The Smiley Smile Message Board

Might I propose a reasonable compromise over the issue of whether or not to overdub missing vocals onto the 2011 release of "The Beach Boys-Smile". I say vocals should be added(for passages/song which are incomplete and don't have vocals) only where the lyrics to be sung were written by Van Dyke Parks in the 1960's. In other words, "Holidays" stays instrumental, but DO add the missing vocal passages to "Roll Plymouth Rock"(AKA "Do You Like Worms?)

Reasonable or not, I don't think you'll find much support around here for adding vocals of any kind.  This is Smile we're talking about - I'm all for making it as complete as possible, but not at the expense of compromising the recordings.

Leave that kind of rubbish to Bruce Springsteen who insists on re-recording all of his outtakes to make them sound "more commerical".  Personally since a big part of what SMiLE is about is that it's unfinished music, I don't want to hear of them adding any modern overdubs (certainly not vocals as their voices have all aged considerably since 1966) to these recordings.  

Now if for instance they find some vintage sixties vocals on an acetate somewhere that don't exist anywhere else and are able to overdub those onto an existing master of a given song then that is a different story.  There has already been a debate about the "Great Shape"/"Barnyard" vocals that exist on the Humble Harv piano demo being flown onto the respective masters of each recording.  The problem with those vocals is that general consensus is that they don't exactly fit onto the masters themselves.  However, if they find a way to do it using technology that we don't have at our disposal I wouldn't have much problem with that as long as the undubbed versions are also included on the sessions portions of the boxset.

Edit: I just wanted to add this is where BWPS becomes such an important part of the SMiLE saga.  We now have the option of having a completed presentation of the SMiLE music at our disposal if that is what we so choose to listen to.  There is no reason to modernize the original tapes with new overdubs as a version of the SMiLE music already exists with completed vocals in place whether they be vintage sixties or not.  If you want to hear "Do You Like Worms?" with Van Dyke's original lyrics for the verses...pop in BWPS.  Simple as that.

Unacceptable. Ridiculous. Meaningless.

I'm really kind of shocked that there's even an argument. 


Smile Board.  The album was abandoned in early '67.  Why would anybody want there to be anything after that on it?  I don't get the point, EVEN with stuff like surf's up or cabinessence.  It's not SMiLE. 

Agreed I don't think anyone wants to hear Mike Love bust out his ultra nasal on Surf's Up or anything.
Even on BWPS the vocals were off...they just felt too sweet.

I have a weird feeling that the completed vocals (even those post SMiLE) for Cabinessence will somehow find their way onto this release.  It would just be too jarring for casual listeners to hear the song without completed verses.  "Surf's Up" is another matter all together.  That could conceivably be done without adding anything post 1967,

Actually the backing track for Cabinessence is beautiful just as an instrumental. I think with the vocals on the 20/20 version some of the details get lost, especially on the tag.

... and not sweet enough in some places too.

Stones also did the same thing on the "Exile on Main Street" bonus cuts.

Even if they would consider it, only Al has anything resembling his 60's voice.

It be a disaster!

And besides, Brian's already done it - taking reproductions of the music and adding his 65 year old voice.  

Reasonable ? Men who are either 70 or 69 adding their vocals to tracks (and possibly bvs) recorded 44 years ago ?  Remember how jarring it was in the 2000 miniseries when Brian added his current voice for a brief scene ?  Crazy idea.

I would hate to see any new vocals done now. Back in 1972 when the idea to first put out Smile was raised they could have done it, but Dennis and Brian never sounded as good after 1973-74 and now Dennis and Carl are dead. By the end of the seventies even Mike and Bruce couldn't have matched it. In fact even by 1972 Carl's voice had changed a lot (matured not worsened) so really only the original 66-67 voice tracks should be there.

Only SMiLE 66/67 period recordings please and yes CE is fantastic with or without vocals.

I hope there will be full finished instrumentals included as I think the 66/67 tracks with the Wrecking Crew are just too powerful not to hear them in all their glory

As mentioned above, if vocals are found that were recorded between the given time frame, then yes, definitely.
Anything a few years after the sessions is senseless enough, but 44 years later?

Why don't we ask Mike to change some of the lyrics too? :)

Might as well ask this somewhere....


What does everyone reckon is the likelihood of acapella tracks? The more I think about it, we'd have some of H&V, Cabin Essence backgrounds, A hell of a lot of Vegetables stuff...

I mean, obviously there are all the H&V chants, and lots of tracks have vocals, I'm just wondering the likelihood of acapella tracks on the box....

And if they record ANYTHING new, I don't think we'd ever stop bitching about it.... Such a bad, bad, bad idea.

A capella tracks, now THIS will knock my socks off!

From the official Capitol press release of Monday:

"... while the box set delves much deeper into the sessions, adding early song drafts, alternate takes, instrumental and vocals-only mixes, and studio chatter."

Again, I have to ask - do you guys actually read this stuff ?  ;D

I did! I was wondering what those mixes would be. I wrote that in a rush, which probably wasn't obvious apart from the fact it is poorly phrased.

I'm guessing an acapella "Mrs. O'Leary's Fire"* won't be one of them.  ;D

[* Brian never used the 'c' word.]

Oops, missed that!

So apparently "cow" and "fungus" are two words Bri didn't like in the Smile days.  ;D

My idea (I forwarded this to Mark, and he said it was a great idea and he's going to push for it!) is to take all the endless hours of "Heroes and Villians", and use them everywhere vocals are missing.  So, Song for Children is full of it now, and also they're going to fill in Love to say Da Da with it.  Also Cabinessence is now called Cabin Essence with Heroes and Villians all the f*** over the place". 

:lol :lol :lol

Andrew, what are you referring to in the 2000 miniseries (confess don't know what that is)

He did and he does??  :hug   I forwarded to him my plan: there should be no second of silence in the concept. So interwoven throughout everything are snippets from George Fell Into His French Horn. Mark L. wrote me a cheque worthy of a sum that I'm not allowed to disclose, and he's talking Alan B. into it as we speak.

The mother set gets better by the day...

Brian looped in some singing on "In My Room" during the scene where "young Brian" is performing at a piano in his parent's house; no surprise that it sounded like 58-year-old Brian and not 21-year-old Brian.

The ONLY non-SMiLE-era thing i would like to have added would be a 1971 vocals-only 'Surf's Up'. Those additonal vocals are amazing - some of you will know what I mean  ;)

(I posted this in another thread first, not realizing there was a specific thread for this topic.)


I'll know I’ll most likely be pilloried here, but I just want to put it out there that I, like a few others apparently, think they should use the post '67 Cabinessence and Surf's Up vocals for the Side One "near-to-finished” version of the album.  I want all the first time listeners to hear the magnificence of the finished tracks.  I don't want them to sit there and go, "Hmmm, I wonder what that would have sounded like with lyrics?"  Then the '66-'67 unfinished vocal version or instrumental track can be used on one of the other discs.  As for those who say, "But hey, it's called SMiLE Sessions, therefore you can't use anything past those dates," all I can say is, that is what *asterisks* are for!  Just place a little asterisk next to the song title to indicate that parts of the recording are post SMiLE Sessions era. 

My take is that anything which was WRITTEN or PLANNED, not just anything that was recorded, is historically accurate and indispensible.  Me?  I personally would love to have “reconnected telephone line” recorded anew – if it’s not found on a tape or acetate.  And even if this vocal is found – but only in bad sound quality – then I’d still love to hear it newly recorded on the existing backing track.  Seriously, I would.  Now I don’t expect to change any of your well positioned thoughts on the subject, but I have to be honest and say what I would want.  Now granted, if they record any new vocals my hope is that they let Al Jardine sing the lead, and that Mike, Bruce, and Brian are relegated to backing vocals, and that they do their absolute best to make it fit sonically with the rest of the vintage recordings.  Any new recordings should feature only the original members, meaning I would rather not have Darian, Jeff, Christian, or Al’s kids singing on it.  Also, I would rather not have a modern Brian lead vocal.  Only Al’s voice is still in top shape.  That being said, though, I would rather hear “reconnected telephone line” sung by ANYBODY than not to hear it at all.  (Though if it’s just sung by anybody, then it should be relegated to disc 2, or 3 or 4.)  Similarly, I would love to hear a modern Al Jardine lead vocal on “Do You Like Worms” if a vintage vocal can’t be found.  Heck, I wouldn’t mind hearing that on Disc 1 if it was done with enough integrity to the original recordings.  And if more lyrics from that period appear (either from Frank Holmes lyric sheets or elsewhere) I would love to hear them newly recorded, too.  I mean, if they’re not recorded for this project, when will they be?

The one thing I would not advocate for are newly recorded vocals of Van Dyke’s 2004 lyrics.  They are excellent for that project, but I don’t see any need for them on this set.  (Though, once again, if they were done tastefully, with an Al lead etc., etc., I don’t think you’d hear me complain too much -- though I would hope that the tracks would appear as extras, rather than on Disc 1.)

Again, I realize some of you will be dying to roast me over the pits of hell because of these sentiments, but I love what Brian and Van Dyke accomplished with their ’66-’67 SMiLE project, and I want to hear as much of it as I can.  If that means doing some modern recording for things that have been lost, or are in really bad sound condition, then so be it.  Give it all to me!  Don’t leave me wondering!

(And please be assured that I realize there is very little chance of the surviving Beach Boys doing any new recordings for this project.  So those of you wholly against my opinion most likely have nothing to worry about!  Please set your torches accordingly.  I, also, realize that any attempt at new recordings risks pushing the release date further and further away – so far away that it may never come out, especially with Al’s slow pace of recording!  That alone is reason enough for me to be on your side!) 

Love and merci,    Dan Lega

I would certainly not want Brian's voice of today over the old material, though I suppose it would be appropriate to use him if they wanted to record vocals for The Old Master Painter.

From what little I heard of Al's new album, it sounds like his voice is indeed in very good shape, but it still begs the question as to whether anyone could get the emotion and the precision from him that Brian achieved (as a producer) 40+ years ago.

I could imagine that we (or, for that matter, art scholars) would gladly accept a painting by Rembrandt as a genuine work, even if the man had started it, almost finished it, then had abandoned it for 15 years for whatever reasons, and finally finished it altogether.

But I can't really accept the 1967 Smile material given its final brushwork in 2011 A.D. I think it is for two main reasons:

1. The final touches would have to be done by a Brian who can't sing like he used to, accompanied by session musicians entirely different from those in 1967; so that would result in some kind of weird conglomerate from two completely different eras;
2...and, most important: Smile was to be a release by the Beach Boys (the group). No one in the whole world could tell what Carl or Dennis would've made of the new additions, much less whether they even would have accepted to perform the new parts. So: adding new material would be an insult to the memory of these guys, and perhaps border on what's known as art fraud.

I've considered this, and have, at length, distilled my opinion down to this concise response.

No.

Less is more, I guess...  :thumbsup

You know what, I'm game for new vocals if they be done well, and if the box were to contain the same tracks sans vocals so we could swap them out if need be: Nothing to lose.

It would certainly be a bold move on the Boys' part and entirely within the spirit of Smile and who knows, could yield some fun results. It could even prove enlightening if 'lost' lyrics such as telephone line were recorded anew as Dan Lega suggests, and quite legitimate historically in that the lyrics are vintage.

In truth, I doubt it'll happen. Al's comments "I don't have many details on it, although we didn't do any new recording" are telling. I suspect the idea was floated, and that's why Mark's press release mentions that new vocals could be added. I think Mark's comments predate Al's initial statement and by that time they'd nixed the idea.

You killed the idea right there.  ;D

Ha ha! Well I'm not well versed in their voices these days. If it'll be anything like the difference bwteen Jagger c. 71 and his recent updates to the Exile songs then count me out. From what I glean Al's vocals are not too far gone.

Wow...    

Hey, I stated my opinion, expected to get flamed for it, and I don't plan on getting into a big discussion about it.  However, I totally fail to see how adding vintage lyrics to an old recording, as long as the original melody is found/remembered, is insulting to Dennis and Carl.  I also don't see how it could be considered art fraud if it's clearly stated when, why, and how the recording is done.  But to each his own.

Love and merci,   Dan Lega


PS -- AGD, old buddie, I know you've been arguing for the exact opposite opinion, so I thank you for your restraint and your succinct reply!   :-D

Oh Dan, don't worry man. I don't like intense fighting either. Let me try to explain: suppose new material (vocs, instrumental, perhaps a different mix) will be added to old stuff. For me the argument is purely theoretical: even if the chance is slim, it might be that the brothers who passed away wouldn't be all that delighted with the end result. So, they might have asked for revisions in the 'new' edition, or else be profoundly unhappy to have it released under the group name, which of course includes them in the 'true' line-up.
That, of course, leaves open the chance that they could love the new end result.
That is what I was pondering. No offense meant at all.

Here's a legit question:

If it's cool to use vocals recorded two years after the 'smile' era, why not just have the band record all the vocals?  What's the difference?  Have Brian, Mike, Al, Bruce record all the missing parts. 

Answer: There is no difference.  Either leave it alone, or you can add whatever the f*** they feel like to it.  The only way to do it is to only use the stuff recorded '66, '67.

Carl in 1968 didn't sound very different - if at all - from Carl in 1966: not thrilled with it but it's the least-bad option. OTH, Brian & Mike (or Bruce) vintage 2011... simply, doesn't bear thinking about, does it.

Not unlike when Abel Gance 'reworked' (I use the term as loosely as possible) his original 1927 version of Napoleon in the 60s/70s and insisted on once more playing St. Juste, albeit in silhouette. It was calamitous.

[brain fart]

Calamitous would be an understatement if any attempts are made to add any modern vocals or parts in general to the Smile tapes. I don't want that at all! I'm repeating myself but if that is being considered I'd suggest they build a fake board (or fake Mac with ProTools in this case) like they did for Murry so nothing new actually gets recorded.

I agree.  I'm just saying there's no valid argument for using the stuff that was recorded later, and not using new vocals. 

Well there is. It is more valid to use a vocal that is within two years of the sessions than vocals recorded by 69 & 70 year old men, some 45 years later. You know and I know that their voices today in no way match their voices from that time period. As Andrew mentioned above, Carl's voice was pretty much the same between 66 and 68. Using Carl's vocal is for continuity and completeness of performance.

Really it's simple then. 
Instead of using some new vocals and some original ones and trying to make them match, Brian, Al, Mike, Bruce, and what the heck.. Dave, record all new vocal passages matching the old ones as closely as they can. 
That way they'll all match, even if they don't quite hit the notes they once did...   ;D

I am talking about Carl's lead vocal. So by your thinking we go get Mike in the studio this Spring to sing the lead for Cabin Essence. How grand a plan that is! bgas, volunteer as Super Executive Producer. ;)

If no-one  objects, I volunteer as Super Executive Producer, for The Capitol Records, Smile Sessions release.

Carl was two years older in 68, there's no difference in that and 45 years older. 

Dr. Beach Boy, you know you're debating something subjective, the only objective way to look at it is to say the album was abandoned in early '67, anything after that isn't on it.  If you want to get subjective, though, then we can say just as easily that new vocals would fit.  Same band, just later.  You want to draw the line at two years, why not draw the line at 45 years? 

So... by this truly inane and ridiculous reasoning, there's no difference between Brian's current voice and his 1968 voice. Ladies and gentlemen, I proudly give you - the world's first deaf Beach Boys fan.  ;D

Actually, from reading the positive reviews on this site of MIU, Still Cruisin, etc., it seems there are a number of deaf Beach Boys fans...

My thoughts are no more subjective than yours Ron, or anyone else here, I'm afraid. But if you think the Beach Boys of 2011 can pull off a vocal of their 1966 selves, than you must be smoking a bit of that Cabin Essence being passed around this forum.  :smokin  ;)

not putting the 68 cabin on disc one would be really stupid i think.  I know we wanna stay historically accurate, but 2 years is close enough.  they're trying to put together a one disc album as best they can with what they got.  NOT putting it on there is almost irresponsible.  i think even brian would give a "what the hell are you talking about" if there was a suggestion of not using that vocal. 

...and Ron, it is not so much about the amount of years as it is about the shape of their voices. Up through Carl's work on Surf's Up in 1971, there is little change in their voices. Three years later though, you start to hear real changes in the voices of Brian, Dennis and Mike. If it is finally decided to use later vocals, then they have to be vocals that match to the 1966 vocal sessions for continuity sake.

^^ You're being subjective again.  It's just your opinion... therefore it's inherently not fair.  The only fair, objective way to do it is to not use anything after the album was abandoned. 


It's not my opinion that they abandoned the album in 1967.  It's not my opinion that they didn't record the cabinessence or Surf's Up lead before they dropped the album.  There's a clearly drawn deliniating line there. 

I like the Live version of Heroes and Villians on that live album they put it out.  Hell, lets mix it into disc 1.   That's my subjective opinion.  Lets put it in there because to me it sounds better, and also, the band still sounded good then! 


















If it's cool to put vocals done years later on the album, then it's cool to put vocals done years later on the album.  Hopefully Mike is recording the lead to "I wanna be around" as we speak. 

May I also point out that just because you don't understand something, doesn't make it Rediculous.  It just makes you stubborn. 

Hey! I just thought of a great idea.  They still have Brian's vocal tracks from the 2004 album, just throw those on there.  OH WAIT, is 2004 past the line we're imagining and making up? 

Carol Kaye: No, Of course not. That's just your Imagination, Running away With You

Brian 2011 does not sound like Brian 1966. Carl 1968 does sound like Carl 1966. I don't care about time, I care about it sounding consistent. I care that the casual fan gets a chance to hear completed tracks on Disc 1. Disc 1 is supposed to be as close to a completed album, as possible. There will be 3 other discs to have what you want. It is to the point of stupid to go through this exercise.  We all know that it will most likely be want Brian wants anyway. Plus, I'm sure they want all 6 members represented on Disc 1. It is a Beach Boys release. Anyway, like Brian with Smile, I'm losing interest in this subject real fast. Ron, make sure you pass your last post (#54) on to Misters Linett & Boyd. They probably need a good chuckle this evening.

God only knows how fervently I (and everyone here of course) wish that, at the very least, the "Sandwich Isles" lyrics from DYLW, and the "Great Shape" & "Barnyard" vocals in other than Humble Harv form (which I assume is a term for the H & V demo on the Endless Harmony soundtrack), synched to their respective tracks, had been recorded in '66! Stating the obvious, I know, but to paraphrase Dr.Smith, "THE PAIN, THE PAIN...." :'(

.

But we already have the 68 Cabin - I'd rather hear what was the state of the song when the Smile sessions ended.

I am completely against the idea of 2011 vocals being slapped on the old recordings, but something just occurred to me...

If the DID record them, then decided against releasing them, we would be falling all over each other trying to get bootlegged versions of these tracks.

Ironic, no? ???

Nice one and spot on

Mark and Alan will have to define some parameters; it will be interesting to see what they are and how they defined them.

To me the list would define the cd 1 comp. The era would define the sessions sides. In the sessions sides the list would define the bulk also but there would be a seperate collection of leftovers, like HGS, Hoildays, field recordings, skits. The era would end before ILTSDD but it and the other 'tweeners would be near-era bonus tracks.

I know this can all change in a blink of an eye, but really, do not  think that you are going to get Smile as the 2-sided LP as slated in 1967. If it stays 3-sides as now planned, it has to be longer than originally planned. Disc 1 is not only the 1966 Smile tracks, it is also an album presentation of those tracks. I am not going to let myself get hung up over these changes. I'm just going to accept this as the way Brian wants it, now. I don't think he looks at this in the same historical context that a lot of us here do. I know I'll be happy no matter what they do.

A number of heavier gram vinyl albums getting released these days put less music on each side to increase fidelity. U2's THE JOSHUA TREE (a single album in '87) has now been issued on two discs with three songs per side. Perhaps the SMiLE vinyl will be 39 minutes of music, 13 minutes per side?

That's what I mean. The original Smile track listing on the cover was approx. 28-30 mins of music. I'm guessing they will be expanding on or adding material that may or may not have been on the intended original version.

I was trying to offer you some hope that the release could be closer to the proposed original album length!

Let's try this: the three sides of vinyl may contain no more that 10 minutes of music each...or maybe this SMiLE release will be shorter than FRIENDS and only contain about 7 minutes of music per side of vinyl.  ;)

where does the 28-30 come from?( I don't recall any track lengths being listed)  
 I figure 3 to 3-1/2 minutes per selection X 12 which means 36-42 minutes for the original.

It was just based on a typical LP with an average of 14 to 15 mins per side.

Pet Sounds was, what, 36 1/2 minutes?  I can't imagine why anyone would think Smile would be shorter than that given the amount of material available.  Remember that most of their earlier albums were so rushed that BW sometimes resorted to using non-music tracks like Bull Session to fill them out.  No such problems with Smile.

Hasn't the consensus been that the technology of the time would have allowed for an LP of up to about 45 minutes without a significant loss in sound quality?

I could be way off but I get the feeling from the press relese and interviews that Brian might not be that involved with putting this thing together. I'm sure he'll have to sign off on it and may insist on some changes but I don't get the impression this box is "his baby" or anything.

Mark refers to him in the interview. The 3-sided Smile is Brian. I'm sure as they assemble a track listing that Brian will be involved in not only song selection, but sequencing, as well. Unless they go verbatim with BWPS, who else would know better that Mark or Alan could turn to? Brian may not be involved in the day to day work, but he's involved. He has to be. This is his legacy, as well as The Beach Boys, on the line.

Really?  I didn't take it that way;  I took it that Alan and Mark would develop what they feel will be the best of everything, and then get the approvals of Brian and the BBs, but without specific input into all of it, unless something just doesn't feel right to someone/ Brian

So this is The Beach Boys Smile as Mark & Alan envision it? That is not what I read in Mark's interview.

You're probably right, and I disremembered it.

I'm generally against adding modern "updates" to old recordings, no matter who does it, but you know what really changed my mind?  The version of Holy Man on bambu.  That record proved to me that it is possible to recapture the spirit of a song or a moment to provide the fans with a new piece of music expanding on and giving tribute to the old.  So in that spirit, I hope there is new recording done for this box set, because I'd love to hear the Beach Boys, even whats left of them today, give us a new take on some of the lyrics which were written but not recorded in 1966-7.  And I think those songs would belong where Holy Man was: tacked onto the end of the last disc, as a bonus.  To me, that does nothing to compromise the integrity of what the early discs present, it just adds, expands, and pays tribute. 

"Holy Man" worked, though, precisely because the vocal wasn't recorded by a Beach Boy. I want youthful voices on the Smile material, because that's what the songs were written for. Put some of the Wondermints on there, or some of the BB's backing band, or even some of the BBs descendants on the tracks. If you're going to have Brian sing the parts now, it might as well be BWPS.

So Capitol/somebody wants to add new vocalds/vocalists to old tracks, let them add a completely separate bonus disc to the set and label it just for what it is.  
Put as many or as few tracks on there as they want. It should be a free (throwaway) disc, because new vocals aren't part of the Smile sessions.
Heck, get Kayla to sing some of the leads...

I love the guy but I don't think the 2011 model Brian Wilson is necessarily the best source for minutiae on the original Smile sessions. I know that sounds arrogant but if Diamond Head and Time To Get Alone were on Brian's 2003 Smile list then...you get the point. I may be off but my impression of BWPS was Darian played Brian a bunch of sequences (in the context of presenting a live show) and Brian would pick the one he liked best. That's a far cry the 1966 model Brian that produced every second of the 1966 sessions. I want disc 1 to respect the guy that was the greatest record producer on the planet. He ain't that guy anymore. For that reason if it comes down to "Brian, all of the 1966 mixes are like this" vs. "Mark, I like Fire with the 'in the pink' line added" then I think the they should go with the '66 mixes.

So Chris, if not Brian working out the track listing and sequencing, then to whom shall we turn to? Geez, Brian has really fallen from grace. Can't trust him with making any musical decisions on his own compositions. On his own "Teenage Symphony To God".  Oh, how the mighty have fallen. It's a dirty shame, it is. ;)

I don't want the compilers of the boxset to turn to anyone. There is a list of songs that were to be on the 1966/67 Smile album. For the stab at a "finished" 1966/67 album I want the titles on that list in their most complete form before it was announced the project was scrapped. Since a 1966/67 album was not going to have movements I don't care what the sequence is. Of course, I want Brian but if it comes down to the 1966 tapes and what Brian today wants I think the tapes should have more weight. In other words, if there is a Great Shape acetate with a verse/chorus/verse structure I don't want the "finished" album to have the Great Shape/I Wanna Be Around/Workshop structure or whatever it is. If you respect Brian Wilson's skills as a producer in 1966 I would think you want the same.

This box is about what Brian was doing in 1966. We're talking about the best producer at the top of his game, working with the best musicians, a once in a lifetime vocal blend, in the best studios during the best year of pop music.  I want this to respect that sh*t. I'm not that interested in what the 2011 model Brian brings to the project.

Last time I checked, the guys name who made that music was Brian Wilson and he's still alive and kicking. I would understand that reasoning if he was dead, but sadly he isn't. I guess we'll just have to deal with the fact he gets to release what he likes. These goshdarn Beach Boys....  ;D

He's alive but I'm not sure he is kicking. At least not in terms of producing records. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he shouldn't be involved or shouldn't have veto power over the project. My only point is if one side of the scale is "1966 BW mixes" and the other is "2011 BW assembly" I think the 1966 mixes should be given more weight. This is based on my respect for Brian Wilson's talents in the 1960's when he was spitting out masterpieces on a weekly basis.

My understanding (FWIW and yes, thanks for asking, I've had a pleasant weekend away) is that Brian will be presented with the track listing & sequence - and packaging - to approve (or not): I don't think he'll be involved in the actual track selection.

Chris, Disc 1 is not about 1966. This is the 1966 album done in 2011. To sell, it needs to sound fairly finished. Mark & Alan have to turn to someone. They may have a track listing, but they don't have a sequence. Mark says the LP will be three sides. meaning possibly more music than originally intended. Who knows? Brian most likely. You clearly have no faith in Brian, anymore. I see now why Brian was always so hesitant about releasing Smile. Everyone second guesses him and now it is the fans, as well.

Yep. That's what I thought. 


Everything devolving to arguments; Where's Brians' argument session when you need it? 
You obviously just aren't listening. I got it, so it can't be that hard to see.
If there's a choice between 1966 tapes and Brian's 2004/11 choices, he says we should give more weight to 1966. 
THAT IS what the Smile Seesions is about, IMO( and seeemingly most people)
It's NOT about what Brian thinks he should do this year, it's about the sessions he recorded then. 

The 2011 part is only choosing tracks and sequencing. It has to be 2011. There was never an official 1966 album to go by. Yes, it is what Brian thinks this year. This year is the year it is released.

Andrew, the back cover track listing, it's only a listing, not sequenced, correct? Recordings ceased so the tapes were never sequenced for an album, correct? If both are true, then wouldn't a final track listing and sequencing have to be originally done in 2011 or am I missing something here? Thanks!

Why is everyone hung up on the sequence? I think some people are looking at this through BWPS goggles. A 1966 LP was not going to have 'movements' and the track order wasn't decided so does it really matter what order the songs are in?

If Pet Sounds was scrapped before Brian got around to deciding the track order and 40 years later it is coming out would anyone sweat whether Here Today was track 3, track 5 or track 8? Smile is no different.

No it doesn't! It's a SESSIONS box of an UNFINISHED ALBUM. If it was being released as a single disc, you might have a point. And as arguably the most legendary unfinished album of all time, a box set version will sell regardless of Disc 1.

I can see both sides of the argument here.

The truth is, we have no idea what we will get. It is a sessions box, but the playable disc will be the focus of the most media attention and is therefore the most important element to get right. Here are the options as I see it:

1. They could use the BWPS sequence and edit the tracks into BWPS structures too (i.e. H&V starts with Gee and ends with western theme + sunny down snuff)

2. Or use the BWPS sequence, but keep the structure of the original tracks intact (i.e. use Cantina Heroes, or better still an unearthed, unbooted edit!)

3. Or make up a sequence based on the 66 list.

I'd be up #1, providing vintage edits of all the tracks are available elsewhere on the box set. If done well, it could be great, (but of course, if it's bad it will be really bad)

#2 is my preferred option.

Personally I think #3 is a bad idea. Mark and Alan will effectively have to pluck a sequence out of thin air. This will result in a neither this nor that situation where most people will ask "why on earth didn't they use Brian & VDP's sequence from 03/04?"

I may have misread a lot of the press but Mark L seems to be implying that BWPS will be used as a template, and Domenc P is proclaiming that Surf's Up was always supposed to be in the middle. This would suggest that BWPS is going to be the map for the playable part and as such I don't understand why we're still debating BWPS sequence vs 66 list. I think the biggest question now should be: Will they or won't they hack up the tracks to mirror BWPS?

Disc 1 is an approximation of the what the original album might have been. Discs 2-4 will be sessions. Disc 1 will be the album proper. It needs a track listing, and those tracks picked will need to sequenced for playing order. Chris, this Disc 1 looks like it will have movements if what Mark stated in the interview stays on track by release. So yes, track listing and sequencing concerns me for disc 1. Also, the average fan will be buying the 2 disc set, so disc 1 is a very important selling point. Guys, be real about this release.

Who's to say that if they use the movement concept that the track listing won't be different than BWPS? With all interlocking pieces of music, I wouldn't count it out.

I’m really surprised by the number of people who insist that BWPS should be the structure for the 1966-67 sessions.  Even if the historical integrity of the original sessions were meaningless, using BWPS as the template would be a bad idea, because it would include too much intstrumental.

In addition to the portions of Worms and Child that are missing lead vocals, H&V intro, IWBA/FN, Look, Holidays and Da Da are all mostly or entirely missing vocals.  Using them on Disc 1 just would not make for the ideal listening experience IMO.

I’m all for including Prayer and/or You’re Welcome, since I think one or both would have been an unlisted track in 1967.  I’m also for using Barnyard and Water, since I bet that both would have been part of one of the listed tracks.  But beyond that, you’re really going to dilute the power of the album.

You make a great point, and I'm with you for the most part, though I'm still holding out hope that Mark and Alan have found (or will find) vintage lead vocals on one or two of the tracks you've mention (e.g., Worm and/or Child).  In the Billboard interview, when talking about missing lead vocals, Mark cites Da Da as "the biggest one." 

"If you take Brian's 2004 version as a blueprint, [it will have] all of that music, all of the significant parts and even the little segue ways. For the most part, that project was heavily researched by myself and others to make sure Brian had available all the parts that had been recorded back in 1966 and 1967. Some lyric additions were made in 2004 that hadn't been completed before the project was abandoned. That's some of the questions that we have to do deal with. How will we are going to present those few pieces. But there really aren't too many. The biggest one is the song that became Blue Hawaii, which started out as a thing called "Loved to Say Dada," which is sort of the water section of the piece. That had background but no lead vocal."


That's an interest comment, isn't it?  I mean, who amongst us really considered the lack of a lead vocal on Da Da as the "biggest" gap?  I know that I didn't.  Da Da may or may not be the water part of The Elements, but I certainly don't think it'd be a big deal if it were included "as is" on Disc 1 or even left off completely.  "Look" and "Holidays" are almost certainly missing lead vocals, and if either or both were also left off of Disc 1, I wouldn't care.   

Nobody is insisting on anything. It is from Mark Linett. Even if they go the movement route, they can still use different songs in a different order if they have to, to make it feel more finished. How do you know if anything is being diluted? None of us knows exactly what they are going to do. I'd like to see Prayer their too, but not You're Welcome. But it is not about me and I'll accept whatever they decide to do, mostly because I'm not Brian or one of the Compilation Producers. It will be what the they make it and that's it. We should be having this discussion after the tracks are announced, not now when we don't know didley squat in regard to what they are going to do.

Using different songs in a different order isn't going to hide the fact that Look, Holidays, etc., don't have vocals.  Using them would at very least dilute the vocals/instrumental ratio--that really can't be argued.  IMO it would also dilute the quality of the disc, and I can say that (even though it's just my opinion) because I'm familiar with the pieces.

Well as we know Smile was never completed. You can only go with what you got. Let's just say that it will be as finished as it can be in terms of 1966. Plus, who knows, we could be in for a couple of surprises when it is released, just on a smaller scale than Brian originally wanted us to be back in 1967.

You can also go with less than what you've got.  To me, the available sessions allow for a very good 60 minute disc, but a truly great 40-45 minute disc.  I'd rather have the truly great, which would mean not using some of the material that has vocals on BWPS but is vocal-less from 1966-67.

Yeah, it's hard to know what to take from that.  If DaDa really were the biggest problem, that would be a wonderful thing.  But it could also mean that Linett is badly misjudging what is important.

I agree with you there. That was my point. You can still have movements like BWPS, but not necessarily the same songs or in the same order. BWPS was put together mainly for performance purposes, not for how the 1966 album would have been released.

It will be so easy to make our own mixes regardless of what the initial sequence is....the only thing that will be difficult will be to have our own mix pressed onto vinyl... ;D

So if the different songs are stitched together it will somehow "feel more finished"? You lost me there. How is, let's say, Cabinessence, Worms, Old Master Painter back to back with fades and 2 second gaps between songs "less complete" than daisy-chaining them together? They are just as complete/incomplete either way so we might as well go for historical accuracy.

More importantly...any attempt at creating movements out of the '66 tapes will require some remixing. Going with 12 banded tracks with fades means they can use vintage Brian Wilson mixes where they exist. As a Brian Wilson fan you I assume you know the significance of using original mixes right? The whole combining 2 seperate sounds to create a 3rd sound Phil Spector style? All that is out the window with a remix.


Oh, please. We're arguing becuase the damn press release mentions using BWPS as a template. Are you being intentionally obtuse?


Oh, so you're a fanboy ;)

Plus, the fades were SOME OF THE BEST MUSIC ON SMiLE.

Yes, I know that's an opinion, but I just don't understand how people fail to see that.  On BWPS, the fades are either missing (Cantina, Vega-Tables, etc.) or neutered through the merging of one track with the next.  Do you really want that AGAIN?

The only worse idea than using movements for the original material would be to let Mike Love and his kids record the missing lead vocals.

I just don't understand why so many of you want 'something close to what may have been in 1966/1967'.

The Brian Wilson/Van Dyke Parks work, SMiLE, wasn't finished back then, however it was finished in 2003/2004 as a BW solo project. Brian said so. As did Van Dyke, I'm pretty sure. So why not use their opinions to form the basis of The Beach Boys version? It's not like they are adding disco sections or whatever, it seems like the music won't be changed hardly at all. So whatever the track listing ultimately is, I think we should be happy, as the main creator of it, Brian, has approved of it.

However, I will throw in my 2 cents and say I kinda hope they don't totally follow the BWPS tracklisting, and make The Beach Boys version something different, maybe allow some different songs or arrangements, so it will further allow the BB version to stand on its own.

I just don't see the point of trying to pretend it came out in '67. It didn't. So using what we know, what don't they make the best '11 release they can?

I care more about the sessions disks than the main disk anyway.

-shrug-

I've always assumed that the back cover list was neither final nor sequenced, but rather something assembled at high speed to satisfy the increasingly irate demands from the Capitol art department. Remember, the front cover was done, dusted and I believe printed by early December 1966, but until mid-month there was nothing for the back cover of an album that was scheduled for late January 1967.

I agree - I think the best thing to do is not try to stitch the songs together. In honesty, I think they'll be making a rod for their back if they try and stitch Gee into H&V into Worms and so on. Many of the segues in BWPS involved creating new bits, or adapting the existing material. I don't think the original sessions will adapt well to being stitched together but I may be wrong - I'm no expert with pro tools or whatever they use. Purple chick always sounded like a bit of a Frankenstein's monster to my ears.

I am up for using the BWPS sequence though. I think the greatest loss was the False Barnyard fade, and they could just use the cantina edit that includes the fade. That's what I'd do anyway. BWPS is a good way of including all the best bits and having the Brian/VDP seal of approval.

I don't have a problem with their being lots of instrumental tracks. Dada sounds great to me as is. A lot of Smile's beauty lies in its ruinous state. Gaps are good!

I hope Alan and Mark aren't tuning into all this.

I'd hate to have a bunch of geeks like us pre-guessing that they're gonna screw up, get the sequence wrong, follow the wrong blueprint... etc etc etc.

If I were them and I'd looked into some of the threads here I'd be tempted to say "Hey, you know - just so as we don't f*** up, we've decided to can it."

We have to trust the guys and remember that what we're getting is the answer to a 45 year-old prayer.

Let's quit looking over their shoulders and let them deliver.  If Brian and the band trust them, then so can/must we.

Well, as long as CD1 won't contain a 70+ minute popular SMiLE-medley, I am, like, er, totally with you.

With hand clap syncopation? It's the way forward!

Yeah baby! I am told that there's even a finalized 1967 Surf's Up on an acetate hitherto unheard by us, and Carl sings a passionate: 'Shurf's Up'.

Straight into the medley and that box, I'd say!

Hey Chris, I'm done talking with you. I'm done with the topic. Discussing topics with an obsessive is just not possible. It always leads to arguments. I hate arguing over things that I have no control over. So obsess to you heart's content. I'm sorry I even posted.

Wise words.

This thread was brought to you by Kleenex!
 
:-\

Clearly I'm obsessive with my 80 posts here in the past 6 years  ;D

Clever! and it wasn't even directed at you. Your contribution is ever so invaluable. Thank you!

But this is a message board; hence you directed it at all of us. 
Had you wanted to send it privately only to Chris, you could have used the PM feature, right?  RIGHT. ( Answering for you, since you're done with the topic)

Off Topic: I was being polite to Wee Helper. It was a clever post and invaluable to me. So, I thanked him. And I thank you too bgas ever so much for answering for me. I don't know what I'd ever do without you here on this board.

Thank you; Thank you very much!

As bgas says, this is an open forum, and I'm tuning in here several times a day for the latest on the 2011 Smile story, as I guess as many of us. I was simply first to make the comment so many of us were thinking!

PMs work very well, as does the Sandbox (so I'm told, I never go there) for the personal stuff.

Nevertheless, I'm glad the post was of value. I'd like to think we all learned something.

Ok guys...let's chill with the snarkiness. Not everybody is going to agree on Smile, or really anything else BB related. Please remember to respect each other.

Can I just pop in to add my voice to the "add voices" side of things?

Not for the "finished" album, I think; there's space for purists to have at least some things their own way.  But we're talking about a big multi-disc box set full of alternate and variant versions -- in no way does it hurt to have *more* versions of things to put alongside.  And having new alternatives which people can splice in if they want, creating yet *more* different arrangements of the work, is absolutely in keeping with the "Smile" experience we fans have been having for the past few decades... the mash-uppiest, rearrangiest, inauthenticest, roll-your-own-iest bag-o-musical-tricks in all of modern pop music.

More to the point?  This is our only chance to hear Mike Love try to do the pirate rap from "Holidays".

We owe this to future generations.

Cheers,
Jon Blum
(remember, Brian wanted this to be *funny*!)

What a great post!! I couldn't agree more. SMiLE is the original mash-up.

The thought of Mike doing the pirate rap has made my night. And I bet Melinda could do a rousing turn at "I Wanna Be Around" too.

No sir, you may not.  ;D

But thanks for asking, we value your custom.