Van Dyke Barks

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Funny how this guy is all completely obsessed with this unreleased hodgepodge of music and can't comprehend how people think that one Beatles album is as great as it's cracked up to be.


Huge Beach Boys fan here, not really into the Beatles at all. I think they're overrated as all hell. But I still dig the Sergeant Pepper album over the tracks that belonged to the abortion known as Smile.....



Comparing the success of Good Vibrations to the success of Heroes & Villains, I don't think the general public were ever ready for a Van Dyke Parks as lyricist for The Beach Boys album..... Regardless of how great you think Smile woulda coulda been had it been a thing that actually exists....

Hey man, nothing wrong with an alternate viewpoint amiright? 

Im glad we can agree the Beatles are overrated, but I must ask...so you really think SMiLE is an abortion? What don't you dig, the lyrics or the themes or just the general incompleteness of it? Just curious. It's tough to imagine a Beach Boys fan who likes something like Pepper cant also see the merits in at least the better SMiLE tracks, but different strokes i guess...

I dont think the issue with H&V charting lower than GV was in the lyrics so much as another issue of timing and for the fact that H&V doesnt rock like GV does. Once again I say, Brian chose the wrong track to be the single. CE, Surf's Up, even Vega-Tables or CIFOTM would have been better choices. They're more psychedelic, more emotional and even more commercial. I love the idea of putting out Surf's Up with John Q Public seeing it and thinking "oh, just another typical Beach Boys song" and then putting it on at home and being completely blown away. H&V is just an uncommercial song to begin with, and all Brian's work trying to force it to be more radio friendly just ruined what would have set the song apart--that it was a formless musical comedy--and wasted months of time which sunk the album.

[Please delete my account]

What would you equate Smile to from that time that was popular? I mean, it wasn't Hendrix, nor the Doors. Certainly not Cream. It was not Bubblegum and it was not Top 40. So, I ask who would this have appealed to directly? I grew up during that time an honestly, I don't think any of my friends would have bought it. They were into Hendrix, Cream etc. While it may have sold well based on it's advanced publicity, I just don't think it was electric enough to compete with what the hip crowd in America were listening. It may have done better in GB and rest of Europe, similarly to Pet Sounds. I still think it would have been great music passed over by the masses.

But it was time for Brian to lead, not follow.

[buddhahat]

With all due respect, could you or someone else please tell me whats so great about Pepper? I asked this in depth in another thread where the subject came up between us both but you didnt answer. Aside from influencing other people, is that really the gist of it--that its watered down psychedelia? And thats somehow good because it got the masses interested in that kinda music? Again, not to sound snotty but I really dont see the supposed brilliance.

It's difficult to explain what's great about the Beatles without rolling out tired old cliches. Also, as a disclaimer, Pepper is no where near my favourite album but here's my take fwiw:

LSD culture demanded a new type of music. This posed a massive challenge for established groups - how to adapt whilst still maintaining one's identity and without alienating an existing fanbase. The Rolling Stones and The Beach Boys were two casualties from the summer of love. However much one might love Smile/Satanic Majesties they were problematic albums for both bands (an understatement in the BB's case). With Pepper, The Beatles managed to create:

a) an album of great pop songs. With A Little Help From My Friends would've been a standard were it written by any band. Most of the songs are so freakin hummable and tuneful that (like most Beatles output) they've become sort of folk songs, school hymns, musical equivalent of the establishment - i.e boring and to be railed at. But that doesn't diminish the brilliance of the music as pop music.

b) but the songs weren't just simple constructions. A Day In The Life is complex and ambitious. It should be a pompous disaster but the marriage of Lennon & McCartney's two disparate songs via the mounting crescendo is genius - it flows, tells a story, feels natural, building to the climax of that one ominous chord. Imagine how many heads were blown by that piano note at the end?! What does it mean? I don't know, but it's ambiguous, open to interpretation - pop music as art. The genius of the song is in its structure and organisation.

We may well hear more interesting, complex music from the Smile sessions but the point is Brian and VDP never managed to organise it into a cohesive statement the way The Beatles and George Martin did with Pepper. A Day In The Life is the flashpoint of the album - the rest of it really is just great pop music for me building to that incredible moment. Surf's Up is the equivalent song from Smile and I see it fulfilling the same sort of function with its (gentler) crescendo and profound release at the end. If only they'd built and finished the album to house that masterpiece.

Mujan, I share your frustrations as do most of us. We hear Cabinessence, SU, H&V, Good Vibrations and marvel at the technicolour brilliance that simultaneously feels like a saturday morning cartoon and the great American novel - high and low art in perfect synthesis. If only they'd organised this stuff into an album it would've been the greatest art pop masterpiece* in the history of music, right? But the question is: Can it be organised in a way that does justice to the potential of those songs? In a way that cements all the bands' prior achievements whilst simultaneously looking forward and influencing other bands in its wake? Brian and VDP didn't manage it. However that really is what Sgt Pepper did for The Beatles imo and that is why I hold the album in such high regard, despite having many other Beatles albums that I actually prefer to listen to.


* critical, not commercial  

Fair enough. I still disagree, but I can see what you're saying. For what it's worth, I do think Pepper is a good album, it's just that its so unquestionably praised that I feel it's past time somebody dare to criticize it. Not so much as in the emperor has no clothes so much as "yes, he has clothes...but are they really any better than the rest?"


I dont see why Pepper should be so hailed and not SMiLE or Satanic Majesties except that Pepper came first and happened to be the one that got the attention. Their Satanic is just as good, I would say. I prefer 2000 Light Years from Home and She's A Rainbow to anything on Pepper, in fact. And I dont see why ADITL should be considered such a triumph of Lennon and McCartney. As you say, its two seperate songs stictched together by the crescendo of music. Id argue the two songs arent particularly meaningful or go with each other well. Just a guy reading some weird story in the news and a guy going about his morning routine. The orgasm of music was Paul's idea, but from what I understand he literally just told George Martin "hey, lets do this" and George made it happen. So I dont understand why that should earn so much praise and claims of the Beatles' genius. In one of the weakest SMiLE tracks, Brian did everything ADITL does and did it better. In My Only Sunshine, he combines two different tracks together to say something very profound about loss of faith. Yet, it's done very subtly, so much so that just about everyone including myself dismissed it as just a throwaway. ADITL, with all its "fancy" pomps and frills, falls flat in my opinion.

But at the end of the day, we wont convince each other. And this mini-debate is off topic from what we were discussing in the first place. SMiLE would have at least sold respectably just from GV and the advertising alone. There really is no question of that. You could argue whether it would have been a smash hit or modest one, but to say it would have outright flopped is just straight-up incorrect.

I feel the opposite. I think Sgt pepper has received its fair share of flak over the years, as does any work of art that gains mainstream acceptance as 'great' - the backlash is inevitable (and of course necessary for an ever-changing culture to redefine itself).

I kind of feel like you're missing the point. Every era calls out for an album that defines it, whether it's gen Xers lauding Never Mind The Bollocks, or OK Computer capturing pre millennial tension etc. etc. Those albums become sort of archetypes, embodying more than just the music contained within the sleeve. Of course, when we revisit them 'cold' (from outside of the context from which they were originally created) it's easy to ask "What's so great about this?" Taken at face value, the music may not sound as good as albums by their contemporaries (or even other albums by the same band i.e. Kid A might be preferable to OK Computer just as Revolver might be preferable to Sgt Pepper), but the point is the album is great not for the music alone, but also because of how it captured the zeitgeist and public imagination at the time.

As far as I can tell, you are taking Sgt Pepper  out of context and comparing it to contemporaneous albums and saying "It sounds better - What's all the fuss about?". But 'the fuss' is the point - It's considered important because it embodied 1967 for so many people, because it represented the peak of pop music's exploration of psychedelia from which point on most other artists of significance threw in the towel and pursued alternative paths. It might sound aesthetically less pleasing than other albums of the time. It does to me too. But that doesn't change its place in history.

As for whether it's a better album than Satanic Majesties - Ha! I've had this exact same argument here before. I enjoy the stones album and used to listen to it loads at university. (It was my alarm CD at one point - I woke one morning, extremely hungover, and thought Keith's snoring was actually somebody in the room with me!) Personally it feels like an unfocused facsimile of Pepper. The Stones don't really sound convinced and it has a laziness and sloppiness about it, although there are some stellar songs, granted.

Is it better than Smile? It depends on what we're comparing. I agree that music from the Smile sessions is more beguiling, more enduring (it stands up far better to repeated plays), more complex, more dazzling. Aesthetically? Yes the Smile music is better by a mile imo. But as an artistic statement? Pepper wins hands down because VDP and BW failed to finish Smile. No statement was made. Arguing that it would've trumped Pepper had it been released is ridiculous. In that fantasy scenario what's stopping us adding Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane to Pepper to level the playing field? You change one reality surely you can change the other?

[Moon Dawg]

  Some of the songs from SGT PEPPER -"Mr Kite", "Good Morning Good Morning", "Fixing a Hole", "Within You Within You"-are average by the usual standards of The Beatles.

   The concept "Sgt Pepper's band putting on a show"...rather quaint, don't you think?  "Let's put on a show"....Judy Garland & Mickey Rooney did that at MGM in 1939. The "concept" disappears after "With a Little Help from My Friends" (definitive version by Joe Cocker) only to resurface at the end.

  Compare the above to the American Gothic majesty of SMiLE. Seriously.

  Elvis Presley's HOW GREAT THOU ART beat PEPPER at the Grammys for "Best Engineered Album of 1967"...I'm glad.

  Pete Townshend once described SGT PEPPER as "extremely non-physical."

  Bob Dylan once reportedly told someone "Turn that off" as the PEPPER platter played.

 "I Am the Walrus" obliterates PEPPER in about 5 minutes of demented brilliance.

[Awesoman]

  Some of the songs from SGT PEPPER -"Mr Kite", "Good Morning Good Morning", "Fixing a Hole", "Within You Within You"-are average by the usual standards of The Beatles.

   The concept "Sgt Pepper's band putting on a show"...rather quaint, don't you think?  "Let's put on a show"....Judy Garland & Mickey Rooney did that at MGM in 1939. The "concept" disappears after "With a Little Help from My Friends" (definitive version by Joe Cocker) only to resurface at the end.

  Compare the above to the American Gothic majesty of SMiLE. Seriously.

  Elvis Presley's HOW GREAT THOU ART beat PEPPER at the Grammys for "Best Engineered Album of 1967"...I'm glad.

  Pete Townshend once described SGT PEPPER as "extremely non-physical."

  Bob Dylan once reportedly told someone "Turn that off" as the PEPPER platter played.

 "I Am the Walrus" obliterates PEPPER in about 5 minutes of demented brilliance.

Yet the Beatles were able to finish their masterpiece on time! 

[Moon Dawg]

  Some of the songs from SGT PEPPER -"Mr Kite", "Good Morning Good Morning", "Fixing a Hole", "Within You Within You"-are average by the usual standards of The Beatles.

   The concept "Sgt Pepper's band putting on a show"...rather quaint, don't you think?  "Let's put on a show"....Judy Garland & Mickey Rooney did that at MGM in 1939. The "concept" disappears after "With a Little Help from My Friends" (definitive version by Joe Cocker) only to resurface at the end.

  Compare the above to the American Gothic majesty of SMiLE. Seriously.

  Elvis Presley's HOW GREAT THOU ART beat PEPPER at the Grammys for "Best Engineered Album of 1967"...I'm glad.

  Pete Townshend once described SGT PEPPER as "extremely non-physical."

  Bob Dylan once reportedly told someone "Turn that off" as the PEPPER platter played.

 "I Am the Walrus" obliterates PEPPER in about 5 minutes of demented brilliance.

Yet the Beatles were able to finish their masterpiece on time! 

 Yes. That's the part that hurts.

[JK]

The concept "Sgt Pepper's band putting on a show"...rather quaint, don't you think?  "Let's put on a show"....Judy Garland & Mickey Rooney did that at MGM in 1939. The "concept" disappears after "With a Little Help from My Friends" (definitive version by Joe Cocker) only to resurface at the end.
  
 "I Am the Walrus" obliterates PEPPER in about 5 minutes of demented brilliance.

The concept breaks surface briefly at the end of "Within You, Without You"----the tittering audience.

Agreed, agreed, agreed about "Walrus"!    

[filledeplage]

  Some of the songs from SGT PEPPER -"Mr Kite", "Good Morning Good Morning", "Fixing a Hole", "Within You Within You"-are average by the usual standards of The Beatles.

   The concept "Sgt Pepper's band putting on a show"...rather quaint, don't you think?  "Let's put on a show"....Judy Garland & Mickey Rooney did that at MGM in 1939. The "concept" disappears after "With a Little Help from My Friends" (definitive version by Joe Cocker) only to resurface at the end.

  Compare the above to the American Gothic majesty of SMiLE. Seriously.

  Elvis Presley's HOW GREAT THOU ART beat PEPPER at the Grammys for "Best Engineered Album of 1967"...I'm glad.

  Pete Townshend once described SGT PEPPER as "extremely non-physical."

  Bob Dylan once reportedly told someone "Turn that off" as the PEPPER platter played.

 "I Am the Walrus" obliterates PEPPER in about 5 minutes of demented brilliance.

Yet the Beatles were able to finish their masterpiece on time! 

 Yes. That's the part that hurts.

It should not hurt...it took Gustave Flaubert 5 years to write one book; his masterpiece, Madame Bovary. 

Flaubert was looking for "le mot juste" - the correct word.

Art demands that it not be rushed. 

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

  Some of the songs from SGT PEPPER -"Mr Kite", "Good Morning Good Morning", "Fixing a Hole", "Within You Within You"-are average by the usual standards of The Beatles.

   The concept "Sgt Pepper's band putting on a show"...rather quaint, don't you think?  "Let's put on a show"....Judy Garland & Mickey Rooney did that at MGM in 1939. The "concept" disappears after "With a Little Help from My Friends" (definitive version by Joe Cocker) only to resurface at the end.

  Compare the above to the American Gothic majesty of SMiLE. Seriously.

  Elvis Presley's HOW GREAT THOU ART beat PEPPER at the Grammys for "Best Engineered Album of 1967"...I'm glad.

  Pete Townshend once described SGT PEPPER as "extremely non-physical."

  Bob Dylan once reportedly told someone "Turn that off" as the PEPPER platter played.

 "I Am the Walrus" obliterates PEPPER in about 5 minutes of demented brilliance.

Yet the Beatles were able to finish their masterpiece on time! 

 Yes. That's the part that hurts.

It should not hurt...it took Gustave Flaubert 5 years to write one book; his masterpiece, Madame Bovary. 

Flaubert was looking for "le mot juste" - the correct word.

Art demands that it not be rushed. 

 

Except BWPS was a vastly inferior work with a bastardized sequence. IMO.

[filledeplage]

 Some of the songs from SGT PEPPER -"Mr Kite", "Good Morning Good Morning", "Fixing a Hole", "Within You Within You"-are average by the usual standards of The Beatles.

   The concept "Sgt Pepper's band putting on a show"...rather quaint, don't you think?  "Let's put on a show"....Judy Garland & Mickey Rooney did that at MGM in 1939. The "concept" disappears after "With a Little Help from My Friends" (definitive version by Joe Cocker) only to resurface at the end.

  Compare the above to the American Gothic majesty of SMiLE. Seriously.

  Elvis Presley's HOW GREAT THOU ART beat PEPPER at the Grammys for "Best Engineered Album of 1967"...I'm glad.

  Pete Townshend once described SGT PEPPER as "extremely non-physical."

  Bob Dylan once reportedly told someone "Turn that off" as the PEPPER platter played.

 "I Am the Walrus" obliterates PEPPER in about 5 minutes of demented brilliance.

Yet the Beatles were able to finish their masterpiece on time!  

 Yes. That's the part that hurts.

It should not hurt...it took Gustave Flaubert 5 years to write one book; his masterpiece, Madame Bovary.  

Flaubert was looking for "le mot juste" - the correct word.

Art demands that it not be rushed.  

 

Except BWPS was a vastly inferior work with a bastardized sequence. IMO.

BWPS is sort of a confusing misnomer for me.  I automatically  think of Brian Wilson Pet Sounds (live.)

At any rate, Smile "live," I think, was a "coming out" party, in the  former sense in which, debutantes are/were "presented into society." (Reminds me of "The Waltz")      I think that is one for not "barking at VPD."

It wasn't the original studio vocals, done by the BB's but the core track assemblage with assistive technology, and presented/interpreted by Brian's great band, with the appropriate stage "props."

Calling it "bastardized" is sort of unfair; I'm thinking it was presented almost as an operetta, telling a story...and may have been inherently constrained by that live performance limitation.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

 Some of the songs from SGT PEPPER -"Mr Kite", "Good Morning Good Morning", "Fixing a Hole", "Within You Within You"-are average by the usual standards of The Beatles.

   The concept "Sgt Pepper's band putting on a show"...rather quaint, don't you think?  "Let's put on a show"....Judy Garland & Mickey Rooney did that at MGM in 1939. The "concept" disappears after "With a Little Help from My Friends" (definitive version by Joe Cocker) only to resurface at the end.

  Compare the above to the American Gothic majesty of SMiLE. Seriously.

  Elvis Presley's HOW GREAT THOU ART beat PEPPER at the Grammys for "Best Engineered Album of 1967"...I'm glad.

  Pete Townshend once described SGT PEPPER as "extremely non-physical."

  Bob Dylan once reportedly told someone "Turn that off" as the PEPPER platter played.

 "I Am the Walrus" obliterates PEPPER in about 5 minutes of demented brilliance.

Yet the Beatles were able to finish their masterpiece on time!  

 Yes. That's the part that hurts.

It should not hurt...it took Gustave Flaubert 5 years to write one book; his masterpiece, Madame Bovary.  

Flaubert was looking for "le mot juste" - the correct word.

Art demands that it not be rushed.  

 

Except BWPS was a vastly inferior work with a bastardized sequence. IMO.

BWPS is sort of a confusing misnomer for me.  I automatically  think of Brian Wilson Pet Sounds (live.)

At any rate, Smile "live," I think, was a "coming out" party, in the  former sense in which, debutantes are/were "presented into society." (Reminds me of "The Waltz")      I think that is one for not "barking at VPD."

It wasn't the original studio vocals, done by the BB's but the core track assemblage with assistive technology, and presented/interpreted by Brian's great band, with the appropriate stage "props."

Calling it "bastardized" is sort of unfair; I'm thinking it was presented almost as an operetta, telling a story...and may have been inherently constrained by that live performance limitation.

As a live performance, it was wonderful. For Brian, and all his fans. It's only the release of the CD and its billing as "*the* finished SMiLE" that I have a problem with

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

  Some of the songs from SGT PEPPER -"Mr Kite", "Good Morning Good Morning", "Fixing a Hole", "Within You Within You"-are average by the usual standards of The Beatles.

   The concept "Sgt Pepper's band putting on a show"...rather quaint, don't you think?  "Let's put on a show"....Judy Garland & Mickey Rooney did that at MGM in 1939. The "concept" disappears after "With a Little Help from My Friends" (definitive version by Joe Cocker) only to resurface at the end.

  Compare the above to the American Gothic majesty of SMiLE. Seriously.

  Elvis Presley's HOW GREAT THOU ART beat PEPPER at the Grammys for "Best Engineered Album of 1967"...I'm glad.

  Pete Townshend once described SGT PEPPER as "extremely non-physical."

  Bob Dylan once reportedly told someone "Turn that off" as the PEPPER platter played.

 "I Am the Walrus" obliterates PEPPER in about 5 minutes of demented brilliance.

Exactly.

[filledeplage]

 Some of the songs from SGT PEPPER -"Mr Kite", "Good Morning Good Morning", "Fixing a Hole", "Within You Within You"-are average by the usual standards of The Beatles.

   The concept "Sgt Pepper's band putting on a show"...rather quaint, don't you think?  "Let's put on a show"....Judy Garland & Mickey Rooney did that at MGM in 1939. The "concept" disappears after "With a Little Help from My Friends" (definitive version by Joe Cocker) only to resurface at the end.

  Compare the above to the American Gothic majesty of SMiLE. Seriously.

  Elvis Presley's HOW GREAT THOU ART beat PEPPER at the Grammys for "Best Engineered Album of 1967"...I'm glad.

  Pete Townshend once described SGT PEPPER as "extremely non-physical."

  Bob Dylan once reportedly told someone "Turn that off" as the PEPPER platter played.

 "I Am the Walrus" obliterates PEPPER in about 5 minutes of demented brilliance.

Yet the Beatles were able to finish their masterpiece on time!  

 Yes. That's the part that hurts.

It should not hurt...it took Gustave Flaubert 5 years to write one book; his masterpiece, Madame Bovary.  

Flaubert was looking for "le mot juste" - the correct word.

Art demands that it not be rushed.  

 

Except BWPS was a vastly inferior work with a bastardized sequence. IMO.

BWPS is sort of a confusing misnomer for me.  I automatically  think of Brian Wilson Pet Sounds (live.)

At any rate, Smile "live," I think, was a "coming out" party, in the  former sense in which, debutantes are/were "presented into society." (Reminds me of "The Waltz")      I think that is one for not "barking at VPD."

It wasn't the original studio vocals, done by the BB's but the core track assemblage with assistive technology, and presented/interpreted by Brian's great band, with the appropriate stage "props."

Calling it "bastardized" is sort of unfair; I'm thinking it was presented almost as an operetta, telling a story...and may have been inherently constrained by that live performance limitation.

As a live performance, it was wonderful. For Brian, and all his fans. It's only the release of the CD and its billing as "*the* finished SMiLE" that I have a problem with

So, at the end of the day (overused phrase) it is, like life, a "definite maybe." 

Everything is still relative and it was "final" until the Box Set was released. (Who knows what was not released?)

I waited 37 years for something more definite.  I was not disappointed.

There is always some treat awaiting fans in the treasure trove...just waiting or needing to be "unearthed."   

[drbeachboy]

  Some of the songs from SGT PEPPER -"Mr Kite", "Good Morning Good Morning", "Fixing a Hole", "Within You Within You"-are average by the usual standards of The Beatles.

   The concept "Sgt Pepper's band putting on a show"...rather quaint, don't you think?  "Let's put on a show"....Judy Garland & Mickey Rooney did that at MGM in 1939. The "concept" disappears after "With a Little Help from My Friends" (definitive version by Joe Cocker) only to resurface at the end.

  Compare the above to the American Gothic majesty of SMiLE. Seriously.

  Elvis Presley's HOW GREAT THOU ART beat PEPPER at the Grammys for "Best Engineered Album of 1967"...I'm glad.

  Pete Townshend once described SGT PEPPER as "extremely non-physical."

  Bob Dylan once reportedly told someone "Turn that off" as the PEPPER platter played.

 "I Am the Walrus" obliterates PEPPER in about 5 minutes of demented brilliance.

Yet the Beatles were able to finish their masterpiece on time! 

 Yes. That's the part that hurts.

It should not hurt...it took Gustave Flaubert 5 years to write one book; his masterpiece, Madame Bovary. 

Flaubert was looking for "le mot juste" - the correct word.

Art demands that it not be rushed. 

 

Except BWPS was a vastly inferior work with a bastardized sequence. IMO.

But that is how Brian wants it heard for forevermore. He even had Mark Linett sequence the Beach Boys version that way. So then, Brian is wrong twice. Once for not completing & releasing Smile on time and second for releasing it the way he wants it heard. Do I have right right? No wonder he shelved it and kept it locked away for 37 years.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

With all due respect, could you or someone else please tell me whats so great about Pepper? I asked this in depth in another thread where the subject came up between us both but you didnt answer. Aside from influencing other people, is that really the gist of it--that its watered down psychedelia? And thats somehow good because it got the masses interested in that kinda music? Again, not to sound snotty but I really dont see the supposed brilliance.

It's difficult to explain what's great about the Beatles without rolling out tired old cliches. Also, as a disclaimer, Pepper is no where near my favourite album but here's my take fwiw:

LSD culture demanded a new type of music. This posed a massive challenge for established groups - how to adapt whilst still maintaining one's identity and without alienating an existing fanbase. The Rolling Stones and The Beach Boys were two casualties from the summer of love. However much one might love Smile/Satanic Majesties they were problematic albums for both bands (an understatement in the BB's case). With Pepper, The Beatles managed to create:

a) an album of great pop songs. With A Little Help From My Friends would've been a standard were it written by any band. Most of the songs are so freakin hummable and tuneful that (like most Beatles output) they've become sort of folk songs, school hymns, musical equivalent of the establishment - i.e boring and to be railed at. But that doesn't diminish the brilliance of the music as pop music.

b) but the songs weren't just simple constructions. A Day In The Life is complex and ambitious. It should be a pompous disaster but the marriage of Lennon & McCartney's two disparate songs via the mounting crescendo is genius - it flows, tells a story, feels natural, building to the climax of that one ominous chord. Imagine how many heads were blown by that piano note at the end?! What does it mean? I don't know, but it's ambiguous, open to interpretation - pop music as art. The genius of the song is in its structure and organisation.

We may well hear more interesting, complex music from the Smile sessions but the point is Brian and VDP never managed to organise it into a cohesive statement the way The Beatles and George Martin did with Pepper. A Day In The Life is the flashpoint of the album - the rest of it really is just great pop music for me building to that incredible moment. Surf's Up is the equivalent song from Smile and I see it fulfilling the same sort of function with its (gentler) crescendo and profound release at the end. If only they'd built and finished the album to house that masterpiece.

Mujan, I share your frustrations as do most of us. We hear Cabinessence, SU, H&V, Good Vibrations and marvel at the technicolour brilliance that simultaneously feels like a saturday morning cartoon and the great American novel - high and low art in perfect synthesis. If only they'd organised this stuff into an album it would've been the greatest art pop masterpiece* in the history of music, right? But the question is: Can it be organised in a way that does justice to the potential of those songs? In a way that cements all the bands' prior achievements whilst simultaneously looking forward and influencing other bands in its wake? Brian and VDP didn't manage it. However that really is what Sgt Pepper did for The Beatles imo and that is why I hold the album in such high regard, despite having many other Beatles albums that I actually prefer to listen to.


* critical, not commercial 

Fair enough. I still disagree, but I can see what you're saying. For what it's worth, I do think Pepper is a good album, it's just that its so unquestionably praised that I feel it's past time somebody dare to criticize it. Not so much as in the emperor has no clothes so much as "yes, he has clothes...but are they really any better than the rest?"


I dont see why Pepper should be so hailed and not SMiLE or Satanic Majesties except that Pepper came first and happened to be the one that got the attention. Their Satanic is just as good, I would say. I prefer 2000 Light Years from Home and She's A Rainbow to anything on Pepper, in fact. And I dont see why ADITL should be considered such a triumph of Lennon and McCartney. As you say, its two seperate songs stictched together by the crescendo of music. Id argue the two songs arent particularly meaningful or go with each other well. Just a guy reading some weird story in the news and a guy going about his morning routine. The orgasm of music was Paul's idea, but from what I understand he literally just told George Martin "hey, lets do this" and George made it happen. So I dont understand why that should earn so much praise and claims of the Beatles' genius. In one of the weakest SMiLE tracks, Brian did everything ADITL does and did it better. In My Only Sunshine, he combines two different tracks together to say something very profound about loss of faith. Yet, it's done very subtly, so much so that just about everyone including myself dismissed it as just a throwaway. ADITL, with all its "fancy" pomps and frills, falls flat in my opinion.

But at the end of the day, we wont convince each other. And this mini-debate is off topic from what we were discussing in the first place. SMiLE would have at least sold respectably just from GV and the advertising alone. There really is no question of that. You could argue whether it would have been a smash hit or modest one, but to say it would have outright flopped is just straight-up incorrect.

I feel the opposite. I think Sgt pepper has received its fair share of flak over the years, as does any work of art that gains mainstream acceptance as 'great' - the backlash is inevitable (and of course necessary for an ever-changing culture to redefine itself).

I kind of feel like you're missing the point. Every era calls out for an album that defines it, whether it's gen Xers lauding Never Mind The Bollocks, or OK Computer capturing pre millennial tension etc. etc. Those albums become sort of archetypes, embodying more than just the music contained within the sleeve. Of course, when we revisit them 'cold' (from outside of the context from which they were originally created) it's easy to ask "What's so great about this?" Taken at face value, the music may not sound as good as albums by their contemporaries (or even other albums by the same band i.e. Kid A might be preferable to OK Computer just as Revolver might be preferable to Sgt Pepper), but the point is the album is great not for the music alone, but also because of how it captured the zeitgeist and public imagination at the time.

As far as I can tell, you are taking Sgt Pepper  out of context and comparing it to contemporaneous albums and saying "It sounds better - What's all the fuss about?". But 'the fuss' is the point - It's considered important because it embodied 1967 for so many people, because it represented the peak of pop music's exploration of psychedelia from which point on most other artists of significance threw in the towel and pursued alternative paths. It might sound aesthetically less pleasing than other albums of the time. It does to me too. But that doesn't change its place in history.

As for whether it's a better album than Satanic Majesties - Ha! I've had this exact same argument here before. I enjoy the stones album and used to listen to it loads at university. (It was my alarm CD at one point - I woke one morning, extremely hungover, and thought Keith's snoring was actually somebody in the room with me!) Personally it feels like an unfocused facsimile of Pepper. The Stones don't really sound convinced and it has a laziness and sloppiness about it, although there are some stellar songs, granted.

Is it better than Smile? It depends on what we're comparing. I agree that music from the Smile sessions is more beguiling, more enduring (it stands up far better to repeated plays), more complex, more dazzling. Aesthetically? Yes the Smile music is better by a mile imo. But as an artistic statement? Pepper wins hands down because VDP and BW failed to finish Smile. No statement was made. Arguing that it would've trumped Pepper had it been released is ridiculous. In that fantasy scenario what's stopping us adding Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane to Pepper to level the playing field? You change one reality surely you can change the other?

Once more, I get what your saying and concede your point. But there's something to be said about the test of time. Nobody can say which works of art will hold up decades later, which buried treasures will find an audience and come to prominence or which "classics" lose their luster and fade into obscurity. Some things that capture the zeitgeist of the time end up feeling dated years later. I'd argue Sgt Pepper is a textbook example. Another would be "The Graduate" a film which came out the same year. Just doesnt hold up, while it may have been loved at its time. SMiLE on the other hand, is timeless. It may be psychedelic but it is so in a way that doesnt feel "show-offy" or pandering like Pepper. It really does feel like a modern symphony which inspires endless analysis and continued listening. Pepper doesnt warrant that. "Oh, the lyrics for this song were ripped right off a circus poster. Thats...neat, I guess." Compared to that, people will be discussing the meaning of Columnated Ruins Domino for years to come. Im not trying to take it out of context so much as put it in a larger context. Im looking at it with an objective eye (ear?) removed from that zeitgeist you speak of and viewing how it holds up half a century after the fact. I dont think it holds up well at all, wheras SMiLE, the USA and others from that period are still just as brilliant and relevant to the modern world as they were then. "The American Metaphysical Circus" is more significant now than ever, with TPP set to pass and corporations becoming more powerful now than ever... By comparison, who cares about Rita the meter maid or what Paul's gonna do when he's 64?

To each his own. Personally, Satanic is the only Stones album Ive bothered to buy on vinyl. Ive yet to listen to their 70s output, but their 60s albums tend to be very uneven to my ears. Let It Bleed kicks off with Gimme Shelter, one of the best songs ever...and then it loses me every time Ive tried to give it another chance. Until Monkey Man comes on and catches me by storm! But yeah. All their 60s albums are like that for me, except Majesties. It's just a fun album to listen to with some nice little songs and interesting studio techniques. I'll admit it's one of the lesser albums of the year, but I still like it and still prefer it to Pepper. Maybe I'm letting what I see as the over-hype and over-praise of it taint my opinion of the music, but Pepper just oozes pretentiousness and emptiness to me. With Satanic, I dont get the idea that the Stones were trying to take the world by storm as the Beatles and Brian were. I see Satanic as them saying "hey, this psychedelic sound everyone's doing is really interesting. Let's try our hand at it." It seems like everyone's quick to pounce on them for jumping on the bandwagon, but so did the Beatles. The latter just did it at the right time, and--Being the Beatles--they could get away with it. But Paul McCartney attended Pink Floyd's early shows in disguise. They were heavily inspired by Pet Sounds. They didnt invent psychedelic rock, just watered it down so it was more acceptable to the masses. Fine if someone loves it, Im just not buying the claims of its brilliance, especially in comparison to albums I see on the same level such as Majesties.

I dont see the fact that it wasnt finished as altering the equation. Even in its unfinished state, even in the awful BWPS/TSS sequence, I enjoy listening to SMiLE far more than Pepper. In an alternate sequence designed around a two-sided album, with use of Psychedelic Sounds and Smiley to fill in some of the gaps, I enjoy it even more. I wish it had come out at the time so the public could have heard it and the bands reputation would have been saved, but thats not the issue. We have both NOW. And listening to each, SMiLE blows Pepper away easy. I dont see it as changing the timeline to speculate that with everything it had going for it, SMiLE would have been a hit record had it come out. Its not about setting it up to trounce Pepper, I just think its simple fact that with a #1 single preceding it, coming off a critical and commercial hit album, with capitol building it up, Brian billed as a genius, the band being voted the best in the world and finally the best music ever recorded to back it up...SMiLE would have sold well. I just dont see how this can even be debated.

[drbeachboy]

@Mujan

It can be debated, because it never was released. Can I borrow that crystal ball that you're using. I'd like to go back and change a few things, myself.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Once more, I get what your saying and concede your point. But there's something to be said about the test of time. Nobody can say which works of art will hold up decades later, which buried treasures will find an audience and come to prominence or which "classics" lose their luster and fade into obscurity. Some things that capture the zeitgeist of the time end up feeling dated years later. I'd argue Sgt Pepper is a textbook example. Another would be "The Graduate" a film which came out the same year. Just doesnt hold up, while it may have been loved at its time. SMiLE on the other hand, is timeless. It may be psychedelic but it is so in a way that doesnt feel "show-offy" or pandering like Pepper. It really does feel like a modern symphony which inspires endless analysis and continued listening. Pepper doesnt warrant that. "Oh, the lyrics for this song were ripped right off a circus poster. Thats...neat, I guess." Compared to that, people will be discussing the meaning of Columnated Ruins Domino for years to come. Im not trying to take it out of context so much as put it in a larger context. Im looking at it with an objective eye (ear?) removed from that zeitgeist you speak of and viewing how it holds up half a century after the fact. I dont think it holds up well at all, wheras SMiLE, the USA and others from that period are still just as brilliant and relevant to the modern world as they were then. "The American Metaphysical Circus" is more significant now than ever, with TPP set to pass and corporations becoming more powerful now than ever... By comparison, who cares about Rita the meter maid or what Paul's gonna do when he's 64?

To each his own. Personally, Satanic is the only Stones album Ive bothered to buy on vinyl. Ive yet to listen to their 70s output, but their 60s albums tend to be very uneven to my ears. Let It Bleed kicks off with Gimme Shelter, one of the best songs ever...and then it loses me every time Ive tried to give it another chance. Until Monkey Man comes on and catches me by storm! But yeah. All their 60s albums are like that for me, except Majesties. It's just a fun album to listen to with some nice little songs and interesting studio techniques. I'll admit it's one of the lesser albums of the year, but I still like it and still prefer it to Pepper. Maybe I'm letting what I see as the over-hype and over-praise of it taint my opinion of the music, but Pepper just oozes pretentiousness and emptiness to me. With Satanic, I dont get the idea that the Stones were trying to take the world by storm as the Beatles and Brian were. I see Satanic as them saying "hey, this psychedelic sound everyone's doing is really interesting. Let's try our hand at it." It seems like everyone's quick to pounce on them for jumping on the bandwagon, but so did the Beatles. The latter just did it at the right time, and--Being the Beatles--they could get away with it. But Paul McCartney attended Pink Floyd's early shows in disguise. They were heavily inspired by Pet Sounds. They didnt invent psychedelic rock, just watered it down so it was more acceptable to the masses. Fine if someone loves it, Im just not buying the claims of its brilliance, especially in comparison to albums I see on the same level such as Majesties.

I dont see the fact that it wasnt finished as altering the equation. Even in its unfinished state, even in the awful BWPS/TSS sequence, I enjoy listening to SMiLE far more than Pepper. In an alternate sequence designed around a two-sided album, with use of Psychedelic Sounds and Smiley to fill in some of the gaps, I enjoy it even more. I wish it had come out at the time so the public could have heard it and the bands reputation would have been saved, but thats not the issue. We have both NOW. And listening to each, SMiLE blows Pepper away easy. I dont see it as changing the timeline to speculate that with everything it had going for it, SMiLE would have been a hit record had it come out. Its not about setting it up to trounce Pepper, I just think its simple fact that with a #1 single preceding it, coming off a critical and commercial hit album, with capitol building it up, Brian billed as a genius, the band being voted the best in the world and finally the best music ever recorded to back it up...SMiLE would have sold well. I just dont see how this can even be debated.

I don't follow this point. Lots of people are still talking about Pepper, particularly in comparison to Smile. It's also not watered down psychedelia. The Beatles may have been inspired by psychedelia but they were inspired by a lot of other things too. In fact, their listening list at the time of Pepper couldn't be exactly called psychedelia: Lovin' Spoonful, Pet Sounds, Indian, avant-garde tape experiments. They weren't watering down anything for the masses - they were making the kind of music that they wanted to make for themselves.

EDIT: I also disagree with you about The Graduate. I'm not sure I can think of a better movie that's been made in the last 20 years and the idea of a guy who has graduated from college without knowing where to go or what to do seems more relevant than ever.

[Jim V.]

As a live performance, it was wonderful. For Brian, and all his fans. It's only the release of the CD and its billing as "*the* finished SMiLE" that I have a problem with

I think this is such a f***ed up opinion. You have a problem with Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks billing their finishing of SMiLE as the finished SMiLE? How dare they. It's only their work. They definitely shouldn't have dared to return to an unfinished work after 36 years, should they have? Seriously, what would you have preferred?

[drbeachboy]

What would you equate Smile to from that time that was popular? I mean, it wasn't Hendrix, nor the Doors. Certainly not Cream. It was not Bubblegum and it was not Top 40. So, I ask who would this have appealed to directly? I grew up during that time an honestly, I don't think any of my friends would have bought it. They were into Hendrix, Cream etc. While it may have sold well based on it's advanced publicity, I just don't think it was electric enough to compete with what the hip crowd in America were listening. It may have done better in GB and rest of Europe, similarly to Pet Sounds. I still think it would have been great music passed over by the masses.

But it was time for Brian to lead, not follow.

I think Brian found it hard to lead when those behind him started to catch up, and then at least in his eyes, started to surpass him.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

As a live performance, it was wonderful. For Brian, and all his fans. It's only the release of the CD and its billing as "*the* finished SMiLE" that I have a problem with

I think this is such a f***ed up opinion. You have a problem with Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks billing their finishing of SMiLE as the finished SMiLE? How dare they. It's only their work. They definitely shouldn't have dared to return to an unfinished work after 36 years, should they have? Seriously, what would you have preferred?

Its a sensitive subject. On the one hand, of course Brian has the right to call it the finished SMiLE as he pleases since its his music. Yet, he also is quoted saying the original would have been 2 movements not 3 and "less uplifting" than what he made in 03. I think making an album of the songs listed on the original tracklist flows a LOT better and leaves a more focused, concise message than the bloated, everything and the kitchen sink 03 setlist. I think a real harpsichord would have sounded better. Of course, I think the original Beach Boys vocals would have sounded better too, but at what point do such criticisms become ridiculous?

In any case, I see them as seperate projects. There is SMiLE the unfinished modular psychedelic studio album and Brian Wilson Presents Smile the 3 movement live pop symphony.

[rab2591]

As a live performance, it was wonderful. For Brian, and all his fans. It's only the release of the CD and its billing as "*the* finished SMiLE" that I have a problem with

I think this is such a f***ed up opinion. You have a problem with Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks billing their finishing of SMiLE as the finished SMiLE? How dare they. It's only their work. They definitely shouldn't have dared to return to an unfinished work after 36 years, should they have? Seriously, what would you have preferred?

You're opening a can of worms that will spin into an infinite circle of illogical discussion with Mujan.

You'd think the artist himself giving the stamp of approval on BWPS would be enough for some people. And frankly I couldn't care less that people don't like BWPS, everyone has their own opinions, but most here who hold that opinion have the common courtesy not to express it monotonously in every thread relating to Smile.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Once more, I get what your saying and concede your point. But there's something to be said about the test of time. Nobody can say which works of art will hold up decades later, which buried treasures will find an audience and come to prominence or which "classics" lose their luster and fade into obscurity. Some things that capture the zeitgeist of the time end up feeling dated years later. I'd argue Sgt Pepper is a textbook example. Another would be "The Graduate" a film which came out the same year. Just doesnt hold up, while it may have been loved at its time. SMiLE on the other hand, is timeless. It may be psychedelic but it is so in a way that doesnt feel "show-offy" or pandering like Pepper. It really does feel like a modern symphony which inspires endless analysis and continued listening. Pepper doesnt warrant that. "Oh, the lyrics for this song were ripped right off a circus poster. Thats...neat, I guess." Compared to that, people will be discussing the meaning of Columnated Ruins Domino for years to come. Im not trying to take it out of context so much as put it in a larger context. Im looking at it with an objective eye (ear?) removed from that zeitgeist you speak of and viewing how it holds up half a century after the fact. I dont think it holds up well at all, wheras SMiLE, the USA and others from that period are still just as brilliant and relevant to the modern world as they were then. "The American Metaphysical Circus" is more significant now than ever, with TPP set to pass and corporations becoming more powerful now than ever... By comparison, who cares about Rita the meter maid or what Paul's gonna do when he's 64?

To each his own. Personally, Satanic is the only Stones album Ive bothered to buy on vinyl. Ive yet to listen to their 70s output, but their 60s albums tend to be very uneven to my ears. Let It Bleed kicks off with Gimme Shelter, one of the best songs ever...and then it loses me every time Ive tried to give it another chance. Until Monkey Man comes on and catches me by storm! But yeah. All their 60s albums are like that for me, except Majesties. It's just a fun album to listen to with some nice little songs and interesting studio techniques. I'll admit it's one of the lesser albums of the year, but I still like it and still prefer it to Pepper. Maybe I'm letting what I see as the over-hype and over-praise of it taint my opinion of the music, but Pepper just oozes pretentiousness and emptiness to me. With Satanic, I dont get the idea that the Stones were trying to take the world by storm as the Beatles and Brian were. I see Satanic as them saying "hey, this psychedelic sound everyone's doing is really interesting. Let's try our hand at it." It seems like everyone's quick to pounce on them for jumping on the bandwagon, but so did the Beatles. The latter just did it at the right time, and--Being the Beatles--they could get away with it. But Paul McCartney attended Pink Floyd's early shows in disguise. They were heavily inspired by Pet Sounds. They didnt invent psychedelic rock, just watered it down so it was more acceptable to the masses. Fine if someone loves it, Im just not buying the claims of its brilliance, especially in comparison to albums I see on the same level such as Majesties.

I dont see the fact that it wasnt finished as altering the equation. Even in its unfinished state, even in the awful BWPS/TSS sequence, I enjoy listening to SMiLE far more than Pepper. In an alternate sequence designed around a two-sided album, with use of Psychedelic Sounds and Smiley to fill in some of the gaps, I enjoy it even more. I wish it had come out at the time so the public could have heard it and the bands reputation would have been saved, but thats not the issue. We have both NOW. And listening to each, SMiLE blows Pepper away easy. I dont see it as changing the timeline to speculate that with everything it had going for it, SMiLE would have been a hit record had it come out. Its not about setting it up to trounce Pepper, I just think its simple fact that with a #1 single preceding it, coming off a critical and commercial hit album, with capitol building it up, Brian billed as a genius, the band being voted the best in the world and finally the best music ever recorded to back it up...SMiLE would have sold well. I just dont see how this can even be debated.

I don't follow this point. Lots of people are still talking about Pepper, particularly in comparison to Smile. It's also not watered down psychedelia. The Beatles may have been inspired by psychedelia but they were inspired by a lot of other things too. In fact, their listening list at the time of Pepper couldn't be exactly called psychedelia: Lovin' Spoonful, Pet Sounds, Indian, avant-garde tape experiments. They weren't watering down anything for the masses - they were making the kind of music that they wanted to make for themselves.

EDIT: I also disagree with you about The Graduate. I'm not sure I can think of a better movie that's been made in the last 20 years and the idea of a guy who has graduated from college without knowing where to go or what to do seems more relevant than ever.

Point me in the direction of some in-depth dissection of Pepper. Something on the level of what we do here for SMiLE, or the Smile Shop essays. Because all I ever see is just circle-jerking over how great it is and the like.

[drbeachboy]

As a live performance, it was wonderful. For Brian, and all his fans. It's only the release of the CD and its billing as "*the* finished SMiLE" that I have a problem with

I think this is such a f***ed up opinion. You have a problem with Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks billing their finishing of SMiLE as the finished SMiLE? How dare they. It's only their work. They definitely shouldn't have dared to return to an unfinished work after 36 years, should they have? Seriously, what would you have preferred?

Its a sensitive subject. On the one hand, of course Brian has the right to call it the finished SMiLE as he pleases since its his music. Yet, he also is quoted saying the original would have been 2 movements not 3 and "less uplifting" than what he made in 03. I think making an album of the songs listed on the original tracklist flows a LOT better and leaves a more focused, concise message than the bloated, everything and the kitchen sink 03 setlist. I think a real harpsichord would have sounded better. Of course, I think the original Beach Boys vocals would have sounded better too, but at what point do such criticisms become ridiculous?

In any case, I see them as seperate projects. There is SMiLE the unfinished modular psychedelic studio album and Brian Wilson Presents Smile the 3 movement live pop symphony.

Yes, they are separate, but the way Brian wants Smile sequenced has pretty much stayed intact. I think 3 Movements has been in Brian's mind since at least the early 80's. This is how he wants it. To me, the second movement is near utter perfection on both the solo and Beach Boys versions.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

As a live performance, it was wonderful. For Brian, and all his fans. It's only the release of the CD and its billing as "*the* finished SMiLE" that I have a problem with

I think this is such a f***ed up opinion. You have a problem with Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks billing their finishing of SMiLE as the finished SMiLE? How dare they. It's only their work. They definitely shouldn't have dared to return to an unfinished work after 36 years, should they have? Seriously, what would you have preferred?

Its a sensitive subject. On the one hand, of course Brian has the right to call it the finished SMiLE as he pleases since its his music. Yet, he also is quoted saying the original would have been 2 movements not 3 and "less uplifting" than what he made in 03. I think making an album of the songs listed on the original tracklist flows a LOT better and leaves a more focused, concise message than the bloated, everything and the kitchen sink 03 setlist. I think a real harpsichord would have sounded better. Of course, I think the original Beach Boys vocals would have sounded better too, but at what point do such criticisms become ridiculous?

In any case, I see them as seperate projects. There is SMiLE the unfinished modular psychedelic studio album and Brian Wilson Presents Smile the 3 movement live pop symphony.

Yes, they are separate, but the way Brian wants Smile sequenced has pretty much stayed intact. I think 3 Movements has been in Brian's mind since at least the early 80's. This is how he wants it. To me, the second movement is near utter perfection on both the solo and Beach Boys versions.

True. It obviously evolved over time, as any creative project would. If he were to live another 30 years I wonder if he might think differently

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

As a live performance, it was wonderful. For Brian, and all his fans. It's only the release of the CD and its billing as "*the* finished SMiLE" that I have a problem with

I think this is such a f***ed up opinion. You have a problem with Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks billing their finishing of SMiLE as the finished SMiLE? How dare they. It's only their work. They definitely shouldn't have dared to return to an unfinished work after 36 years, should they have? Seriously, what would you have preferred?

You're opening a can of worms that will spin into an infinite circle of illogical discussion with Mujan.

You'd think the artist himself giving the stamp of approval on BWPS would be enough for some people. And frankly I couldn't care less that people don't like BWPS, everyone has their own opinions, but most here who hold that opinion have the common courtesy not to express it monotonously in every thread relating to Smile.

Sorry, I dont mean to be rude.

The board kinda degenerates into the same circular talking points often in any case. Look how a conversation about VDP's tweet got to where we are now. Give it time and maybe this'll become yet another Mike v Brian argument.

Anyway, Im sorry if it hurts people's feelings, but I just think BWPS is an evolution of SMiLE that's nevertheless different from the original intent. Similar to Smiley in many ways. Im willing to drop it if you are