The Smiley Smile Message Board

Author: Beach Boys' 'SMiLE' release will fill gaps bootleg releases couldn't

    * March 14th, 2011 7:57 pm ET

 A Beach Boys expert who penned liner notes for the upcoming Capitol Records/EMI release of the legendary "SMiLE" sessions says the new release will be the most complete musical picture of the album and end the misinformation surrounding it.   

Capitol Records/EMI confirmed Monday in a press release a recent report by Rolling Stone that the Beach Boys' sessions for the legendary "SMiLE" album will finally be released, though the announcement gave no street date. "The SMiLE Sessions," as it's titled, will be released in 2-CD and digital album packages and a deluxe, limited edition box set.
 
"My role is to relay, in the most clear manner possible, the 'SMiLE' music coming together in the context of its times. The writing will be in a hardbound book inside of the box set, plus a shorter piece will go with the smaller packages," said Domenic Priore, who wrote the liner notes and assembled pictures for the new release, in an email interview.
 
Priore, the author of two books on the "SMiLE" album, "Look! Listen! Vibrate! SMILE!" and "SMiLE: The Story of Brian Wilson's Lost Masterpiece", and also Los Angeles Mid Century Pop Culture Examiner, says the album's story will be approached differently than in the past. 
 
"The difference this time, the story is not 'it never came out,'," he says. "The story is 'here it is, here's what it is.' That may seem obvious but every time the story has been told in the past, ultimately it has been one of frustration. Now the job is to compliment and ultimately celebrate the music at hand, so that we all, and future generations can get a grip on it."
 
Putting the pieces of the puzzle together after all these year wasn't as difficult as it might seem.
 
"Brian Wilson wasn't hiding information, or what the sequence would be from anyone during 1966/1967," Priore says. "He was quite lucid not only with talk on the session tapes, but in Pop magazine interviews, private conversation with the musicians, with notation on tape boxes and so on. Alan Boyd has, since the release of "Brian Wilson Presents SMiLE" (the 2004 Brian Wilson release that featured the 'finished' album) really gotten into the science behind this kind of detail, with complete access to the Beach Boys' tape archive. Mark Linett has been properly cataloging 'SMiLE' tapes since at least 1987; I met him that year at Brian's session for "Rio Grande," when he played for me the first part of what would have been the original 'Heroes and Villains' single, with the 'cantina' section."
 
Priore says "SMiLE" was still on the Beach Boys' radar for release for several years before it was dropped.
 
"Keep in mind that The Beach Boys were tinkering with and finishing 'SMiLE' material from 1967 until about 1971 when the song "Surf's Up" was finally released," he said. "There were sessions to finish 'Cabinessence' in 1968. 'Cool, Cool Water' was a SMiLE-era composition that was recorded in 1967, then expanded on nicely for release on 'Sunflower' in 1970. The music was never totally put away, as legend would have it, until 1972. With a lot of years of study behind us all, and access to the original '60s inside information, it's detective work made easy."
 
How will the legitimate release of "SMiLE" improve on the bootleg versions?
 
"The bootleggers naturally didn't have everything, but most of all, what will come with this box set is a sense of cohesion that none of the bootlegs ever really had," he told us. "Darian Sahanaja (of Brian's band the Wondermints) and I, for years we were trying to figure out the actual sequence of 'SMiLE' before my book 'Look! Listen! Vibrate! SMILE!' came out in 1988. A lot of bootlegs went by our list in that book, actually, but the bootleggers improvised and did their own thing.
 
"When Darian worked with Brian Wilson to sequence 'SMiLE' for 2004," he said, "Wilson placed its heaviest song, 'Surf's Up,' back in the proper order of that sequence. Everybody had always assumed that 'Surf's Up' closed 'SMiLE' because it was epic, like The Beatles' 'A Day in the Life,' but everybody forgot that SMiLE preceded 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' when they made that assumption."
 
"Brian Wilson's intent in 'SMiLE' was, as always, to keep The Beach Boys right on top in 1967, staying right in vogue with what The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were managing to achieve as a band," he says. "Nowhere are The Beach Boys' vocals more full, their tracks more elaborate, their music more dynamic."

http://www.examiner.com/vintage-rock-n-roll-in-national/author-beach-boys-smile-release-will-tell-story-bootleg-releases-couldn-t


i'm confused...
he says Brian wasn't hiding any information about the song sequence, then goes on to say that 'Surf's Up' wasn't meant to close the album.

I always thought that was one of the only things we knew for sure about the original 66/67 sequence. Isn't there an interview or a session tape where Brian says straight-up 'Surf's Up' is the last song on the album??? Seemed like one constant throughout all the SMiLE confusion.


I thought they used 'Good Vibrations' to end BWPS because it's such a huge hit, and a great way to end a live performance of the SMiLE material.

personally, I like a 'Heroes' reprise (part 2 anyone?) to close the album.

It could be reasonably argued that, as the 3rd section of BWPS is entirely a 21st century construct, "Surf's Up" did indeed close Smile and hadn't changed position at all. That's the argument: the fact is, no-one knows. To say things were fluid in those days is a huge understatement.

I'm eagerly awaiting Dom's new essay: currently re-reading his Sunset Strip book and the sense of time, place and context is outstanding.

I can't wait either - Picked up LLVS yesterday and the energy is infectious. It'd be amazing if they reprint the introduction for that book in the liners for TSS (We've abbreviated it already!), give or take a few unflattering lines to a certain birthday boy....

But yes, he's a gifted writer when it comes to that sort of thing - the other Smile book is, no matter what qualms we nerds have with it, superbly pitched.

I dunno, I can't bear the arrogance that seeps in. Used to love the guy, then something weird happened. Also, the sense of entitlement in his expertise is a turnoff.

Where's David Prokopy when we need him?

Over on the Hoffman board Smile thread with a whole bunch of other blasts from the past. It's like Smile Shop redux over there.  ;D

Yeah it seems like DP has fallen from grace with a lot of Beach Boys fans around here.

Why?  I've read one of his books and enjoyed it, don't know much beyond that.

Well, he was on the SMiLE mailing list, and got very in-your-face with a lot of members, pretty much asserting that his was the only opinion about content, track order, etc. that was worth considering. A lot of that attitude carried over into the second edition of LLVS.

He also made some pretty bold claims stating that SMiLE was, in fact, complete, and that a lot of the strung-together bits of H&V that were on the box set were, in fact, H&V part 2 completed! Really, Dom? The tone of his language was pretty much read-it-and-weep, as opposed to his earlier attitude of: hey, this is a wonderful thing, let's play with it and enjoy it.

There was also an LA Weekly feature article with Dom heavily in it, continuing that line of thought.

I never started out to be anti-Dom---in fact, I loved the first LLVS, it was the essential loving scrapbook with lots of humor, etc., in the spirit of SMiLE itself--but when he started slagging people off, I couldn't help but take offense.

I suppose it's always possible that he was trying to be "funny" or kidding around, and it didn't come off well in cold type, but that's not the feeling I got. Much of it was very combative. I left the SMiLE list because quite simply, I couldn't stand to face reading any of his rants any more. SMiLE fandom should be fun, and he was killing that for me.

God bless Domenic for all he's done over the decades to keep the Smile legend alive.  I look forward to reading his liner notes, and I'm sure he'll do a fantastic job in selecting photos and other material for inclusion in the booklet.

But, yeah, it has always seemed to me that Domenic has been a major proponent of the idea that Smile was more complete than the available evidence would seem to support.  When Domenic talks, for example, about the "actual sequence" of Smile, it implies a certainty that's not shared by all.

Who knows?  Maybe at some point in early 1967 there was a full or partial "actual sequence."  I remember, more than a decade ago, another BB expert (who could that BE?) stated in a messageboard discussion that he had heard rumors that Brian might have completed a test mix of "one side" of Smile in 1967.  In fairness to that expert, he made it clear that he had no idea whether such a test mix truly ever existed and that no hard evidence of it had ever turned up.

The point is that, sure, maybe some aspects of Smile that most us think of as unfinished could have been finished at some point in 1966-67.  But don't try to make me believe the unbelievable such as the idea that the BWPS sequence just happens to be exactly what Brian had in mind all along or that the versions of DYLW and CIFOTM that lack lead vocals were "finished."  To quote Judge Judy, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Priore's foibles aside, he deserves his essay space, but I wish they might have given certain others some room.  Bill Tobleman for one.  Or it might have been cool had they had a contest for fans who have written essays (of which there are many) and chosen one or two for inclusion as well.   

I'm pretty much the same. LLVS was THE book for SMiLE fanatics (and the only one, to boot). I still love it, but it's got things in it that are his own personal opinion, and presented it as fact. And a couple of times he has seemed quite cocky about it all. However in the last few days, I have seen people come out and say that he's not quite that way anymore.

Dom will always have my respect just based on LLVS alone - for a young kid just getting into the Smile music, that book was my bible.  I still pull it out from time to time, even though I've read every word more times than I'd care to admit.  Sure, there are some ridiculous assertions in there, my favorite being that anyone who thinks Worms was missing vocals was a simple-minded idiot.  Even so, he deserves his place at the Smile table, and arrogant or not, I'm curious to hear his present-day thoughts on it.

Have to say I love Domenic's intro page to LLVS. I get psyched everytime I read it. Might even shout out "hell yeah!" or something next time around.

The first post of this thread included the following:
personally, I like a 'Heroes' reprise (part 2 anyone?) to close the album.

I like this. But isn't it "side 2"? The slow "my children were raised...." is so cool as is the "and wise" part.

The album starts with the children being "often wise" and ends with the children being "wise." They learned something along the way.

LLVS was an is a valuable reference that I wouldn't part with, so I was looking forward to "SMiLE: The Story of Brian Wilson's Lost Masterpiece".....but I took it on down to the used book store after two reads.  Hope the new essay is well less than 60 pages and has a well-informed-about-SMiLE/BW/BB editor.

Yeah I wish they'd do an anthology type thing for release. Include the Goodbye Surfing Article at least. Maybe get some other people to chime in with essays to. I think Bill Tobelman's zen smile essay would be well worth including.
There's jut been so many viewpoints on SMiLE, I don't think one will ever be definite or final. There's a lot of nuance to the project, and I wish the book would take that into account.

yes.  :)

I don't know Domenic (or anyone else here) personally, but he is anything but an elitist.  he shared a lot of insight and much information re: the Beach Boys, Smile, etc with me via a series of letters back in 1993 or so, when i was 14 and info was scarce.  it comes as no surprise to me that he was chosen to write the liner notes to this most historic box set!

I would like to say that Domenic is writing the notes for the booklet and insert for the two cd set. Tom Recchion, the Art Director at Capitol/EMI is selecting content for visuals and layout, as well as the overall product`s non cd/vinyl content. Dom is also helping Tom with finding "stuff" needed for the booklet. Domenic is a valuable part of the team assembled for The Smile Sessions, and is playing an integral role.

Peter, does that mean Frank Holmes' work isn't being used?

Or does it mean that Dom is helping Tom Recchion to present Frank's work in addition to other artwork?


After all this time wrangling for the music's release, I'd hate for the only quibble to be about the artwork. A minor quibble, but Frank's work is very evocative of the whole smile 66-67 project.

The artwork isn't a minor quibble. To accurately use for once a hugely overworked word, it is iconic. To release this project without using Frank's cover is, simply unthinkable. remember, Frank wasn't paid back in the day, and his artwork wasn't used on BWPS because no-one would match his asking price. Hopefully Capitol won't be so stupid this time.

I think they oughta use Frank's artwork but give it a modern border, or show a pile of '67 covers in a dumpster or one going into a shredder and one coming out of a shredder. Something to set the old in the new or show some of the history. Still the whole cover art in all its glory should be shown somehow on the cover or inside the cover imo.

The cover should just the normal Smile cover, with instead of the "Full Dimensional Stereo" or w/e have "Remastered from the original session tapes!". Stickers on the shrinkwrap will have the rest of the info on it - Preferably just Dennis' 'It makes Pet Sounds stink' quote in as big letters as they can get away with  ;D

OR, "The SMiLE Sessions" with Frank's artwork

Not only should they be using Franks cover art, they need to include all the booklet illustrations he did as well.  

I betcha they won't get the look of the type right though if they do swap "Smile" for "the smile sessions". It's the sort of thing that wouldn't surprise me and would bug the hell out of me too - much more than Mike filling the vocal gaps with excerpts from Kokomo, or Mark Linnett flying in the raps from Smart Girls to replace the 20/20 lead on Cabinessence. Or they'll ask the original Capitol designer and he won't be able to quite match the 60s vibe of the type. Weird how stuff like that is very hard to replicate.

I hope if they do use Frank's artwork (which of course, they must, or you can guarantee it'll be one of the first moans that reviewers choose to make) that they just lift is as is: Smile, Good Vibrations, Good Vibrations, Good Vibrations etc. No modern twists, please!

I always enjoy reading Priore's books. Though sometimes I think he has a tendency to interject his own (often strong and sometimes radical) musical opinions into the story, the backstory and mood settings really give you a further appreciation of the music. Rather than the typical 'it was the mid-1960s and JFK was shot to death' scenarios that have become cliche' to say the least, he lets you in on what was happening on the streets and the whole lingo that was uprising amongst youth. I hadn't realized how seemingly obsessed Brian Wilson was with "modern" sounds until Priore pointed it out in his recent Smile book.

I think the cover will likely be something drab with the appropriate SMiLE font, ala the Pet Sounds Sessions box set.

What you describe is essentially the 78 record store day cover. It actually could be classy if they use that same texture they used on the PS box, but bad news if the smile artwork wasn't anywhere in the release. I'm sure Frank'll get his due & we'll see those smiles beaming out at us come the end of the year.

Let's keep in mind that the Pet Sounds Sessions and Smile Sessions boxes won't be the same shape.  The PS box was, of course, a long rectangle (not a great shape on which to reproduce an LP cover).  Because the Smile box will contain vinyl LPs, it will have to be a ~12"x12" square...  the perfect shape for simply using the beloved 1967 Smile shop cover.

Ooops. You're right. I wish they would just release a picture already with a tracklist so we can all move on and start drooling.  >:D

The bold section I agree with 100%. I really, and I mean REALLY enjoy the absolute scholarship and completeness Mr. Priore brings to his history of the Sunset Strip scene, and how he relates certain events to the surroundings at the time. You appreciate this when you look at some of those period photographs or even newsreel footage to see the places come alive visually, and he has a talent for capturing a lot of what surrounded the happenings at that time. I am fascinated by that scene, and it's great to have historians actively getting the information out there to the public.

But I do prefer history be told without a personal bias, and unfortunately that's a tall order and has been for some time. Every author has his or her own style, and in Domenic's case from what I read and heard he likes to inject opinions into the history, and it's not a personal criticism but I prefer my history be told in raw facts rather than through a filter of any kind. Not that I don't enjoy most everything the man has written, but it's just a personal preference not to have those "strong and sometimes radical" opinions, to use the highlighted phrase, injected into the story. Just my two cents. I'm looking forward to what he has to say on this project.

Without bothering to present any examples, isn't all history presented in someone's viewppoint? For almost any accounting of anything there are usually at least a couple of variations on what Actually happened.  

I agree. I see nothing wrong when history is written from someone's viewpoint, especially from those who actually lived through the experience.

Not only is it tall, it's impossible!

True. That's why it's probably best to present all existing viewpoints instead of just one.

History authors can be neutral. An author who writes about World War II who is born 10-20 after the event, usually writes from the viewpoint of the parties involved, but generally not from his own.

Well, for starters, why does the historian choose to write about WWII over other historical events?

That's just the beginning of the personal bias but it can go on and on - where after all does WWII begin? When does the narrative end? All of these questions rely on subjective interpretations of events, which is impossible to avoid.

Historians can be neutral, in fact I'd almost demand it of them if they are to be responsible for telling the story to a future generation after all of the principals are dead and gone. If they are writing an opinion piece as an opinion piece, they can say whatever they want. If it's for the sake of history, I'll take just the facts.

I can cite example after example of historians interjecting too much of themselves and their personal bias into a story. Or, "slanting" the telling of story in order to back up a personally held opinion or to boost that opinion from opinion to fact. I'll stick to two biggies with Smile:

Look at the reporting of the "Inside Pop" filming that we read had included Mike and other Beach Boys hassling others at the session over lyrics as the CBS cameras rolled. This indirectly led to finding the actual camera notes and finding out it wasn't quite that way, if the incident happened at all. But saying it happened a certain way backed up some points which were being made.

Or explain how else Mike Love was turned into such an "enemy" of Smile for decades if not through a slanted telling of the story. Turns out he just wasn't as much of an issue in the album's collapse as some would lead us to believe. I remember doing a web search for Smile in the early days of the web, on a friend's PC, and I got a transcript of Mike Love's Heroes rant from the Heider sessions, not knowing where it came from and having not heard it before reading it. It was some time before I learned it had been scripted as a joke by Brian, and whoever it was who shared the transcript either didn't know or failed to mention that fact. So I read this speech and thought what a jerk that guy was to say those things, while the full story was completely different.

So would a hypothetical future historian copy that speech Mike delivers word-for-word, reprint it in a history of Smile or the Beach Boys, and fail to mention it was a total joke and a put-on? If you're pushing an agenda, you might. If you're telling the story as "just the facts" (apologies to Jack Webb...), you'd mention it was a scripted joke.

All history is not required to come from someone's viewpoint if they stick to the facts. Was the previous day St. Patricks Day, March 17th 2011, a Thursday? Or was it also a beautiful, mild, sunny day with nary a cloud in the sky and the sweet smell of spring in the air?

I disagree. First, it is impossible "to present all existing viewpoints" of a historical event in any manageable and structured way.

Second, there is a small chunk of lunatics whose viewpoint on WWII is that the Holocaust is a fabrication. Clearly historians should not be forced to "present" this viewpoint in their analysis of WWII. It's best for them to, instead, present their own interpretation of events using the standards of evidence available and let readers decide for themselves. And after all, placing "Holocaust denial" in with other perspectives on WWII gives the impression that such a position is as equally valid as the other ones (kind of like when news stations put on a Global Warming denier on to debate a climatologist to give a certain false impression).

To try and escape subjectivity is, in my opinion, fruitless at best and dangerous at worst.

And who decides which "facts" are relevant for the history books? You aren't seriously suggesting that history is ever simply a random collection of facts, are you?


Yes, but that's not history. That's a calendar.

Did you read my examples related to Smile? We don't even need to get into World War II as an example. It's not about presenting all viewpoints, it's about presenting facts...if you're writing history. If you're writing opinion or commentary on history, write whatever you want! Blurring the lines between history and commentary can be the dangerous part, mostly for future generations reading that commentary and thinking it's 100% fact.

More to the subject --  calling the Heroes skit 'just a joke' is also showing bias, isn't it? I mean, it has all the hallmarks of having been done as a way of dealing with real tensions between Mike and Brian over the way everything had gone in the year since GV had come out. His rant bears the gist of his very real anger. Like the Sonny Love vs. Cassius Wilson skits, they are fun yes, but they are also 'paging Sigmund Freud' moments.

As to Dom -- I think at times he has needed the admonishment, "Your Kung Fu is good, but your emotions lead you." Fortunately, he seems to have got the lesson -- he frankly states that his insistence on Surf's Up being the finale of SMiLE was based on the template of A Day In The Life, and was therefore incorrectly assuming Surf's Up should similarly come at the end.

So, he has shown growth as a writer, and the ability to be objective or at least admit being wrong. It is, after all, OK to be wrong if one adjusts and corrects when better info comes in.

Yes, but your examples do nothing to suggest a way out of bias. So you would add to the transcript that "it was a joke"? That doesn't quite explain why such jokes were being made in the first place. And furthermore, why are we considering this information historically relevant? What makes it important as a historical document? These are all personal decisions that you yourself seem to be making.


No, history is not just "presenting facts". It's about turning past events into a cohesive and understandable narrative.

When or where did I say history is a random collection of facts? Please show me.

A hypothetical history based on facts might be reporting that on a certain Smile session, backing vocals for Cabinessence were attempted, and these 5 band members were present at this particular studio on this date from this time to that, and they recorded in front of a U47 microphone set to the omnidirectional pattern. Session tapes reveal they attempted parts of the verse and the chorus, before calling an early end to the session and deciding to go home. The session was logged with the AFM, and Diane Rovell was listed as the contractor.

Is there anything random about that? It's factual, it relates to one date in history, it can be proven by documentation and possibly even audio tape, and it pertinent to a discussion on Smile. And it's interesting to a segment of readers and fans of the band.

What possible reason would a historian have to inject commentary or opinion into a reporting of facts such as that if that was his or her assignment?

May I point you in the direction of the question mark at the end of that sentence?

But you're right, given what you've asserted so far, you couldn't conceive that facts are collected randomly. Apparently they just happen in a neat package and it is the historians task to merely take that package and, I guess, publish it.


Yes.

Where were the five standing? At what time did they arrive? What were they driving in when they arrived? Did some walk? Did some stay longer than others? How long approximately was the hair of each member? Did they all shower before coming? Did any of them bring anything to eat? Was there any eating that took place? If so, what? If so, was any of it left unfinished? How many chews did they take of their food? Did anyone leave at any point to go to the bathroom? What did they do in the bathroom?

Now, the answer to all of these questions would indeed constitute facts. The number of "facts" that probably occurred on this day alone, amongst this group of people, would probably total over a million. But, of course, you want to concentrate on particular facts. There are facts to you that are relevant and facts to you that aren't. And that, my friend, is a bias. Sure, there is no interjection of commentary and there is no interjection of opinion but the very fact that you have decided what constitutes relevant information and what doesn't is pure out-and-out textbook bias. More over, it's not only just as biased as injecting commentary and injecting opinion, it's much much worse, because it pretends to be objective when it isn't. At least the person who is open about their positionality in narrating past events is honest. The person who pretends that what this kind of "history" is objective and free from bias is presenting a falsehood.

I put "history" in quotes by the way because your example is not history by any stretch of the imagination. It is, indeed, just a random collection of facts.


Well, if their assignment is to report facts then he or she probably isn't a historian.

At what point would you determine a historian has to inject his or her own personal opinion or bias into recording those past events in order to meet the standard for a "cohesive and understandable narrative"? Is the suggestion then creating a situation where history cannot present facts as cohesive and understandable without injecting the historian's bias? If it is, I'd disagree strongly.

The Mike Love rant was historically relevant because it radically shaped an opinion of the entire "saga" of Smile until the full story was told, that it was in fact a put-on, a "joke" which I'll still call it, and not a serious rant. There was no context given with the speech, there was no date or time, there was just the transcript of a speech Mike Love delivered during a Heroes session, and it made him sound/look like a jerk. I can't count the number of times people have heard that speech and asked about it with the same negative opinion of Mike until someone pointed out it wasn't what it appeared to be.

I should probably wait until you respond to my last post, but in the meantime I will say that if you disagree that a historian isn't biased when they are presenting facts as a cohesive and understandable narrative, then you haven't thought through what it means to do that.


I wasn't asking you to explain why the Love rant was relevant. I was pointing out that whenever you, or me, or anyone deems an event "historically relevant", they are showing a bias. You are implying that certain events are relevant and certain events are not, which is exactly a bias.


This story in many ways works to challenge the very notion of history as truth. The story suggests that as we find more information from the past, our understanding of the past changes or shifts. And, of course, we can never exhaust all the information from the past, because there was always something going somewhere. Therefore, we can never really know the "full story" of the past. It is always beyond our reach.

Can you not see the obvious difference in reporting how many bites Al Jardine took of his ham sandwich on December 12 1966 and reporting the facts of that session? You're trying to throw everything but the kitchen sink into an example that was hypothetical, you're picking and choosing which comments to address while ignoring others, and maybe that's the kind of history you're into reading, I don't know. It seems more about trying to prove your opinions against what I'm saying by taking everything to an extreme example when that's not reality.

Again, am I suggesting anywhere above the kind of absurd, minute details you're throwing out there should be the standard for telling the history of an event? Or a telling of the facts in a historical account must include details like eating and bathroom habits of the band? And how does not including when the band took a piss or ate their food constitute a bias?

If a historian takes on an assignment to write about a specific event in history, and if in your definition and standard of what makes a historian the reporting and recording of facts isn't the ultimate goal for that historian, that person is indeed a commentator and is not a historian and the book should be titled that way, as commentary rather than history. My opinion.

Is one more factual than the other? If so, how do you determine this?


I'm not sure what you're talking about here.


No, you're not, and that's exactly my point. That you consider the fact that "they recorded in front of a U47 microphone set to the omnidirectional pattern" to be relevant and the fact that Jardine took X amount of bites from his sandwhich to be an "absurd, minute detail" is telling that you are extraordinarily biased. That the former should be "history" while the other should not be known at all is exactly a case of a historian interjecting into past events, decided himself what constitutes relevant information.


You need to step back a minute and re-read this thread because you are blatantly missing my point. You are the one suggesting that you need to get the "full story" and to collect all the facts. Wasn't that the point of the Mike Love transcript story?

So, no. I'm not saying you have to "include details like eating and bathroom habits of the band". I'm saying, rather, that the historian is always making a biased choice as to what constitutes history and what doesn't. History, in order for it to function as history, and in order for it to be coherent in any way, is always necessarily an act of exclusion. Now what a historian decides to be history is typically an ideological construct. Different societies and different time periods have always had different ideas of what counts as history and what doesn't. And the cool thing about ideology is that it always passes for "reality" when it fact, it's just a particular perspective. This is why you see certain facts as being relevant and other facts as being minute and absurd because you have been taught a concept of history that is particular to your time and place.


Because the historian is making the decision for everyone else what constitutes history and that is purely his or her perspective.


The role of a historian is not a matter of opinion. History is a cohesive and organized narrative of past events and it is the historian's job to either construct those narratives or help find the information that allows other historians to construct those narratives. Their job is NEVER about "reporting and recording" facts.

This is quite a stretch. This bias, according to your analysis, would be what exactly in the case of not reporting in a history of a single Smile session what kind of food they ate during a lunch break or what brand of cigarettes Carl is heard smoking during the breaks?

Are you biased if someone asks you tomorrow how your day is going and you fail to mention every bite you took of your breakfast? I define bias in reporting historical facts in a much different way than failing to include every last detail to the point of obsession.

An example of bias in the Beach Boys world, a glaring one actually, is the biography of Brian Wilson that reports obvious lies as facts. If that author were reporting facts as I think a historian should put above everything, George Benson wouldn't be part of the story at all, since he has no association with Brian Wilson. Since the book was pushing an agenda, trying to make certain parties look "better" than others, George Benson was discovered by Gene Landy shining shoes, which is obviously total crap.



I do agree with this philosophy and analysis, in fact if we think about it too hard it can be overwhelming and a bit too hopeless. It is very overwhelming to consider we will NEVER get as close as we'd like in order to understand the stories of history. Even if time travel became possible somewhere/somehow, where exactly would we go? You can't pinpoint history, and that is frustrating.

I still don't think it's showing a bias, when charged with writing history, to do the best we can with what we have available. Whoever posted the Mike Love rant, I give them the benefit of the doubt they never heard about it being scripted and assumed as did I and others it was an example of Mike being a "villain" in the story of Smile. The beauty of studying history is in the discovery. Like a good teacher would want to see their student eventually become better than that teacher, wouldn't a good historian like to be proven wrong if it means getting closer to the truth?

The bias is favouring particular facts over others as being relevant to the narrative that you are constructing about this event. It's fairly clear.


I thought you were concerned with someone interjecting their personal opinion? If someone asks me how my day is going, my answer is going to be a personal opinion even if my personal opinion happens to be a fact. So by your standards, my answer is problematic no matter what. And if your answer to this is, "well, of course, your answer would be a personal opinion", then you must realize this isn't a very good hypothetical example for you, since you're the one who believes that there is a significant difference between  me telling you about my day and me telling you about an historical event.


Right - because, again, you yourself are biased in terms of what constitutes history.



Your examples thus far of bias seem to rely heavily on incidents where information was given that was incorrect (the above example, and the Mike Love transcript example, for instance) but, in actuality, the definition of bias has nothing to do with true or false information. I haven't seen any definition of "bias" which suggests that if you are biased you are presenting events falsely. It seems as if you are making an incorrect assumption that if you privilege one view over another that you are being false.


But who decides what makes for the "best" history. To be honest, the hypothetical examples you've given me so far, don't make the cut.

The best history books I've read are books that question how certain narratives of history came to be known as "history" while other events were discarded from those narratives. I might suggest reading Michel Foucault's book as examples. Foucault, incidentally, really changed the entire way most people understand history.


I think a good historian would gladly be proven wrong, yes. And they are proven wrong all the time, which is why a good historian would be fooling themselves if they thought that we were "getting closer to the truth" simply by finding another piece of information.

delete

Again, you seem to put a lot of your opinions on what I have said out there as fact, and the way you're saying I'm defining bias as putting out true versus false information is not what I'm saying despite what you may want to think. The Mike Love example was one where if a historian were to put that out in a book about Smile knowing what the speech really was yet failing to mention that fact in the history, that is a bias, especially if the rest of the book's theory revolves around the notion that Mike Love was a jerk. Excluding that fact in order to promote a more far-reaching hypothesis or belief is clearly a bias, and an obvious one.

It's absurd and smacks of relativism to equate not including what Mike ate that day with failing to mention the whole thing was a rehearsed skit, talking hypothetically of course and as always in my opinion.

I think the notion of "bias" in general is getting taken too far in some of these responses. If you think showing bias includes the decision to include or not include the most minute details, it's too literal a definition to be a workable standard, in my opinion. I think showing bias is an obvious thing to notice - by your standard since the simple act of saying something is relevant or non-relevant to the story shows a bias, up to and including details of meals, then the original notion of bias is rendered useless? Again, some of it seems to be touching on the concept of relativism.

The heart of this may be in fact how to define bias. I'll go back to the Beach Boys: the Brian bio was biased to show Landy as a savior, and in a very positive light. That, to me, is writing history with an obvious bias, and a glaring example of it. For that book to leave out details of a specific recording session in a chapter on Smile, however, is not showing a bias in that context.

I suggest you re-read my post. I didn't say that you were defining bias as presenting false information. I observed (correctly, I might add) that your examples of bias thus far concentrated solely on false information. What I am suggesting is that that's a problematic way of only looking at bias.


I might offer that I would much prefer an obvious bias to the hidden ones that pretend to not be biases that you clearly prefer.


I would agree. It's a shame that I wasn't relating those two examples at all, else you might actually have some kind of case on your hands.


I'm merely using the exact definition of bias. We can use Wikipedia as an example, though any definition you find will say the same thing, and that is, holding a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. Now these details that you call "minute" are not only alternatives but they are "equally valid" by your own standards since you are the one who is privileging facts. Again, there are millions of facts that occur during a single event like the one you describe. Clearly, if one is forced to delete "minute details" or even if one decides that certain details are minute while other details are of historic importance, then he or she is clearly partial to a particular perspective of history and to certain ways of telling the event over others.

What this comes down to, seemingly, is that you prefer one kind of bias but not another kind of bias.



No, the definition of bias is not rendered useless simply because it can be applied in a way you don't like it. What is rendered useless however is any conceivable idea of an objective history that is beyond the historian's perspective and opinions.


Good - I'll stick with the official definition of bias, and you can stick with the one you've made up. As long as we're playing by those rules, you're certainly going to believe you're right now matter where this conversation goes.


[/quote]

So in your world the only definition of bias is one you propose, and I should, what, submit to that and say you're right? You're right about everything! In your opinion, not mine. But I'm biased that way. :)

I'm "making up" a definition through what I consider specific examples of bias relating to the Beach Boys? You're still trying to relate a historian choosing between minutiae and pertinent facts to a standard which would effectively eliminate the ability to judge anyone's writings as biased because any historian who writes history is biased in what details they choose to include or exclude. Or any historian who focuses in on pertinent facts like "who-what-when-where-why" is biased by not including what color shirt an individual wore the day the event took place, in fact even saying that's not relevant is showing a bias.

Let me ask this: Is the size of the hat Mike Love wore at Knebworth important enough to a historian writing an account of the Beach Boys playing at that show? Is the historian biased if he or she does not include Mike's hat size in the history of the Knebworth show? Common sense and reality at some point kicks in where relativism would suggest the hat size is as important as the setlist.

I'm almost convinced relativism is at the heart of this discussion after reading that last reply. If that's a view you share, or if that's where you're coming from as an individual, I'll respect that but I will disagree and also debate your attempts to equate your absurd examples of excluding details and attempts to define my definition of bias your own way.

Historians' jobs are never about reporting and recording facts...Is this coming from the same school of thought that would award points on a test to the student who argues 2+2 does not equal 4?

If you are honestly being smug about this issue, then you are not prepared to engage seriously in a discussion.

Yes, I am suggesting that we agree to an official definition of the term, rather than make up a definition for ourselves. Of course, if we make up our own definitions of words we are clearly going to choose one that reinforces are own position. That's why such behaviour is intellectually dishonest.

It is more than ironic that the person who has been railing against a biased perspective should be so smug about being forced to adhere to an official definition of a term rather than the one he happens to spin out of his head.


And I should reinforce yet again here that, no, I would not be "right", since I'm not the one who is proposing my own definition here.


Putting "making up" in quotes doesn't change the fact that you are making one up. And you can't define a word through examples.


Well, yes, given that all history is biased, it is a stupid criteria on which to base one's judgement of history. Since a lack of bias would imply that it is not history, there is no reason to judge history on the basis of how biased it is. Fortunately, bias has rarely been a criteria for such judgements and has only really become en vogue in the past several decades, in particular in US news organization who use it as a basis of critique.


You've really taken my example and driven it into the ground. In fact, what shows more of a bias in this example on the part of the historian is not what details they give but who the "who" is they decide to discuss. In fact, in the time when this "who-what-when-where-why" criteria was most used in history, history was typically focused on only the very powerful or the very wealthy (typically, the same people). The "where" was either the battlefield, the kingdom, or the construction of a new society. Historians as far back as the early 20th Century saw enormous problems with this as it painted a history that essentially excluded the work of the common man, women, the East, non-whites, etc. and if those people were described, they were only described in relation to powerful people. So, that's where "who-what-when-where-why" got us, and that's why no historian today takes that method seriously.


It depends on the historian. If someone was writing about the history of fashion amongst rock stars in the latter-20th century, then yes, Mike Love's hat would be much more important than the setlist at the show. But in order to believe that, you'd have to believe that historians come to particular past events with a particular perspective, which you don't believe since having a perspective means having a bias (see above definition).

Again, you clearly haven't thought this through. The fact that you are assuming that Mike Love's hat has no historical relevance when I've just given a perfectly reasonable scenario where it would be relevant is telling of that. Clearly YOU wouldn't be interested in the hat but would be interested in the setlist, because simply put, you are biased. You are looking for specific things because you have specific concerns - namely, in this case, The Beach Boys' music. So because you have very specific concerns, you are going to be relaying only the information that pertains to those concerns. The hat to you is irrelevant, while the setlist to the above historian would be irrelevant. This is why your "just the facts except for the ones that are minute details" philosophy is just entirely non-sensical. What is minute details to you could be a treasure trove to other historians. And what is important history to you could constitute minute details to them. And that's just the nature of history writing. It's not so clear cut as presenting the facts. When you are presenting the past as a narrative, that means you are melding the past into a story and there are many different stories to tell even if you are just dealing with one past event. The fact that you would choose one story (which requires certain facts but not others) over another is incontrovertibly a biased choice, but there's nothing wrong with that, because that's simply the nature of history writing.

As much as I appreciate the talking about who's right and who's wrong, definition of bias(ed), suggestions to re-read posts, etc etc. , by now I don't even have a clue what the original topic was all about...

I would seriously consider you both to continue this side-discussion in the Sandbox. Btw, kudos for keeping the discussion civil, despite the fact that you obviously don't disagree. I've seen discussion like these go totally overboard in the past...  :)

I find it interesteding that Domenic found the elements on BWPS not quite right because that is exactly how I felt. I always thought IWBA and workshop would follow fire. Is there any concensus about what order the elements would or should go in? And should the album end with Surf's up? 

Nothing's certain as far as sequence goes. I'm with you on Fire + IWBA + Friday Night though. Just sounds right to my ears.

It's so weird how, once again, this thing called SMiLE--intended as such a happy and joyful thing--gets mired in argument and controversy!

That's duality for you, I guess...

We don't come here to talk about the Beach Boys...we come here to argue about the Beach Boys.

@ onkster & Jonas

No truer words were ever spoken (written, in this case).

Delurking for a clarification...

Andrew...

In the link below...

http://www.examiner.com/beach-boys-in-national/the-smile-sessions-box-set-to-see-release-this-summer

Underneath the picture of the SMiLE cover art it says...

The SMiLE album cover art from 1967
Photo: © Frank Holmes/Capitol Records

Could this mean that Capitol Records has met Frank's price since the copyright
for the album cover art is attributed to Both Frank and Capitol Records???

Monty...

[giggle]

I appreciate that this has seemed to have veered off topic, but at the same time, it could be quite a relevant discussion to the Beach Boys if we can keep it less abstract and more concrete.

What is being discussed here is a fairly under-explored topic, I think, viz. the Philosophy of History and Historiography of Pop Music History.  And really, what band is a better Guinea-Pig for this than the Beach Boys?  I smell some cutting edge Ph.D. Topic here.

It could be a fascinating exploration:  Our sources for Smile history necessitate epistemological humility on our part, I think.  Pop music history is a little different than, say, social history, the history of ideas, or political history, because--while certainly important in its way--pop music is not quite so critical to get a handle on.  If we don't understand the history of the Beach Boys, well, who among us wouldn't actually quite enjoy being doomed to repeat it?

So I think a more pragmatic approach is needed, in this case, despite my general distaste for pragmatism.  Let's find what works for what we are trying to get at.  E.G., Did/Does Dom's method work for us?  If not, why not?  What truth are we trying to get at here?

I could write about this all day, but won't, at least not right now.  I don't find this thread to have taken an argumentative (in the bad sense) at all, this is what philosophers do all the time.  Of course, many of them have been killed for doing it, but that's not their fault, as such.  There has to be some back and forth and maybe we can get at something important, because let's face it, Beach Boys history has not been easy to get right.

"fire bad" - Frankenstein's monster

Nice spot. I'd say an accommodation could have been reached. Really hope so.

On Frank's artwork -

Frank WAS paid for his art back in 66 - I've heard $500 and I've heard $2000 (the latter from Mark London, not sure the source of his information).

If he was paid by Capitol, wouldn't they have rights to use the artwork as they see fit?  Is there a time limit on when they could use the artwork that they paid for on a record album?

Even if they legally could use his artwork now because of paying for it back in the day, I think it would be unconscionable (sp?) if he was not reimbursed for his art on this new release.

Interesting. I distinctly recall it being stated in an interview that he'd never been paid.

I'd like to know the source of your claim that Frank has been paid, since Frank has always made it clear that he was NEVER paid. 

Here's what I have to say about DPriore and TSS:

1) Make a drinking game out of it: while reading the liner notes, one drink for every time he refers to himself as "yours truly."

2) Let's see what new opinions he comes up with that are passed off as fact. Totally did not like his Smile book from a few years ago and his Fishwrap article because it just seemed that he was taking his own opinions and observations and trying to tell us that they're gospel truth.

I don't mean to be all bad about the guy....LOVE LLVS, and personally, I find his taste in surf music impeccable. Friendly guy, too...

No. Too sad sounding ending for an album called "SMiLE". But then again, I think the minor chord opening of "Prayer" is a too sad sounding intro to an album called "SMiLE". Great track, I love it, but I don't like it as the opener even if everybody else loves it as the opener. IMHO it should be somewhere near the end with its major chord ending.

I've already mentioned this elsewhere but I reckon Dom will have a theory (whether it's labelled theory or not I can't predict) that there was a fourth SMiLE movement (you can't have a double album with only three sides, after all) about a fellow called George falling into a French horn; it's also include a bit about a chap called Brian who disappears into a piano, followed by Michael Vosse. Barnyard Billy's in there too, and there's a chant goes "It was Brian in the mic... it was Brian in the Mike..."

Agreed on Our Prayer, or at least if it was the be the opener don't follow it with H&V. I always found that leap from sombre to the slapstick humour of H&V a bit jarring. Prayer + Good Vibrations works much better as an opener imo.

It's worth noting that Vosse implies Prayer as a closer, and Siegel mentions Brian playing it last in his private acetate radio show, so I don't think it's a given that Prayer was to open the album.

It could be an opener *and* a closer, in fact in theory it could work quite well and I think I have heard other albums in the years since 1967 use a piece of music to open and fade out an album or a section of an album, though my memory isn't letting me remember exact titles for reference.

For music theory buffs the ending major chord of "Our Prayer" is a composer's device several hundred years old called a "Picardy third", where a piece that starts in a minor key ends on a major chord rather than the expected tonic minor. It's a beautiful sound, and along with a major 7th chord one of my favorite sounds in music.

I never though Our Prayers key made it sound sad. To me it makes it sound immense.

Carpenters Horizon for one. Some dude called Wilson did it last year too.

Vosse doesn't imply that Prayer was the closer - remember, 20/20 was already out and Vosse had heard it as he references it during the Fusion interview.  He says a choral a capella thing.  Which certainly would describe Prayer but then why not say it was Prayer?  So it had to be something else.  I think the excised/edited section of Prayer (edited from a 66 mix, it's on boots) would certainly be a candidate.

As for Frank being paid - the $500 quote comes from Derek Bill - he's spoken to Frank and met him several times, but he didn't specifically say that quote came from Frank.  And then Mark London put forth the $2000 amount, right here on this board I believe.

Sad? No. Spiritual? Yes. I played AlternateBrianWilsonSMiLE for some friends a few days ago and they were hooked just by hearing 'Our Prayer' - One made the comment: "This is the Beach Boys? This is so much different than the other stuff (ie surf music)." Then again, you could start that album off with any SMiLE track and people would probably have the same reaction. Prayer is a fantastic hook into the album.

Immense was a strange choice of word.. Spiritual is a much better adjective...  :lol

And yet, there  are the many citations that he wasn't paid, more from Frank himself.
And if he was paid, how is it that he has been able to claim( and receive) all rights to his artwork, without Capitol asserting their ownership?

Let's combine them to make it immensely spiritual and call it even ;D

I have no idea whether or not Frank was originally paid.  

However, in Billboard's story in 1995 about Capitol planning to release "The Smile Era," we see the following statement:

If original art is obtained, the packaging could include material from the 12-by-12 booklet -- including line drawings by Frank Holmes and photos -- printed for the original "Smile" album and ultimately destroyed.


If Capitol already had the rights to the original art, why in 1995 would they have needed to "obtain" it?

Because they never paid Frank for it, and he owns it.

It was more of a rhetorical question, but, yeah, that's the logical inference.

Ahh, but of course!  I'm just not into rhetoric

Because they no longer had the artwork in their files.  That's why they would need to obtain the original artwork.

To me it sounds spiritual AND immense AND sad. Sad except for the major chord in the end that makes me feel like hope is being given as the answer to the prayer.


Well, it's been recorded as an intro, and it's been used as intro on BWPS, so I guess it's THE intro. I don't like it as an intro, but then I'm not Brian Wilson (obviously).

In my own mixes I use You're Welcome as intro. It's in C# just like H&V which follows, so it fits very well.

My old pre-BWPS mixes used to end with Surf's Up -> Prayer -> Good Vibrations. It was kind of nice to find BWPS also ending with GV with even a little Prayer section before it! :) Late last year I did a third mix which had Vega-Tables at the end instead. Surf's Up before it ends with the line "A children's song... (and so on)", and then a childlike song follows. And the line "I know that you'll feel better if you send us in a letter..." works especially well if Vega-Tables is the last song!

Our prayer as a closer would be pretty terrible I think. 

You know, I wonder if Vosse might have been thinking about "You're Welcome."  It isn't technically a capella, but the instrumental backing isn't prominent.  If you had only heard it a few times, you might misremember it as a choral a capella.  Of course, "You're Welcome" was also already out (as the b side of the H&V 45), but who knows if Vosse was even paying close attention to details like that?