend of some of the Beach Boys in early 1965, then in the next year became closer to Brian and began to be a more frequent guest at Brian's house and the like. Van Dyke Parks said the first time he was in Brian's company was when David Crosby invited him to join him as Brian was previewing the Sloop John B single. Then Van Dyke and Brian more formally met at a party with Terry Melcher when Brian got the idea Van Dyke could write lyrics with him.

In no way did Van Dyke Parks "bring David Anderle into the organization", wherever that came from it doesn't line up at all with the facts.

That's just one example out of a laundry list of inconsistencies and outright incorrect facts being posted in this thread.

Emily - this is not about taking offense.  Contained within that article are indicia of a level of  a certain snobbery and insult as regards The Beach Boys, Brian, in particular. I like to remember that "Rome was not built in a day." Nor, after the firing of Murry, the new incorporation, the record company diss, is a lot to process and clothing seems to be on the bottom of the food chain.  Even now, Brian always looks nice, and well-groomed, even performing in comfort in a Ralph Lauren Polo, as I have seen him multiple times.  I don't care what he wears;  I care only that he lived and he still sings.  

'"Whatever the merit in these reasons, the real one may have been closer to something Monterey board member John Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas suggested: "Brian was afraid that the hippies from San Francisco would think the Beach Boys were square and boo them."

But maybe Brian was right. "Those candy-striped shirts just wouldn't had made it at Monterey, man," said David Anderle.' (from the article)

The difference is that the prior lyricists appear to have worked strictly with the music to come up with a lyrical concept, and the latter ones went beyond the lyrics into another zone.  The band was hardly lacking in style.  They may have worn the same shirts onstage but their outerwear was absolutely consistent with the fashion trends of the 60's as they had the opportunity traveling to shop for clothing outside of the US, and likely well beyond what the average Joe or Jane wore.    

GF - Thank you SO much for that info.  Right off the bat, I saw holes in the story and, so worked entirely within it's text.

So, then, why is this article treated as "canonical?" I don't get it. 

You are the man!  ;)

FdP, regarding Jules Siegel, I would guess he was commissioned by the Saturday Evening Post to write the article. Most magazines just have a small staff of writers to do their regular columns; the features are usually either accepted by submission or, more often, commissioned. If this was the case with Siegel, he would've been working on assignment by the SEP.

Jules was given the assignment by the SEP to write an article about Brian Wilson, just like David Oppenheim's CBS News crew was assigned to film Brian in the fall of 1966 for the Inside Pop project. Jules described exactly what happened in his article - His updates and submissions to his SEP editors weren't received well, and they thought Jules had gotten too close to his subject for the kind of piece they wanted. So they passed on it, and instead the article was published in Cheetah magazine's first issue, Fall 1967. There is a radio promo read by Jim Morrison advertising this first issue that has since been excerpted and posted on YouTube and other sites, but which came from a KHJ radio aircheck taken from the Tom Maule show. Yes, *that* Tom Maule just a few months after the H&V incident at KHJ.

It's important to weigh the perspective and the surroundings of the times in these cases, and Cheetah was among the first magazines to focus on the rock underground, "rock journalism" in general, and the demographic and outlook that Inside Pop focused on when it aired in April 67. Brian Wilson was ahead of the curve and one of the leaders of that pack.

Yes, he seems quite tidy.
My point was that there's no indication that he  was bothered by the snobbishness nor that he was intimidated nor that there's any loss of authenticity. One grows and changes and seeks in one's twenties, I'd hope.

Eta: also, as regards the lyrics, I'm pretty sure mostly the writing was actual collaboration and lyrics and music came in different sequence, sometimes interspersed. It seems to have been rare that the "lyricists worked strictly with the music to come up with a lyrical concept."

Emily - look on the eBay link for the cover of the Aug. 12, 1967 edition. Maybe it is blocked in the UK as Andrew did not seem to be able to open it.  You will see the position of The Saturday Evening Post on the front page.  Maybe if he was "commissioned" as you suggest he may have been given a stipend for his "efforts" notwithstanding the story not being published.  I don't know.

That publication was not likely running an article that was contrary to it's editorial position or it's "version" of the (it's) truth.  

S/he who has the gold, rules. And that goes hand-in-hand, with what gets submitted as a final copy for publication.  

Yes, context and perspective is very important.  

And, I read the Phoenix!  :lol

If you have the Youtube link, would you please post it? 

Thanks!

I'm not questioning why it wasn't published.  :-\

Weird bias.

It's simple - Jules was commissioned to write the article by SEP, and those who commissioned it didn't pick it up for publication so it went to Cheetah's first issue instead. Michael Vosse was a freelance writer selling interviews and articles to magazines like Capitol's "Teen Set", and one of those assignments is how he first got to meet and sit down with Brian Wilson...over milkshakes, as per Brian's request. And Vosse's Teen Set articles are also some of the best firsthand perspective resources on what was happening during Smile that are available, published to thousands of readers in late 1966, early 1967 mentioning sessions like the underwater chants, the woodshop, the French horns, David Oppenheim, Jules Seigel...the whole bit, almost a year before Jules' article came out. The info was out there for those readers who were following it.

Emily - now, there seems to be a divergence of accounts as to what went down.  That is a good thing.  

What I can now look at as lacking, is whether there was any independent fact finding which took place to verify the account of the storyteller, notwithstanding the editorial position of the TSEP.  ;)

Jim Morrison Cheetah ad - The other voice heard after Jim is Tom Maule. This was on a Tom Maule KHJ aircheck from October 1967.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwhVAfW8l4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRwhVAfW8l4)

Thanks-GF!

It was great to hear Jim Morrison's voice.  ;)

I think maybe we have over emphasized some things and under emphasized other things.  As I remember one of the examples of the Boys so called resistance was "arguing" around the Boys doing endless takes that Brian would just junk because it wouldn't be happening for him and "fighting" over Brian telling them their parts and the Boys "excuses" for not wanting to sing it that way or wanting to sing this way. Just sounds like the band's normal process maybe.

Any way, that quote is from KHJ's History of Rock and Roll. According to Bill Mouzis, the production and audio engineer, the thing was put together in the 60 days before airing so the interview was probably sometime from the last week of December 1968 into February 1969. There is a misleading incomplete version in LLVS.......(crickets).........(tumbleweeds).............but I forgot to look up the page number.  The ellipsis represent announcer and music breaks as I remember.

"Early 1967, I had planned to make an album entitled SMILE.  I was working with a guy named Van Dyke Parks, who was collaborating with me on the tunes, and in the process we came up with a song called 'Surf’s Up,' and I performed that with just a piano on a documentary show made on rock music.  The song 'Surf’s Up' that I sang for that documentary never came out on an album, and it was supposed to come out on the SMILE album, and that and a couple of other songs were junked ... because I didn't feel that they ... I don't know why, I just didn't, for some reason, didn't want to put them on the album ... and the group nearly broke up, actually split up for good over that, that one ... the decision of mine not to put a lot of the things that we'd cut for the album SMILEY SMILE on the album, and so for like almost a year, we're just now kind of getting back together ... because I didn't think that the songs really were right for the public at the time, and I didn't have a feeling, a commercial feeling, about some of these songs that we've never released, and ... maybe I ... some people like to hang onto certain things and ... just as their own little songs that they've written almost for themselves. And a lot of times, you know, a person will write and will realize later that they're ... it's not commercial, you know, but what they've written is nice for them, but a lot of people just don't like it."
-Brian Wilson, 1968

People expected Surf's Up to be on Smiley and there was likely enough space, time-wise, for it.  Not adding Surf's Up, helped create this myth and buzz, so when it became a named album, it was well received as was the performance by Carl, on lead with a BB group on background vocals.  It may not have had a "commercial feel" but it had an "underground music" Made in Heaven feel for fm radio, picking up the slack for AM radio being gradually overtaken by "talk radio."    ;)

Admittedly, comparing them to the gospels is me being overdramatic, but that said, you realize those 4 documents have their own biases and lenses right? Matthew its believed, was written for a Jewish audience as it stresses Jesus fulfilled all the messianic prophecies and stuff, and Luke its believed was written for a pagan audience as it stresses that the more inconvenient laws of Judaism no longer apply and anyone can be a follower of Christ.


Well, I tend to disagree with you. I think Asher and later Parks strengthened Brian's work immensely. And its both untrue and actually insulting to Brian to pretend the big bad VDP and company bullied him into going a direction he didnt want to. Brian chose to follow the hip crowd, for better or worse, and for better or worse later changed his mind. Aside from Daro, I get the feeling Vosse and Anderle genuinely cared for Brian when reading them. Yes, yes, biases. But still, there is real respect you can sense from how they describe him. Theyre not bitter at being let go either, and sincerely wish him the best. If they had an interest in tearing him down they couldve; im sure the press wouldve loved an "emperor has no clothes" story. If anything, Brian sounds to have been bullying VDP--yes, biases. But thats not just from those three sources Im saying that. And didnt Brian name VDP as his fave collaborator recently? Your narrative doesnt hold up when looking at the facts.
 

Anderle seems to take a very measured position on VDP in his interview. He doesnt go on and on praising him and certainly not at Brian's expense. He says they worked together, blew each others minds, didnt get along and broke up--which he describes as a tragedy. And then he talks all about Brian. Vosse--who doesnt share this bias--says the same. I agree thats puffing on Siegel's part. And his obsession with hip, semi-hip, etc I found incredibly smug and annoying. Still, just because he has a high opinion of himself it doesnt make him wrong.


Sounds to me like they were all friends--Brian included--for awhile. And the way Anderle and Vosse speak of him, it does sound like old friends talking about a relationship gone sour but with a lot of reverance and no ill will.

I agree everyone is biased and has a faulty memory--and in my dissections I point out where Anderle in particular differs from the others in his account--but their recollections still have a lot of value and Im not seeing this bullying narrative at all

I'm sorry. I don't know what you're referring to in the red bold above. There's a divergence of accounts as to what went down regarding what? Regarding Smile, for sure. There seems to have been a divergence on that since 1967. Or do you mean regarding something else?

Mujan - I just went through that article and found what I saw as any relationships between and among the parties "as retold by Jules."  And only within that context only and not as truth or fiction.

Bias is inherent if someone is your family, a person who hired you or any other kind of relationship where a benefit has been conferred.  Now, GF has cleared those details.  And, I'm very glad.  So, now we can look at as we should every article with a critical eye.  

And "gospel truth" is just an expression and can be religiously neutral. This has nothing to do with whether they cared for Brian or not.  It seems they did but it is all second hand "hearsay" and why I like to rely on the "primary" sources rather than "secondary" sources.  That is too soap-opera-ey for me.  The interviews from the late 60's and 70's by band members are those that hold the true story are those that I look at with more cred.  Anyone else can believe whatever they like.  I generally pick just two things: the music and the band members reflections and interviews in their words.    

It has nothing to do with whether VDP was his favorite or not.  It is what was written by Jules, as VDP having Anderle as manager, and the chain of people involved in the project, "as reported by Jules."  ;)

    

GF's account adding cred and a contrast to that which Jules wrote.  ;)

huh. Maybe GuitarFool2002 can clarify, because I don't see a divergence between what he said and what Jules Siegel wrote.

Emily - what GF wrote in this post.  ;)

What I will clarify is that Jules' article could have had a much more pointed personal bias, or even a grudge against Brian Wilson, but to his credit as a journalist and writer he didn't make that a part of his account. For the most part, especially the firsthand details about the studio sessions, events like the dinner party and listening sessions, and other events, Jules' account is accurate and lines up with what other participants saw and described. And it's also backed up by the audio proof we got through the years with the sessions.

I say he could have added more of a negative tone than he did because Jules was for a time in the inner circle with Brian. He's in the airport photo, he's prominently featured in the GV promo film, and he's heard on some of the tapes. It's just like he described in the article, he was involved with a lot of the activities as he was doing his piece, and to him, he became more than a reporter getting the story.

What he hints at was something Michael Vosse described later, and clarified. Jules was the one who was barred from attending the recording sessions at some point, and it was Vosse who blocked him, with the excuse given that it was Jules' girlfriend giving off negative vibes. That, according to Vosse and reading between the lines, was more of a red herring and an excuse. Jules' personality began to grate on the circle of friends, not the least of which was Brian himself, and they just got tired of his attitude and wanted him out. I know it's only one snapshot in time, but some of that can be heard on the old bootleg track called "Smile Era Party" where Jules decides to start a game called Lifeboat and it has a weird, negative tone to the whole thing that brings the whole "skit" down.

Again, his observations and reporting of the majority of events he witnessed is actually accurate and detailed, confirmed by others there (and there were not many others there). And credit to Jules, considering he basically got dumped from the inner circle which Vosse confirmed was more to do with him rubbing people the wrong way and not as much to do with his girlfriend's vibes, he still produced an article which ultimately helped boost the legend around Brian and Smile during that time. He could have made it a slam piece on Brian and the others considering they shut him out at some point in time and he was cut off to the point of being barred from the studio. But he didn't.

Thanks. Good job cross-referencing to piece together a bit of what was happening socially.

Of course that's true. They are primary sources for everything they experienced first-hand.

Even if it was their normal process, it wasnt helpful at a time when the record company was against them, Brian was getting a million ideas at once, they were trying to branch off into producing and filmmaking too, Carl was drafted, the music scene was quickly changing, etc. No one is saying it was the only or even the main factor. But it WAS a factor. I think to wave it away as "Mike only asked about CE innocently the one time"/"that was just their normal process" is just not respecting all the sources. Not just the three we're all creaming over right now, but what VDP, Asher and even Brian's earlier collaborators have said, where they felt very unwelcome and challenged by the other guys--particularly Mike. To ignore this strife thats so well documented isnt being intellectually honest--tho i agree it has been overemphasized in the past, but my issue is, I think we're starting to see the pendulum shift too far the other way now.

Thanks for that quote. It definitely sounds like a man divided. One who knows hes got some good material there but has his doubts too since its so different, and almost certainly had those magnified by the negative reception of the group.

These guys ARE primary sources. Id be really interested to hear if other people who were there have given notable interviews/written articles about it tho.

To limit yourself to just the band is intellectually dishonest. Surely you can see how they have a clear bias too (in Mikes case, to downplay what was happening and the new lyrics) and how they were kept in the dark thru all this. Sure, their recollections have merit too, but they werent even there for most of the sessions and to limit yourself to just them is missing over half the story. 

hmmm... just throwing this out, I haven't thought it through, but one reading of that quote that's completely new to me conceptually but fits with other bits and pieces, would be:

-"a person will write and will realize later that they're ... it's not commercial"
Brian became convinced that much of the Smile work, including Surf's Up ( :() was not commercially viable and that they needed a more commercially viable album at that time (one hitch with this idea is how did he think Smiley Smile would be commercially viable?).
My guess, based on a lot of quotes over the years, would be that Mike Love would agree with that.

-"and the group nearly broke up, actually split up for good over that, that one ... the decision of mine not to put a lot of the things that we'd cut for the album SMILEY SMILE on the album, and so for like almost a year, we're just now kind of getting back together ... because I didn't think that the songs really were right for the public at the time, and I didn't have a feeling, a commercial feeling, about some of these songs that we've never released"
I've heard Dennis Wilson really liked the Smile work and obviously Carl Wilson later insisted on putting Surf's Up on an album, so maybe there were intra-Beach Boys struggles over what to put on Smiley Smile and tempers flared enough that they almost broke up. Brian takes responsibility for the final decision, but that doesn't mean everyone in the group disagreed with him; possibly only that some did (Dennis and Carl maybe?) and they felt strongly enough about it that the band almost broke up.

-what they've written is nice for them, but a lot of people just don't like it
Brian never-the-less seems to think that some of that work is good, to him anyway, but he seems convinced that the public en masse wouldn't be into it.

Exactly. Anderle and Vosse couldve done the same since they were unceremoniously fired, but they kept their tones very reverent of Brian and were really in awe of what he was trying to do even a year later. That, to me, negates any accusations of bias. I mean, yes, everyone is biased in their accounts, but the point is these guys were no more or less than anyone else. The idea that Anderle was VDP's manager would lead me to believe his bias would be to make VDP look as good as possible--possibly at Brian's expense--but he doesnt. He says what their relationship was and what happened, and his account is backed up by Vosse, the parties themselves and later accounts. VDP and Brian both come off looking sympathetic and endearing. He couldve blamed it all on Mike too, especially if he heard of the CE incident. And while he acknowledges there was a lot of fighting, again, so does everyone including Vosse, Siegel, VDP and Brian themselves. But he goes out of his way to say he doesnt blame them, he understand why they didnt like what was happening, and makes them look sympathetic too. The only account that differs on these points it Mike, and hey, speaking of biases. Who has a clear Bias to make themselves out to look good? Especially considering how much praise SMiLE has gotten, and Brian has gotten along with empathy for his condition, he doesnt want to admit to being antagonistic.

Ugh, that Lifeboat tape. Thats the only PS skit Ive only listened to once and never again. I agree, there is a distinctly negative vibe about it. You can tell Brian was pissed/upset, and nobody was really having much fun. I always thought the voice on the recording doing the describing was really obnoxious sounding too--and thats not bias against Siegel because I had no idea who it was until later.

Mujan - from the article..."With that flank covered, Brian was ready to deal with some of the other problems of trying to become hip, the most important of which was how he was going to get in touch with some really hip people.  In effect the dinner party at the house was the first social event, and the star of the evening, so far as Brian was concerned was Van Dyke Parks' manager David Anderle, who showed up with a whole group of very hip people. 

Elegant, cool and impossibly cunning, Anderle was an artist who somehow found himself in the record business for MGM Records, where he had earned himself a reputation as a genius by purportedly think up the million dollar movie-TV-record offer that briefly lured Bob Dylan to MGM from Columbia until everybody had a change of heart and Dylan decided to go back home to Columbia."

So, everything I cited was directly from Jules' article. Word for word.  I think it is from page four or five.

And, the whole issue of "primary sources."  The Beach Boys: Brian, Dennis, Carl, Al, Mike, Bruce and David are "principals." They are the "primary" sources. 

Others, who are eyewitnesses are "secondary" as far as I am concerned.  Sorry to have omitted David in the earlier post.  He is an original BB.   :thewilsons

David told PW in the Outlaw Blues interview: "DAVID: I'm not sure really how that happened. My involvement with Brian when Van Dyke entered the picture was still on a very social level. I remember one night talking to someone, and someone said Van Dyke has been up to Brian's house and they're gonna work together. And I thought, Wow! Man, that's gonna be unbelievable. And I was perplexed as to how the two of them came together."

For me this whole Jules article is getting "curiouser and curiouser" - "Out in the studio, the musicians for the session were unpacking their instruments.  In sport shirts and slacks, they looked like insurance salesmen and used-car dealers, except for one blond female percussionist who might have been stamped out by a special machine that supplied plastic mannequin housewives for detergent commercials."

This is roughly at paragraph 7.  Is Jules referring to Carol Kaye?  And was she a percussionist or a guitar player? Was there another woman doing session work that we don't know about?  

And, if it is she, (Carol Kaye) alongside the disparaging characterization of what I only assume to be some or all male Wrecking Crew members, being referred to in a similar disparaging tone, what is up with this nastiness?  

 

Not Kaye: she only played guitar or bass.

OK - then is it known about whom Jules is speaking?

And if there was a female percussionist, would that mean that Hal Blaine was not there?

And this is the description of the actual (or an actual) percussionist?

Maybe non drummer, on bells, or whatever?

Whoops, mis-post.

I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not doubting Anderle was VDP's manager or Brian wanted to be hip. What I don't agree with you on is this bullying narrative, where the hip crowd came in and forced Brian in a direction he didn't want. Maybe he changed his mind later, but SMiLE was his decision. It was his show all the way. And I'm saying for someone who'd have a vested interest in making VDP look amazing and Brian and/or the other beach boys bad, Anderle didn't. He's incredibly reverent to Brian and the project as well as sympathetic to the Beach Boys. It could've been a "VDP was responsible for everything good about SMiLE, Brian was a drug addled imbecile and the other BBs bullied us out of the picture" type hit piece--which the media would've loved. But it wasn't. I think you're taking this bias complex a bit far.

Also a primary subject in any topic is someone who witnessed something first-hand. So that absolutely means Vosse and Anderle. They were there with Brian on a daily basis watching the album unfold. They are eye witnesses. The other Beach Boys are not. They weren't there until what was it...Nov or Dec...possibly even Jan? I don't recall. But they weren't privy to the day to day operations, the creative process or the Wrecking Crew sessions. Brian didn't tell them his plans when they got back, he said "sing this part" and that's it. They're not good sources on SMiLE. Period. Their input has value, sure, but it's extremely limited because they weren't there for so much of the period. Also, you're neglecting that they have their own biases too. Itd be in their interests to downplay their antagonism and possibly even downplay how great the music was so they don't look like jerks who ruined (or, didn't help with) such an amazing album.

The principles here are Brian and to a lesser extent VDP. Both resent the album and being asked about it and one is a notoriously bad interview with a faulty memory.

The Smile Party tape may warrant a more in-depth listening because (going on memory) it sounds like Brian is directing the negative vibes (similar to the Vegetables arguments).  Like the Mike Love H&V narration, it may behoove further study to confirm Brian's intentions for the recording.

Vosse Siegel never claimed Van Dyke Parks introduced Anderle. Guitarfool2002 was pointing out "inconsistencies and outright incorrect facts being posted in this thread," not in the Siegel article. That one of those errors of fact was born out of a misreading of Siegel's article does not discredit Siegel.
The only error pointed out so far in Siegel's story is that he mistakes Carol Kaye as a percussionist. Big deal^{(TM-RangeRoverA1)}.
Also, "primary source" and "secondary source" are terms of art with specific meanings. If one chooses to use them otherwise, that's of course their choice, but it might be confusing to their readers.

edit - in the original post I accidentally said "Vosse" every time I meant "Siegel"

The personnel are listed online. It's possible Siegel is mistaking Kaye for someone else.

Thats an interesting point, and since I havent listened to it except the one time, maybe I should go back and do so. My impression listening the first time was Siegel and possibly a few other people, were being annoying and possibly mean to Brian and some of the other people there, and Brian was getting noticeably upset as it went on.

No Andrew - I don't agree - that is not good enough.  Nor an excuse for an article that was not proofread by someone who knew Carol Kaye was clearly not the percussionist.  You would know in 5 seconds who the only woman was and what her job was.  She was not behind a set of drums.

He reportedly or "self-reportedly" spent "months" according to Rolling Stone, in their presence, and as I see it, knew or should have know that Hal Blaine was the percussionist, which does not give him proper attribution for his work, and cleverly crafts a way to insult both Carol Kaye and Marilyn Wilson, in a gender specific way. The Rolling Stone article was adapted from the original 1967 article.

This is while Jules speaks of himself in the third person (omniscient - I do not think so)

First, Jules refers to Carol, as "one female percussionist who might have been stamped out of a sequel machine that supplied plastic mannequin housewives for detergent commercials."  I realize that she may have some inaccuracies in whether she played on this song or that, but she did not deserve this. Even in the mid-1960's.  It is a gender-based statement of intolerance.

Second, Marilyn.  "Marilyn sat nervously painting her fingernails as Brian..." Jules did not need to be in Marilyn's home, and comment about Brian's wife painting her nails as though she was a completely self-absorbed wife who did nothing else.  

There is a certain respect for privacy when you are doing a story, while you are in someone's home or whether this "female musician," (Marilyn) should have been accorded a little more respect with the backhanded observation about the wallpaper in Brian's bedroom as "red-imitation-velvet-wallpapered..." and likely was referring to a type of wallpaper, known IIRC as "flock-and-foil." Of course it was "imitation."  Real cotton velvet would be highly flammable.  Who needs to know what kind of wallpaper there is?  This is about a gifted musician who opened his door for this person.  

This board prides itself in accuracy and I find this article not only inaccurate (as corrected by GF) but lacking in a type of loyalty that should have accompanied his extraordinary "access" to this era which is precious to many of us, for this tremendous gift of music that has inspired and comforted us.  It is and was bad enough to see BB/BW criticism coming from the outside, but I find it particularly vexatious to see it coming from the inside.  

And...as regards making them "hip" - what is "hipper" than having a plane with your name on the side?    ;)

Honestly, I think youre just looking for things to complain about. Yeah, there are some very slight inaccuracies but thats the case in all kinds of professional journalism/reports. Not excusing it, but at the same time thats no reason to throw Siegel and this article in the dump.

We can argue about what makes a person hip all day but its irrelevant. Point is, Brian thought he had to please the hipsters and made a conscious effort to do so. If you think that was a bad decision, blame him, not the hipsters. They were just trying to help him realize HIS vision, which he HIRED them to do.

I think youve made up your mind already about these people and are reaching for whatever you can to prove the conclusion youve already decided upon. Speaking of bias ;)

That's my memory too, can't be bothered to listen.    :)

Is it that the tape where Brian is directing people that "we have to have an argument so we can..." something, something, - "make up" or some such?

No it isnt. I dont remember which PS skit that is, but I can say with 100% confidence its NOT lifeboat tape

Can we just save time and all agree that you're right and the rest of the world is wrong ?  ;D

Right. This thread. The Jules article is factually mostly correct and backed up by several other primary sources (more on that later). If he mistook "bassist" for "percussionist", or if there were in fact something he saw that led to that description which we haven't been aware of, it's not that big of a deal.

It was Jules Seigel's article in Cheetah, not Vosse's article in Fusion. And on the topic of Vosse, he got it right. Find me something Vosse said in Fusion that can be proven wrong.

As far as primary and secondary sources...Look to the people who were there as these events were unfolding. Who wasn't there? For a lot of it, the Beach Boys weren't there because they were on tour. For a lot of the tracking sessions, the Beach Boys weren't there. Even if they were there, it was most often Carl. The others didn't play on the tracking sessions, and were not there. Hal Blaine was deposed for one of Mike's lawsuits...Blaine said under oath he can't speak to what Mike did or didn't do because he never saw Mike at the sessions he played. And if Hal Blaine couldn't do a Smile era session for Brian, the gig would go next to Jim Gordon, who was Hal's protege at the time. Hal was grandfathering Gordon into the sessions, by sending gigs he couldn't make Jim's way. That's how you broke in to that scene: protege/mentor, student/teacher, etc.

If I had to rely on sources for info about Smile events, I'd go to Vosse, Anderle, Seigel, Parks, Hutton, Volman...in other words, mostly the people in the airport photo. That was the inner circle, minus the musicians who except for Hal Blaine were not as close personally outside the studio work as Hal and Brian became. Notice who isn't in that photo - The Beach Boys. Simply because they were on tour and not in LA for quite a bit of Fall 66.

To clarify again, David Anderle began hanging out with Brian through a relative and mutual friend in early '65. Then into 1966, he became more frequent a visitor to Brian's house and other events and by Fall 66 he and Vosse took on "official" roles in developing the plans for Brother Records and other projects.

Van Dyke Parks did not bring Anderle in. Anderle was associated with Brian before Brian knew who Van Dyke Parks was.

Parks, Hutton, Volman

^Any good articles with these guys I should be on the lookout for? Anything on the level of the big 3?


Anyway, I think its worth bringing this up here in this thread too. I think the big asset with the big 3 articles: Seigel, Anderle, Vosse, is the ability they have in making you feel like you were there. When it comes to events that went down in the SMiLE Era, what it was like being around Brian day to day, and the overarching goals for the SMiLE project, these are great sources of info. What Im seeing more of, and I personally think is wrong, is using them to answer sequencing questions and the structures of songs like OMP and Elements. I know this is off topic but Im bringing it up here because theyre getting hyped up in this thread and think its a good thing to remind people of. I know I compared them to the gospels myself and I take the blame for any overhyped expectations that caused...but theyre not gospel. Or at least...dont look for meaning that isnt there. Vosse described a really cool on the cuff bit where Brian played My Only Sunshine and then directly went to playing Barnyard. Thats something that happened. Im not denying that. But to then point to that and say "that means those two were one song on the album and if you dont think so youre wrong" I think is taking it way too literally and too far. I dont think Vosse even meant to suggest such a thing himself, hes merely trying to relay a particularly memorable night during the sessions when something cool happened--thats it. And then interpreting him so literally, so...religiously...that if he describes WC after Elements suddenly thats proof positive WC is an element...NO. Thats not evidence of anything--not by itself anyway. Its a coincidence, or else a very forced interpretation youre making that may or may not be true, but that alone isnt enough to claim some superior position on the subject.
TL;DR: Vosse/Anderle/Seigel are great...for understanding the big picture. Not for finding some miraculous hidden details that magically and unquestionably solve all the album's secrets. Just a disclaimer I think is necessary to point out. :3d

oops -  will go back and exchange "Siegel" for "Vosse" - it's the Cheetah article that I meant, correct.

There are quite a few video interviews with Danny Hutton available where he talks about the dynamics he saw between Brian and the other Beach Boys, but not really specific to Smile. If you search the usual YouTube circuit, you'll find some of Danny's interviews there. He was there as a friend and observer for the Smile events...so still the primary sources go back to Vosse and Anderle who were there in official capacities as well as friends and observers.

Volman of course wrote his essay for the Sessions box, and also years ago there was an interview with the old Ear Candy site where the interviewer asked about Smile, and Volman seemed to shut down and said something like he was there to talk about the Turtles, and that's what he went back to doing. I can't think of any extensive published interviews where Volman goes into more detail about Smile than he did in his box set essay.

Thanks, Ill try to check those out

EDIT: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL35350BBCE486D776 (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL35350BBCE486D776) <something I found, there may be more but this was the first promising thing that came up, in case anyone else wanted to see

Yet the Boys know best what they thought and did etc. during the period.

One known example of what Danny was doing...Fall 1966 here he is with then-girlfriend June Fairchild at Columbia watching Brian cut Good Vibrations. Maybe more than Volman, who was a neighbor and friend of Brian's, but involved more as a close friend I think at that time rather than officially. Of course later, post-Smile, Brian was producing him with Redwood so he saw the business side of things surrounding Brian and the band.

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/briandannyjune.jpg)

Within the bubble of a family dynamic and inner-band workings, that is. Often reality exists outside that bubble and can be seen with more clarity from the outside. Having someone witness and describe events from outside that bubble is often more enlightening and carries less of a bias.

Yes. No ones saying discard what they have to say. Have any of them done any in depth interviews (not for TSS I mean) regarding SMiLE? Id love to read/see them. The point is tho, they werent there until the Sessions were already in a downward spiral or just about to be. They were not privy to the day to day goings on, the inspiration and creative process, or Brian's plans. They were basically treated as instruments--something I believe is what caused a lot of the friction. So yeah, their recollections are important too, but when it comes to knowing what it was like to be there, and some insight into what Brian was doing, Ill take Vosse and Anderle over Bruce and Al anyday

Exactly. Its funny how the mentality in this thread seems to be "Anderle/Vosse/VDP=biased bullies, but the Beach Boys are totally 100% objective little angels"

Yes and those outside the "bubble" might misunderstand because they are not a part of the inner workings and dynamic.  I don't think the Boys' perceptions of the thoughts and doings of the Posse are better understood by the Boys because they were outside the Posse "bubble".

Im not even sure what that means, but ignoring that, since youre not trying to take in what we're saying...its just the simple fact that they havent really wrote anything in-depth about it. Not that Im aware of, anyway. Show us an interview that goes as long and detailed as any of the big three and I'll read it and take it into serious consideration.

Arent you the one who was really pushing those 3 articles just a little bit ago?

Might misunderstand what? They saw what they saw, in one case when half the band huddled up in one corner and the other half in another and had an argument in the studio, that was an indication there were divisions within the band at that particular time about the music they were there to work on. You could also then say that these disputes between Brian and Van Dyke could have just been the personalities of the two men, two headstrong creative musicians, rather than indications there were conflicts beyond them being who they are as personalities. It depends on how far you want to stretch the parameters.

Bottom line is still there were events where the Beach Boys simply were not there while others who reported on the events were not only there but involved firsthand. It's foolish to suggest Al or Mike would be better sources of info for something that played out while the BB's were playing a show in England.

Obviously each participant is the best source for that participant's perspective of the events that that participant participated in. Anderle, for instance, is not the best source for Mike Love's perspective, and vice versa. But Anderle is the best source for his perspective on Mike Love, and vice versa.
The most complete picture would include each participant's complete recall of their perspective. Unfortunately, we'll never have that and must take what we can.

Sorry to interrupt this thread but I just saw this from some pages back.
CSM - I think it was kind of the opposite. There was a really big market in Germany for US rock and roll from the 50s on. I think the special German language recordings were kind of a nod to the existing huge market, rather than an attempt to open a new market.

It is foolish and I didn't say they were but bottom line, using your words, it is equally foolish to to suggest Al and Mike or any of the Boys are not better sources for what they thought and felt about what they were involved in.

Whether there is an interview or not the principle still stands.

They are still important and you needed to read them, imo, for the reasons I gave.

Now it's my turn, I don't understand, who said they were bullies and 100% little angels?

GF - the little problem is that when anyone wants to look at whatever the "relationships" among the parties were, especially for this who have studied the BB's in a music program and want to plumb the depths of how things happened and come up with conflicting published narratives that have been given enormous credence, I think it is a problem.  I am glad that after I pulled the Jules article apart, paragraph by paragraph, there is or seems to be some conflict.  And the band was on tour with the apparent understanding that there would be tracks that they had to add their vocals to.  We know they could not be two places at the same time. 

Somewhere, I think I have that Vosse article as well, but just find it easier to read as a work document, or one republished as the Jules one was. It was easy to print and mark up.  Although I will stretch out the one linked on this site ( I already had a laugh with his comments on Arlene Dahl toward the beginning.)  In the big picture they had a lot of managers and promoters for the BB's and this group (notwithstanding the BRI involvement.)

When my kids took the history of Rock and Roll in high school and college, I would go through their text to find the history of the BB's to check for accuracy.  Often it was not.  And I would hate to see my kids read about a pioneer woman (Carol Kaye) in a "Wrecking Crew" role disparaged in that way, or the "musician/vocalist" wife of Brian Wilson, without a mention of her role in the music business, and just doing her nails. 

The tone sets a poor example for young people.  Having been in a long-time position of reviewing textbooks for race or gender bias, I find that account of Jules problematic, and not just for the BB/BW "hierarchy" issues.   

At any rate, GF,  thanks for your input while I was dealing, strictly with Jules' version of the "facts."   ;)

Those are comparing two separate formats - Having also taken similar "History of..." courses and read many (no joke) similar textbooks whether it was rock, jazz, blues, country, or whatever else, and having done a lot of work on rock/pop history as well with the necessary source material both published and unpublished, it's a safe conclusion to say the more formal textbook formats do indeed fall short many times, and in some cases are just plain lazy preferring a brief overview rather than a decent summary with details. And the accuracy often gets sacrificed for the convenience of previously published assumptions rather than in-depth accurate explorations of the details.

I understand why - Textbooks aren't offering the platform nor the necessary space on their pages to really go in depth. It speaks a lot about those compiling any given textbook to see how correct they got their overviews versus which tried and true sources they used to create a hit-and-run summary that falls short. Ultimately in a textbook situation, it comes down to the teacher or professor holding the responsibility of presenting and analyzing the material for their students.

I don't compare Jules Seigel or Michael Vosse's articles to school textbooks, or even the typical rock history overviews as sold in any bookstore. One group is focused solely on what was essentially less than a year of events in 1966 into 67, the other is trying to compress over 60 years of history into a relatively small format of available space.


Onto Jules and Michael Vosse's specific pieces.

Again I ask - having done considerable research, writing, dissection, analysis, etc of all this stuff - Is there something specific in the Vosse article that can be pointed to and shown to be wrong? In the Jules article, is there something specific in there that can be pointed to and shown to be wrong? And by that, I'm not referring to things like the percussionist issue, but rather the details that are specific to what happened and what Jules and Vosse observed.

Understand too, I'm coming into this having seen many years' worth of efforts to cherrypick, or selectively extract certain passages of these interviews, articles and other eyewitness sources of info while blatantly ignoring or dismissing others in order to back up an opinion or add fuel to a debate position. It's been done, and it's easy to spot miles away even with a cracked pair of eyeglasses in a dense fog.

So what specific points were made or what events were described in either Vosse or Seigel that are incorrect, historically or factually?

GF - I  am referring to the Atavist reprint.  I am reading from a printed up copy.  Here are some problems as I see them.  They may be value-judgments, or in conflict with what you have posted. I don't have all day for this so will pull out a few toward the beginning that beg the question, for me, as to why there was this whole effort to have a Brian Wilson/ Beach Boys "makeover."  Boomers were raised in some measure to "not judge a book by it's cover."   We can discuss.  

As far as my hands-on experience, just as example, post-Master's in Education, around 1980, I had done a project post-grad work in a course, on two identical book company books; a classroom music text, which I used every day, a great anthology of sorts, which had "colored-in" white children to represent that they were non-white, same page, same song.  Late 1970's; very offensive.  Then, annually reviewing publishers "sample" books, to do an annual book order, for inclusive family themes, and gender bias. And, going through existing textbooks for every single subject, for indicia of discriminatory race-based themes which eventually extended to include gender-based discriminatory themes in the 80's and 90's.  So this is my teacher hat.  

This whole treatment of the issue of Carol Kaye and Marilyn just jumps off the page for me. Jules' article, after having had that decades long experience in the educational context, made my head explode.  I see things in that article with a context I could never have as a teen, pre-womens movement, and race movement in the States.   Would he write that same article in 2016?  I don't think so.  

Paragraph 4  - "Among the hip people he (Brian) was still on trial, and the question discussed earnestly among the recognized authorities on what is and what is not hip was whether or not Brian Wilson was hip, semi-hip or square."

Paragraph 8 - "...Brian had hired Van Dyke Parks...to collaborate on the lyrics for Smile...had a fighting chance against John Lennon whose literary skill and Liverpudlian wit had been one of the most important factors in making the Beatles the darling of the  hip intelligentsia."

Paragraph 9 - "...star of the evening...was Van Dyke Parks's (as written) manager, David Anderle, who showed up with a whole group of very hip people."

Paragraph 11 - "His appeal to Brian was simple:  everybody recognized David Anderle as one of the hippest people in Los Angeles.  In fact he was something like the mayor of hipness as far as some people were concerned.  And not only that, he was a genius."

Paragraph 12 - "Within six weeks, he was working for the Beach Boys;..." A new Beach Boys record company was set up, brother Records, with David Anderle at its head and simultaneously, the Beach Boys sued Capitol records in a move to force a negotiation of their contract with the company."

So there are five.  From Jules.  
 

Each of those quotes, I don't see an issue with relating to what Jules saw and reported on regarding Smile and Brian. For the events he described - some in very specific detail - he reported what he saw and it lines up across the board with what we've either heard via audio, or have seen reported (or confirmed) by others who were there. If he injected his own opinions into the article, that's par for the course, but saying things about David Anderle being hip do not give the grounds to write off his entire piece, especially since most of the facts he reported are actually the facts of what happened, not just as he witnessed them.

The whole idea of hipness and what was hip versus what (or who) was square - That is a topic for either a semester-long course or a full book analyzing what that whole scene comprised. Just one example - There was "New York Hip" versus "LA Hip", and going through the machinations of what that was or what those definitions were would take at least a full chapter of a book.

What I will say, and what I have been saying for some time, is Brian Wilson in 1966 was ahead of the curve, and people who were keyed in to the bigger picture knew this, and were watching and listening to what he was doing with a very keen ear. As far as "hip" or hipness as a description, that's up to whoever was deciding that in their own perspective at that time. But there was an entire movement happening which the mainstream either ignored or tried to hide that encompassed everything from music, to fashion, to advertising, to the most basic ways of talking and dressing.

It all came out eventually via the bandwagon of the mass media when they latched onto "scenes" and started labeling them, most egregiously the Summer Of Love in 1967 as some kind of benchmark.

There had been many musicians, artists, writers, etc doing more than that label would ever imagine for years, and in terms of 1966, Brian Wilson happened to be one of those who was at the forefront. So when a writer like Jules Seigel gets into more hyperbole and hype than may seem appropriate in retrospect, it just happened to be the scene he was observing, a scene which a year later would turn into a mass media feeding frenzy that missed most of the point and went for the hit-and-run short attention span instead of digging deeper.

David Oppenheim saw it as he came to LA with a CBS News film crew to see what Brian was up to. Good timing or something else, it coincided with the Pandora's Box demonstrations (aka Sunset Strip Riots) that saw major media news crews capturing kids marching through the streets of LA, a year before the caricature of the bearded, robe-and-sandal-wearing flower children became the symbol used to characterize such demonstrations. It was big - Brian and his new music just happened to be there before most people knew what was going on.

GF - reasonable minds can differ.  I saw Surf's Up when presented in 1967, had the same "bench warmer" 3/4 coat, that Carl wears on the Pet Sounds cover, like most mid 60's kids wore, alongside their Mondrian shirts, pea coats with epaulets, flower-powered everything, but I look at that as only "cosmetic" stuff.   

Brian wrote Surfer Girl, Surfer Moon, LCD, Don't Worry Baby, Warmth of the Sun, Little St. Nick, Please Let Me Wonder, And Your Dream Comes True, California Girls, among a slew of others, so I guess I don't get the need for a "make-over." 

It would be interesting to drop that article in the hands of a class of Women's Studies students, in the post-Title XI world of education, with long-fought for parity in sports and other areas, and wonder if the students would identify the stereotypes that I find to be so blatant.  Beach Boys music is "people" music, not just guy's music.  You are correct that it would be a whole semester of teaching, on 60's era music.  I always expect the BB music to occupy more page space than it does. 

And, I guess what I find troubling is that after all that global travel they did before Brian came off the road, in Europe and elsewhere, they all had their eyes opened as to what was happening in the world, going to art galleries, and international monuments, learning about global cultures, and how it may have directly affected their work product.  Certainly they had the wardrobe commensurate with that extensive travel while on tour.  Travel, itself is an education.

They were photographed all over the world.  And that was pre-1966.

So I guess we can agree to disagree.  It is fine. 

FdP, I agree that most people, or at least most women and a lot of men, reading Siegel's article now would find his comment about the "percussionist" (probably Carol Kaye) offensive; and as with many articles from that time, domestic scenes (in this article Marilyn and the "wives and girlfriends" in the kitchen), probably stand out as big culture difference to most contemporary readers, as well as the lack of women in the professional scenes.
I also think that Siegel uses the word "hip" a little too much.
But, as with the Rocky Pamplin thread, despite some issues with the author (not that I think Siegel is remotely similar to Pamplin) some factual information and a sense of atmosphere, motivations and relationships can be still be garnered.

Emily - you served in the military.  That is parity.  You walked the walk.  

Jules is not in the same category.  It is this whole coterie who are image-polishing, in my opinion in the absence of a need. And Capitol subjugating the BB's to the Beatles.  It is corporate disloyalty. Why was this band made to feel they were not "good enough" anymore after the Beatles landed ?  

But,  the BB's liked the Beatles.  Most of the new Party sessions is really fun Beatles music.  Dennis, I think could probably have sung with the Beatles.  They did a great take off on Dylan.  Al was the resident "folkie' - the epitome of "protest music" of America.  I don't think they needed a make-over.      

Their travel changed them and helped them grow up in an adult world.  The assassination of JFK changed them. The assassinations of RFK and MLK changed them as did the Vietnam War.

Brian's work was already progressing beyond the girl-surf-cars motifs in 1963-4 and becoming more introspective, as they all were.  So I am really questioning this era that I lived through.  I cannot change it; but I can question it while looking critically at what was written.    ;)

We like to build people up and nurture people to build on what they have done; tell them they are "good enough" to do anything, and not put a head trip on them that they are not "hip" enough.   ;)

I agree with all of this. I don't think they needed a make-over. I think they were naturally changing with the times.

Back home with access to my archives. No percussionist listed on the "MO'LC" AFM sheet (Jim Gordon was the drummer, and as the track was cut essentially live, there was almost certainly no percussionist, period) and CK was the only woman present other than Diane Rovell as contractor. Thus, Siegel was mistaken: no female percussionist.

Another reason I've heard for him being barred was that Chrissie (who, incidentally, he met at the sessions) was hitting on Brian and distracting him.

Capitol was making way more money off The Beatles than they ever did The Beach Boys. It would stand to reason they would follow the money. The Beach Boys certainly turned a profit but they were never the world-shifting phenomena The Beatles were. They COULD have been in 1966 when Beatlemania was starting to wane, but by that time Capitol knew who the big moneymakers were.
The Beach Boys had a stigma about them. I've heard this a million times from boomers. The Beach Boys were associated with the high school jock crowd which became "unhip" overnight when the Beatles arrived. Yes, they had hits throughout Beatlemania, just like The Four Seasons, but both were still considered yesterday's news.
I can see why Brian wanted to cultivate a hip persona and actively seek out the "hip" crowd. I don't blame him for that. That sort of image consciousness had a lot of cache in 1966-67, despite being kind of stupid in retrospect. After all, Brian was hipper then all of these people combined. We only know of these "hipsters" because they were once associated with Brian Friggin' Wilson, which says a lot about useless this concept of "hipness" is.
I know some fans take these people very seriously but basically I see them as college kids who ruled Los Angeles for about 6 months.  >:D 

Agreed. Also, I don't think it's all about the label. The biggest rock and roll marketing successes until then (Beatles and Elvis) had their own talented marketing teams outside of the label and NEMs enterprises was very aggressive in the US. Capitol didn't get serious about its youth marketing until 1965, and then with "Teen Set" it was a little behind the times.
I think the Beach Boys' marketing was good at opening doors, but from '62 on was off. There are all those awkward interviews from the early sixties in which they openly say they are consciously writing for the teenage market. Saying that was, in itself, bad PR.

Pre-Rolling Stone and Crawdaddy, the pop press was pretty laughable in its shallowness, on both sides of the pond.

Also, keep in mind that the Beatles parent label EMI owned 96% of Capitol Records stock. The suits at Capitol operated independently for years, turning down not only The Beatles but big British EMI artists before them like Cliff Richard & The Shadows. It got to a breaking point and EMI basically said "You WILL distribute Beatle records and you WILL spend money promoting them". Dave Dexter and his Capitol cronies held their noses and did as they were told only to see the Beatles explode in popularity almost overnight. After that, the floodgates opened.

There are some opinions being expressed here which might be opinions, but aren't quite accurate...The Beach Boys were still Capitol's best-selling American pop/rock artist going into 1967. Throughout Fall 1966 the rumors in the US were strong that the Beatles had split up, as each Beatle was off doing their own thing or on hiatus and nothing was being done as a group. There was a vacuum to fill, and fans were worried as well as I'm sure the people at the labels who stood to lose a boatload if the rumors were true. Good Vibrations sold plenty as 1966 turned into 1967...#1 record for weeks.

College kids running LA for 6 months? I know that's meant in a joking way, but that's absurd. Expand the focus to include people like Terry Gilliam, George Lucas, Jimmy Webb, various bands, actors, musicians, actresses, designers, some still students and some fresh out of schools...yeah, those college kids only wound up changing the entire pop culture landscape for the next decade and beyond. Some of those kids also got into advertising and other areas of opinion-shaping and managed to sneak in quite a few radical and avant garde notions into mainstream culture without people realizing it was happening.

Good point regarding the cultural atmosphere. This ties into the movie thread in the sandbox!

Just to add one example specific to Brian Wilson's music...Frank Zappa, one of the most perceptive commentators and observers of that era and the sociology of the pop culture, specifically credited Brian with liberating the ii/V progression in popular music through Little Deuce Coupe. That may be too musician-centric or obscure of a reference, but consider so much of the 60's was about breaking down walls and shattering convention, and consider how the ii/V progression was something that was set in stone for composers and songwriters. And this guy from Hawthorne wrote a hit record about hot rods that shattered that convention.

Of course, Zappa also "got" the Monkees as something innovative and revolutionary beyond the popularity, and got quite a lot of the entire 60's scene including the record business that few have ever matched.

It ties exactly into that, yes! The people in the film industry who dominated Hollywood in the 70's and beyond, those behind all of the blockbusters and innovations in CGI and special effects and cross-marketing and the like...they were film school kids in 1966/67 too. Including Lucas who was one of those asked to work on Brian's GV promo film in fall 1966 when he was studying at UCLA but didn't do it. So these college kids made quite an impact.

Forget about another one...what years did Woodward and Bernstein graduate college?  :)

Woodward and Bernstein...that's a trick question.  ;D

As I clearly stated when I said "Beatlemania was starting to wane" there was a time, a window of opportunity where Capitol could've put all of their marketing muscle into the Beach Boys but they didn't. Rumors of a Beatle breakup and had been circulating for a while (even moreso in Britain than in the U.S.) because the Fabs hadn't released any new Beatle product for 6 months. The Beach Boys had time on their side and the right tracks that could've given them the edge but we all know what happened there.

And yes, it was said in a joking way, unless luminaries George Lucas and Terry Gilliam are popping up in that famous airport photo (where are my glasses?).

Lucas was on set filming for Gimme Shelter, the documentary on Altamont, but his footage wasnt used

*
wrong Bernstein... :lol
(Leonard - Harvard - 1939)

Good Vibrations hit #1 in late fall 66, so they hit the timing right on that one, plenty of press too. In fact, it made industry headlines for premiering on a TV dance show (KHJ-TV in LA) rather than being premiered by a DJ on radio, which was the industry standard.

Gilliam was at the same agency as Tony Asher until he moved to the UK.

Consider that the musicians and people in the music industry in the airport photo went on to sell well over 100 million records combined and were parts of some of the most successful bands of the 60's and 70's, and in David Anderle's case, one of the most successful and respected producers and execs in Hollywood (specifically film soundtracks), I'd say the kids did quite well for themselves!

Still no defense to no big full out Pet Sounds promo tour in 1966.  And big TV push. TV variety shows always needed slots for entertainment filled and they were big, in the year prior, on the heels of Sloop, Barbara Ann, GOK, etc., 

GF - you are being too nice.    ;)

stumped

Carl Bernstein did not graduate.  Woodward - Yale, 1965

I can google. I'm just stumped where he's going with it.

Maybe Watergate? Woodward and Bernstein

But Bernstein (Leonard )was involved with Inside Pop. ;)

We have a winner! Bernstein was a play on words/names with a dual meaning in tribute to Van Dyke Parks, who is in the photo. Woodward was a Navy man, and Carl Bernstein dropped out of college, a move which cost him good jobs at first but he eventually got in through his abilities as a journalist. But beyond that, these were also some of the college kids that came of age in the mid to late 60's and ended up changing the landscape in their respective fields.

Consider if that airport photo was a school class photo: We have key members of the Beach Boys, Three Dog Night, The Turtles, Jan & Dean, various published authors and musicians like Van Dyke Parks, we have a successful music exec in David Anderle, we have Michael Vosse who went on to win Emmy awards for his work in TV news...quite a class, in that photo, quite successful.

Where the notion comes from that these people were something other than successful on their own, or why that notion even exists, is beyond me.

My point again is that none if these people, no matter how successful they were or would become, are in Brian's league. When we're talking about Brian Wilson, we're talking about one of the greatest visionary music makers not only in popular music but in music...period. The idea of "hipness" when it comes to Brian's music is pointless. It transcends whatever style, fad, fashion, cultural significance out there.

However, hipness in mid-sixties LA (and for that matter, London) was defined by a small, self-appointed clique of people and was nothing to do with music: if they didn't think you were hip, based on what they wore/drank/read, then you weren't hip. Simply put, The Beach Boys were so square, they were in danger of becoming ironically hip. Brian's music was way beyond what anyone else was doing back then, but in the eyes of the LA hip community, he might as well have been Pat Boone.

I dont think anyone here needs convincing of that.

Some of those hipsters seemed like pretty decently competent at worst and possibly far better at what they were hired to do, so I dont think they deserve the pounding theyre taking now by some. That said, those of us supporting their accounts are doing just that--saying they wrote some really interesting, comprehensive retrospectives on the project. No more, no less. Its not picking a side on whether Brian needed to be hip or not, or these guys really were hip themselves, to say Vosse seemed to be telling the honest truth and Anderle didnt come off as particularly biased in his account.

That said, my opinion, Brian didnt need these guys in a creative sense per se, but I do think they brought something really amazing to the music, and by being there they not only added to the intrigue but also preserved it for those of us curious nowadays. SMiLE is 20x better than even Pet Sounds in my opinion, and I think VDP added a lot to it with his lyrics and, I suspect, by introducing the Americana theme. SMiLE wouldnt be SMiLE without him; it wouldnt have the same intellectual overtones, the replay value, and the added wordplay and room for analysis. Thats a big part of the fun for me. Pet Sounds and the other stuff are great to listen to but they dont warrant careful study of everything from the lyrics, instruments used (we know VDP helped with arranging too) and even the booklet and cover like this album does. Thats what sets this one apart and makes it something really special.

You can be a Brian fan and think hes better than all them combined but still appreciate what VDP, Anderle, Vosse and the rest bought to the scene. They seem like genuine fans of his too, so I dont see the need to pick sides. The only person I strongly suspect never had his best interests at heart is Daro. And thats reflected too in his inputs, where all he has to offer is laughing about his bad trip, calling him a pig and Marilyn a cow, and claiming all the best songs were really written about him.

For the record, I'm not talking about their accounts of what happened. I was referring to Brian's apparent need to seek the approval of the hip LA scene when he was way beyond them to begin with. I DO think that people need to step back and consider that all of the principles involved were in their 20's and should cut them some slack for their behavior.

We'll disagree on Pet Sounds -vs- SMiLE. To me Pet Sounds is the masterwork with honest, raw and profound lyrics that have much more going for them VDP's, some of which I find wonderful while some come off as incredibly pretentious. Loved them all when I was younger, not so much at 45, whereas Pet Sounds still works on every level for me, if anything it becomes a richer listening experience as I get older (which I can't say for many albums I worshipped as a teenager). There's also the problem of SMiLE not being fully realized. I'm leaning more and more towards the idea of it being 6 or so completed songs that should've just been released as they were.

I see the term 'pretentious' frequently employed on these boards, sometimes about other posters, but most often in reference to the lyrics or, indeed, speech/manner of Van Dyke Parks. One actual (and satisfactory) definition of that word: 'Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed.'

Is this actually what you mean when discussing the words for the SMiLE songs? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you if so, but if the term's going to be thrown about it'd be nice to know this is actually what you mean. At least then if there's going to be any debate over the merits of (and these are just examples - I do recognize you said you find some of his lyrics wonderful :) )  'She belongs there, left with her liberty' or - yes - 'Over and over, the crow cries uncover the cornfield', we'll understand the terms of that debate going in. Especially because you consider some of the lyrics to 'come off' as 'incredibly' attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed. This strikes me as a bold line to take - even with the most esoteric verses he wrote - but I'm interested to read your arguments.

Well - Thank you, GF - I don't win contests but surely won, when I fell in love with the BB's music with TLIOK in the mid 60's.  No doubt there are serious music luminaries among the class photo. I saw Mark Volman last summer as part of the Flo and Eddie tour.  They were at Disney as well at some point.  The missing students in the photo are those "medieval choirboys, the voices of the Beach Boys pealed (ing)in wordless prayer...chorale that reached upward to the vaulted stone ceilings of an empty cathedral lit by thousands of tiny votive candles melting at last into one small, pool that whispered a universal amen in a sigh without words."  (Jules) - and I agree with this characterization.

What runs though many thoughts in this thread, is this whole idea of "pretentiousness" with this compulsion surrounding "hipness" when the whole "hippie movement" was a purported rejection of "pretense and superficiality." Fashion conventions were dumped; men rejected the monthly visit to the barbershop, and women largely rejected beauty "parlors" and often did not use makeup and "foundation wear."  The natural look was in.  It was being yourself, authentically.  It seems sort of a contradiction to me.     

But, ultimately Brian Wilson was/is the most unpretentious person on earth, seeking a truth in humanity, as evidenced in Til I Die, and other similar works that others can only strive to emulate.  So his uniqueness was perhaps put at risk with these events, in my opinion, notwithstanding the "classmates," he is/was Class President, where he remains, and without the name-tag of Class President. 

While I regard Smile as an operetta, I think the BB/BW power is in reaching the most people, in a manner that is not trendy but timeless and the vocal blend of the BB's that is the trademark.

But, I would use SMiLE in a Social Studies curriculum to teach the American Story.  You can teach almost anything through music.  But, Pet Sounds is the teenage symphony to God, or the process of self-actualization.  And Brian calls Him by name.   ;)

Who knew that Pet Sounds would become both the standard and an anchor for those who want or need to reflect?   

Does anyone else find it telling what Brian dumped from SMiLE?  He didn't dump everything.  Isn't that the indication of what Brian thought was too sophisticated and non-commercial and all of the other reasons Brian gave at the time?

I know Siegel was gone around Christmas, Anderle and Vosse seem to concentrate on the same period, December just after the tour, in regards to their witness of sessions involving the Boys. It seems to me those sessions were mostly for H&V and that was not dumped.  Doesn't that sort of argue toward Brian having the problems he has given with the songs he actually dumped and and away the Boys' activities, like having little if any explanation from Brian but still wanting to sing it but sing it in a different way or sing it beautifully for endless takes before having your product dumped or your lead yanked or asking for the meaning of the lyric you are singing/sung, being so pivotal (since the song mostly of those sessions was finished)?  Things can be said to be resistance even if no one is resisting.

Whoops, forgot the OT: I don't doubt that GV's success was a revelation to Brian and may have caused him to dump what he already thought was too sophisticated and non-commercial etc. and his other reasons. The timing seems right.

Cam - I think part of the "unwieldiness" of SMiLE is and was the "book-cover" - and this is an observation and not a criticism.  I always ask myself, the question of how I would translate something for students. 

Had the book-cover or artwork been a map of the 50 United States, from "sea to shining sea" where there is a frame-of-reference built in, there is a place to start for instruction, and the place to unfold the American saga, with an explanation of what some of the lyric or music imaging was.  People get that, and it is all there but it isn't framed out to digest.  It leaves too much to figure out. And it becomes a teachable moment and a place to raise the bar with a huge impact.  This artist was certainly capable of illustrating this story of migration and even immigration as regards the United States to appeal to children and adults.  ;)       

Yes, but could it not also be possible he just so happened to scrap the least completed songs (Worms, CE, etc) and kept the most completed (Wonderful, He Gives Speeches--which have the most Parksian lyrics of all next to Surfs Up) ? Or else, couldnt it be theorized he scrapped the songs he did, not because he didnt believe in them or Parks' style, but because those also got the most blowback from the Beach Boys? Seems just as plausible. I dont really think you can prove anything definitively that way.

Also likely was that he discarded the most grandiose high-production in songs in favour of material that The Beach Boys could play together as a band. That Brian was looking to get rid of the sophisticated Parks numbers just doesn't wash when you consider that he included, what, four of them on Smiley Smile?

Thank you.

Sorry Cam, but this apologism and whitewashing the feuding that was going on really doesnt fly when you consider the facts. We have Brian himself, VDP, Hutton, Siegel, Vosse, Anderle and probably others who all agree it was happening. Even Mike--tho he downplays it of course--admits to hating most of the lyrics in TSS. This shouldnt even be a debate. And none of those guys except maybe Parks have a reason to even bring it up. And when they do, theyre not incredibly hostile about it either. Most admit they understand where Mike was coming from and sympathize with his concerns and why hed be unsupportive. Theyre not trying to ruin him or present a fall guy, theyre just honestly relaying what they saw. To just dismiss the evidence of 7+ people, all with varying degrees of involvement and their own agendas which mostly dont overlap, and including the man youre defending, is ludicrous. It wasnt just some friendly disagreements, or part of the process. There was a lot of tension which according to Hutton is what was the biggest problem for Brian, according to Anderle what would make him unproductive for days at a time, and according to Brian himself is the #1 reason he didnt finish the album. Nobody is pushing the old Mike killed SMiLE narrative, but Im sick of seeing the pendulum shift so far the other way that now he was totally cooperative and supportive and everything was hunky dory. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Anyway, its undeniable that there was a good deal of friction and bickering between the Boys and Brian, its just unclear exactly how much an impact that played. Thats not speculation or opinion, thats fact. Thats something all the big articles--which you yourself essentially said I had to read to be able to speak on the subject--agree on. Once more, you cant have it both ways; either you believe what they say or you dont.

CSM - there is a lot of truth there with the reality of the situation.  They had to perform those cuts from Smiley.  In August of 1967, they did GV, Heroes and Getting' Hungry.  This is around when Smiley came out.  In November for the Thanksgiving Tour, they were doing GV, but also Country Air and Wild Honey and which came out a little before Christmas.  Where the rubber meets the road, they had to perform those songs with maybe as few as 5-6 guys.  Those who had any philosophical differences did not have to present this music.   ;) 

And this brings up a perfect example of the kind of things that divide BB fans: some gut responses to this will be
- the band is the main thing so Brian Wilson needed to put together music that could be performed live
and others will be
- Brian Wilson's artistry is the main thing so it's a shame he felt he needed to alter his work for the band.


I'm not saying those are the only interpretations. I'm also not saying this, right here, pin-points anything about the demise of Smile. I'm just saying that the point FilledePlage makes illustrates where BB fans' thinking sometimes diverges, I think.

Emily - when the band was formed they all travelled and maybe did some of the writing on the road.  So the work product would be in sync with what would be performed.  When Brian came off the road, it seemed the expectation was for Brian to be at home writing so that the group would continue in the same fashion and perform the work.   

If the "artistry" or special arrangement doesn't work on the stage with fewer orchestral musicians (as was the case) you have to have a product that will work or the touring part of the deal does not work.  It was "their" band.  Brian traveled and performed what they wrote together or when home, and off they were free to write and bring in others to help with special themes such as cars, but all subject to scheduling.  I think that some forget there was a world before Pet Sounds and Smiley. 

They had to promote the work while on tour or it doesn't work.  So, for that Thanksgiving Tour, which I saw and some versions are on Youtube which I highly recommend you have a listen to. It will give you a sense of what was going on in the setlists, relative to the new releases.  There may be some commentary on the youtube from late fall 1967, where you can hear among the banter, the promos for Wild Honey, so they are ushering in those songs as well. You can hear them do a little promo of the LP.  They are a really fun listen.  So that is the time between two albums.  And the band always would tell the audience that Brian was home writing for the band, so they could keep bringing new music  to their concertgoers. 

That's a great elucidation of the first response. Thanks.
And it's a perfectly valid point of view. I think both are.

Sorry Mujan, I am considering the facts, we just don't agree on some of it.  

The pendulum has not swung too far the other way imo, it hasn't even swung back to the middle yet, it is still approaching the middle.

Or those are the songs he thought were non-commercial and whose lyrics he thought were too sophisticated.  I wonder if it wasn't because they don't really fit the intents he expressed for the album in the early interviews, maybe because some of them are sort of a preachy history lesson or something.  

I definitely think the Americana direction was largely VDP's push--it seems to be his schtick, as does incorporating covers in a unique, originally way. But we must remember H&V was Brian's idea and one of his first songs of the period. VDP didnt turn that into a Cowboy song either, it was Brian's idea. If he decided against that concept, its not necessarily a dig at VDP. And really, I think the other theories presented here are just as likely.

Hasn't VDP said the Western theme was his idea, the tune making him think of a Marty Robbins song.

"He did the melodies. The melody to "Heroes and Villains" -- every note has a sound syllable to it. It sounded like a Marty Robbins tune, like a ballad, so I thought it would be a good idea to have it: "I've been in this town so long that back in the city I've been taken for gone and unknown for a long time / Fell in love years ago with an innocent girl from the Spanish and Indian home of the heroes and villains." All those words. I was working like a son of a bitch. And then he would say, "That's good." And then he would say, "Let's call it `Heroes and Villains,' " and I would say, "That's grand. Let's do."  VDP

I just listened to"Smile" for the first time, and I have to agree with the ghost. The lyrics are distracting, they don't seem to go with the music at all, in my opinion.


Yeah, with Pet Sounds the emotion in the music and the emotion in the lyrics match up beautifully.  There's emotion in the music of Smile, but the words are just getting in the way and don't connect at all.

Personally I disagree, but I can totally understand why Pet Sounds' more straightforward and relatable lyrics would be preferred by most people.

I concede you could be right about this. I dont have a source handy, but the narrative I always heard was Brian introduced him to H&V and said it was supposed to be a Western.

First I love and admire VDP's SMiLE lyrics.

In my opinions, H&V was and is more sort of boy/girl and sort of goofy rather than preachy history about how awful the White man was (not that we don't deserve it). Wonderful is sort of more boy/girl dreamy romance, no accusatory history lesson required.  Vegetables is pure D health and humor. Windchimes, dreamy, romantic, no history. 

I think Brian was fairly clear about why he got rid of what he got rid of. He thought the Smile music (that is, what he and Van Dyke both created) had become too personal. I'm not convinced that he didn't like Van Dyke's lyrics (though I know their perspective on what the project was began changing maybe as early as December '66). Rather, I think he began to think that the music became too much about the artist (or artists) and not enough about making a connection with an audience . Part of that had to do with sophistication but not simply with Van Dyke's lyrics but with the production and complexity of some of the songs too. I see nothing to suggest that he specifically had a problem with the historical/preachiness aspect. Let's not forget he also dumped the word-less Our Prayer and Fire, where there was very little Van Dyke involvement. And furthermore, he moved the "just see what you've done" from the discarded DYLW into the re-make of H&V, making it more preachy rather than less. If his problem was merely with the sophistication of Van Dyke's lyrics then it makes no sense why he would choose to re-record a bunch of songs he wrote with him, rather than, say, have Mike write new lyrics to the songs that he already had in the can, like Cabinessence or Surf's Up or Wonderful, etc. By 1967, Brian's issues with Smile ran far deeper than the sophistication of the lyrics, or the thematic content, or with Van Dyke. He has said as much.

Aside: On the topic of whether or not Brian cares for accusatory history-based lyrics...

CSM - it is interesting that you mention the "preachy" aspect of the lyrics.  It is likely the first BB song to question or wonder about US policies, indirectly via music; "Just see what you've done."  The more I think about this, albeit, so long after-the-fact, they were telling the American story but, out-of-order, in the chronological sense.  

Plymouth Rock images are the first in the American journey, in 1620, ultimately with images of Little Pad in Hawaii, which did not become a state until August 21, 1959, the 50th, not so far in a time context to the Smile project.  We went from a country with the 48, to 49 states in the "union" in 1958, so the flag makers were busy making American flags.  One with 49, for Alaska, then 50 for Hawaii,  in a short amount of time. People had to get rid of their 48 star flags and then the 49 star flags (one star for each state, and the 13 stripes represent the 13 original states from the independent colonies in the U.S.)

Is the context of "Do You like Worms?" a reference to digging worms for fishing line, to use as bait for the colonists to feed themselves from the bounty of the North Atlantic Ocean?  And Plymouth Rock of course is the landmark to commemorate the survival of the crossing.  

But the history is not "in time" in an historically specific time-iine, but jumping all over the place, perhaps causing wonder and maybe confusion among the listeners. ;)  

  

I agree, preachy wouldn't have been the only reason imo. OMP presumably didn't have VDP lyrics. We don't even know that the Elements had lyrics. We don't even know what the lyrics were, if any, for CIFOTM.  IIGS doesn't seem to have been preachy as far as we know. It wasn't only VDP's preachy lyrics. From Brian's comments he seems to have agreed with Mike, that VDP's lyrics were poetic but they weren't necessarily right for a BBs album at the time. 

I also agree that Brian was getting away from his own previous song production and complexity. Imo Derek Taylor characterized it as “BUT ALAS…
Brian Wilson began to stare at the glittering ships of tape and as the day of the launch became nearer than a date on the never-never calendar, he gazed at his plans and he turned his mind’s ear inwards and the longer he stared and the more he heard, the clearer it became that he was now in his jet age, building steamships." And he said they wanted a different mood and approach etc., etc.. Brian had many issues with the SMiLE album.

I disagree on H&V, if anything he de-preached that lyric from "Bicycle rider, just see what you’ve done-done to the church of the American Indian!" to the generic/universal "Heroes and Villains: Just see what you done-done".

I agree with most of this. I consider Pet Sounds Brian's masterpiece, and Smile reaching a step too far by trying to out do his masterpiece.  Track for track some Smile tracks were creatively better than certain Pet Sounds tracks, but overall I really don't think you can take a masterpiece and try to do yourself one better. 

As far as the "pretentious" reference, Parks has a pretentious personality. I have thought that ever since I first saw him on that Beach Boys special in 1976. Mike Love has an "antagonistic" personality.  I don't really care either way about personalities, I like Mike and think he was good for the Beach Boys, I think Parks had some good lyrics with Brian, but in hindsight he was not the right match for Brian.  Brian clowned around his entire life in the 60s, even on TSS you can hear him, what do you think the humor thing was all about.  When I watch that 1976 special, it's really puzzling when you hear Brian say as he's lying in bed, that Parks is his favorite collaborator, then when you see Parks talking and his pretentious manner, you think really...hmmm.  At least I did and still do.

Extremely well said. He was free to keep using the tracks he had been slaving over with new Mike lyrics and he didnt. He kept some of the most obtuse lyrics Parks wrote like Wonderful. He kept H&V which is overtly Americana. And on and on.

I dont think he dumped anything for being Americana or too associated with Parks. Remember he scrapped Surfs Up which easily couldve been on Smiley in a stripped down form, and CIFOTM. Again, he easily couldve had Mike write over Parks' lyrics for Veggies, H&V, Wonderful, etc.

I think his problem is just in the whole aesthetic. He didnt want to do this big preachy symphony to God--which was his idea, not Parks, and as pretentious as anything Parks ever brought to this project. "Dont think you're god just be a cool guy" from the new Wonderful bridge is the key lyric, in my eyes. He wanted to do a fun laid back album with the group that they could play live than a big complex thing that was all him, the guys are just instruments themselves, that they couldnt play live and was tearing the band apart. He still retained the humor--according to Anderle it was turned up even--and some other ideas he was experimenting with like sound effects (cork pop in WC, water pouring into a glass in Veggies) and chants (Whistle In). It was just without the need to prove anything, to go the next step up production wise. No more modular pieces that were driving him nuts by then. And no distinct two movements. The songs that got used were the ones that were the most completed. Worms had to go because it now lacked a chorus, IIGS and Elements werent even close to done, CE needed a lot of work and Mike hated it, CIFOTM never had verse lyrics, etc etc. Prayer and SU couldve potentially been included since they were done--in a simpler sense in SU's case. But they didnt fit the new aesthetic he was going for. Those were "symphony to God" tracks, and I suspect he didnt want to use them outside of that context. He only reluctantly let them use them later, and if you believe the stories he came in last minute with that SU fade because if they were gonna use that track he wanted to make sure they did it justice.

Nonsense, artists do that all the time. Did Scorsese say "Well, I made Taxi Driver. Thats my masterpiece so its time to stop" No. He went on to make many more masterpieces. Just one of hundreds of examples. You cant really compare Pet Sounds to SMiLE because the latter isnt done. TSS uses unfinished tracks and (imo) a bad sequence--at least one thats almost certainly not what wouldve happened in '67. Even tracks we consider done in BWPS may very well have been more complex and beautiful had they been done back in the day. The way Brian sings the "Once upon" lyrics in the sessions is totally different than the more droning, straight-forward way in BWPS. Its possible hed have one BB do it the BWPS way and also have another do it the way he does in the control booth, with possibly other vocal parts going on at the same time. Just one example.

I think you raise a good point about Brian and VDP not being a good match tho. Anderle says that even as the project was starting, he knew they wouldnt really work well together. He says they blew each others minds and describes their parting as tragic, but I think he sensed the differences as youre suggesting.

I know it probably sounds like Im shoehorning this into every SMiLE topic, but I think Psychedelic Sounds may hold some clues too. Again, Im sorry I dont have a definite source for this, but I recall reading that VDP was put off by them and Brian's attitude. He's also said to have avoided the Fire sessions if I recall. And our Big 3 sources have him feeling belittled by Brian's attempts to dominate him. So I think from his perspective it was partially the blow back from the BBs and that he didnt want to split up a family as he says, but also a "who does this joker think he is putting me down while he's recording these stupid unfunny skits and chants, wearing a fire helmet and setting trash on fire? I dont need this sh*t, Ive got my own recording contract!"

I think the last half dozen posts or so are making some really good points.
Don't you think, though, that some of the choices were emotional? Brian Wilson's reported reactions to Carl Wilson wanting to put Surf's Up on the Surf's Up album makes me think that his decisions about this were emotional as well as practical.

My point is: In the 1960s, knowledge of the English language amongst German teenagers (my parents among them) was still very poor. They wouldn't have understood the lyrics of neither of the songs I quoted, wouldn't have been able to tell that the lyrical style of VDP was different from Mike Love's or folk songs' lyrics.

"They speak English in Germany" - we're much better in doing it now, but - not - really. Usually we speak German...

That's true but I wasn't drawing a comparison between those examples. Rather I was comparing the "just see what you've done" chorus in H&V to the previous version of H&V which didn't have that line in it at all.

To be honest, I don't particularly think any of the lines in Smile are preachy.

Absolutely. To be honest, I think that Brian loved the Smile music but slowly began to feel (or, and here's where the real debate comes in, was made to feel) that the music was not appropriate Beach Boys music for a Beach Boys audience. And so, he had to switch gears. But I think it was a very difficult decision. The fact that he was still playing Surf's Up on his own at the Wild Honey sessions later that year demonstrates just how close to the material he was.

My point was that SMiLE version of the lyric in H&V was abandoned, along with other preachy/pretentious/? similar SMiLE tracks and lyrics, replaced with non- or less preachy/pretentious/? lyrics (as where other SMiLE lyrics for release).

Who said he should stop? I'm talking about trying to top Pet Sounds with an "if you think that was good wait 'till you hear our next one." No, it was NOT going to happen and didn't. Pet Sounds is Brian's heart and soul on vinyl in '66. Smile, even if it had been completed would not have been.

I should put this in the sandbox with the Star Wars thread but Scorsese is a prime example of why I can't stand Hollywood. The guy makes one ultra violent ugly movie after another and he's some kind of genius. To each his own.

Just to correct a few points:

When the chants and skits were recorded, Van Dyke Parks did not have the record deal that led to Song Cycle in '67. It had been Terry Melcher who more formally introduced the two at his house in July '66 after Brian mentioned to Terry that he was looking for someone to collaborate on lyrics for the type of music he had in mind, with Brian wanting to go in a more experimental direction after Pet Sounds. Melcher thought of the song "High Coin" which Parks had recently written, and brought the two together. Van Dyke and Brian had already met previously, the first time when David Crosby brought Van to hear Sloop John B before it was released and also through Loren and mutual friends, but this was the meeting when an actual collaboration was the purpose.

And days later is when Van Dyke went to see Brian on his motorbike and got stopped by the LAPD on the way, which led the officer to actually meeting Brian and getting an autograph from Brian for his sister who was a fan. After that, Brian authorized a check for Van Dyke which he used to buy a "real" car, his Volvo. There was also apparently another gift Brian gave Van Dyke, pet mice, symbolic of how Van Dyke was living at that time (according to the legends).

So it's not as if Van Dyke, riding around LA on a motorbike, getting pulled over by suspicious LAPD officers who thought he didn't belong in Brian's neighborhood, and living in a modest pad, was being courted by labels with big offers and advances beyond the singles and studio work he had already been doing.

If I could find the interview, I'd post it, but there was one where it was mentioned that the record biz in LA at the time of the "Smile Era" was trying to figure out or get inside hints of what Brian was doing with his new music, and as a result of that interest, Van Dyke - the man closest to that process at that time - became a much more valuable interest for them.

Also, as a roll of film shot at Western 3 proves, Van Dyke did not have a problem wearing one of the plastic firehats as he is shown in the film wearing one.

The two men were headstrong in their own way, and what we'd call artistic or creative types...both had a lot to offer, and as the eyewitnesses said, they were both capable of blowing each others' minds and did so regularly. But consider the setup: Who had the upper hand, and who was coming in to work for that person? Brian was one of the most respected (and successful) producers and writers in the music biz even by 1966. People in the biz waited to hear what he was going to come up with on the next single to hit the radio. Van Dyke Parks had not yet become a household name in the business apart from his work with Lenny Waronker and various singles and studio sessions.

There was the week before Terry Melcher introduced them when Van Dyke was driving a motorbike, and there was the week after when Brian gave him a $5,000 check to buy a new Volvo. And afterward, into the fall of 1966, Van Dyke Parks was the guy collaborating on Brian's new music which was being reported all through the music press and magazines as groundbreaking if not revolutionary, with a massive buzz and mystery surrounding it. Who had the cache, who was still the guy with the cache? Simple as that.

I'm really uncomfortable with a lot of violence in film and I think that the level of violence in film is a sign of societal disease and feeds back into that disease. As you say, that's for another thread - except - I really try to separate my judgment of the impact of a work of art, and my personal liking for a work of art, or my feelings about the artist, from my judgment of the artistry of a work of art. Sometimes that's difficult.

I also think we should keep in mind that, while many lyrics on Pet Sounds and Smile come from BW's conceptual ideas, he didn't actually write them and in the writing the lyrics morph. I don't think the lyrics of Pet Sounds represent his heart and soul. I do think the music represents his heart and soul at that time. I think that's probably true for Smile music as well. His heart and soul are not static things frozen in time with Pet Sounds.

That said, if "if you think that was good wait 'till you hear our next one," was his thinking, it's not a good approach in any case (I think).

This is a very soft opinion, more an impression, but I sense from reading about Van Dyke Parks at the time, and reading his quotes over the years, that he was quite insecure socially, professionally and intellectually. I think his latter-day self is very protective of his younger self because he knows how insecure and easily wounded his younger self was.
That's complete nonsense based on no fact, but it's as factual as thinking he was an overbearing intellectual snob.
Those two impressions are not mutually exclusive, however.

Im just saying, artists are always trying to raise the bar. I dont believe an artist has ever consciously decided something is their magnum opus and purposefully not tried to do better the next time. Usually their perception of what their best was, and the publics too, comes many years later. Im sure Brian considers Pet Sounds the best now, but at the time he almost certainly didnt and even after SMiLE collapsed Im sure he envisioned a day when either the Beach Boys would make something better or he would produce something better with another group. It just never ended up happening.

To each his own, but I personally disagree. I think even unfinished, the SMiLE tracks are more fun to listen to and more rewarding to analyze than Pet Sounds. But I understand not everyone approaches art that way. Some just want to turn on a record and feel something. And yeah, especially since its finished, Pet Sounds is probably better for that.

Scorsese's films are violent but they tell great stories about interesting if often amoral people. Taxi Driver is a great look at loneliness and isolation and what it can do to people, Raging Bull is like a modern greek tragedy, and Goodfellas is one of the most stylish and innovative gangster movies ever, as well as one of the most influential of the 90s period. Not everything can or should be all happy happy sunshine and rainbows rated G.

Something maybe worth bringing up, a Bruce Johnston interview series by the same team that did the Danny Hutton interviews Ive linked to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on9hWPf_bA8&list=PL42412455481D7DB6&index=14 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on9hWPf_bA8&list=PL42412455481D7DB6&index=14)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HAdZXeWeq4&index=15&list=PL42412455481D7DB6 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HAdZXeWeq4&index=15&list=PL42412455481D7DB6)

Some takeaway points:

1-Bruce doesnt think Sloop John B really fit on Pet Sounds, which I found surprising

2-He doesnt think the band hurt SMiLE and challenges you to listen to the tapes "the band worked hard to make this happen" and defends Mike. Perhaps expected coming from him especially but worth noting

3-Says Brian was very tense and not the same man during SMiLE. He speculates that the high stakes after the wild success of GV made him nervous

4-Loves Smiley, calls it a cool album, but laments the loss of SMiLE. Says GV doesnt fit on Smiley--at different times says if GV had been on Pet Sounds it wouldve been better than Sgt Pepper, but then that GV was better without a home, and shouldve been a standalone single.

5-Doesnt understand why Brian chose to credit the Production of Smiley to the BBs. Says Brian was in control even during that time.

IMO... Either Brian was prepping to hand over the reigns to the other Boys in the near future (as he in actuality did) and thought this credit would be a step in that direction, or SS on purpose was an underproduced effort (an intentional attempt to make it sloppy and not very good) as a "gift" to the band in the form of a passive-aggressive swipe for lack of band support for the SMiLE tracks. Or perhaps the decision was a drug-hazed combination of both ideas.

I think it's very unlikely that neither of those ideas had an iota to do with the credit.

Thats what Danny Hutton speculates too, that he was weaning himself away from the band, trying to get them to think they were fine on their own so he could move on and produce other acts. Danny, being part of one of those acts, may be biased in saying so.

Still, Bruce differs pretty significantly from other witnesses in completely ignoring the band's internal tension (expected) and calling Brian constantly nervous at this time while Vosse and Anderle present a very childlike carefree (tho still dealing with a lot of tension and insecurity) creative spirit. Im not saying anyone is lying, but this is a good example of peoples biases, how they can only comment on what theyve seen, and why its good to consider other accounts. Its totally possible Brian tried to put on a front he didnt mind the Boys disagreements in front of them while venting about it to his friends.

Anyway, I just thought it was worth bringing up because he seemed to share the OP's thesis on the album's non-release

Not disagreeing with any of this, really, except to point out that a major aspect of 'Goodbye Surfing, Hello God!' (another of the 'seminal texts') concerns Brian's increasing doubts and paranoia during the SMiLE period - cf. the 'magic fire music'; Phil Spector producing the film 'Seconds' just to mess with him, etc. So there is at least one other 'major witness' who perceived - and wrote about - Brian's 'nervous' mental state at the time.

Mujan, while I agree that Brian Wilson considered, at the time, his Smile work to be artistically a cut above Pet Sounds, I don't agree that an artist is necessarily always trying to do better than their previous work. Sometimes they are just trying something different.
CenturyDeprived, your ideas about why Brian credited the band with production on Smiley Smile make sense to me; though your "drug haze" statement got me thinking. I wonder if, among the BB myths, this one needs re-examining. We know now, and have for a while, that Brian Wilson was experiencing real mental health issues. He did seemingly smoke a fair amount of pot around 67 and take upoers, I understand. He seems to have only taken LSD a few times. People are talking about his "addiction" in the Pamplin thread. I'm beginning to think his drug use and the effects of it are overblown.
Relevant in this thread is I see no reason to think he was in a "drug haze."

I had meant to reply to this as soon as I could but I've been all-Bowie-all-the-time since early Monday morning.

Yes, I do find some of the lyrics cringeworthy (although I strongly disagree with those who think the whole collaboration was a mistake). Interesting that you quoted lines from "Wonderful" and "Cabin-Essence" as those are two songs where I feel the marriage of music and lyrics work spectacularly well, and are easily my two favorites from the whole project. Both lyrics work as excellent impressionist pieces.
I know I'll get a lot of flak for this from 90% of the people here, but my main problem is with the lyric to "Surf's Up" (and to a lesser degree some of "Heroes and Villains"). Namechecking Poe's "The Pit and The Pendulum" has always struck me as ham-fisted and some of the others seem too precious for their own good like "Dove nested towers, the hours..", etc.
One's appreciation of a lyric is always going to be subjective. For example, I'm a sucker for Dylan and "Vision of Johanna" is my favorite song and lyric. "The ghost of electricity howls in the bones of her face" is a line that's usually called out as either sublime or pretentious nonsense. For some reason, that line and the entire song work for me, but I can see where someone could think it's pretentious (and yes, I DO know what the word "pretentious" means....good grief). Robyn Hitchcock, with his obsession with insects and vegetables, is another favorite of mine who also gets bashed for just stringing together random images that sound like they mean something but really don't. I'm of the opinion there's a logic at work there, but luckily there's plenty of humor.

That's not to say I dislike "Surf's Up". As a piece of music it's outstanding and *most* of the lyrics are evocative and help to set the mood. Some of them, however, seem forced as if the young VDP was puling an "I Am The Walrus" era John Lennon on us. "Let's see the f*****s work that one out" minus the deliberate tomfoolery. More like "This song doesn't really call for some of this flowery imagery, but won't it sound more impressive to everyone if I do it this way?".

I reckon I'll also be alone in thinking VDP did a more satisfying job on his own Song Cycle album. In fact, in a perfect world, I'd combine some of the finished SMiLE with tracks like "The All Golden" from Song Cycle (imagine that sequenced after "Wonderful"!) and complete Brian and VDP's intended American Gothic trip.
     

Hey, different strokes, friend. Its funny you say that because I personally think Surfs Up is overrated too (tho i still love it and maintain it shouldve been the single) but my beef isnt with the lyrics. Its with the music. Not Brian's best, not by a longshot. Compared to CIFOTM, CE etc I think the backing track to SU is noticeably weaker. I think its a weaker backing track than most of Pet Sounds too. I actually love the lyrics tho. I think theyre an amazing abstract stream of consciousness. Its like a prose poem, it doesnt all need to be literal or straightforward, but its fun to analyze and can mean a lot to different people. I agree Wonderful and CE lyrics are great too.

I like Heroes' lyrics. Theyre not super fantastic but a lot of the little phrases "dude'll do"/"stand-a-four"/"three score and five"/"sunny down snuff" all evoke that western feeling even if they may not make the most literal sense or be super meaningful. I also love the Cantina lyrics particularly and the contrast of a fun, upbeat song about losing the one you love in a violent gun toting town, having to raise your kids alone. Some may find the Franklin reference "healthy wealthy and wise" pretentious but y'know what...it sounds great as part of the song, it adds a bit of Americana and I like it :)

Hey GhostyTMRS, thanks for your response. As a matter of fact, I was feeling pretty guilty about the post you're replying to - as a freelance writer and former journalist, I fear that my frequent experience of being called 'pretentious' for using multi-syllabic words triggered a kneejerk reaction when reading your perfectly reasonable post. In short: I think I was probably something of a prick in writing it, and I apologise.


I kinda agree with you here, actually. In some cases, though, I believe that VDP's wordplay isn't so much pretentious (ie. flowery to conceal an actual lack of interest) or ham-fisted as willfully obscure. My understanding of 'The pit and the pendulum drawn' is that it's a three-way piece of wordplay: The context is a 'man at a concert' (Wilson in Spiegel) - when 'back through the opera glass [he] see[ s ] the Pit and the Pendulum drawn' - this being both a period-setting allusion to Poe and a literal reference to the 'theatre pit' in which the orchestra plays, and the 'pendulum' of a clock, ticking away the passage of time - one of the core subject matters of the song.

(It can also be noted that one can draw a pendulum back and forth - and 'drawn' also provides a thematic rhyme with the battles ('the drawing of weapons') alluded to later in the song.)


Absolutely. I think 'Visions' - music, lyrics, performance - may well be the most perfect piece of pop music ever put to tape. (Is such a statement allowed on a Beach Boys forum? :) )


Again, a very genuine apology for what I wrote above.

Mujan - this was neither Johnston's first BB album, nor was it the first band he was involved in. It was his fourth BB album.  It appears that he was involved with some kind of band dynamics (interpersonal relations with bands) for close to 8 or so years by that time and had done production in his own right so had perspective on the process with a long view, dismissing the drama.  It just seemed to the part of the scene. There is a lot of that kind of banter when Brian keeps pulling the guys back on task..."Let's cook now and eat later." (Party sessions)  

He seems to attribute the tension to the fact that GV was an enormous success and "how do you top that?" - it is was always "how do you top, this or the Beatles (and maybe the Stones even if they were in another dimension) and perhaps his perfection was wearing him down as well.  Brian was hard on Brian.

What is interesting is that Hutton and Volman went on to do incredible work in their own bands which were hugely successful but as lyrics go, they used really concrete lyrics.  That contrasts to some of what was used for Smile.  It appears they were less "experimental" with their own work.  Just how I see it.

But I think you can take Johnston's words to the bank, where the band worked tirelessly to make that project happen.  That prism series contains first hand (non-witness) but a principal, and all indications were that this band's members, including Jardine, who, in a rockcellar interview from 2013, talks about SMiLE in much the same candor, and the six months they worked on GV, night after night.  If they worked so well and so tirelessly on GV, there is a consistent and historic (as to them) work ethic.  The comprehensiveness of the 2011 release demonstrates their commitment.  It seems shocking that there are those who question that.  JMHO


It would have been in nobody's best interest to not give it the "old college try" but not unreasonable to be looking for more lyrical concreteness and less on the abstract end, to make it "available" for the fans.  At that point Brian was not on the road, so they had to "sell it."

In the prism interview is a section of the disappointment that Brian felt being let down with the record company's lack of validation with Pet Sounds.  But, Brian had to translate not to witnesses, but those who would "voice his vision" and that makes them (the band) the prime movers.  Not the observers, but the actual participants.  

There is this ongoing discussion of whether Sloop should have been on Pet Sounds and GV in it's place to make it as good as Sgt. Pepper's. And fans always asking why Surf's Up was not on what Jardine calls the "step child" of SMiLE, or Smiley. Sgt. Pepper's was cool and trendy but I don't think it is in the same class as Pet Sounds which came out a year after Pet Sounds, despite all the classics it contains.  

But, I'm not sure I agree with Johnston as GV might have overpowered the delicate work that Pet Sounds is. Sometimes you just need a contrast and maybe that was Sloop on Pet Sounds and it sparkles.  And Smiley, the step-child needed some voltage.  Surf's Up and GV - one on side A and the other on side B would have been outstanding, even if Smile was released in stages, instead of in tracks on subsequent tracks with Cabinessence on 20/20, and a clip of the workshop on Do it Again and Our Prayer.  Surf's Up would have opened the discussion for the rest of the project to follow, having been introduced six months prior by Bernstein.  
        

Hey man, no sweat. It's all good. I appreciate hearing your perspective on those lyrics!
Apologies backatcha. Generally I only have time to read or post on this board when it's late at night and I've had a crappy day, etc. and I'll write in a harsher tone than usual or let the most innocuous comment set me off, so I'm as guilty as anyone. In fact, as a rule, I try to lay low.  ;D 

after the orchestra 'pit' reference, the 'drawn' brings my mind to the stage curtains being drawn.
Eta - this is meant as an addition, not a counter, to your very nice collection of references.

I'm glad you said it about the backing track and not me.  ;D I always prefer the version of just Brian at the piano. THAT performance should've been the single to follow up GV. What a contrast! ...and I think I'm experiencing deja-vu. Didn't we both agree on this in another thread somewhere?  :-D


 

Im almost certain of it. Gah, what a horrible choice, H&V.

I agree. I use my version of the complex SU in my mixes so it fits stylistically, but whenever Im listening to just the song on its own, its always the Wild Honey version. That is so much more profound. THAT is Brian's heart and soul offered up in music, and what should have been his signature song. But where we disagree is I think thats because the power of that track is in the lyrics and his beautiful delivery of them. All that unnecessary instrumentation only distracts from that. I really do love the horns wailing over the fade, but theres no absolute proof that was even the plain.

Something I forgot to mention about Bruce too, he thinks BWPS sounds much better live as opposed to the CD. He even says Brian shouldve just released a live CD with DVD footage rather than rerecord in the studio. Honestly, the whole interview gave me a totally newfound respect for Bruce. I appreciate how he can speak his mind in instances like that rather than just suck up to Brian--it makes all the praise for Pet Sounds, GV and SMiLE that much more genuine. He comes off like a really down to earth, no bullshitting, chill guy. Its great to hear him say things like that and how SJB doesnt fit on Pet Sounds--opinions I agree with but often get chewed out for by the "true fans" :P I think out of all the surviving Beach Boys, he's the one I could most enjoyably hang out with and talk music to, where Brian would be silent and wanting to leave and Mike bragging about Kokomo and the lyrics for GV.

Bruce does give good interviews.
You forgot poor Al who has been getting more and more blunt as time passes.

Nothing against him. Hes a good guy. He just never made any particular impression on me. Al is Al. I gotta say I do feel bad for him sometimes, like Veggies story where he got left out of hearing the Sgt Pepper songs when Paul came to visit and being left out of both groups.

Excellent observation, Emily! Thank you. :)

I disagree. I think the reason was the alienation between Brian and the rest of the group that had developed since Brian quit the road, both in human relations and artistically, and the fact that in the media coverage the other BBs were reduced to a little appendix to Brian. That production credit was to signify, "We're a group, not a king and his servants", and directed not so much at the public, but at the touring Beach Boys.


Surf's Up... I'm not happy with the arrangement the way it turned out for posterity either. In the first movement, the clinky-clanky percussion destroys the beauty of the melody, the harmonic elements are way too low, and it is still too fast IMHO. Too bad he didn't have the time to try another arrangement, and that we didn't get to hear the results of the January 1967 string overdub attempt. I like the horns arrangement though -  and that's mixed too low again in the TSS version. A real loss that it wasn't mastered in 1967 and never received the majestic soundscape of GOK or IJWMFTT.

Whoops, sorry again.  Posted in the wrong thread.

Micha - I agree with what you wrote about credits for the band.  The press coverage was abysmal.  Write-ups from company people or ghost write-ups from managers, still don't cut it for me, even if they were somehow watching sessions.  I just take the fact info and merge it with what the actual band members have to say. And, separate the subjectivity out. 

Give me one of those prism film interviews or Al's from rock cellar in 2013 and that is where it is at.    :thewilsons

People who are not directly principals find a way to infuse a subjective point-of-view in their writings.  Dave Marks described it best during C50 - as the "bubble" they into which they became envelopped, when they worked together.  It is almost like that "language" that twins develop before they have real language skills, and "talk" to each other, shutting the rest of the world out, while in that "zone."   That survived many changes in management, over decades. 

But, we got Surf's Up in some BB form, in a way it became performed "live."   

I think your idea about the Smiley Smile production credits is also a good one, and generous. It's something that people don't often keep in mind that tensions probably stemmed back to the early days when Brian very often avoided going on the road, then making it official in '64. I think their situation was difficult: it was too much work for Brian Wilson, and he was in a broad sense the real creator of the music. He also evidently wanted a career that included working with other bands/musicians and was doing that on the side. So he was exhausted and felt a lot of pressure and started taking uppers and it sounds like sleeping too little and working too much for several years. So he was doing all he could. At the same time, the other Beach Boys felt that he was getting too much credit, because they were working hard too, and not seeing how hard he was working when they were away, they may have felt like he was slacking off at home while they were working their, um, back-ends off on the road. And they may have felt, "well if he's so tired maybe he should stop playing around with those other bands and just focus on the one: us!" So I think it's possible that he was at his wit's end, they were resentful, everyone was exhausted and short-fused, and perhaps the Smile -> Smiley Smile -> production credits was Brian Wilson trying to defuse the situation, even things out, and get some rest.

And I agree about Surf's Up. To me, it's the most beautiful, stirring song Brian Wilson has written, but I don't feel it ever got the right arrangement. The arrangements we've got either bury much of what's beautiful about the sound: part of its beauty is its starkness; or they are poorly recorded demo type things. What I would like best would be Brian solo with the piano, but well produced, but I can also imagine more complex arrangements that support the song rather than bury it.

The people in the bubble, by definition, have less objectivity. And frequently Brian Wilson was in a different bubble from the rest of the Beach Boys.

Something else that was different was they owned their own label now, maybe that had something to do with it.  I have a feeling that it was a unilateral decision by the real Producer since the Boys seem to be confused by it too.

The people in the bubble are in sync with one another.  And, if one is a music director, such as Carl was, they would hear an error to correct.
Have a listen to the Party sessions.  Brian is objective.

Emily...you raise a lot of valid points however I still differ on Pet Sounds being Brian's heart and soul masterpiece. The concept behind most all of the lyrics came from Brian did it not? The mood, atmosphere, feelings one is left with during and after listening to that album is Brian. That album, as a whole, nailed many of the emotions Brian felt and was going through at the time unlike anything else he ever did including Smile.

Mujan...for the record I agree Scorcesse has talent...that shot from the car into the nightclub in GF without a single cut is incredible. I just think he has a weird sadistic thing going on in his brain and I get really tired of Hollywood types cranking out gratuitous violence and then acting all pius about themselves. I love the film Braveheart, but it's pretty obvious Gibson is nuts and also has a weird sadistic nature. One of the few TV shows I watch and really like is Vikings on the History channel. That show is violent as hell but it's more of a historical view point than a let's have a really warped person doing a really warped thing to another human being just because we can kind of thing. I see a difference between a Viking sacrificing another tribal member, and Joe Pesci and Robert De Niro stabbing and shooting a guy in the trunk over and over again to the point where it's supposed to generate a laugh.

As we said, to each his own. Why am I hijacking my own thread?

That interview with Bruce you posted was a good find. The part about GV once again adds a lot of weight to the whole premise of this thread.

Another good point. My guess is that the reason, like many, was multifaceted.

There really isn't an objective - it's not something that really exists, though it is on occasion very well approximated.. And yes, they might have been in sync, but often, when a family is dysfunctional, other people can see the systems of the dysfunction better than the people in the family. Thus, family therapy is helpful because the therapist can see what's going on from an outsider's perspective, a more objective perspective. The outsider is not married to a defensive tack or to old interpretations and wounds. The insider is the least objective reporter of a situation, other than the insider's own individual feelings.

I totally agree with the above other than the final clause  :(  sorry. I actually think a lot of the songs (not albums) from 67-80 are extremely personal and expressive of BW's head-space, more than anything on Pet Sounds or Smile. But neither of us will ever know exactly what was in his head, so I'm comfortable disagreeing.

It's funny, I've been wondering the same thing. I've been reading up on Brian Wilson lately, including old and recent topics on this board, and find it curious how little mental illness comes into the discussion. If BW was hearing voices, thought his music was causing fires, people were bugging his house and a witch was putting thoughts in his mind via ESP, then I would suggest trying to establish logical reasons for abandoning certain tracks or altering production credits is fairly pointless. I would guess his thought processes were often irrational and difficult to understand. Maybe if he writes his memoirs he will explain what was going on and what he was thinking . That would be amazing, and would clarify alot. Again, given stigmas that still surround mental illness, I kind of doubt any memoir would be forthright. But given his recent willingness to be an advocate for mental health causes, maybe he will be open about his experiences.

Pretty good point.

Regarding the autobiography, I think it's possible that he doesn't completely understand his thinking from the time.

Emily - "family therapy" was not on the radar until much later that might have been helpful for the Wilson's growing up in the post-War 50's and it seems with many schools of theoretical thought as to the best treatment.  

People were urged to speak to their rabbi, priest or minister in terms of family problems in that era, when seeking guidance or often, at the recommendation of their medical doctor.          

edited it because I lost my temper.

I mentioned the accounts of those "outside the bubble" several pages ago relating to what they saw regarding the family dynamic during Smile (and Pet Sounds), taking into account the tensions and various other issues they observed between Brian and the rest of the band. Often those outside the bubble, as in those bubbles that surround family, bands, or any groups connected in some way, can look in from the outside and see things which those inside the bubble cannot see, or refuse to see or accept because it's the "normal" into which they've been conditioned to both accept and exist.

So how does it get rectified when we actually do have those looking in from the outside and reporting what they saw getting challenged in hindsight by various people who have not much more than timelines and session dates for reference, when a family therapist if they had been brought in back in 1966 or 67 would be seeing the same behavior taking place? If a therapist saw an argument, it would be observed and noted as an argument. But if someone like David Anderle or Michael Vosse or Danny Hutton or Jules Seigel or anyone else says they saw the same argument...it's "family stuff" that we don't know enough about to form an opinion, or there is some loophole in the story to exploit and prse to the point of dismissing it? Or maybe the band was arguing about ordering sandwiches from Canters deli...stuff like that.

While there is something to be said for an outsider's observation, sometimes outsiders get it all wrong. Your suggestion of family therapy for "dysfunction" and there is no perfect family structure so all families experience some kind of dysfunction or another.  It is all a matter of degree.

And, I can liken it to the school psychologist coming into a class to observe a child, once, for a core evaluation for special education.  Often, they get it so wrong, after one-half hour of observation.  Who pays for that objective opinion?  The child being sent to special education or not being placed appropriately.  

The question as I have seen it, is whether those who have written so "objectively" had a monetary incentive to do so.  ;)    

GF - I cannot even imagine how those young guys could tolerate the pressure of what was on their plate.  Let alone Murry's aggravation.  It must have been hard for Brian not to have the band handy to bounce ideas around with for weeks on end when they were on tour.  He was isolated from them, from the time he came off the road.  

People can witness the same arguments and come away with different impressions and insiders like family can just "tune it out." They often have a great ability to filter out stuff and still get along well and be the best of friends but have figured out their own pecking order in the family and deal with it while the outside world might think they are lunatics.  

It is like a work situation or good group dynamic in a political campaign. You quickly assess "who can do what" and if you are the leader, maximize the best aspects of both talent and personality.  

There were no family therapists.  It was hardly a recognized area, and was an outgrowth of "marriage counseling" which was largely in the domain of religious organizations.  Just saying'.  ;)    

As do insiders, which is why you don't completely trust or discount either outsiders or insiders purely on the basis that the source is one of those.

That said, it must be noted that even individuals have a wonderful capacity of lying to themselves about themselves. Therefore, in those cases, an outsiders' account has the capacity of being far more accurate than that of the individual.

OK. So you actually do misunderstand my point.
I highly doubt the interviewees in those articles were paid. If they were, I'm sure the payment wasn't contingent on what they said in the interviews.
As to the reporters, obviously Jules Seigel had a monetary incentive to report something different. He lost his assignment because he refused to alter the text to please those who would've paid.

CSM - Here is an outsider's vantage who got it right.  Darian, to work on the Smile project. That was not subjective, and based on a work product and not an assessment of people and their interactions. 

Where there are value judgments about personal issues, it is very important to know if there is a reason for an opinion, not unlike an editorial for a newspaper or some other publication. 

One must inquire as to whether there is an inherent bias, such as being an employee or being paid in some way for your opinion.  ;)

There's an inherent bias in everything, including Darian's work on Smile, which was indeed subjective.

Do you know that they were not paid? They were not op-eds.  Sometimes op-ed pieces are paid.  

And, I do not know that Siegel lost the assignment for the refusal to "alter text" - and posted the eBay cover of the SEP to show their position on LSD.  They were likely never running that story, which conflicted directly with their editorial position.  

 

In that case are you opposed to all writing that focuses on real life people?

It was work being assessed and judged and not people.

CSM - As a teen, when I read all this stuff, I might have believed every single word (except negative stuff) about this music written by observers.  Not now.  Now, I want to know about bias.  As a teen I would not have read this critically.  

Too many "biographies" and other books and articles have come out that were trash.  

And, lots of bios are very credible.

I'm unclear. It seems you are equating biased with "trash" when everything is biased. Your posts are all biased, as are mine. Everything is biased. So given that saying a text is biased is as true as saying humans breathe air, I'm left curious why we should consider it. Obviously there are cases where we should consider it. But we certainly should not write something off as biased simply because we do not like the content because that's like dismissing an article because it contains words.

Of course we are "biased" in favor of this music and why we are here.  

So, Landy's bio on Brian is not trash?  

And I realize questioning work that is regarded by some as "gold standard" is sacrilege, but having gone through Jules' article, for me uncovered a sexist bias against Carol Kaye.  I would not have noticed that in 1967.  It might have been acceptable then, but not now.  

Additionally, Jules mis-characterized Carol as the drummer.  She was not. So, as far as I am concerned, once there are characterizations which I know are false, the next step is to look critically at the rest.   And after The Wrecking Crew release, with many misconceptions about who performed (not just on BB music) but music from that era in general, it makes me look at the detail.   ;)

I can't comment on Landy's bio because I have not read it and I do not intend to. However, I would say that even if it were trash it would not be because it's biased but for other reasons.

Yes, there are problematic sexist remarks in Siegel's article. I probably wouldn't have written it the same way but I can't evaluate a text based on whether or not I would have written it that way. Furthermore, if we are prepared to dismiss an article because of sexist remarks then we should be prepared to dismiss about half of The Beach Boys lyrics while we're at it.

Obviously one should look out for inaccuracies but inaccuracies alone are not worth dismissing a piece unless the entire substance of something is inaccurate. A twenty page article, for example, that makes a few mistakes like getting a year wrong, or something, is not enough to write something off. Those kinds of errors are made all of the time.

 Read this again:



OK. So Siegel was flat out lying is your current contention. It's no longer just bias? What motive do you think Siegel would have to make up a tale about his article being rejected?

And what bias do you have that you will jump through hoops to discredit Siegel - you've made many failed attempts so far* and are still trying?

*Saying he said that Van Dyke Parks introduced Anderle
*Saying he did not work for the Saturday Evening Post
*Pointing out that he mistook a bass player for a percussionist
*Pointing out that he said sexist stuff
*Saying he's not a family member
*Saying he lied about his article being rejected.

There's only evidence for two of these things being true and all are irrelevant to whether or not he's giving an accurate account of what was happening with Brian Wilson, but you keep pushing it. Why? Have you considered that in this case you don't like the source and that's why you are trying to discredit the article?

All you are succeeding in doing is revealing your own bias.

edited the pink because of one other true thing.//editing it back!

I'm wondering if Carol was on the session for "Workshop", and if she might have been hammering on a piece of wood or something?  Perhaps that would explain Siegel's impression that she was a percussionist.

It was a difficult read. And, I cannot get that time back.

But as far as the other stuff right, it is important to read with a critical eye and not be so quick to believe everything I read, drinking the Koolaid. We never knew that the record companies were publishing the teen magazines.  They were not independent publications as people took them to be.  

Who would have that skill set at the age of 11 or 12?  So the whole myth people were fed in the 60's was a largely a public relations sham.

And, as my gen's philosophy...to question things.    ;)

No, he didn't. He referred to her as a percussionist.

She was.

good question.
Sessionographers?
answered.

Yeah but you missed the part where it said question everything equally.

She was on the session or she was a percussionist there? If it's the latter then Siegel was correct this whole conversation?

Emily - I quoted directly from work I read when it was released as opposed to now.  It is my right to critique what is written.  And review in that context.  Yes, I pointed out what I did after printing it and going through some sections line by line.  My prerogative. And I would love to know where this "evidence" is coming from.  

The article or a great portion of it, should be discredited, in my opinion, which I am entitled to.  The source is irrelevant.  It is some of the content that is incorrect.  And even Andrew Doe, (the biggest fact-stickler on the planet) agreed with the inaccuracy after some contention.    

  

She talked about hammering things - I think everyone in that session was essentially a percussionist.

I must have missed that part.  :lol

I do not in the least deny you your right to form an opinion and to proclaim your opinion, even though it is not based on fact. I would advise that you cease saying that you don't form opinions without facts, however.
The evidence I refer to is evidence that it's sexist (which, I know, is a whole other argument but at least FdP and I would agree on this one it seems) and that he's not a family member. I think those two alone have evidence to support them.
I would ask Andrew Doe to tell us which inaccuracy he agrees with.

I see! I was just thinking about the music that plays over the top of the hammering. But there you go. Siegel's comments about Kaye as a percussionist were correct.

And not a guitarist.

Lord. I'm going to take the dogs for a nice long walk.

Emily - I don't like the threat. "I would advise that you cease saying that you don't form opinions without facts, however."  I was clear and quoted the text. It is on the direct text I based my opinion.    
[/quote]
My post #69 - is quoting Jules, and those are "his" words and not mine.  His account was already shown to deviate from others, which means there are varying accounts.  Reminds me of the movie, "Something's Gotta Give" when Nicholson's character tells Diane Keaton's character that he told her a "version of the truth" and she replies, "the truth doesn't have 'versions'." 

There is only one version here that should not deviate.

And it is not up to you to decide what "fails" here.  Having a printed up article to have in hand (the full one) might be helpful.  And, it is ok, for me, not going along with the prevailing position, where there are conflicting accounts.  Lone juror is fine for me.  Reasonable minds can differ.

 

I'm returning just to say that that was not intended in any way to be a threat and I consider that a willful misreading.

He was correct to refer to her as a percussionist. He seemed to be describing a session where she was one.

That is your opinion.  Willful misreading is a judgment. It was fact-based.  You may not agree.  

She's saying that you willfully misread her post not the Siegel article, in this case.

The point is she was a percussionist at the session he was referring to, regardless of the photos that you have seen.

Jules was with them for 2 months.  So, she was a percussionist for 2 months?

If he was at so many studio sessions, taking good note of the session musicians, why does he mostly only go into depth on one or two recording sessions? My conclusion: he didn't attend that many sessions or at least didn't watch them all carefully during those two months. If he did, we have a lot more in the article about studio work than simply a lengthy description of the Fire session.

Also, I'm on my way out right now but I'm just curious if anyone would like to provide a complete list of the session musicians that Siegel names in that article.

That session was the day after the "MOLC" session, and she's logged as a bass player, as l recall (away from my archives right now for a few days). My take is that JS conflated/misremembered the finer detail here and there.

Also, someone keeps calling her a guitarist when for at least two years she'd been a leading electric bass player.

For those who have Badman, the journal-type entries start on page 142, and are dated from August 3rd, listed as Smile Session 1, and Carol Kaye is listed as on bass guitar.   Session 2 is Polman on bass guitar.  And, so forth...

Have not checked the other book by Rusten.     ;)

Actually a very good point. Don't hold your breath on any insight though. I'm still not clear on what mental issues were there. A schizo effective disorder....right? That's a broad label that encompasses a lot but is that not the best term to use these days? Even at the end of L&M you are kind of left hanging.

...what?

What is her opinion? Which part of her post?

Wilful misreading is being intentionally ignorant to push your own bias and say what you want to say while also pretending to argue. That's what you have done in this thread.

What was fact based?

Actually a very good point. Don't hold your breath on any insight though. I'm still not clear on what mental issues were there. A schizo effective disorder....right? That's a broad label that encompasses a lot but is that not the best term to use these days? Even at the end of L&M you are kind of left hanging.
[/quote]

Yeah, I think it would be very interesting to know what BW was going through internally at the time Smile fell apart. But I can also imagine it would be emotionally difficult to revisit as well. But bipolar  schizoaffective means having symptoms of bipolar disorder ("manic depression") while also having ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia. So swinging from racing thoughts, manic phases to extreme depression  , while also experiencing symptoms like delusions (having strange persistent beliefs - like supernatural beings putting thoughts in your mind or your family are conspiring together to poison you) or psychosis (such as hearing voices), and perhaps also having "negative symptoms", like social withdrawal, lack of motivation, emotional flatness, etc.


Obviously a very distressing condition for anyone suffering from it and for their friends and family, especially if they don't understand what is happening or why.

And before anyone says it: No! I'm not trying to internet diagnose anyone. I simply think its better to discuss stuff like this openly rather than being vague or using euphemism. It's like talking about Stephen Hawking's "problems" or "issues" instead of just saying he has ALS, he uses a wheelchair.

And also, BW seems like he's doing phenomenally well now. It's very inspiring!
 

Woodstock...from specific articles/books...where I quoted directly as I will now...

Rusten/Stebbins, p. 121...from an interview with a "principal" Carl Wilson, from Rock Magazine, 1970...speaking against Capitol.

"They were against Pet Sounds and all the albums that came after.  They wanted us to stick with surfing and hot rod records, you know.  But we said, well you know, we don't want to do that now.  But they weren't going for it.  And so they had all these hundreds of people in their organization pushing another thing.  People were bound to get the wrong impression of he group."  

There is no editorializing, as with an "observer." Carl is speaking as a band-member, company-member (BRI) directly impacted by these corporate decisions.

Now, my viewpoint...as regards "retaliation."

same page from Rusten/Stebbins (p.121)

"In April, 1969, the band made the decision to formally terminate their relationship with Capitol, and simultaneously pursue a lawsuit against them, demanding back payments that they claimed they were owed.  Capitol responded by deleting their back catalog, thus cutting off the group's record royalties and much of their income stream."

This was two years post the Spring 1967 sabotage of the UK tour, where they were booked as a surf group and were not allowed to bring in 4 musicians to enhance the delivery of the advanced sound going forward from Pet Sounds.    

CSM - in the Badman book, p. 391 is an alphabetized list of session musicians.  

Carol Kaye is listed only as bass guitar.

Others are listed with multiple roles.  For percussion, either as drums and/or percussion: Hal Blaine, Frankie Capp, Gary Coleman (timpani/bongos), Frank De Vito, Steve Douglas (sax, flute, percussion) Gene Estes, (guitar, percussion, vibes, bells, piano) Ritchie Frost (drums), Jim Gordon, Dayton Howe (percussion), Norm Jeffries (drums), Nicholas Martinis (drums) Nick Pellico (percussion) Emil Radocchia (percussion), Chester Ricord (percussion) Julius Wechter (timpani, vibes, bicycle bell, finger symbols, tambourine, percussion), Jerry Williams (percussion).

There is no indication that Carol Kaye ever played percussion. She had a guitar on her lap, and that distinguishes her from a percussionist. She is listed as bass guitar.  

And also from Badman, verbiage that suggests that it is similar to Jules' article...referring to Anderle as the "mayor of hipness" but treats him generally, less well. (my opinion)

"...Anderle is an artist who has skipped back and forth between painting and the record business, with mixed results in both." p. 149, Badman in the October, 1966 section.  





  

Thank you. Ultimately I accept the reasoning given by Andrew above.

Like I said as well, I'm curious if anyone who has been through the article recently can say how many session musicians Siegel describes in any detail.

Has anyone ever contacted her to ask whether she played percussion during the time of Jules' article?

Just a curious question: At this point, would you accept her response?

I would have to have her response first.   

Okay, but hypothetically speaking, the question to Carol really just calls for a yes/no response. So if she responds with just a yes or a no, I'm curious whether or not you would accept her response? Forgive my curiosity, I'm just trying to understand.

Not in the least an internet diagnosis. It's the diagnosis that B. Wilson himself has stated is his diagnosis - so no concern there.

Understand what ?  

That someone (me) does not accept as "dogma" an article written 48 years ago which disparages likely the only woman in that group of sessions players? And, there are likely all kinds of conflicting information in many of these accounts.  

No where else, have I ever seen her described as having any role but a bass player.  I would wonder if Jules had his eyes examined before he wrote, referring to her as a percussionist, and whether anyone had checked his work before it was published anywhere. So, this era is all on the table to be questioned, for me.  If he made a mistake with the only woman, are there likely other mistakes that people are relying on to write this music history that lands in academic texts for posterity.  

Did she ever hold a tambourine or play percussion?  Not according to the extensive list compiled by Badman.  

You are free to rely on whatever information you choose.