The Smiley Smile Message Board

I had an interesting listening experience last weekend.  We had a four-hour car trip ahead of us so I threw a bunch of music into a playlist on my iPod for the drive.  I included a lot of stuff from the Beach Boys' "Smiley Smile" through "Holland" period...while the rest of the playlist was made up of some current Indie Rock groups..."Band of Horses", "My Morning Jacket", "Decemberists", "Best Coast" and the like.  I sorted the songs alphabetically so that jumbled them up quite a bit.  The interesting thing was that the Beach Boys tracks (for the most part) fit real well with the modern music.  It's almost like if you were able to pull an LP like "Friends" out-of-time and bring it to 2012 and release it as a modern LP by a modern group that it would be seen in a whole different context.  I think the group and their music from that period would have fit very well into the current crop of popular "indie" bands.  I'm just not sure if that says that TBB were ahead of their time or whether music has just returned to a period where that kind of sound is "in" again.  I'm thinking it's probably a little bit of both.  Still an interesting though, IMO!

Beach boys post-Pet Sounds has a very timeless sound imo. I know many young people who dig Smile, Sunflower, Love You etc.. It really is quite unique and may very well one day compete with the latter output of The Beatles. I think for many young people, the Beach Boys might appear as hip as any modern artist, and more hip than the Beatles (who are still loved by the young crowd)

I think in some regards they're perceived as hipper than the Beatles simply because the Beatles hit 1970 and imploded.  With the exception of the White Album...they really never got back into that organic sound that TBB developed post Smile and which is found throughout today's "hip" indie rock.  I think there is also an attraction because the Beatles are such an obvious choice...while TBB are kind of their odd American cousins.  It's easy to say you're a fan of the Beatles...because nearly everyone would make that same claim.  It's something else to claim you're a fan (or even familiar) with Smiley Smile or Love You!

I think the Beach Boys albums from this period have all aged really well. If I was introducing someone new to the band I'd definitely start with these rather than the earlier stuff. It's a shame this period is STILL really overlooked just because the albums didn't sell well 40+ years ago, even though they're probably, without exaggeration, the greatest run of albums of any band, ever (IMO!).

I agree.  They have aged well...because music has sort of come back around to that sound.  People need to get over the concept that a record has to sell, sell, sell to be successful.  That doesn't mean anything.  I'll admit to looking past this period for too long and concentrating too much on the early 60's stuff...but the everything from Smile Smile through Holland (and Love You) is really rewarding to listen to.  Here is a band still vital and alive and forging new ground.  They didn't conform to what was popular...they stayed true to what their vision was...even if that meant commercial disaster.  It's too bad that after Love You they kind of gave in and started to pander to what they thought their audience wanted.  Really, once Brian stopped caring...and Carl just sort of gave in...and Dennis drifted away in a sea of alcohol they quality went down.  I know, I know...the Wilson Brothers really can only blame themselves for much of their disfunction...but they were the creative spark that drove the band.  Mike is a great frontman and a decent lyricist but he's not groundbreaking.  Once he got creative control that was it.  I think Al would have been content and happy to follow the Wilsons...had they been able to lead...but when it became clear they were not...he threw in his lot with Mike and Bruce.

Getting back to the comments on the Beatles...I completely agree.  Just about everyone would claim to be "a big Beatles fan" but you'd be harder pressed to find someone who is a "huge Beach Boys fan"!  Though we may be smaller in number...I guarantee our passion and knowledge runs deeper!  Don't get me wrong...I love the Beatles...but I no longer buy into the myth of the Beatles as such a perfect musical entity that nobody could ever approach them.  Let's face it...they released their share of filler and downright junk.  Too many people simply consider every release by the band to be absolute gold...total perfection...and that is simply not true.  "Mr. Moonlight", for instance...is a horrible song.  It's badly recorded and performed.  Pure filler.  The guy who opened my eyes is the late Ian MacDonald in his classic "Revolution In the Head" book.  He was the first critic I came across who took an objective look at the Beatles' canon.  He was unafraid to call them out.  They were an incredible band...but to continue to believe the myth that the Beatles are at the top of the pyramid and nobody else has ever been as good is simply ludicrous.  There is no single "greatest band in rock history".

In 1996, the Beach Boys released a single on Sub Pop.

Neither the Beatles, nor the Stones, nor Hendrix, nor Fleetwood Mac, nor the Eagles, nor Englebert Humperdinck, nor Julio Iglesias, nor Coldplay, nor the Dave Matthews band, nor Beyoncé, nor Napoleon XIV, nor Whistlin' Jack Smith, nor Oasis, nor Suzi Quatro, nor Neil Young can make such a claim.

Ladies en gents, I rest my case.

Well put!

"Mr Moonlight" is not only a great song, superbly recorded and performed, with a passionate vocal by Lennon, but it's my favorite of all the covers on that album.

Give me "Mr. Moonlight" over "Come Together" any day!

To each his own, right!  ;)

I agree with every word of this.

They released 'I Just Wasn't Made For These Times' from the PS box as a single on Sub Pop? There is nothing more underground kickass than that!

Imagine if your were able to take TBB and "Pet Sounds" out of time and have the LP released right now.  The Pitchfork crowd would be falling over themselves to be the first to declare how incredible it was.  The public wasn't ready for it in 1966.  I think it went over their heads (at least in the US).  To be fair...perhaps it's also about context.  Looking at it now and considering it in the context of where music was and where it went...it's easy to say, wow...this is incredible and visionary...but I guess it was maybe too sophisticated for the average record buyer in 1966.  

why are you looking for validation for your taste in music from people you don't seem to respect?

It was released in 1966.

People seem to forget Pet Sounds actually made the Top Ten in the US. It's not like it was an unmitigated flop.

I think it's light years away from "a horrible song", admitting too that it is a bit of filler...I guess a better choice would have been titled "'Cassius' Lennon vs. 'Sonny' McCartney?"  :)

Seriously, it does disappoint me to read things like that because it overlooks some neat musical moments that are worth a re-listen and possibly a re-evaluation of the song's ranking as "horrible".

- Play only Lennon's vocal intro, before the band comes in. Then repeat it - it is pretty incredible, and pretty hair-raising too.

- That organ break in the middle...classic Hammond sound, enough of a cha-cha beat to be hip-kitsch and enough overdriven, percussion-laden Hammond mojo to be solid. I really love that sound! Not what is normally on a Beatles record.

- Lennon's lead vocal throughout, can anyone listen to him in the prechoruses and suggest it was badly performed (?), when he's belting out and tearing those words to shreds as he sings "and the night you don't come my way...", it's a vocal on the level of some of his more well-regarded blues-shout vocal performances, that very quality of tearing up the lyrics in a bridge or prechorus that eventually came full circle on Plastic Ono Band and was capped off at the very end of his career with songs like "Just Like Starting Over" and "Nobody Told Me". The fruits of that style were there in '64, and Mr. Moonlight shows more proof of that, just to seat it next to Money or Twist And Shout or Yes It Is or This Boy or Anna (Go To Him)...etc etc etc.

It's not a horrible song, in my opinion, and my somewhat lofty praise for those few elements came from ignoring years of reading commentary and critiques calling it one of the "worst" Beatles tunes.

Take that vocal, the Hammond...even if Mr. Moonlight is still considered filler material, it's much higher quality filler than can be found on many a pop album from '64, or the 60's in general.

Alright, alright...after reading the praise given to Mr. Moonlight I gave it a close listen on the ole' headphones.  I chose the 2009 mono remaster.  It's not a horrible song...and maybe my original mention was a bit harsh...BUT...put into the context of their whole cannon...it's nothing more than pleasant filler.  The Beatles were a good enough band to be able to knock something like this out with minimal effort and still make it sound good...but it's not crafted with the care of most of their original material (even the earlier stuff).  To be fair..."Beatles for Sale" was made under great stress...hence the number of covers.  It seems pretty obvious that the band simply reached into their extensive repetoire of songs to crank out enough songs to fill out the originals.  Like I said...taken by itself it might be a pleasant diversion...but stacked against the rest of their output...it has to be near the bottom of the barrel...but like I said...to each his own. 

This is a key line, and absolutely essential to critiquing the Beatles as a band. They were *that good*, especially in 1964 before things got a little jaded by celebrity, that as a band they could pull from that incredible well of the all night shows and deep setlists they played in Hamburg and beyond and essentially became a world-class self-contained band.

A few months ago, I was Youtubing early Beatles performances captured on film, and above all what stood out was the incredible energy these guys could muster when they were really tearing it up on stage. In that way, sure the hype is there for the overall recorded output but just as important to the mystique was that they were an incredibly powerful live band when they dug into that reserve they had from the pre-stardom years.

I think they actually tried to recapture that during Get Back/Let It Be but it wasn't the same, although flashes of it could be seen a few times on the rooftop.

NEVERMIND FORGIVE ME LET'S ALL GO OUT FOR MCMUFFIN

Good points.  They don't get the live credit they deserve because by 1966 they had stopped touring...and before that they were playing in gigantic stadiums where nobody could hear them over the screaming...but it should not be forgotten the years they put in as a working band in Hamburg and elsewhere...sometimes playing for insanely long stretches.  They were GREAT at ensemble playing early on as a self-contained band...and this is something they lost as the egos got bigger and the studio trickery became more advanced.  The "Get Back" sessions were, as we all know, an attempt to return to those early days...but too much water had flowed under the bridge...but if you listen to enough of those sessions...moments appear...truly wonderful moments where they recapture the old magic of four guys sitting together and making music.

There is so much enthusiasm in the early Beatles records and live performances (for this reason alone, give me Please Mr Postman over anything on Sgt Pepper any day). By the Get Back sessions, none of that sheer excitement was left. Not that it's bad, but everything is sluggish, there is no spark there. They don't seem happy (because they weren't) and it shows.

I remember the Ian MacDonald book. He really hated Mr. Moonlight and Rocky Raccoon. I cannot abide hatred for Rocky Raccoon. It contains
a charming piano solo. What's the point in hating on such a trifle?

edit: nah, forget it.

Rocky Racoon is one of my favorite Beatles songs. It's comparable to say, Roller Skating Child or Solar System, though in my mind superior.

It's like nails-on-a-chalkboard to me. I hate hate HATE it.

Back to the Beach Boys...I was doing a recording session while I was in college  , about 11 years ago.  The band's sound was kind of a mix of Weezer and (early)Blink 182.  While they went out for a smoke break, I started listening to the 2-fer of So Tough/Holland. When the band I was working with came back in, they were floored by what they heard. I did not tell them what they were listening to. It actually put a stop to the session for a bit. They didn't realize it was the Beach Boys until 'California' came on. I ended up burning them a copy.

Later on in the day, during my actual recording class, we had some free time. Our instructor let us put on a cd of our own choosing, so we could analyze as a class (specifically, the actual sound of the music). In went the BB cd. Before we hit 'play',  though, I had to hear it from some of the people in there about the f*cking Beatles and how the BB weren't on their level, along with the usual Full House jokes. Set it to 'shuffle'...'Trader' came on. Needless to say, there were some people eating crow that day.

I love that vocal intro. And the organ solo break. The Beatles and Beach Boys can in fact coexist in a world where listeners like what they like and don't have the need to place one over the other.

I never quite understood why or how fans of a given band and how they react to that band can somehow become more of a factor in the enjoyment of the band's music over the actual music.

I guess I also don't understand the point in using the word "hate" repeatedly after someone says how much they enjoy something as I did that vocal intro. Seriously, what's the point of that kind of rage against a fucking bar of music in an intro?  :)

I relistened to RR after you said this, and it is pretty funky, but to compare it with the complete weirdness that is Roller Skating Child or Solar System? I'm not sayign it's better or worse, I just didn't get the comparison.

What's the point of that kind of personal reaction against a f***ing post on a message board?
I respect that you like that song and performance, but Mr. Moonlight is fairly universally disliked among Beatles fans. I'm no exception, tho I do think the vocal is pretty cool. The organ break is roller rink hell.

Notice the smiley at the end! For real though, I think reacting to someone's positive opinion of a particular piece of music by posting the word hate multiple times and in capital letters is over the top. Musicians are tolerant people, and tolerant listeners for the most part, and the word "hate" is such a strong expression I guess I wasn't expecting that reaction from a musician about a piece of music.

This is, of course, a message board where the band being discussed has had its fair share of clunkers, no need to make a list or say how much we might HATE a song that someone finds enjoyable and posts about, even if it's a few bars of music that they're jazzed about.

If someone should post what they like about a particular song or album that has been universally derided or criticized, there are better ways to disagree and discuss rather than hating on it outright.

And the roller-rink sound of that organ break is cool, again just in my opinion! Very similar to certain tracks where Brian Wilson or Bruce or whoever used a similar effect in an organ solo...thinking of Wild Honey, Fun Fun Fun, etc. It's part of the times and the vibe, and more fun than anything. Or maybe I just like hearing the sounds of Hammond organs in full voice!  :)

That's fine, I think it is cool that someone really digs Mr. Moonlight. It just isn't surprising that folks would continue to talk about how much they hate it afterward.
Personally, I think The Rolling Stones' Got Live If You Want It! is one of the greatest slabs of unchained, pilled-up frenzy, rock and roll craziness ever waxed. But I'm certainly not surprised or too riled when everyone else disagrees with me on it.
There probably should be more of a nicer vibe in general though, as you say.

Neat story about turning those people onto So Tough/Holland!  It's such an under-appreciated period in their history.  I think the casual fan thinks they went from Good Vibrations straight to Kokomo!  The LP's from Smiley Smile through Love You (skipping 15 Big Ones)...are so incredible interesting. 

I seem to remember MacDonald hated Across The Universe as well, describing it as the result of Lennon destroying his ego with literally hundreds of acid trips.
Personally, I love that song.

MacDonald's dislike of "Across The Universe" nearly invalidated the whole book for me.

True.  That was one song I felt he was a bit harsh upon...still I felt overall he took a pretty honest look at the catalog.  I still love the fact that he used a critical eye (even if we all don't agree 100% with some of his opinions). 

One of my favorite things in the book. I couldn't possibly agree with him more.

before I got tired of it as I did with most Beatles songs, I thought Across the Universe was incredibly beautiful. I wish I could destroy my ego if it would allow me to write songs like that (of course, with an ego I still can't write "Please Please Me").

I think the problem is in the wording. Being a bit of a know it all, whenever I end up having 'the talk' with someone, and they say 'oh yeah, Sgt Peppers/Abbey Road' is the greatest album ever. I generally counter with 'oh cool, my favourite from that year is Scott 4/Farewell Aldebaran/Sagittarius-Present Tense', where do you rank that? ;)

Personally I can't stand them...was a big fan in my youth, but as I grew to discover more and more sixties music, I figured out that aside from their initial 'phenomenon' period, their records were no better, and often plain worse than that made by their contemporaries. Fond memories aside, comparing something like Abbey Road to Scott 4, or one of Nick Drakes records or even the aforementioned Farewell Aldebaran is a non starter. The late sixties Beatles were just churning out a horrific mix of Childrens songs, pastiches and fillers. Compared to other mainstream pop acts like Dave Clark Five or The Archies or something, sure, they were as good or better, but nowhere NEAR as artistically important or interesting as they were culturally.

And to bring it back to the boys, both The BB and the BTls were fond of chucking out slightly half baked, jokey tracks, but the key difference for me, is that Brians are playful, charming and unselfconsciously silly, where the Beatles come over as incredibly smug. I don't get it when someone takes a pot shot at say, TM Song. Maxwells Silver Hammer on the other hand, is an utter travesty! ;)

Silly me. My name isn't Mt Vernon and Fairway, but Magic Transistor Radio. Thus responding as such wouldn't make sense. :P