The Smiley Smile Message Board

Hey, so I was thinking about The SMiLE Sessions and what they might do with disc 1 and all, and what they will put in there. So I'm gonna go thru a few songs and see what we get...

"Our Prayer": Likely the '66 version, without the '68 vocals. Do we have the version without the '68 overdubs officially?

"Heroes And Villains": They will probably put the "cantina" version somewhere in the set; wonder what we'll get on disc; hopefully an awesome mix that we haven't heard yet.

"Do You Like Worms": We probably will get a new mix, as the song apparently wasn't supposed to include that one slow part after the first chorus, right?

"Barnyard": N/A

"Old Master Painter/You Are My Sunshine": N/A

"Cabin Essence": Most likely we get the finished 20/20 version, but maybe they will only give us what they finished in '66. Or who knows? Maybe they found a lead from then? Most likely the 20/20 version I'm guessing.

"Wonderful": I'd guess we most likely get the box set version, right?

"Look": N/A

"Child Is Father of the Man": N/A (note: I hope we get that 3+ minute mix with the chorus vocals nicely overlaid)

"Surf's Up": Looks like we'll get an official Brian led version on both the first and section section? However, will they use the '71 "Child" tag? And you'd also probably have to think they put the solo version somewhere on the set too.

"I'm in Great Shape": N/A (note: wonder if there will be a version of "IIGS" within "H&V")

"I Wanna Be Around/Friday Night": N/A (note: wonder if they'll combine "IIGS" with "IWBA/FN")

"Vega-Tables": Probably a different version from the box-set, as the "hey baba ruba" part wasn't supposed to be part of it, right?

"Holidays": N/A

"Wind Chimes": I'd think probably the box-set version probably?

"Mrs. O'Leary's Cow": N/A

"I Love to Say Da Da": Box-set version probably?

"Good Vibrations": Would make the most sense to put the classic version, if its even on there at all.

Anyways I hope to hear some you guys, your opinions and what not. Obviously its not up to us, but I'm wondering what you guys think they will do.

Oh, it'll be on there.  I can't imagine them excluding it.

Important caveat - this is purely my personal opinion and not based on an inside track that some folk here seem convinced I have, OK ?  :)

"Our Prayer": Likely the '66 version, without the '68 vocals. Do we have the version without the '68 overdubs officially?

- 1966 original is on the 1993 box set

"Cabin Essence": Most likely we get the finished 20/20 version, but maybe they will only give us what they finished in '66. Or who knows? Maybe they found a lead from then? Most likely the 20/20 version I'm guessing.

- 20/20 version collapsed/remixed into mono

"Surf's Up": Looks like we'll get an official Brian led version on both the first and section section? However, will they use the '71 "Child" tag? And you'd also probably have to think they put the solo version somewhere on the set too.

1st part: Brian's 1966 vocal flown into 1966 track... rest: the 12/15/66 recording.

"Good Vibrations": Would make the most sense to put the classic version, if its even on there at all.

- given that BWPS is the template, I'm thinking the version with Asher's lyric.

I've been wondering the same, but in respect to Smiley Smile material. If the intention is to use BWPS as a blueprint as stated, then will they be incorporating the "whispering winds" fade from the Smiley version of Wind Chimes?. Will they be using the acapella part of Vegetables (which I think is a SMiLE era recording anyway) And will they be lifting off the "Fall Breaks" vocals and adding them to "Fire"? (if they're in the same key, I'll have to check) Personally I'd love to hear "Fire" circa 67 with the vocals

 The Smiley version of  Vegatables fade though, I've always thought that sounded like a near finished mix of the SMiLE version anyway, what with that instrument (is it a marimba?) dubbed onto the SMiLE track. The session on SOT, where that instrument is being dubbed onto the mono mixdown, sounds like a SMiLE mix to me. I hope it sees the light of day on the boxset.

With "Prayer", I've always loved the 68 version which ends in laughter. They've sung it with a bit of vibrato, to really get that choral effect. The vibrato isn't on Brian voice though, so he obviously wasn't participating.

Well, if there's proof that that's what Brian wanted but never got around to doing - and of course, assuming anything like this happens - then fine. But, and it's a big but, if anything like this is going to be done purely because that's what happened on BWPS, then the criticism will be considerable, intemperate  and entirely justified, and will detract from the historical integrity of the project. I can't believe Mark & Alan would do any such thing without good reason. I'm sure I'm protesting about something that isn't going to happen, but even so, the thought is a sobering one.

For me, the fact it works so well, and sounds so right, is evidence that it is what Brian intended. Evidence, but not, as you say, proof.

Even if they use BWPS as the 'template' I can't believe they are going to mix and match stuff unless there's proof that it was intended in 66/67 - I hope not - as you say it would ruin any historical integrity and that is key to the success of this project

As you say AGD, the project is in good hands

I think they're between a rock and a hard place. My ideal is that they use BWPS as a loose map of the sequence but allow the original 'implied' song structures to breathe within that framework. I can't help but think the temptation (and pressure) to match BWPS as closely as possible may push it more in that direction. Of course in creating BWPS, Brian et al had the luxury of being able to add to and mould the pieces to create a finished composition. This is not so true with the original sessions. Whichever route they choose I'm sure Mark and Alan have the skills and integrity to do a good job but it's not as if they're just trying to please themselves with this - There's The Beach Boys to start with, commercial pressure from Capitol and finally the nightmare that is the hardcore Smile fan - an unenviable task in many ways!

Which should have never been used on BWPS, in my opinion -- they sound just like the scratch lyrics they are.

There was a reason. An agenda, if you will.

Sorry, but was that stated? I keep seeing this again and again, and for me, it doesn't jive with what Linett actually says in the interview. He says:


What this seems to be suggesting is that instead of saying that we're going to replicate the structure of BWPS, he seems to be saying instead that if you look at BWPS, you will find music that exists from The Smile Sessions and that will all be on the boxset. Now this can mean two things - he is misusing the word "blueprint" or the sentence as a whole isn't coherent. This doesn't necessarily mean that the tracklisting for Disc 1 of the Smile Sessions won't be modelled on BWPS, but I don't think I see good solid evidence of that in what Linett says in this quotation.

I can't see THAT getting approval from a certain group member.  Not for the general public-friendly Disk 1.

I'm with you there. The final version Good Vibrations is pure genius. It's perfect. I really hope they will use that one on Disc 1 (or whatever we wanna call the cd that has the 'as-close-to-as-it-gets' version of Smile).

The final version was the original beach boys version.  Why change that?  There will be enough unfinished bits on the release as it is.


I'm wondering what in the world could be new on this thing.   I know there is the off chance of lost or previously well guarded unreleased tracks, but my understanding is that Darian had all of the existing smile material on his computer for Brian to sort through in making BWPS.  If not, why not?

I imagine that the majority of the 'new' material we'll get is going to be H&V sections. Which would be neat, but not at all what most people want when they talk about 'never before heard' material.

I wouldn't be surprised if their choices weren't fairly obvious.  I will be surprised if they are anything radically out of the box:

Our Prayer": GV box-set

"Heroes And Villains": - 50/50 - Cantina vs. new mix...maybe a bit of both (a new mix containing the cantina section?) - The fact that "cantina" was issued as part of the GV/H&V single recently leads me to believe those compiling the set still hold this particular mix in high regard.

"Do You Like Worms": New mix for the reason the original poster mentioned.  The mix on the GV box probably could be improved upon either way

"Barnyard": Unless they found the multi-track tapes for this, it's probably going to be sourced from the same acetate we've known for years.  I doubt they do a hybrid with "Humble Harv"

"Old Master Painter/You Are My Sunshine": The same mix found on the Linett 1988 tape and on the VigOtone boot.

"Cabin Essence": 20/20 version no doubt.  I will literally fall off my chair if it's anything else.

"Wonderful": GV box set.  Again will literally fall off my chair if it's anything else although honestly a new mix (perhaps incorporating "Rock With Me Henry") would leave room for a modern STEREO mix of the harpsichord version elsewhere which would be nice.

"Look": Again there is a version of this on the 1988 Linett tape.  I doubt it will be found in much different form here.

"Child Is Father of the Man": See above...you could actually recast this song a bit better than Linett did in 1988 but...

"Surf's Up": Think Anne Wallace or something like Anne Wallace and you'll get the picture.  The jury is out personally on the 71' "Child" overdubs for me.  I guess it depends on how faithful they are being to not including stuff post-66 and how they are casting the entire album.  It's been said that BWPS is being used as a template so that leads me to think that the overdubs will be included.

"I'm in Great Shape": This will be interesting to see what they do with this.  A couple different possibilities from including it in a fresh mix of H&V, to a stand-alone track without vocals.  Much like "Barnyard", I feel a hybrid with "Humble Harv" is unlikely however...

"I Wanna Be Around/Friday Night": As known...

"Vega-Tables": Much like the original poster, I hope they recast this as the mix on the GV box contains material not germane to "Vega-Tables".  Since they are using BWPS as a template I wouldn't be surprised if craft a mix in line with how Brian performed the song.

"Holidays": See the 1988 Linett tape.

"Wind Chimes": See the GV box set.

"Mrs. O'Leary's Cow": See the 1988 Linett tape.

"I Love to Say Da Da": "Water" intro merged with "I Love To Say Da-Da" as found on SOT 16.

"Good Vibrations": I'm trying not to inject my own personal feelings into what I feel is appropriate for an official release of "SMiLE" but GV was already a complete piece of music months before Brian junked "SMiLE".  If they include anything here except the classic version there will be grumbles from this end of the yard especially because the only reason to do such a thing that I can see would be to put Mike's nose out of joint.  

I wish Brian were going to be involved beyond simply "yes" or "no" to the final thing.  Though he maybe can't recall what he wanted in 66/67 and maybe never knew, I'd still rather have him saying "okay, let's do this sequence"  now, as opposed to simply using BWS as a template.  BWPS was a "reimagining" (if you will) of the project for a live performance, which they then decided they'd record in the studio, no?   So using it as a template isn't what was intended in 66/67, if there ever was a final intention which had been decided upon at any point back in 66/67, yes? 
And, uh....crap, now I'm just confused!  :lol

Brian has already given us his vision for "SMiLE".  Granted it probably wasn't in line with how he thought of the project in 1966 (depending on what day in 1966 you happened to ask him about it after all) but it's his vision of the project nonetheless.  If Linett wants to use that then fine although except for the unique mixes he'll likely craft for several of the songs (H&V, Surf's Up, Worms, Vega-Tables) you can go pick up the "Purple Chick" mix of "SMiLE" and hear the "SMiLE" session tapes sequenced just like they were for BWPS.

Yes, quite right, never mind.  I guess I am guilty of wishing for something that never was and cannot be.  Whatever way they do it/sequence it, etc.  will be great.   I just wish the thing was out already.  :P

Hate to say it, but Disc 1 of The Smile Sessions is just going to be  42 minute recording of Brian Wilson burning tapes. "A completed part 2 of 'Surf's Up'? The fire could use some more fuel, I guess."

I think JohnMill has pretty much got it right - I'm not expecting anything particularly earth-shattering on the first disc, save for perhaps a new mix of "Heroes" (which seems like a pretty good possibility to me).  Said mix may very well contain "Barnyard," "I'm In Great Shape," or both, and with any luck, both would have completed lead vocals.

I hope they stick with vintage mixes as much as possible, with the exception of Carl's "Cabinessence" lead vocal (I'd be ok leaving it out to be honest, but I can't imagine them doing that).  Keep the original '66 "Prayer," no "Child" vocals at the end of whatever they do with "Surf's Up."

"Our Prayer": Almost definitely the mix on the box set.

"Heroes And Villains": I'm hoping for a clearer mastering of the Cantina mix, myself. Along with a whole smörgåsbord of various sessions.

"Do You Like Worms": Probably just a remix of what we already have. I doubt they've found any lead vocals for it, judging by what comments on the subject people have already made.

"Barnyard": I think this'll be one of the real treats on the boxset. I have a strong feeling they've found the multitracks for this, based on the inner groove to the H&V/GV single, and, again, from several comments made on this forum by people in the know.

"Old Master Painter/You Are My Sunshine": Probably the exact same version we've always had, unless a miracle happens and they find Denny's Old Master Painter vocals.

"Cabin Essence": I'd have to agree with the 20/20 version, mixed/folded down to mono, of course. Again, unless a miracle happens.

"Wonderful": Boxset version, unless they decide to include the Rock With Me Henry section for some odd reason.

"Look": Maybe there's a way to restore the clarinet from the multitracks? Who knows.

"Child Is Father of the Man": Again, same as we've always had before in clearer sound. I'd cry of joy if they found a proper lead for this.

"Surf's Up": Probably very similar to the Purple Chick version, considering BWPS is the template for this.

"I'm in Great Shape": If they've found an early acetate of H&V with IIGS in it, sure. As for how the song itself'll sound on the set, haven't got a clue.

"I Wanna Be Around/Friday Night": If BWPS is the template, they'll definitely combine it with IIGS.

"Vega-Tables": Complete mystery to me.  Every Smile bootleg has a different mix of this song and there's never been a clear, concise order of what this is supposed to be.

"Holidays": Another highlight, if only because it'll be properly mastered in full clarity.

"Wind Chimes": Box set version.

"Mrs. O'Leary's Cow": With the box set intro, in much clearer sound.

"I Love to Say Da Da": Unless they've found leads, I'll agree with you.

"Good Vibrations": I'm secretly hoping they'll extract stereo vocals from the mono master tape for a full stereo mix.

Oh, so now I see how they get around the issue of including things recorded post 67.  According to Dom (link to interview below), apparently the compilers of this box feel the Smile Sessions didn't end in 67, but went on til about 71/72 - hence they can include the tag to Surff's Up, The lead vocals on Cabin Essence, etc. 
"Pretty sneaky, sis."   :P

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

I don't really agree with the approach (I don't give much legitimacy to any work done by the Beach Boys on Smile without Brian's consent/guidance/participation), but aside from that, the article still leaves me with a good feeling about what we're going to hear. 

I still hope we get the original "Prayer" and a Brian lead on "Surf's Up," but for sake of cohesiveness I don't have much of a problem with keeping Carl's "Cabinessence" lead or the "Child" vocals at the end of "Surf's Up."

... and folk wonder why sometimes I get a mite tetchy. NOWHERE in that article is the word "compilers" so much as mentioned. The part about the 'sessions' extending to 1971-2 is purely Dom's opinion. He wrote the essay, he did photo/memorabilia research (like it says in the piece), but he's had nothing to do with the compilation or sequencing of the project beyond the not-inconsiderable influence of what he did with DAG #2. The only person who's said "apparently the compilers of this box feel the Smile Sessions didn't end in 67, but went on til about 71/72" is you - not Dom. And you're wrong.

Re-read the article.

With the exception of maybe 5 people, nobody really gives a sh*t.

 
Gee, so sorry, but gosh I was sort of under the impression that ol' Dom was sort of speaking as someone who, having written the notes for this upcoming release, had some idea as to the inner track of the, uh, "compilers" - yes, MY word, not Dom's or the articles, but mine.  Maybe "magicians" would have been better, or "them guys", or...whatever.
But hey, the following:

"Keep in mind that The Beach Boys were tinkering with and finishing 'SMiLE' material from 1967 until about 1971 when the song "Surf's Up" was finally released," he said. "There were sessions to finish 'Cabinessence' in 1968. 'Cool, Cool Water' was a SMiLE-era composition that was recorded in 1967, then expanded on nicely for release on 'Sunflower' in 1970. The music was never totally put away, as legend would have it, until 1972. With a lot of years of study behind us all, and access to the original '60s inside information, it's detective work made easy."

Well, that just gave dumb ol' me the impression that this was part of the idea with the release, that the sessions didn't end in 67 (because that rascally "tinkerin'" was goin' on in the ensuin' few years), and again, Dom being the chosen, OFFICIAL writer of the notes to the goshdarn thing - kinda leads an idjit like meself to that cunclooshun.   But I bow to your righteous indignation on the matter, oh mighty curmudgeon, 'cos my intent was not to mislead the faithful (was Dom's?  Maybe ya ought to take it up with him), and I'll just keep quiet from here on out and we'll see what we see (and hear) come release day. 

Why does everyone want another version and/or mix of H&V? If Disc 1 is a close approximation of what would have been released, then doesn't it stand to reason that the released H&V would have been the version used? Most here want the hit version of GV, so why not the same with H&V?

Not me. I want a version structured like the BWPS GV. Even if they keep the original lyrics on disc 1, I want the extended "hummm-dee-dow" section.

All I want is THE Smile version of H&V -whatever that turns out to be (personally I would settle for a full band version of the HV/IIGS/BY mix

Because the H&V 45 version was finished at Brian's house after Smile had already been scrapped? 

I think that many folks feel that the 45 is a post-Smile animal, though certainly many parts of it were recorded during the Smile era (summer '66 to May '67).

There's not much point in putting the 45 version on Disc 1 as the "approximation version," if other versions of H&V that were completed earlier exist.  Of course, if there were no earlier completed versions, then, yeah, I guess the 45 version would have to do (similar to how the 20/20 Cabinessence will probably have to do unless they can find a lead vocal from the Smile era).

The 45 version of H&V feels grossly underproduced and thinly mixed. For that reason alone it doesn't belong on the box set... That MO fits in much better with Smiley Smile.

Wouldn't that be the released version, considering that had Smile been released, and H&V already relased as the single, that this version would have been the one on the album. After reading all the posts about what should or should not be included, there are going to lots of very unhappy people. I am starting to feel like this release is a very, very bad mistake.

Dude, THERE IS NO SMILE VERSION OF HEROES AND VILLAINS. There are sessions and varying types of test mixes.

H&V was released on July 31st, so in a sense you are correct. Had Smile been released later than June, say like August, then Smiley would have never happened. The single version would have most likely been used on Smile.

http://smilefiletemp.tripod.com/S5odds.htm


As far as unheard mixes of H&V, i'm looking for something along the lines of this.

My understanding is that Darian didn't have the various acetates in the possession of band members. Based on the mention of acetates in the presser I think we can assume some acetates contained some unique material or mixes not found on the tapes. Then there is material that has been discovered since 2004.

I'm personally wondering how much material sourced from acetate will be included?  I know with technology today you can pretty much clean any recording up but some of the "SMiLE" acetates that we already know of aren't what you would call up to releasable standard.   You would think they would want to keep the material on this set as high quality and as close to the multi-track tapes as possible but then again the subject of acetates have already been brought up by the compilers so...

Also on H&V, I'm with the majority as far as not including the 45 mix of H&V on this new set.  I'm not even sure how I feel about the "Cantina" version being the definitive version of the song included on the album itself.  I obviously have no problem including it elsewhere on the set but since the album portion of the project lends itself most to experimentation as far as creating new mixes, I'd hope that Linett crafts us something tasty direct from the multi-tracks.

Something else to consider:  The "SMiLE" album is going to be what is going to be marketed to the masses.  They are going to want the material on the album itself to sound as slick and cohesive as possible.  The material on the box set (or the sessions portion of the project) will be more for the die-hards.  I think it's important to remember when discussing what will be and won't be included in the album portion of this project is that the compilers are trying to put together an album that can be sold to the masses.  It obviously can't be a completed work (being that so many vocals sessions are missing or were never recorded at all) but I fully expect the album portion of the "SMiLE" sessions to be a pretty slick affair.

If the acetates contain stuff that can't be reconstructed from multitracks they should be included. And even if they can, they're the only documentation of those specific mixes in any form.

I agree but I'm wondering if the compilers are thinking along the same lines as you and I.  I seem to remember The Beatles had a lot of lower quality material at their disposal for "Anthology" and disregarded almost every last bit of it.

Errr - Cantina???

And how exactly do we know there is no Smile version of H&V

Well unless they dug it up since the release of HAWTHORNE, there is LIKELY NO completed "SMiLE" version of H&V.  The simple reason is due to the fact that it would've already been released by now either on the GV box, SS/WH two-fer or the Hawthorne collection.  It wouldn't likely be something that would've been passed on for all these years especially when they've been reissuing that "Cantina" mix for almost two decades now.  

I also think the fact that they once again included "Cantina" on the recent GV/H&V 45 is more evidence to the fact that if there is to be a new version of H&V appearing on this new collection it will be a modern mix done by Mark Linett incorporating material from the multi-tracks.  I'd be extremely surprised if they have a completed 1966/1967 mix of the song that we haven't yet heard.

They need to be brave like Ernst Jorgensen is with Elvis Presley's reissues. If the acetate is the only source for anything Elvis related, then it's of historical interest and therefore worthy. Maybe he should do the Smile box set as he would have the stones for it?

Regarding using material incorporated or changed and/or enhanced as late as 72.......

I'm still remembering that live intro Mike Love did on one of the comps.....EH or Hawthorne as I recall...when he said smile was going to be released in a couple of months or later in the year......maybe it was in the intro to wonderBill.

Perhaps they had one pretty much ready to go, and some of that is what we are going to get?

From reading the releases and articles, my impression is that Mark & Alan are working with the 1966-67 tapes and not some early 70s comp reels.

What I was referring to Andrew, was ML's comment back in the early 70's that smile would soon be released...as if it were being reading for release...as if it were nearly complete....that seemed to be the implication.  So, I was wondering if there is some completed 67-72 era smile material that we haven't heard, that might be included somewhere on the BOX.  I know that would not go over with some purists but all of the voices were still alive at the time and it would indeed be a treat to hear.

Best of my knowledge, in 1971/2, Carl & SWD pulled the tapes, listened, made safety copies, assembled two comp reels and then put the lost back into storage. Elaborations and corrections welcomed, of course.

I'd be surprised if they DIDN'T have a completed 66/67 mix of the song we haven't heard yet - that's the whole point of the Bruce/Alan acetates, right?  While I'm hoping for some new sections we haven't heard, I think the mix will be just a rearrangement of sections we already know - and if the acetates have the same mix Mike played the reporter in June, it will resemble the Smiley/45 version more than the cantina version.  If they have the sections on multitrack or mono mixdown form, then they will likely reassemble the "new" mix from the original tapes - if not, the acetate would likely appear on discs 2-4.

Eight track copies of Barnyard (with animal noises and without) are on the Desper comp reels.  So yes, we will get this from tape - it's not clear when they transferred the tapes how many tracks they left on the comp reel for "overdubs" but I would hope that a stereo mix could be created from that.

Old Master Painter/Sunshine - after the GV box set was released there was an interview with Mark in ICE (remember that mag?) where he said they had recently (after the box set) found a better quality source for this song - so I am hopeful we will get the track with Denny's vocals and the original Barnshine fade with vocals.

That's exactly what I've been thinking as well.  For as much as Brian tinkered with that track, and as many sections as he recorded, there's no way he only made 2 mixes of the thing - at the very least, there has to have been some test mix done in 1966, which I think would be the most interesting to hear out of any possible new mix.

I know what you're saying from the POV of the man in the street wanting clean copies, but I suspect from most of our POVs there's no such thing as unreleasable quality when it comes to SMiLE material.

If they put out a box set of cruddy unique-to-acetate mixes I suspect a lot of people here would bite their hands off.  I'm already queuing.

 

"Brian Wilson wasn't hiding information, or what the sequence would be from anyone during 1966/1967," Priore says. "He was quite lucid not only with talk on the session tapes, but in Pop magazine interviews, private conversation with the musicians, with notation on tape boxes and so on. Alan Boyd has, since the release of "Brian Wilson Presents SMiLE" (the 2004 Brian Wilson release that featured the 'finished' album) really gotten into the science behind this kind of detail, with complete access to the Beach Boys' tape archive. Mark Linett has been properly cataloging 'SMiLE' tapes since at least 1987; I met him that year at Brian's session for "Rio Grande," when he played for me the first part of what would have been the original 'Heroes and Villains' single, with the 'cantina' section."

Rereading this article, particularly the section above, it seems to me Mark and Alan have really been trying to work out Brian's original intentions as much as possible. The article implies that there are a lot of clues in session tapes and contemporary interviews. From the 1000s of threads devoted to piecing smile together here I would say the opposite is true. How many clues about the original sequence do we know of? Outside the handwritten tracklist and the 'our Prayer as opener' I can think of very few. Even trying to work out what Brian planned to do with Great Shape leaves us all scratching our heads . Let's hope they've found a lot of info that is new to us. I wonder also if "private conversation with the musicians' have reaped a few choice nuggets that we wouldn't be privee to.

Of course there may be a fair bit of spin in the above article. Also, on the one hand Dom is suggesting they've found answers to Brian's original intentions, but that those answers point towards decisions brian made for BWPS such as putting SU in the middle. That definitely sounds like spin, but I guess it could be possible that Brian planned it that way originally.

It certainly looks promising that Mark and Alan are going to every effort to investigate what Brian's original plans were. Presumably they'll match this info with some of the sequencing of BWPS and we will get a hybrid Smile with a personality quite distinct from the 04 piece. I do hope there are some vintage sequencing ideas within tracks that distinguish it from BWPS, however much I love that album.

Dom makes it sound like it's easy peasy and was all mapped out from the start! Gotta question that a bit, but perhaps they know more than we think they know.

I think I would be happy with a new mix done by Mark if there was evidence from BW, session chatter etc that it was intended in ^^ or it is a reconstruction of an acetate

That would be very acceptable

Yeah you are right - now what would be cool is if they got all the acetates and then cleaned them up or reconstructed the mixes and stuck em all on vinyl - so we could have our own DP acetates

I'm not so sure that Wind Chimes will be just the box set version. Actually that would surprise me. On BWPS, the famous "blueprint", they follow the earlier recorded version of Wind Chimes. Actually only the arrangement for the first section is used from the box set version.

It will be very interesting if they will use a H&V version with the Bicycle Rider theme in it. The cantina version for sure doesn't have it.

I wonder where 'He Gives Speeches' fits in. And what about 'Way too long' which is on Linett's 1988 tape?

I don't think way too long dates before wild Honey though, so I doubt it'll be on there.

Alan has made it clear in posts on this board that he is VERy interested in the evolution of Heroes and Villains and the alternate mixes that Brian assembled - he shared with us the cryptic notes on the tape box that the safety copy of the cantina mix was in!  He really wants to solve some of the mysteries around this track and after the tape search and now the acetates becoming available, I am confident we are going to hear some new vintage mixes that will give us lots to talk about in the months following the box set release.

Can't Wait Too Long dates from sessions in November 1967 and April-May 1968.

Interestingly enough-Bruce told a reporter in Albuquerque on July 15 1968 that "Can't Wait Too Long" would be the BB's next single.  An interesting might have been-clearly the release of that single in July 1968 would have been a critical event-it really has all that Brian dynamism that was fading at that point and would have been greeted as a return to form.  In my opinion it is the best unreleased Brian song of the late 60s.  If it had been completed-it would have been an awesome single-less retro than "Do It Again."

And the November 67 version of 'Can't Wait too Long' (or 'Way too long' which it's called on the Linett tapes) is quite different from the released version, definitely more Smile'esque than the WH version.
I have a strong feeling we'll get it on the box set, but not sure it'll be on - lack of a better word - the "ultimate" version (Disc 1 or whatever).

I seriously hope you're right. It would be fantastic if we get a version of Smile that contains some previously unheard vintage edits, even if it's a case of Mark reconstructing H&V to match a version from one of the BB's acetates as you suggest. Amazing if they can reconstruct OMP + Barnshine too, although if they go down this route, how will they reconcile these edits with the overall sequence of BWPS which they're obviously using as a guideline?

Can't wait for a tracklist so we can get a better sense of the approach they'll be taking with this.

The title of the release is The Smile Sessions - not The Smile (And A Bit Of Wild Honey) Sessions.

BTW, the November (and October) 1967 recording of "CWTL" is the Wild Honey version. The released 5.34 version of "CWTL" on the Smiley Smile/Wild Honey 2fer comprises both the 1968 and 1967 recordings.

No need to get cheeky Andrew - I am well aware of the title of the boxset.
I didn't realize that the November version was the WH version - the version I am talking about is the one found on the Mark Linett 1988 Smile tape ("Way too long"), and I presume this one was in fact a part of Smile, since it was on that tape.

That version too is from the Wild Honey sessions although it does sound smile era.

You're right - did some bad research here. I do still wonder why it was on the Linett-tape, maybe he wanted to include it as a bonus track or something (Linett that is).

Again, I don't think that Linett is using the word blueprint in the way that you're suggesting here.

Back in 1988 it wasn't known to be a November 1967/April-May 1968 outtake. Hence the confusion. Research has proven otherwise. There should be nothing left to the imagination. It's on paper. Documented. Period. End of story.

Cool. Excellent. Did not know that. Thanks. Stop. ;)

Only when your facts are right shall I stop.  ;)

Oh, that was just a reference to the good old Telegraph, please continue laying the facts on me - perhaps no need to do it as a telegram, but nevertheless ;)

Historical integrity is huge, in my opinion, when it comes to the Smile box set. BWPS is just not '67 Smile. BWPS was an amazing gift to be given, but we are talking about BW and VDP in 2004 vs. BW and VDP at the very height of their creative powers in '66/'67. I think it would be a big mistake to use BWPS as a template. There are a number of historical inaccuracies. What BWSP is, essentially, is a live show that was put on disc, which collected the legends of Smile together and used them to help finish the album.

Look at the session logs. Half of Smile was pretty much dead by February 1967. Surf's Up was gone, Cabinessence was gone, Do You Like Worms was gone, The Elements were gone. Pretty much all that remained was Wonderful, H&V, and a revamped version of Vegetables. Smile with out Surf's Up is not Smile. BW appears to have been working with some kind of modified vision for the project post-2/67--a vision that comes pretty close to the track list of Smiley Smile. For whatever reason after Jan/Feb 1967 a big chunk of Smile was off the table, having been vetoed by either the band or BW or a combo of both. There is a middle era between the death of the "classic" notion of Smile and the beginning of Smiley Smile sessions in June. I think this stuff does belong on the box set, but I think it needs to be presented in it's proper context as a post-Smile re-use of Smile tracks, just as Smiley Smile is. Really, a box set called "The Smile Sessions" should include everything from post-Pet Sounds GV until the end of the Smiley Smile sessions. That is the real span of the era of music making. But still, I think it is important to any attempt to assemble a "zombie-Smile", to not use post March '67 tracks. The phase ends with BW's "finishing" H&V in early March.

This fact, and other modern additions to the concept make BWPS a great Smile tribute, but decidedly NOT Smile.

I Love to Say Da Da probably wasn't even a Smile track. Sure there is the Jan '67 demo called "All Day", but I'm not convinced. The H&V intro wouldn't have been the intro to "Mrs. O'Leary's Cow". We've established on this message board that the H&V intro was recorded long after "Fire" was scrapped. Taking H&V intro onto "Fire" was David Leef's idea. There is some decent evidence, especially from Vosse, that "Surf's Up" would have been the last track on the album. There is also some decent evidence, coming even from BW himself, that "Wind Chimes" wasn't the "Air" section of the Elements (though I admit with the level of disinformation BW has given over the years, I really don't know what to think about this). There is also an inference that can be made that the "Water" section of the Elements was actually going to involve a whole lot of recordings of water itself (again see the Vosse interview in Fusion mag.). GV would have most certainly had the Mike Love lyrics, and it would be a decent guess to say that GV would have either ended side one (alla "Sloop John B") or started side two (as it did on Smiley Smile). Holidays, if it would have made the cut at all, probably wouldn't have had words. "Look"/"Song for Children" has a shakey case for making the album at all. The order and relationship between OMP, Barnyard, My Only Sunshine, I'm In Great Shape, Woodshop, the outtake we call Barnshine, and the song Vegetables is not fully clear or understood. The Elements and the "Barnyard suite" seem to be related in a web of associations that may have never been fully realized, even in late 1966. Plus, just to get nit-picky, the instrumental crossfades in BWPS wouldn't have been there in 1967.

I think if you want to know what Smile '67 would have flowed like, take a look at Frank Zappa's We're Only in it for the Money and Lumpy Gravy albums. Both those albums contain a big (and pretty unacknowledged BW influence), and I think with the skits BW was recording and his descriptions of 'talking in between tracks", that these Frank Zappa records give us a glimpse into the all-important context of the era and the LA scene.

So I would urge the makers of the box set to follow the historical facts, even if they lead to more questions than answers. Smile is a labyrinth after all. I could go on forever (maybe I just did).

^Agreed completely, and an excellent overview.  A few random musings:

-- I would venture a guess that "Holidays" and "Look" were both gone by the end of '66, even before the project became a search for the next single.  I think they were things that Brian just sorta threw against the wall to see if they stuck, and after the initial enthusiasm of recording them, he re-assessed and decided they weren't strong enough.

-- I agree about the Water element.  "Water Chant" notwithstanding, I think that had he continued to work on "The Elements," Brian would have made something of Vosse's extensive work recording various water sounds.  As innovative as "Mrs. O'Leary's Cow" is from a sound perspective, I think Brian would have attempted similarly innovative techniques for the remaining elements.

-- "DaDa" has always been a big mystery for me.  As you say, by early '67 Brian's approach to the project had changed dramatically, and he was essentially only focused on finding and finishing the next single.  I'd consider March (or April, which might be a stretch) a reasonable estimate of when Smile as an album was dead to Brian.  The question then becomes: once the album is no longer an option, where did Brian's focus get diverted to, and how does that lead him to recording "DaDa" (under Smile's project number, no less)?  We know he continued to tinker with "Heroes," but to what end did he record "DaDa"?  Another possibility for the next single?  Just for kicks?  For the next project (whatever his idea of that was at the time)? 

- I really hope that the upcoming box set gives us some more clues as to the relationship between "Old Master Painter," "You Were My Sunshine," "I'm In Great Shape," "Barnyard" and "I Wanna Be Around/Friday Night." Obviously they probably aren't all linked (and we know that at least 3 of these titles were, at one point or another, tied in with "Heroes and Villains"), but I feel like there had to have been more ties among these tracks than we know about right now.  Brian didn't record things for no reason, and it's highly unlikely that they would have been used on their own a la BWPS.

Good, valid points.

However I think we have to accept that disc 1 will be not so much try to replicate a realistic snapshot of what form a finished Smile may have taken at any point in 66/67. That would result in a lot of the best material being left on the cutting room floor as your post above identifies. The purpose of disc 1 (as far as I know)  is to present the best material from the sessions as a playable album and as such I see its intention mirrors the original aim of BWPS very closely.

Hopefully, they take a historical approach to certain tracks where the evidence is there, e.g. they may try to reconstruct a H&V based on any acetate discoveries that have been made (or just use the Cantina mix). Where there is no solid evidence they may defer to BWPS as the 'next best thing'. Of course this is all conjecture, and they may well do something entirely different, but my point is an entirely historically sound Smile is just not possible as there are too many blanks. Hopefully they don't just mould it on BWPS but mix the two approaches.

Thank you for this opportunity for arguing!  ;D


Yeah, you see, the problem is just that there IS NO 1967 SMiLE. BWPS is about decisions being taken that Brian "at the height of his creativity" was unable to take. A 1967 SMiLE might just as well have featured the Rock Me Henry version of Wonderful, would you have wanted that? I think it was a wise decision to stick to the box set version of Wonderful, just as I think it was a good decision to do Wind Chimes like they did and not have Surf's Up as the closer. There are lots of decisions that I don't like that much, too, like using the Asher GV lyrics, but it's the only SMiLE with definite decisions about what to use that there is. Creators' decisions too!


Actually, trying to do a "definite complete as possible 66/67 version of SMiLE" is as historically inaccurate as you can get.


I'm totally with you there. Actually I'm wondering if using the BR theme as H&V chorus meant that DYLW was scrapped even at that early stage - instead of using it in both songs like on BWPS.


Yes, that's just a guess. The single from "Party" was last on side two, so why not put GV there? (Yes I know, "Barbara Ann" wasn't meant to be a single, and it was Capitol's decision to make it one after the album had been delivered...) Makes a better closer to me than Surf's Up no matter what Vosse says.


That would mean not to release it at all!  :-D
Well, at least not to "complete" a "1966/67 version", cause there just isn't one.

Actually, I'm not suggesting how he uses that word at all, and I was naive enough to think that calling it "the famous blueprint" would make the irony clear in how I used the word myself.  :)

Apparently releasing "BA" was Brian's idea. I know...

You aren't being serious are you? That would kinda throw the whole Capitol trying to ruin "The Little Girl I Once Knew" theory into a bit of confusion.

Read it in someone's memoir of the period, and it was very precise & detailed.

OK, well, then, I'm confused. Why are you "not so sure that Wind Chimes will be just the box set version"?

One really big reason would be to include something previously unreleased on the first disc giving that disc greater appeal. Then the assembly heard on the GV box set can be relegated to an alternate edit on the second disc. Since I believe the GV box set version was edited together by Mark anyway (although the segments were included in that order on a tape reel with leader inbetween, right?), it's not like an official Brian edit/mix is being replaced  with something new. Arguably, following the BWPS edit of "Wind Chimes" would be honoring Brian's wishes as much as the GV box set version.

Yes, Ken Mansfield's book.

Very cool story of Brian walking into Capitol with an acetate of Barbara Ann and declaring to a skeptical Mansfield that the song would be the BBs' next single.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Je7C3JHRs7UC&lpg=PA17&ots=sTxlHMPVW5&dq=%22ken%20mansfield%22%20%22barbara%20ann%22&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false

Bless you. Memo to self - start writing this sh*t down.

Because that version always seemed incomplete to me. When I first heard it I remember thinking "That's all?" Later someone supplied me with mp3s from the SOT series featuring session excerpts which had a complete instrumental take "5" from an early session which I liked better. It went: 2 verses - chorus - tinkly bit - chorus - another instrumental bit - ending chorus.

The box set version, if I remember correctly, was mixed from a tape that contained a re-recorded verse section (chopped off about 1/8 of a bar too early) with Carl's lead, a chorus from the first session (astonishingly one with a clarinet mistake) with vocal overdubs, and a re-recorded tinkly bit. As the other three sections weren't copied onto that tape, the tinkly bit was mixed as a fade for the box set. No one can tell whether the last three sections would have been added by Brian had he done a final mix in 1966/67 or not.

The BWPS version contains all 6 sections from the early take as opposed to the box set version that only contains the first three. The arrangement for the first section on BWPS follows the one on the box set. So it wouldn't surprise me if they created a new version with all six sections from the old tapes - you don't even need digital technology to do that, you could cut it on a tape recorder.

I wonder how long the tinkly bit would be in that case. In the original recording it's 4 run-throughs, the re-recorded tinkly bit has 6 complete run-throughs, and on BWPS it's only 2.

Since Brian rerecorded the verse section, and the fade/multiple pianos bit, that means the original take 5 would no longer have been in consideration for the final master.  the multiple pianos redone section is too long to take the place of the original section, and certainly sounds like a fade.  But I see your point - since we don't have a final mix, just the multitrack edit with the counting inbetween two sections, we don't know what Brian would have done with those in a final mix.  The fact that he used the original chorus backing and overdubbed it, then edited it into the two new pieces, suggests that he wasn't going to use the original ending chorus or instrumental break section - because why not edit those in while you're editing in the chorus for overdubs?  But we don't know what he would have done further with the song if he had completed it.  I wonder if Bruce or Alan had a Wind chimes acetate with the Vosse described mix - that would be interesting to hear.   

I'm pretty glad about that, because I'm not a native English speaker and it took me quite some time to write that post.  ;D

There's one thing about your post though that I don't understand, which may be due to my English or a misapprehension of mine about that tape we're talking about:


Could you be so kind and try to explain me a bit more detailed what you mean by that?

That piece of tape is so strange anyway. The first section is chopped off too early and still got vocals overdubbed, the second section (chorus) is counted in twice, and they even try to overdub on the counting in as if they were hearing it for the first time, a chorus take was used that featured a mistake. Was that done for practising purposes only?

Hi fellows. I am sorry but I have a silly and naïve question asked a million time maybe, but I never understood why 'Good Vibrations' is always added into the SMiLE album (SMiLE fan mixes and bootlegs); according to all the sources I read through the years and answer given by Brian himself in an interview, GV never intended to be part of SMiLE. I always read it was the 'link' between "Pet Sounds" and "SMiLE"; started during Pet Sounds sessions, achieved in the beginning of the SMiLE sessions. I can't see myself anything in common between GV and SMiLE.

Capitol would have most likely insisted on its presence due to it being the big single at the time, and it not belonging on any album prior, much like Sloop John B in relation to PS.  It ended up on Smiley Smile, after all, where it actually does sound out of place!

Maybe just google a bit for the Smile back cover and you'll see at least one thing in common

Yeah, it's fine to leave it off if you're doing a personal mix or "as Brian intended". If you're trying to put out an "as it would have been released in 66/67", than it's tougher to justify. I imagine a lot of people put it on because 1) there's not an overabundance of completed material for SMiLE, so it helps fill it out 2) it does have a lot in common in terms of modular production style, and musical themes 3) they like it.

???  Are you talking about BWPS or the original cancelled and never released album? if you are talking about the 1966's cancelled project, there is no definitive back cover. Only speculation and tracklist signed by Carl.

Good point.  modular production very similar on GV and H&V. A giant puzzle of short musical pieces.

How about the Good Vibrations X3 across the front of the album cover? That tells me that whether by design or by Capitol, it was to be included. Welcome!

Ahh Grasshopper, you see not the cancellation  makes it the definitive back cover? 
and then flip the cover as drbeachboy has so grandly pointed out and find GV X 3
just go with the power of the schwartz and you'll be fine

Maybe it was to be included or not, who knows. Same with "Sloop John B" on Pet Sounds. Not intended to be included, but asked/forced by Capitol.
You know, I was just asking/wondering/waiting for opinions. And I am just agree with Brian and others, about "GV" was the perfect link between Pet Sounds and SMiLE. It makes perfect sense. The greatest song/production/piece of art, before the greatest album of all time.

Wrong. Brian's handwritten Pet Sounds tracklist included Sloop John B. You were saying?

Ahh Grasshopper, you see not the cancellation  makes it the definitive back cover? 
and then flip the cover as drbeachboy has so grandly pointed out and find GV X 3
just go with the power of the schwartz and you'll be fine
[/quote]
You miss the point young pal. The fact that GV was printed on the front and back cover, doesn't mean Brian and Van Dyke wanted to add the song into the album.
See 'Sloop John B' and Brian interviews. And instead of argue, you can just tell me what do you think? take a deep breath and relax :hat

That wasn't Brian's handwriting. Probably Carl's or Diane's, or....oh, Pet Sounds.  :)

The foder?

Hi. Never seen Brian's handwritten Pet Sounds tracklist. Only read and heard Brian explained why 'SJB' appears on Pet Sounds.
Because of Capitol asked for a potential hit and they thought 'SJB' could be the hit, among weird and non top selling songs.
Plus 'Sloop John B' has nothing in common with the Pet Sounds concept album Brian and Tony intented to create. No link with personal, intimate, melancholy, loss, all themes Brian wanted to express.

Brian disagreed with you. It's ok. More power to us and God help us all for thinking for ourselves and all that jazz. :)

Hee heeeeeee!  Bgas is scorched!!  ;D

just thinking about this in a different way.  But what if brian wrote that after capitol asked for it to be on there

ahah... not what Brian told me!? Anyway tell him I love hiM! He's still a genius.

I'm not sure if it was a handwritten list, but there's a memo from Brian to Capitol detailing tracks to be included on Pet Sounds and Sloop John B is among them and this was before SJB was released as a single.  In fact, I think it was early enough in the process that Let's Go Away For Awhile was still titled The Old Man And The Baby, I could be wrong on that, though.

As far as I know, Brian has always said that Sloop... was intended to be on Pet Sounds. It truly amazes how a myth refuses to die.

It doesn't fit with the "tragic hero" figure that people (read: Brianistas) have built Brian up to be...the guy who encountered innumerable obstacles in the forms of his overbearing father, the record company who stood between him and dominance of pop music, the Beatles, the vindictive, conniving bald-headed cousin Michael Love (the guy who drove him to take drugs), the greedy, manipulative Svengali therapist Eugene Landy, the drugs, the mind gangsters, the booze, his left nut, his right nut, the Russians...

Ha HA!!!!  Wrong again Mikie......You miss the point young pal. The fact that GV was printed on the front and back cover, doesn't mean Brian and Van Dyke wanted to add the song into the album.
See 'Sloop John B' and Brian interviews. And instead of argue, you can just tell me what do you think? take a deep breath and relax :hat
[/quote]

Thanxx for that,  sonny. Let's check the Brian interview of the day and see what he has to say about his favorite album, song, tracklist, food, etal ( follow the yellow brick road) 
Follow the yellow brick Road? 
VDP and Brian wanting? Both oif them? Together? deciding what will be on SMiLE?  MAN!! Let me have some of that stuff yer smokin! 

I think it fits great, by the way.  "the Smile you send out returns to you"

People need to be real careful when they intend on carving up Brian's psyche.  The emotional and physical abuse he suffered at the hands of his father alone could've left long lasting scars that really only people who suffered similar abuse at an early age can truly understand.  As for everything else, well there is no doubt that Brian has faced more than his fair share of adversity as an adult but also seemed to have issues dealing with adversity in an adult manner.  That being said carving up his or anyone else's psyche for that matter would be a very sensitive matter and regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, you probably don't have the full story as nobody truly knows what it's like to walk in someone else's shoes.

I am well aware of the points you discuss. I was merely making fun of the issue in which Brianistas will think of anything to defend their belief of Brian as the tragic hero, that of the poor guy always kept down by THE MAN. I did not intend to trivialize the Murry/Landy situations as that was never my reason for posting that.

And honestly, I thought these...


...should have been the dead giveaway that I was joking.

"The Real Beach Boy" Sensitive?  Naaahhhhh

I didn't resonate with what was going on at that time.

The myth that Good Vibrations was not intended to be on Smile dates from interviews with Brian talking about Smiley Smile, not Smile.  And wouldn't we all agree Good Vibrations doesn't really belong on Smiley, where it sticks out like a sore thumb?  But it was on the track list submitted by Brian (written by Diane, his assistant) to Capitol, Capitol made cover artwork and the back sleeve prominently displaying the title.  Is there really any way to argue that it wasn't going to be on Smile?

Maybe the earlier sleeve mock ups without the "Good Vibrations Good Vibrations Good Vibrations" strap might indicate it was added after it hit big. By whom is of course a fine, fine question.

Exactly, and it becomes another myth to add to the one where someone other than a random house artist at Capitol designed the Smile font for some deeper reason than he thought it looked good.

This was a dust-up I had on another board years ago. I still say this: Good Vibrations was written and started during "Pet Sounds" sessions, and was targeted as a single after Brian nearly gave the song away before being convinced by people like Anderle that it could be a great Beach Boys release to keep for himself.

If "Good Vibrations" was quote *meant to be* on Smile all along, would we suggest Brian officially started recording Smile when he tracked Good Vibrations take one in mid-February 1966? His mind was on Pet Sounds at that time, period. It goes to original intent, no matter where the song eventually ended up on an album or project.

There's no way to argue whether it was meant to be on SMiLE from the moment he started it. The only question would be, did Brian plan to include it on the LP? My sense is the tracklist came from Brian, not withstanding it's not in his writing. Others obviously differ. Only one person knows/knew. Whether he really remembers is anyone's guess. Let's hypnotize him( whatever) and see!

I'm not sure original intent is relevant.  Let's Go Away for a While was supposed to get lyrics originally - does that mean Brian was forced to include it unfinished as an instrumental because he was running late delivering the Pet Sounds album?  Of course not. When Brian started GV there was no Smile (or Dumb Angel).  After it was finished and released as a single, AND became successful, there is every indication it was planned to on the album - just as every successful single (and some not so successful) ended up on an album.  Now if the single had tanked - like Little Girl I Once Knew - maybe it would not have been considered for the album.

I'll play Devil's Advocate for this discussion and ask whether original intent is a song-by-song deal, because discussions a few months ago centered on the Fire-H&V Intro track. As it appeared on BWPS they were joined, and that was the "Fire" element in that section. Yet the argument of original intent was the basis for saying it was a David Leaf creation and not Brian's original intent for the tracks in 1966-67. And thousands of people who didn't own the bootlegs and heard the track for the first time on BWPS now know that track as Fire because that's how it eventually appeared, no matter what Brian's intent would have been.

With Fire and H&V Intro appearing for the first time officially as one track, original intent from 1967 was relevant, but with Good Vibrations it's not?

How about this article from 1966:

New Musical Express,   No. 1036,     18 November 1966

"Meanwhile ... what's Brian doing back at base?"
HOLLYWOOD, Tracy Thomas
While the Beach Boys are rocking Europe, BB-mastermind Brian Wilson, has not been resting on his and their laurels !
This week Brian’s working on the next Beach Boys’ single, another adventure in pop music called “Heroes And Villians,”…

Brian’s also working simultaneously on the next BB album, now entitled “Smile.”
“This LP will include ‘Good Vibrations’ and ‘Heroes And Villains’ and ten other tracks,” says Brian…

November 1966, sure, no doubt it would be on the next album because Good Vibrations had already been released as a single by the time of that article and was becoming a worldwide smash hit song. But when Brian started recording Good Vibrations in Feb '66, was he recording the song for Smile? Unless Tony Asher wrote some Smile lyrics we know nothing about, the answer is no. That was my point: original intent.

"GV" was on the original Pet Sounds tracklist memo of 2/23/66.

That is the ultimate evidence right there in black and white.

Yeah!  If Brian was responsible for that memo. AND if he had seen fit to concentrate his efforts on finishing GV BEFORE he released PS; But he didn't finish it. So then he decided he wanted to put it on SMiLE. 
Don't go getting all PC on us now. Jump back from your DA position before you lose your mind.

Thanks for the info AGD. I thought I had read that somewhere, but couldn't be sure.

Good point. In November 1966, GV (Released in October 10, 1966) was already number one.

Not number one, not until December 10, 1966 according to AGD's site. That week (ending November 18th)  it was number 4, it's first week in the top ten.
But the question was, would Good Vibrations have been a part of the Smile album in '66-'67? According to Brian Wilson in 1966, Good Vibrations was a track on the Smile album.

"Good Vibrations" number one in UK on November 17th and December 4 1966 in USA.

Sorry, it was December 10th in USA.

Wow, talk about apples and oranges.  I think this argument makes it obvious that you're just trollinig.

Do you want me to reply to that sh*t Jeff? Check my posts before calling me a troll, pal. Not cool at all.

I'll determine who the trolls are here, thank you very much. I see no evidence of trolling here, just discussion. Certainly, the affected/offended parties can PM me to plead their respective cases.

I'm not suggesting GV was not to have appeared on Smile at all, I'm suggesting GV was already a hit single in spite of Smile and it was originally recorded during Pet Sounds when Brian was working with Tony Asher and was not part of the Smile concept to the degree other Smile tracks are considered. The debate goes back to when some suggested GV appearing on BWPS was the way it always was to be, and that's simply not true as the Pet Sounds memo from 2/66 proves.

Nothing to plead here, just I don't care for this guy calling me a troll, as it's unwelcome and unwarranted in light of my history of posts in the past year or so. Discussion is discussion.

Exactly what I had in mind when I started to talk about GV and SMiLE.

The issue with this board is that if an opinion isn't 100% in agreement with the Brian Wilson-fellating majority (affectionately and collectively known as Brianistas) the poster is considered to be trolling the board. Trust me, I've been there. It's one thing to post utter gobbledegook and be a troll and another to post worthy, if even controversial discussion and be a troll because some misty-eyed Brianista doesn't agree with the opinion.

I seriously think we need to have a troll challenge...if you think someone else is trolling, report it to the mods. If the mods find no evidence of any trolling, you (the one reporting the alleged trolling) are banned. How's that? Everyone wins!

I heard Mike Love wrote Smile, any truth to this? Pretty sure he did.

TROLL!

I really don't see why GV being a hit already, discounts it IN YOUR MIND from being an integral part of Smile.
If you check all the recording dates for GV: http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs66.html    you'll see that the first one, as "Untitled" was only a week before the memo date, and there were only two more before PS was released; the bulk of the sessions happened AFTER the PS release and in the midst of the Smile recordings( but you know that)
So, again, I'll say Brian's intent was to include it on SMiLE.  

Yeah, Brian Wilson would be pumping gas if wasn't for Mike Love!

The California Sound...the Beach Boy sound...the Sound Of Success...THE MIKE LOVE SOUND!

And remember, "don't fck with the formula, never". ;)

Some brilliant and profound quotes from the head master Mike Love.

"The problem with popularity is that if it gets too popular everybody leaves and goes somewhere else."
Mike Love, 1975

"I am always thinking of those kinds of things when I am writing a lyric--same as I did with 'Kokomo', which was No. 1 in 1988, whereas Brian's solo album came out and didn't have one hit record on it."
Mike Love, 1993

"And one of the greatest things that interested me was that he (the Maharishi) said 'You don't have to give up your Rolls Royce...and forsake all your pursuits of material pleasures...to develop innerspiritual qualities'. That sounded real good to me."
Mike Love, 1968

Wisdom words to meditate... ;D

This really seems beyond the pale to me.

Number one, the post is homophobic. Calling BW fans Brian-fellating is calling them gay -- as a slur. It's not appropriate.

Number two, if pro-Mike sentiment is really so frowned upon, what board have I been reading for the past year? There certainly has been no shortage of Darian-Scott Totten (really?!) analogies, attacks on Van Dyke and insistence that Mike really, sincerely wanted Smile to come out -- his own words and actions of the past 40 years notwithstanding. Let's not even get into the spirited defenses of Mike's subpar TV appearances and relentless shredding of Brian's.

This board has seen the slow defection of many people who are mainly Brian fans, and the ascendance of others who feel the BBs and BW are best understood and appreciated as a band. At that's okay. But to ignore that this shift has happened -- and insist that Mike fans, etc., are still being persecuted by some nefarious cabal of Brianistas -- is to ignore reality.

Dude...you are reading WAY too much into that post. I am by no means even implying that anyone is gay, nor am I even attempting to display any kind of homophobia. And I've used the phrase so many times with no similar response, so the current response to my post comes off as grossly reactionary.

I mean, come on now. That's ridiculous. And I am leaving this topic at that because I am not about to get into any kind of debate about anyone's sexuality on here. It's none of my or anyone else's business AND it's for PMs only.

Can't we just all compromise that Brian and Mike are  both important to the music success story known as the Beach Boys. Before the offstage craziness consumed both of them, they were just two cousins wanting to perform in band and make music. That music turned out in the long run as the greatest music ever written. So lets just raise a glass and appreciate the three brothers, cousin, and a friend from Hawthorne California.

I'll drink to that. I have ever since I became a fan.

Ummm...it's a figure of speech. He's not saying they are literally providing Brian with oral gratification -_-

Can't we all agree that Mike is a dick, and that's exactly why we love him

OK, OK, I continue to take issue with the post I complained about, but I will keep that to myself, and will concede that most of that poster's posts are quite a bit better.  In the meantime, I would ask that no banning take place at least until after the Smile set is released (which I guess in Phil Cohen's world would mean I never have anything to worry about). 

We might not make it that far!  :lol

Song by song is difficult to determine mainly because the edits are not done. How would the recorded pieces be edited? I don't think the original intent is important as the final result. There are interchangeable sections in the music and some edits of the original recordings could have been repeated more than once in different places in the entire structure. The 2004 Fire is different than the '66 Fire but is still a functioning piece of music where it is even if it was meant to appear somewhere else. I think original intent is based more on what story you want to tell. Good Vibrations potentially could have been dropped from SMiLE, as well, even after it was decided to go on the record. I remember George Martin saying he was pressured to release a single prior to Sgt Pepper. Even after all the years passed and all the accolades, he still believed that Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane should have been on Pepper and not released as a single. Let's say Pepper was never released and put it in SMiLE's shoes. For years, tapes turn up and it's in bits and pieces and all that. In 2004, a version is presented by Paul including Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, and Only a Northern Song... and eventually a version with the original recordings. I wouldn't mind the three extra songs and I would expect the 2004 track listing, no matter the original intention. As far as the late additions, transitions and such, there are workarounds... just replace that stuff with something else and adjust the editing in those spots, but leave the 2004 story intact.

Brian has many female fans. Your point is at best 50% valid.

That was a joke, of course, in response to a mild over-reaction.  Within the confines of this board, the point was understood as intended.

It was common practice in 1966-67 for record companies in the US more than the UK to build albums around a single - whatever single was the current "hot" single for any given artist would usually have been used as the driving force to market and sell the album. Everyone pretty much knows that from their own album collections and their own knowledge of their favorite bands and can point to at least a few examples where this was the case.

So again I'll say the fact that Good Vibrations was the current "hot" single for the Beach Boys would have been the driving force of whatever album would have been next in line for release. In Jan 1967 that was Smile, in summer 1967 that was Smiley Smile but that album had the more current single "Heroes" as the lead track...yet Good Vibrations by then at least 7 months old and having expired it's top-10 shelf life, was included.

Why was that older single included? To drive sales, and I'd guess they got at least a few thousand more sales from fans who wanted Good Vibrations on an album and the only place to get it was Smiley Smile.

The Beatles did it with the US "Magical Mystery Tour" album: Instead of releasing an EP as they did in the UK with only the film soundtrack songs, Capitol threw together the most recent Beatles singles so US fans could buy them on an album, despite the fact that one single was a year old at the time.

That was Capitol's marketing in 66-67, plain and simple, and for Brian to not have gone along with it would not have made sense, since including the single on your next album equaled more sales and more distribution. Convince record shops to order 250 copies versus 25 copies by saying "Good Vibrations" is on this album! Bingo...more orders come in.

So that is the background as I see it for including "Good Vibrations" on Smile, and then Smile: It was standard procedure and a no-brainer if Capitol and Brian wanted to increase sales.

But this is after GV was re-recorded and released as a hit single, and after it had been recorded ostensibly for inclusion on the Pet Sounds album with Brian's collaborator Tony Asher.

The evidence stacks up: Tony Asher originally wrote the lyrics, not Van Dyke Parks, and the song appears on a tracklist memo for Pet Sounds a week or so after the first recording session in Feb. 1966.

So the genesis of that song was not something which directly led to it being included on Smile or Smiley Smile or even BWPS...and the fact that it was released or almost released in those ways was a byproduct of the way things were released at that time more than Brian creating a song which was always fated to be part of the Smile song cycle: it was nothing more than a Pet Sounds album track which then became the BB's single in fall '66 and ended up on the next Beach Boys album as a sales driver.

I feel like we're arguing about nothing - no one is saying (are they?) that when Brian first started recording GV he meant it to be part of Smile.  We know it was originally to be on Pet Sounds.  If that's what you're arguing, no one is disagreeing.

As far as GV not being part of the Smile sessions, technically there is some overlap (Wind Chimes).  The song changed dramatically from it's initial PS incarnation.  And Brian asked Van Dyke to write lyrics for the song - hmmm, that seems to bring it a little closer to a "Smile era" track, doesn't it?  But again, all this is really irrelevant to the question of whether Brian intended to include GV on Smile - not if he intended to include it in Feb 66 before the Van Dyke Parks collaboration was even an idea in his mind, but if during the preparation of Smile (tracklist, cover prep) Brian meant for it to be included.  And he obviously did.

Maybe it isn't anything specific to the last few pages of this thread, but my point isn't to "argue" anything and instead to say I think Good Vibrations appeared on Smile in spite of what Brian was doing at the time with Smile: It was the current single and not part of a larger grand scheme Brian had in his mind for the song. Naturally the current single goes on the next album as I described a few minutes ago. Good Vibrations had as much to do with Smile as it did with Smiley Smile. There, I said it. :-D

I admit I'm a bit warped sometimes in my thinking, but I'd rather see Good Vibrations considered on its own merits as one of the best singles ever recorded instead of part of Smile, which I think detracts from the uniqueness of both GV the single and Smile the album project.

You're losing me now; first, everything was about intent. now it's about condsidering GV on it's own merits.  Really, I haven't seen anyone challenging it's merits.
Maybe you need to step back and think. Intent is gone, passe.
Let's talk about something else

Jesus dude!!....do you yak and yak just for the sake of yaking?
Give it a little rest...Please!

Best first post ever. Coming out to say shut up.  :lol

First post or someone hiding behind another name? Give me a fucking break.

If I "yak" too much on this board than I'll consider myself in damned good company. :)

Keep on yaking! Personally, I enjoy your posts and you know your stuff.

Thank you Dr.! That was nice to read. I get carried away sometimes, no doubt.  :)

It will be interesting to see who this "RagingSea" really is or was back in 2006...and if "RagingSea" doesn't like what I have to say, don't read it, simple as that. I see smoke being blown all over certain topics but I stay out of it before telling someone else to shut up, especially if I've contributed nothing at all to the discussion onto which the smoke is being blown. :smokin

Ditto. Isn't yaking kind of the point of a message board?  :3d

For all of you who are bitching about yakking -

"...with regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards." - Noam Chomsky

Indeed!

I think Good Vibrations fits perfectly within the rest of Smile musically. The only thing that doesn't fit is the lyrics.

GV fits musically very much with earlier tracks such as Wind Chimes, Look, Wonderful. These all feel like a development of his Pet Sounds style. LTSDada, Great Shape, Barnyard, cabinessence and Worms feel more of a precursor of the 67/68 albums to my ears. I think Smile is a real transition period stylistically for Brian, but I guess that's obvious when you listen to how different PS and Smiley sound!

I agree with guitarfool that GV really doesn't belong on Smile, for all the reasons he suggested, and because musically, sonically, emotionally, lyrically its so at odds with most Smile. Smile is by turn either quite dark or quite frivolous or juvenile, and GV is a piece of pure, accessible pop. I've always thought of GV as a piece of music that exists in and of itself with no ties to any other BB project. It was a single, and that's it. It's always kinda bugged me that it got attached to Smile, and I'm glad to hear people questioning that here on the board. 

I think it ties in with SMiLE because it was the beginning of how Brian decided to record things in sections. GV was the blueprint of how he was going to work on the next album.

Agree. Musically at least one of its themes is echoed in another SMiLE piece but lyrically it has more to do with the likes of "Little Miss America".  If only VDP had agreed to write fresh lyrics…  maybe for the Deluxe 10th anniversary edition of BWPS…?

In the 'Bible', (maybe full of mistakes?) (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n178/micky_040/515ajoPeAgL_SL500_AA300_.jpg) the original proposed artwork for SMiLE album looks like that, with no mention of Good Vibration. (http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n178/micky_040/BBxsmileFrs.jpg)

Maybe it was only a first draft?

There are several variations of the Smile front cover....some of which have Good Vibrations under the Smile logo, and some that don`t...None of them is the "actual cover."

Smile Brian - I'll raise a glass to your best post!  :beer

Mr Skeleton, say hello to Miss Closet. :)

whatever....

 :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Still laughing.
 :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

I dont hold it against him. Its really infuriating being on here sometimes. I wanna like both, but the fanatical obsession of some to deflect all criticism against Mike at all costs is really alienating. It actually has the opposite intended effect and pushes people away from him. Thats whats happened to me--I still maintain that I dont hate the guy, but hearing some people talk youd think he was a saint and that causes me to have to step in and say "now wait a minute guys, dont forget xyz" A good example, since I recently discovered it and this is a SMiLE thread, is the whole "Mike killed SMiLE" thing. Because of Beautiful Dreamer, some older books and the internet, there's a persistent myth that Mike actively sabotaged SMiLE. Now we have people here defending him to the 11th degree, going "no he didnt--in fact, all he did was innocently ask about CE the one time." But then you read Vosse, Anderle and other firsthand accounts, and its undeniable that YES, in fact Mike was very hostile to the new music. So much so that Brian is said to have dreaded working with them in the studio at the time, because he knew hed have another fight awaiting him. Those same sources tho, also mention VDP and Brian fighting, and the myriad of other reasons we all know of why it wasnt finished. But the point is, while Mike certainly didnt kill SMiLE, this apologism is taking things too far in the other direction and just as historically inaccurate. The truth is in the middle; he fought against the music but that was only one of many contributing factors to the collapse. And this is just one example, same principle applies to a lot of other things.

By having to point this out so much, a lot of us end up looking like the haters we're accused of being. But we're not--just trying to get as accurate a picture as possible. No one's 100% perfect in the story, not even Brian, so its weird this whole blowback against criticism of Mike and it would drive anyone to want to bash him just out of frustration.