So...Where Were We, Anyway?

[Chalk n Numbers]

Hi All,

What do you know, my login still works.

It’s been a long time since my last post (a masterpiece of understatement). But I still check in on the site every so often, and when I happened to see a recent thread – and read the comments there (Hiya, GF!) about the sort of conversations that used to go on here, back in the good old days – well, that helped to bring into focus an idea I’ve been toying with for a few months.

As some longtime members may recall, one of the distinguished luminaries of the Beach Boys world* had the notion, back in 2004, of putting together a book of SMiLE-focused essays. He graciously and generously invited me to contribute a piece or two, and I was honored (and humbled) to accept. A fair amount of work was done on the project, but there was never a complete manuscript.

To celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the SMiLE premiere (and album release), I thought it might make sense to revisit my chapters, to see if there was anything worth salvaging. I don’t pretend to know the answer to that question, but I do know that once I dug them up, it didn’t feel right to rebury them. So I’ve put together a (very) rudimentary Wix site in order to share them. The essays will appear as blog posts, but that’s strictly an organizational convention; this isn’t a true ongoing blog, and when the essays are used up, that will be the end of it. Some of the essays are on the long side, so I'll be chopping those up into installments.

I’ve done a bit of editing, adding lines here, subtracting others there. Mostly I’ve struggled with the citations and references, dealing with lost reference books and dead links (thank you, Wayback Machine). I haven’t been able to locate everything – and the citations definitely aren’t in proper academic format! – but there came a point when I had to give it up and declare victory.

The URL is:

https://chalknnumbers.wixsite.com/the-smile-shop-attic

If you decide to visit, I hope you’ll find something interesting there. I don't expect that I'll be logging in here too often, but you never know.

Thanks,

C&N

* I haven’t been able to contact the owner of the book project to seek his blessing, so his name won’t be appearing anywhere. Some of you old-timers will probably know who I’m talking about.

[guitarfool2002]

Hello! It's nice to see a familiar name from the past and it's hard to believe (and process) that it's been 20 years since all of the excitement surrounding Smile. What a truly surreal and magnificent time to be a fan and to witness all of that coming full circle in real time. I think with all of the developments and changes in online technology since 2004, it's difficult for many newer fans to realize both how distant the lack of technology made all of this and conversely how close it brought people together around events or topics. I'm thinking of the Smile premiere, and how there were no phones or portable devices that could stream or instantly upload actual footage of this kind of event. I was still on dial-up internet when Matt B's reports of the show and what songs were being played started to come in as text posts on a message board. I was glued to the monitor that entire time as many others were too. Then there was a lag of time between someone who actually recorded the show and that show being passed around. Now you can upload HD video almost instantly if not stream it live...it's amazing how things have changed.

And I won't go into it now, because I've already expressed my views in the previous post about Smile discussion cited earlier, but the nature of Smile research and discussion has shifted too in a way that I'm not in favor of, where the act of putting topics on the table and having discussions and debates to air out the topics has morphed into some circles to lectures and finger-wagging, as if some were given professorships and license to control and repeat a narrative. I remember decades ago reading a statement that read something like this about Smile: "...so deft as to defy casual interpretation". I've always carried that description to include the lyrics, the music, and the overall history behind Smile. The discussions those decades ago were more about possibility and discovery than they were about narratives and absolutes, and I do miss that spirit of free-form discussion and debate. But I digress as usual. I can only hope that future generations of fans carry on the traditions of Smile discussions from the past and cast a wary eye toward factions who wag fingers and try to state absolutes while closing many important doors along the way.

I'm looking forward to reading the site, but I have one comment/request: Is there any way to darken the font so the text can be more easily read? I went to the site and the white background made the lighter gray text/font very difficult to read. I'll check back in for sure, it's just a case where I was unable to read comfortably the entries due to the font and background colors. Thanks!

[Chalk n Numbers]

Hi GF,

Thanks for the kind words. Yes, it’s hard, sometimes, to process the fact that that two decades have gone by. We waited for SMiLE for 37 years, and it’s now more than half that span since it was released.

I suppose it’s natural for orthodox narratives to form over time; some people would say that most of history has been created that way. I tend to resist narratives of all sorts, out of sheer cussedness, I guess. I don't like being lectured to, and I'm too old to put up with finger-wagging. I prefer the open atmosphere we enjoyed all those years ago. I don’t think I realized, at the time, how lucky we were to be part of that ongoing conversation.

As for the Wix site, I will definitely look into the readability concern. I can tell you that I didn’t (and never would) choose a light-gray text color; everything is the default black, and it all reads as black on my devices. Is everything hard to read, or is it just certain sections or pages? I don’t have a lot of font choices, but I’m happy to see what I can do there. I apologize, and I appreciate your bringing the issue to my attention.

Best,

C&N

[guitarfool2002]

I hope this helps, those are two screenshots I took of your site, running on the Firefox browser. The light gray text is very difficult to read yet all the color photos and images you have seem fine. I haven't seen this on other sites, originally I thought it might be my system but it's not. I haven't tried it on a phone yet.

[Chalk n Numbers]

Well, that's horrible.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to post. I'm looking into the issue, but so far I can't match the phenomenon to any of the known Wix text issues. I've reset test blocks of text to the default, but there's no visible change: it's all black, #000000, before and after. For what it's worth, I'm on Firefox as well.

Profound apologies for the problem. I will continue to investigate.

Best,

C&N

[Don Malcolm]

Just wanted to quickly note: the text color issue is not problematic on my computer. I hope others will take a look and provide you with more data points on this...

As GF noted, the narrowing down of discourse about SMiLE as an ongoing source of "what if" investigations is one of the more vexing results of BWPS, and you astutely mention in one of your introductory posts that the parts of SMiLE that were most prominent in our minds during the "piece-by-piece" emergence also seem to have become casualties in SMiLE's overall mummification. Folks used to be able to advocate for the SMiLE music by citing "Surf's Up" or "Cabinessence" (or the alternate "Heroes & Villains" that emerged with the '93 box set) but now it seems that the whole thing has become a "tamed edifice" that has entered a realm of "high art" and approached the way one approaches classical music. That's one reason why I think Dae Lims' reconstruction of a "what if" SMiLE from late '66-early '67 is valuable and energizing for future approaches to SMiLE, particularly at the point in time when Brian is no longer with us. (I don't get the impression that Brian has ever been interested in re-opening the can of worms that Darian Sahanaja was able to help him tame with BWPS.)

I'll be curious to see if your material takes us in such a direction; but even if that turns out to be not so much the case, I think this is the right time for "new/old" writing about SMiLE to emerge, and I look forward to reading it.

[Dan Lega]

I just read the first 4 parts.  Very enjoyable!  And very enlightening!  I really enjoyed the preamble, but wasn't quite prepared for the in depth and fascinating look into the allusions of SMiLE lyrics to other famous lyrics, poems, etc!

Many times when I read things like this I think there's no way the original author really had those things in mind when he wrote that.  But with this analysis, and with how erudite Van Dyke has always appeared, I'm thinking, by George, I bet Van Dyke was thinking of that when he wrote that line!  Okay, maybe not every single time totally consciously, but I'm sure he was steeped in all those references and they had become a part of his vernacular.

You should send this to Mr. Parks!  I bet he'd be grateful to see it.


Love and merci,
Dan Lega

[Chalk n Numbers]

@Don:

Hi Don,

Thank you for the comments.

I come from a literary-criticism background, so my writing leanas that way. Definitely not the joyless, stodgy kind of criticism, though (at least I hope not). I learned from reading the modern critics: the folks writing about Pound, Eliot and Williams. Their work – the best of it, anyway – was always alive to the cultural, historical and spiritual stuff that was layered in with the nouns and verbs. To be clear, I wouldn’t dream of putting myself in that same class…just acknowledging influences, that’s all.

For me, there’s no necessary connection between regarding something as high art, on the one hand, and approaching it with a rigid pedantic mindset, on the other. In fact, I’d argue that reading great literature like that (or listening to great music, or viewing great art) is a marvelously efficient way to kill everything that’s worthwhile in it – and there you are, with your nicely wrapped mummy.

I certainly don’t think of SMiLE that way. If anything, it’s the opposite. It’s too vital and exciting and moving for that kind of treatment. To my mind, the job of criticism is to find connections, ask questions, discover meanings, illuminate a corner or two…not to build a museum exhibit. SMiLE is a living work, and it deserves living discussion. Intellectual inquiry? Absolutely. SMiLE merits (and repays) that kind of attention…as long as you bring your curiosity and wonder and humor along as well. Otherwise, I’d argue, you’re missing the spirit of the thing altogether.

To put it another way: I take SMiLE seriously, meaning that I respect it as an artistic accomplishment, but I do my best not to get overly serious about it. In the good old days of SMiLE conversation, online and otherwise, there was peace in the valley – for the most part – and all these threads coexisted happily. That’s how I remember it, anyway. It was fun.

Sorry for the rambling. I hope you find something interesting and/or entertaining at the site!

Best,

C&N

[Chalk n Numbers]

@Dan:

Thanks for the kind words! Who knows, maybe I'll work up some courage one day and send VDP a link.

For what it’s worth, I tend to think it sometimes works that way: if the allusions/references are present in your mind, they can work their way into what you’re writing, even if you’re not consciously summoning them. If memory serves, there’s a later essay that touches on that point.

More posts on the song allusions to come – the "prework," sort of, with the critical essays to follow.

Best,

C&N

[Don Malcolm]

No question but C&N's material needs to get seen by VDP...I think it will buoy him up regarding his level of achievement with the SMiLE lyrics. It's clear that this type of presentation has been quite rare up to this point...

That said, there are certain ones that IMO are more likely to produce some interesting responses from him than others, so a selective approach is probably advisable.

I'm thinking the "Folks Sing A Song" sections, Play Myth Rock, and the two "A Song Dissolved in the Dawn" chapters as the initial offering, with the more speculative material that's just been posted to follow if VDP proves as amenable to it all as I think/hope/wish/pray he will be.

Some of the more recent areas do lead into the question of how SMiLE was shaping up before things went haywire, and if VDP is sufficiently impressed with what he reads, that might open up an area of discussion that he has still kept close to the vest over all these years. It might possibly lead to some insights/recollections we have never heard before...

[Chalk n Numbers]

Hi Don,

Thanks, again, for the kind words.

I was going to bump this thread – highly gauche, I know, to borrow a phrase from Van Dyke – to say that the collection of blog posts/chapters/essays/whatever is now nearly complete. Over the next couple of days (still proofreading!), I plan to add numbers 20 and 21, and that will finish them out.

I agree, absolutely, that the essays differ greatly in terms of general interest and/or critical value; some are mainly historical/contextual, and some are strictly anecdotal and personal. Those are included only by way of background. I’m more than happy to be guided by your recommendations.

Once upon a time, in a world that was less guarded about personal contact info, I actually had Van Dyke’s email address, and he and I exchanged a note or two. But that was an age (and a dozen Macs) ago – I no longer have those emails, and I’m sure the address is defunct. I’m humbled at the thought of calling any of this scribbling to his attention, but if anyone has up-to-date contact info for him, I’d be glad to send a link. (Or if it would make more sense for somebody else to send it, that would be perfectly fine with me.) A PM will reach me here, and the contact form at the wix site should work as well.

A few notes for the benefit of folks who may not have looked in on the site:

Posts 1-3 spend a bit of time – probably far too much! – on my own SMiLE history (such as it is), as well as the background of the essays themselves.

Posts 4-8, taken together, comprise what would have been a single chapter, dealing with musical and lyrical references in SMiLE. I think of this as basic stuff – prework, if you like.

Posts 9-15, 17-20 represent core attempts at interpretation/analysis. Please note that Post 20 is really more of an introduction than an essay; the essay itself (which I acknowledge to be quite lengthy) is available as a PDF download.

Post 16 is a piece of pure speculative fiction originally published – circa 2004 – in an online music magazine. (There have been minor revisions throughout.) The premise: if SMiLE had been released in 1967, and if Rolling Stone magazine had been around at the time, what would the album review have looked like?

Post 21 is a sort of closing, with a few more unapologetically personal thoughts about SMiLE.

I don’t envision adding any further content, although I may do some rethinking and revising over time as opportunities present themselves.

I hope there’s something useful, interesting or entertaining in all of that. Thanks for reading!

C&N

[Zenobi]

Chalk, I have never forgotten your excellent contributions in the legendary SMiLE Shop, and your "blog" does not disappoint, quite the contrary. I agree that VDP  should see at least a selection of it!
I love your "realization" that Surfin' USA and Surf's Up are not things apart, as many think, but part of the same artistic journey. That is the reason I love so much, say, Love You, the Paley Sessions and TLOS: they are too part of that journey.

[Chalk n Numbers]

Hi Zenobi,

Thanks so much for the kind words. We did have some wonderful conversations back there, didn't we?

As regards the VDP suggestion: PM sent.

Cheers,

C&N

[Zenobi]

Those were the times, right? What a Golden Age. I was overwhelmed with joy and nostalgia when I finally noticed the name of the author of this thread.
IMHO the SMiLE Shop was the best forum ever, and you were the best contributor, among many great ones. And I can guess who was trying to organize a book based on such contributions... what a great person.
By the way, I think you already know the stellar "Smiley Smile Remix" (really, SMiLE-meets-Smiley Smile) created by none other than the legendary JON HUNT, co-creator of the SMiLE Shop with the equally legendary JOHN LANE, but just in case you do not, here it is:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh5v80aaweM

[Zenobi]

Great points, as usual, about "BWPS" being SMiLE. I agree 101%, of course.

Though, I have a doubt. What is, exactly, the fantastic 2011 construction of a "Beach Boys" BWPS in the SMiLE Sessions? Is it yet another real SMiLE, as it was approved and published by the authors? I tend to a "yes". What do you think?

And I see you quoted me (Wagner...). I am honored, sir.

[Chalk n Numbers]

Chalk, I have never forgotten your excellent contributions in the legendary SMiLE Shop, and your "blog" does not disappoint, quite the contrary. I agree that VDP  should see at least a selection of it!
I love your "realization" that Surfin' USA and Surf's Up are not things apart, as many think, but part of the same artistic journey. That is the reason I love so much, say, Love You, the Paley Sessions and TLOS: they are too part of that journey.

Hi Zenobi,

Yes, absolutely, one of the unforeseen benefits of having a complete SMiLE in our hands is that we’re better able to see the links and commonalities with the earlier Beach Boys work.

Speaking only for myself, I definitely had a blind spot there: I just didn’t see or appreciate the creative continuity between the early and late Beach Boys material. But I can think of a couple of reasons why that should have been so.

First of all, the non-appearance of SMiLE in 1967 left a big gap. On the most basic level, how do you contextualize something that isn’t there? You can make a case that there was a similar hole in Bob Dylan’s work, leaving us with Blonde on Blonde on one side of the divide and John Wesley Harding on the other. If we had had the Basement Tapes available, it might have been easier to understand the continuity of his output (acknowledging that the SMiLE/Basement Tapes parallel isn’t perfect, because the Basement Tapes were never envisioned as an actual release). For example, the nonsense lyrics of some Basement Tapes songs look back to some of the verse lyrics of, say, “Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands” (you can imagine the “curfew plugs,” whatever they are, fitting into “Please Mrs. Henry”). And by like token, the more cryptic roots-oriented Basement Tapes songs (“This Wheel’s on Fire,” etc.) anticipate the mystery and allusiveness of John Wesley Harding songs like “All Along the Watchtower.” But at the time, there was no bridge between the two very different styles.

Second of all, there was a great need, back in the late 60s/early 70s,  for a clean break between the naive simplicity of early rock-n-roll and the “relevance” of the later music. At Woodstock, that “old” stuff (including “Wipe Out”) was strictly Sha Na Na nostalgia. The Beatles quoted “She Loves You” in 1967, but they had to fit it into a new psychedelic context; if they had still been a touring band at that point, you couldn’t have imagined them playing “I Saw Her Standing There” live and doing it straight. And as for the Beach Boys: can you conceive of a more powerful gesture – a clearer way of distancing themselves from their surf-rock past – than opening an album with a song called “Don’t Go Near the Water”?

C&N

[Chalk n Numbers]

Those were the times, right? What a Golden Age. I was overwhelmed with joy and nostalgia when I finally noticed the name of the author of this thread.
IMHO the SMiLE Shop was the best forum ever, and you were the best contributor, among many great ones. And I can guess who was trying to organize a book based on such contributions... what a great person.
By the way, I think you already know the stellar "Smiley Smile Remix" (really, SMiLE-meets-Smiley Smile) created by none other than the legendary JON HUNT, co-creator of the SMiLE Shop with the equally legendary JOHN LANE, but just in case you do not, here it is:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh5v80aaweM

Oh, I agree. There were days when it felt like we were all engaged in a single collaborative effort – when the ideas were just exploding, with everybody adding their own insights, theories and discoveries. I suppose times like that can last only so long. But it was amazing while it was going on. I look back on those times with great fondness.

C&N

[Chalk n Numbers]

Great points, as usual, about "BWPS" being SMiLE. I agree 101%, of course.

Though, I have a doubt. What is, exactly, the fantastic 2011 construction of a "Beach Boys" BWPS in the SMiLE Sessions? Is it yet another real SMiLE, as it was approved and published by the authors? I tend to a "yes". What do you think?

And I see you quoted me (Wagner...). I am honored, sir.

Well, I’ve always regarded that Wagner essay as a brilliant piece of analysis and writing. But if I was quoting you, then that makes you…wait...Mac, is that you?

(Please tell me I did you justice with the attribution.)

Did you see my PM regarding VDP? (I never completely trust any private messaging system, so I wanted to make sure.)

As for the 2004/2011 question:

The precise relationship between the 2003/4 SMiLE and the 2011 sequencing of the old SMiLE material – largely but not completely following the 2003/4 template – raises some very interesting questions.

As far as I can recall – and I know someone will correct me if I’m mistaken – the single biggest difference in the 2011 sequence is the repositioning of “I’m in Great Shape.” In theory, that change should reflect a reconsideration of the 2003/4 sequence, taking precedence over it. And maybe that is the right answer. Personally, I have some difficulty with the idea of elevating a concededly (and seriously) incomplete work over a complete one. It’s almost as if the 2011 release represents the blueprint for what would clearly be the final SMiLE: a re-recording of the 2004 album, following the revised running order.

Maybe we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that this kind of thing can get pretty complicated. To take a non-musical example: when T.S. Eliot was readying The Waste Land for publication, he deleted a line from the “A Game of Chess” section, apparently at the insistence of his wife; the story goes that she objected to the negative light it threw on their marriage. (If you’re familiar with the poem, it’s bizarre to think that someone would take that stance; while certain of its details are presumably drawn from Eliot’s private life, The Waste Land is obviously *not* a confessional, personal sort of work. So it's hard to see how anyone might have read it as betraying their relationship secrets. But that’s beside the point.)

Anyway – and I’m basing this on my own recollections, so I may not have all the facts perfectly correct – fairly late in Eliot’s life, he agreed to sit down and write the poem out in longhand; I seem to recall that the request had to do with a charity initiative, but that may not be right. He wrote it out from memory, and he restored that previously deleted line.

Okay – at that point, which version is the final one? Eliot approved the published version, and it remained unchanged through numerous editions and printings; but he obviously thought that that line belonged in the poem, recalling it well enough to add it back in, without any sort of prompting. I think you can make a fairly persuasive argument on either side. (For what it’s worth, the 2015 authoritative text of Eliot’s poetry retains the line, so it seems that the scholars have decided that the one true Waste Land includes it.)

If the difference between the 2003/4 SMiLE and the 2011 SMiLE-Sessions sequence were more substantive – if, say, Brian had added in “With Me Tonight” or “You’re Welcome,” or if he had decided that SMiLE really ought to end with “Surf’s Up” after all, we might well have to say that the 2011 sequence represents the last word. But in light of the (relatively) minor change, I find that I’m capable of ignoring the cognitive dissonance and resisting the temptation to rob the 2003/4 work of its status as the final, authoritative version. That said, I can certainly understand why other folks might disagree with that position.

(And no, I don’t default to T.S. Eliot with respect to *every* artistic controversy; it’s just that I know his work very well, so it’s easy for me to talk about it.)

Apologies for the over-long rambling!

[Zenobi]

 Yes, I (finally) read your PM and hope I managed to reply...

The 2011 SMiLE, besides moving "I'm in Great Shape" earlier, has two very important (imho) additions:
- "My Only Sunshine", which ends with that sublime snippet called by somebody "Barnshine" (if I remember correctly)
- The equally sublime tag to "Vegetables", which I think was omitted in 2004 simply because that dazzling display of harmony and counterpoint vocals was so extremely hard to reproduce without the 1967 Beach Boys.

What is my point, now, if any? Let's say that there are two officially released SMiLEs, the "Brian Wilson" completed one from 2004 and the "Beach Boys" incomplete, but including additional great content, one from 2011. So, I think "BWPS" is "the" SMiLE, but the one featured in the SMiLE Sessions is a perfectly legitimate alternate version: again, the Beach Boys SMiLE.

I hope I was not running in circles.

[rab2591]

I look at it from Brian's point of view - he is quoted as preferring his 2004 version (over TSS), and he was disappointed in how TSS sounded. I put a lot of stock into what the artist says - if Brian says TSS is the definitive version, then that is the definitive version. If Brian says the 2004 version is the definitive version, then that is the definitive version...and Brian has said as much about BWPS.

Brian speaking about the 2004 version:

At the studio, Mark Linett, our engineer, walked over and handed me a box. “What’s this?” I asked. “That’s SMiLE,” he said. I held it right next to my heart.

That says all I need to know about BWPS. I see TSS as a collection of historical documents, strung together to emulate the completed work (BWPS). I love TSS, and it is my most treasured boxset. And the amount of care and love that went into every aspect of that set is instantly apparent. However, I can't see it as being another official version of Smile, because the artist himself doesn't prefer it. It's like, if Beethoven released his 9th symphony, but years later someone else publishes an early draft of his 9th - we wouldn't call the early draft "official", because the artist himself didn't prefer it. I don't see any difference with Smile.

I think every fan has a right to their own personal preference, but I also think that the artist should have final say in what is the definitive/legitimate/official version. Because, like with my Beethoven hypothetical, in 200 years the fans of the work shouldn't have a say in what is or isn't official/definitive. Rather, Beethoven/Wilson himself should have that say. And Brian has said that BWPS is Smile.

[guitarfool2002]

I look at it from Brian's point of view - he is quoted as preferring his 2004 version (over TSS), and he was disappointed in how TSS sounded. I put a lot of stock into what the artist says - if Brian says TSS is the definitive version, then that is the definitive version. If Brian says the 2004 version is the definitive version, then that is the definitive version...and Brian has said as much about BWPS.

Brian speaking about the 2004 version:

At the studio, Mark Linett, our engineer, walked over and handed me a box. “What’s this?” I asked. “That’s SMiLE,” he said. I held it right next to my heart.

That says all I need to know about BWPS. I see TSS as a collection of historical documents, strung together to emulate the completed work (BWPS). I love TSS, and it is my most treasured boxset. And the amount of care and love that went into every aspect of that set is instantly apparent. However, I can't see it as being another official version of Smile, because the artist himself doesn't prefer it. It's like, if Beethoven released his 9th symphony, but years later someone else publishes an early draft of his 9th - we wouldn't call the early draft "official", because the artist himself didn't prefer it. I don't see any difference with Smile.

I think every fan has a right to their own personal preference, but I also think that the artist should have final say in what is the definitive/legitimate/official version. Because, like with my Beethoven hypothetical, in 200 years the fans of the work shouldn't have a say in what is or isn't official/definitive. Rather, Beethoven/Wilson himself should have that say. And Brian has said that BWPS is Smile.

Excellent points, and very important ones to consider.

I'll add one more element to this: In the case of Smile specifically, the main creative forces behind the work itself were still alive and directly involved in finishing the work. It wasn't a case of scholars decades or centuries later trying to "finish" a dead composer's work based on manuscripts and notes found in archives; Smile was the product of the same two musicians and writers who envisioned and worked on the piece originally, reconvening with the expressly set goal of finishing the work for public performance as a full musical presentation in movements.

If either Brian or Van Dyke were not the ones finishing it, I'd probably feel differently about BWPS being the definitive version, the completed version. But they were the same guys back together picking up where they left off in 1967 finally putting the last chapter in the book of Smile as a complete work from the original creators.

The sad part of unfinished works in general is when the creators are no longer around to actually see it to a natural conclusion and say "this is now finished as I want it." Years ago I went on a few research deep-dives about parallels in other entertainment media like film which seemed to be similar to the Smile saga. I had a decent list going in both music and film, mostly film, but unfortunately that list and my thoughts are long gone or misplaced.

But I do recall others speaking about Orson Welles' "The Magnificent Ambersons" and how Welles realized his own cut of the film, what he wanted as a finished work versus what the studio demanded and released. That's a good one to deep-dive for anyone interested.

And another was Nicholas Ray's "We Can't Go Home Again", a bizarre but unforgettable film experiment that saw Ray battling to edit it into a complete work but never finishing it before his death. Years later the film was "finished" by those close to Ray and using his original thoughts and ideas to finish the edits as they thought Ray would have wanted it had he had the technology, time, and other aspects in his life come together so he could finish it (does that sound familiar?)...but it still isn't and could never be exactly what Nicholas Ray envisioned in his mind as a completed work, which again lends the Wilson-Parks BWPS Smile that much more weight because they were both directly involved in finishing it and calling it done.

Check out the Ray and Welles projects I mentioned, if anything it's an interesting historical trip about two radically different films made by two of the most challenging, frustrating, and respected directors and filmmakers of the last century.

And there was one musical piece I found - cannot remember the name - where the lack of technology hampered a 20th century composer enough to where he couldn't finish his work until technology was developed to allow the work to be performed as he envisioned. If that sounds vaguely familiar to anyone, please fill in the details!

[Chalk n Numbers]

Yes, I (finally) read your PM and hope I managed to reply...

The 2011 SMiLE, besides moving "I'm in Great Shape" earlier, has two very important (imho) additions:
- "My Only Sunshine", which ends with that sublime snippet called by somebody "Barnshine" (if I remember correctly)
- The equally sublime tag to "Vegetables", which I think was omitted in 2004 simply because that dazzling display of harmony and counterpoint vocals was so extremely hard to reproduce without the 1967 Beach Boys.

What is my point, now, if any? Let's say that there are two officially released SMiLEs, the "Brian Wilson" completed one from 2004 and the "Beach Boys" incomplete, but including additional great content, one from 2011. So, I think "BWPS" is "the" SMiLE, but the one featured in the SMiLE Sessions is a perfectly legitimate alternate version: again, the Beach Boys SMiLE.

I hope I was not running in circles.

Thanks, Zenobi, for reminding me of those other differences. That’s what I get for working from an unreliable memory!

I agree: we have SMiLE, and we have a sort of variant SMiLE. An embarrassment of riches, in other words, that would have been unimaginable pre-2003.

C&N

[Chalk n Numbers]

I look at it from Brian's point of view - he is quoted as preferring his 2004 version (over TSS), and he was disappointed in how TSS sounded. I put a lot of stock into what the artist says - if Brian says TSS is the definitive version, then that is the definitive version. If Brian says the 2004 version is the definitive version, then that is the definitive version...and Brian has said as much about BWPS.

Brian speaking about the 2004 version:

At the studio, Mark Linett, our engineer, walked over and handed me a box. “What’s this?” I asked. “That’s SMiLE,” he said. I held it right next to my heart.

That says all I need to know about BWPS. I see TSS as a collection of historical documents, strung together to emulate the completed work (BWPS). I love TSS, and it is my most treasured boxset. And the amount of care and love that went into every aspect of that set is instantly apparent. However, I can't see it as being another official version of Smile, because the artist himself doesn't prefer it. It's like, if Beethoven released his 9th symphony, but years later someone else publishes an early draft of his 9th - we wouldn't call the early draft "official", because the artist himself didn't prefer it. I don't see any difference with Smile.

I think every fan has a right to their own personal preference, but I also think that the artist should have final say in what is the definitive/legitimate/official version. Because, like with my Beethoven hypothetical, in 200 years the fans of the work shouldn't have a say in what is or isn't official/definitive. Rather, Beethoven/Wilson himself should have that say. And Brian has said that BWPS is Smile.

Absolutely. Meaning not just that I agree unreservedly, but that deference to the artist is, for me, absolute.

To be clear,  I’m prepared to accept the 2011 SMiLE Sessions assemblage as a sort of variant of the definitive work, but only because it’s such an unusual outlier. And it’s important, I think, to remember that that assemblage exists *only* because there was a complete SMiLE to serve as a template.

It’s perfectly fine, of course, for someone to prefer the rough sketch to the finished painting. But I think it’s simply indefensible to claim that the sketch is the “real” work, and/or to delegitimize the work recognized by the composer as final. That’s been my consistent view for two decades now, and I’m sticking to it.

C&N

[Chalk n Numbers]

...But I do recall others speaking about Orson Welles' "The Magnificent Ambersons" and how Welles realized his own cut of the film, what he wanted as a finished work versus what the studio demanded and released. That's a good one to deep-dive for anyone interested.

It’s sometimes difficult to separate fact from fiction with respect to Welles’s late projects; which were mere ideas, which had a measure of substance, which had a reasonable prospect of actually happening.

But it does seem to be true that Welles actively sought funding, in the 1970s, to enable him to shoot a new ending for Ambersons, featuring the still-surviving actors in their original roles. Although it wouldn’t have been the original ending – instead, it would have been a sort of “many years later” postscript – it would have been in keeping with his original vision.

If he had found the money, would that have been the definitive Ambersons? Well, he didn’t find it, so we’re spared the decision. But the story is a powerful reminder of just how miraculous it is that the original creators were able to return to SMiLE and complete it, all those years later.

C&N

[guitarfool2002]

...But I do recall others speaking about Orson Welles' "The Magnificent Ambersons" and how Welles realized his own cut of the film, what he wanted as a finished work versus what the studio demanded and released. That's a good one to deep-dive for anyone interested.

It’s sometimes difficult to separate fact from fiction with respect to Welles’s late projects; which were mere ideas, which had a measure of substance, which had a reasonable prospect of actually happening.

But it does seem to be true that Welles actively sought funding, in the 1970s, to enable him to shoot a new ending for Ambersons, featuring the still-surviving actors in their original roles. Although it wouldn’t have been the original ending – instead, it would have been a sort of “many years later” postscript – it would have been in keeping with his original vision.

If he had found the money, would that have been the definitive Ambersons? Well, he didn’t find it, so we’re spared the decision. But the story is a powerful reminder of just how miraculous it is that the original creators were able to return to SMiLE and complete it, all those years later.

C&N

Yes, Welles definitely had his share of battles with studios over his vision versus the studios' final cuts, and it's all a fascinating journey into the inner workings of Hollywood movie-making and politics, and perhaps also a look into the creative mind of someone like Welles. I'd also add his battles over "Touch Of Evil" to my earlier examples, where the studio yet again cut scenes from Welles' original edit and that led Welles to write a long memo outlining his own ideas for the edits...which led to a project to restore the film to Welles' original vision based on that memo and which actually happened after his death.

So again that falls into the questions about original vision versus the released version, and the validity of a "restoration" or reconstruction after the death of the main creator. With Touch Of Evil, more than Ambersons, I'd say if they worked meticulously based on Welles' own notes to do the reconstruction, the question would be (again) is that cut and restoration the definitive version of Touch Of Evil. It's a stretch, yes, but for all those years leading up to BWPS, I think fans making their own mixes and sequences were coming close to that same question and dilemma with far less to work with in terms of original intent or creator's intent...which again is why I think it's helpful that we got BWPS to act as the definite answer in that specific case.

Now let me introduce this somewhat new development into the mix. This article is about Magnificent Ambersons and a project to restore it to Welles' original vision, replicating the scenes that were cut without Welles' consent and presumably lost forever:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jun/18/magnificent-ambersons-rebirth-for-ruined-orson-welles-masterpiece-that-rivalled-citizen-kane


Read through that, and see if it connects as it did with me to the current debates about AI technology in music. Or the use of AI in general to either finish unfinished works or create works that were intended to be a certain way but never materialized. It's all fascinating to me, and I wonder if the negativity surrounding some of the AI works so far will be put on projects such as this one with film restorations. I can't see a dividing line between the two media and the use of tech to recreate or "finish" lost or impossible projects.