Title: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: harrisonjon on November 14, 2011, 09:26:26 AM Presumably the target was to squeeze it into 45 minutes or so, to preserve sound quality on a single LP. Would a 19 track LP have permitted that?
Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: Roger Ryan on November 14, 2011, 10:17:37 AM Presumably the target was to squeeze it into 45 minutes or so, to preserve sound quality on a single LP. Would a 19 track LP have permitted that? It depends how long those 19 tracks are! Dylan was releasing 50 minute albums in '65, so it would have been possible to put everything included in the TSS "album" construction on two side of vinyl, but not likely. At the same time, I don't understand why some have claimed SMiLE would only have been a 30 minute album or less, especially since PET SOUNDS is 36 minutes in length. If you take off "Holidays", "Look" and, maybe, "I Love To Say Dada", the remainder would fit fine onto a single vinyl album with little compromise of the sound. Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: grooveblaster on November 14, 2011, 10:41:01 AM Last week I did a quick calculation of the 12 songs listed on the original cover and using the versions from TSS, if I remember right, it came to about 38 minutes.
Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: SBonilla on November 14, 2011, 11:14:45 AM Last week I did a quick calculation of the 12 songs listed on the original cover and using the versions from TSS, if I remember right, it came to about 38 minutes. I think Smile would have been under 40 minutes. Recording contracts define an album as having to contain a minimum number of songs/recordings totalling a minimum amount of time (typically around thirty seven and a half minutes; that time requirement may have been less in 1967, but not by much). I think Capitol would have balked at having more than 12 titles on a single album. Had there been more, Capitol would have had to pay out more mechanical royalties than normal. The way around this could have been to list/combine some songs as medleys (I Wanna Be Around/Workshop, for instance) and others to be grouped into a suite or suites. The combined songs would have had to share in (split) the mechanical royalties (mechanicals go to the publisher). Capitol would have been OK with that. I'm sure it didn't matter how many songs Brian put on the album as long as Capitol only had to pay for twelve. Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: runnersdialzero on November 14, 2011, 11:15:57 AM 40:01
Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: Curtis Leon on November 15, 2011, 07:36:24 AM No way to know, as Heroes and Villains was never quantified for a Smile release, the Elements was never recorded fully (no other elements besides Fire, Dada is debatable though the main work on it was after any January release was possible. The Water Chant definitely isn't).
Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: drbeachboy on November 15, 2011, 08:28:39 AM Last week I did a quick calculation of the 12 songs listed on the original cover and using the versions from TSS, if I remember right, it came to about 38 minutes. I think Smile would have been under 40 minutes. Recording contracts define an album as having to contain a minimum number of songs/recordings totalling a minimum amount of time (typically around thirty seven and a half minutes; that time requirement may have been less in 1967, but not by much). I think Capitol would have balked at having more than 12 titles on a single album. Had there been more, Capitol would have had to pay out more mechanical royalties than normal. The way around this could have been to list/combine some songs as medleys (I Wanna Be Around/Workshop, for instance) and others to be grouped into a suite or suites. The combined songs would have had to share in (split) the mechanical royalties (mechanicals go to the publisher). Capitol would have been OK with that. I'm sure it didn't matter how many songs Brian put on the album as long as Capitol only had to pay for twelve. Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: runnersdialzero on November 16, 2011, 03:25:34 PM No way to know, as Heroes and Villains was never quantified for a Smile release, the Elements was never recorded fully (no other elements besides Fire, Dada is debatable though the main work on it was after any January release was possible. The Water Chant definitely isn't). Definitely isn't what? Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: FatherOfTheMan Sr101 on November 16, 2011, 03:28:42 PM Part of SMiLE
Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: drbeachboy on November 16, 2011, 06:03:52 PM Amazing what you can include when you release it 45 years late.
Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: Curtis Leon on November 16, 2011, 06:09:36 PM No way to know, as Heroes and Villains was never quantified for a Smile release, the Elements was never recorded fully (no other elements besides Fire, Dada is debatable though the main work on it was after any January release was possible. The Water Chant definitely isn't). Definitely isn't what? Definitely isn't debatable. There's no possible way Smile would've been released in October/November '67. Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: runnersdialzero on November 16, 2011, 06:19:34 PM Part of SMiLE Just because it was recorded after the supposed "strict" end of the Smile sessions doesn't mean it wasn't written and intended for Smile. It's a friging "water chant" and there was an elements suite in the works for Smile. Coincidence? Doubtful. imo Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: FatherOfTheMan Sr101 on November 16, 2011, 07:57:10 PM Oh, trust me, I believe it was 100% meant for either SMiLE or CCW, but based solely on fact...
Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: runnersdialzero on November 16, 2011, 09:40:32 PM Oh, trust me, I believe it was 100% meant for either SMiLE or CCW, but based solely on fact... I wouldn't say "fact", though. He never abandoned Smile outright, and Smiley Smile is proof enough of that. The idea for "The Elements" etc. were likely not given up on completely then and there. And then there's the Wild Honey take of "Surf's Up", etc... So I wouldn't say it's a fact that it's not part of Smile. imo. imo. imo. Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: Andrew G. Doe on November 16, 2011, 09:55:41 PM And then there's the Wild Honey take of "Surf's Up", etc... Said take was recorded because Brian wanted to hear how his detuned grand piano sounded, no other reason. The truly fascinating question is why he chose to do "Surf's Up"... Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: runnersdialzero on November 16, 2011, 10:06:06 PM And then there's the Wild Honey take of "Surf's Up", etc... Said take was recorded because Brian wanted to hear how his detuned grand piano sounded, no other reason. The truly fascinating question is why he chose to do "Surf's Up"... Well yeah, that's more what I was going for. I wasn't aware that it was recorded for that reason, although certainly didn't think it was a basic track or intended to be finished just based on how it sounds. But yerp - why that song? Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: Micha on November 17, 2011, 03:03:04 AM Last week I did a quick calculation of the 12 songs listed on the original cover and using the versions from TSS, if I remember right, it came to about 38 minutes. I think Smile would have been under 40 minutes. Recording contracts define an album as having to contain a minimum number of songs/recordings totalling a minimum amount of time (typically around thirty seven and a half minutes; that time requirement may have been less in 1967, but not by much). I think Capitol would have balked at having more than 12 titles on a single album. Had there been more, Capitol would have had to pay out more mechanical royalties than normal. The way around this could have been to list/combine some songs as medleys (I Wanna Be Around/Workshop, for instance) and others to be grouped into a suite or suites. The combined songs would have had to share in (split) the mechanical royalties (mechanicals go to the publisher). Capitol would have been OK with that. I'm sure it didn't matter how many songs Brian put on the album as long as Capitol only had to pay for twelve. If the reason for the 12 track limit is author's royalties, then Pet Sounds isn't outside that limit because "Sloop John B." is credited to "trad." - no royalties there. Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: drbeachboy on November 17, 2011, 03:37:50 AM Good point and most likely in this instance.
Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: Reverend Rock on November 28, 2011, 06:43:17 PM 38 to 40 minutes in those times. It was 1967. Sgt. Pepper was considered a long album at 39 minutes. Dylan was still considered outside the mainstream, almost in the same league as folk, jazz or classical, so the extended times on his albums were not considered proper for pop releases. I really don't think Brian himself wanted to put out a longer album than Pet Sounds. I really believe he wanted to whittle SMiLE down to what he would consider a "marketable" length. One thing Brian never took his eyes off of was the state of the record-buying public. He wanted his product to sell. That has been consistant throughout his professional life.
Title: Re: What Would Have Been Smile's Total Running Time? Post by: Micha on November 29, 2011, 10:52:56 PM I think we can't completely rule out a running time between 40 and 50 minutes. After all, Brian was doing unprecedented music, so he might have taken it to an unsprecedented length. And, as was mentioned many times, the Rolling Stones' 1966 Aftermath album runs 52 minutes, which even if you take the 11 minute track off is still longer than Sgt. Pepper's.
|