Print Page - the similarities between Smile and Sgt. Pepper

Quote from: rab2591 on March 14, 2014, 12:56:54 PM

I am awestruck at the similar themes, similar vocal styles, similar use of instruments throughout both of these albums. Here are a few that really caught my attention:

1. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band (intro) - it's interesting that Brian had never had an "intro to the album" until Smile. And neither did the Beatles (that I'm aware of). I know 'Prayer' and 'SPLHCB' are complete opposites musically, but that both Brian and The Beatles were thinking about intros for their albums is quite a coincidence.

2. She's Leaving Home - Both this and 'Wonderful' are about a girl finding her independence.

3. For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite - has the same vibe as Fire in places.

4. Within You Without You - the sitar is reminiscent of the Bouzouki played on the outro of Cabin Essence.

5. Good Morning Good Morning - animal sounds are nearly exactly like what Brian was going to use in Barnyard.

Anyone else notice similarities between these albums?

I don't know if I agree with #3 and #4.

Kite and Fire seem to have opposite vibes, as Fire is ominous and Kite is whimsical. Unless you mean specifically creative use of the studio to communicate a specific idea, I guess I can see that...

And idk, I think the arrangements on Within You Without You are just a continuation of what George was already interested in, stemming back from Norwegian Wood in 1965 and Love You Too from 1966. George went all the way with the Indian arrangements; the Bouzouki was just an interesting instrument to add a new tonal character to the song, an otherwise red herring in the song. A better comparison would be the ukelele on Lucy In The Sky or swordsmatle on Strawberry fields of the tambura on Getting Better.

On the point about Within You Without You and Cabinessence, I think the importance of the orchestrations, arrangements, and specifically the roles given to certain instruments has to be looked at. And I think the way they were designed comes from two different musical places.

Cabinessence is one of Brian's crown jewels, one of the most creative and "best" productions he ever created. Likewise, Within You Without You is similar for George Harrison, but in different ways, and it allowed him to flourish musically and bring something brand new to his musical family, something which they had little or no working knowledge of and had to essentially learn from George.

Cabinessence's brilliance is in how Brian uses instruments to represent lyrical and historical concepts, as well as the more arcane from his own work. Let me list a few for consideration:

Fuzz bass: We can hear on the "Fire" sessions that Brian used the fuzz bass to play the role of the "fire", and he has other instruments putting out that fire on the recording. We hear him specifically spell all of this out in the studio sessions, directing how and when the musicians would "put out" the fire as played by the fuzz bass. In a similar way, Cabinessence touches on a practice of farmers setting fire to their fields of crops as part of their growing/harvesting process, and sure enough we hear fuzz bass which had played the role of "fire" on Brian's elemental "Fire" piece again showing up as the cornfields appear in the lyrics.

Banjo: Expertly played by Carole Kaye, this banjo is played in the plectrum/picking style most often heard on the old Stephen Foster and "Swanee River" types of American songs of the 1800's. The banjo is a truly American instrument, and to represent this era and this 19th century American vibe he had the banjo play in that antiquated style which when heard in the 1960's was a throwback to that "old timey" atmosphere rather than the more modern 5-string "Scruggs style" fingerpicking which would soon become a smash hit in the film "Bonnie And Clyde" with "Foggy Mountain Breakdown" becoming that film's main theme music.

Harmonica: Again, the way this is played is straight from the imagery of the cowboys around the campfire, or the singalongs and lonesome sounds heard in hundreds of Western and cowboy movies when they're either around a campfire or sitting in their cabins. It represented a certain imagery and mood, and was played exactly in that old style rather than giving any hints of blues harp or even jazz harp which was "modern" in the 60's.

Dobro: having James Burton - formerly billed as "Dobro Jimmy" when he was playing Louisiana Hayride kinds of gigs as a kid :-D - play what he played on that instrument, going from the traditional sliding Dobro sound of country and bluegrass to having him pluck those chiming high non-notes in an "I've Been Working On The Railroad" rhythm to represent the spikes being hammered into the train tracks is a brilliant use of an instrument, taking it from traditional to impressionistic in the same song.

The whole song is full of these musical touches, and takes it from the homestead and frontier longing to the driving of the mechanized train to the modern truck driving man and back to the simplicity of birds flying above fields of crops in a few minutes of musical perfection.

Within You Without You is more practical than impressionistic. George Harrison's choice of instruments - and it was 99% Harrison apart from George Martin scoring for strings under Harrison's direction - was going for traditional Indian musical sounds. he's not trying to use any instrument to represent something, but rather is taking what he had heard and learned through studying Indian musical culture and grafting it onto his own song.

I've recently come around to loving Within You Without You whereas before, I had mixed feelings about it. George Harrison made a brilliant piece of music, not as much the foundation of his song but what he did to it instrumentally.

No one, not even the classically trained conservatory musician George Martin knew Indian music, and it's unique cyclical rhythm patterns, song form, count, or the way notes were attacked and phrased. Harrison had been immersed in this, learning and studying it from master instructors, and in effect had to "teach" George Martin what these musicians were doing and how they were counting the time in the music. It was Harrison's baby, this song, and he gave those involved a crash course in the characteristics of Indian music and rhythms to the point where George Martin's string score incorporated certain "bends" of notes and glisses into notes that had previously not been heard widely in Western music, and for which Martin got a signature sound and reputation with these little musical quirks that others copied widely in pop arrangements.

But had it not been for George Harrison being able to not only play but also relate to and direct the Indian musicians on his song in their own unique and often radically different musical techniques, it never would have happened as it is heard on Pepper. A brilliant recording in its own right, but coming from a different place conceptually than Brian and Cabinessence.

Quote from: Magic Transistor Radio on March 17, 2014, 09:42:37 AM

Lyrically Lucy in the Sky has a Van Dyke Parks similarity. Also, Surfs Up and A Day in the Life are both 11 stars out of 10 :-) Also, the merging of tracks that happens on Sgt Pepper and Smile where the music doesn't stop between songs.

I am also tired of the comparison between Pepper and Pet Sounds. PS was a year before Pepper. PS blows Revolver out of the water IMO, except for Tomorrow Never Knows.

Yes, I agree. Pet Sounds is the answer to Rubber Soul, and the competition for Revolver. Sgt Pepper is the answer to Pet Sounds and would've been the competitor of SMiLE had it been finished.

I'm not sure if there was a similar "cycle of influence" between Revolver and SMiLE, or if SMiLE would've been a big influence on the Beatles or not.

I also agree the Pet Sounds blows Revolver and Rubber Soul out of the water. It's the advanced production of the former with the cohesiveness of the latter in one album, with the recurring themes of love and loss to tie it all together. I also believe SMiLE is in a whole other league ahead of Pepper. Pepper is great, but perhaps the single most overrated album of all time. It's a shame the Beatles have such a massive following that this opinion is considered blasphemy by the mainstream public and music critics.

Tired of defending Sgt. Pepper by using history, and its time and place in history, to show that a lot of its reputation and praise comes from the *context* in which it appeared, NOT the words of critics and media figures overhyping it for commercial or ratings purposes.

When the album came out, it was up to that point the single most influential rock album that had been released. This cannot be argued, just ask anyone who was involved in making popular music in June 1967 how big of a deal it was.

Or continue to wallow in the disillusion and hip-based revisionism and idol-bashing that tries to present it as overrated using personal opinions rather than the actual context in which it was received.

Wanna talk overrated? Where shall we start... :)

Consider that part of the so-called "hype" around Revolver and Pepper is based on the technological achievements which those albums featured, in the way rock and pop music was recorded and mixed before and the way it was mixed and recorded after Pepper and Revolver. It was like lifting up a cover and seeing the future of small-group rock and roll hiding underneath layers of close-mic'ing, compression and limiting, tape manipulation, tape editing, and individual recording techniques that are so commonplace and have been for 50 years or so that we forget someone or something had to be the first to record drums, vocals, brass, guitars, and the like that way. Someone had to make it possible to break and shatter the rules of how one puts a microphone on an drum kit and what one does with that sound once it's on tape in order to maximize, manipulate, and fit it into a mix spectrum of sound that didn't exist in 1964.

And a lot of that influence was Revolver and Pepper. Sorry to bust the revisionist bubble, but they were about as influential on the way rock music would come to be recorded and mixed up to the present day as any other two albums in rock history.

Overrated? Just ask some musicians. :)

Quote from: guitarfool2002 on March 17, 2014, 10:12:13 PM

Just listening to it on its own...it's just not *that* awesome of an album. I can appreciate how influential it was, but when rating music I don't think "well, golly gee whiz how many musicians cite this as an inspiration?" I think "does this sound good?" And for Pepper the answer is yes...sorta. No idol bashing or hipster revisionism here, just the fact that there's better Beatles albums(Revolver, Rubber Soul), better psychedelic albums(The United States of America, Piper at the Gates of Dawn), and better albums from the year 1967 (Forever Changes, Axis: Bold as Love.)

I think Sgt. Pepper gets so much attention because it's the Beatles. And I'm not saying they didn't push the envelope, but...so was every band worth their salt back then. The Beatles didn't exist in a vaccuum and weren't the only band being progressive.

Consider too that artistic or creative influence can be as much as case of showing that something *could* be done in an artistic and creative sense as much as critiquing what was actually done in terms of critical opinion or relative worth in a wider sense of appeal or even the notion of quality.

"Like A Rolling Stone" had influence beyond hearing it for decades on classic rock and oldies radio. It opened up a lot of minds and a lot of doors too in saying that a "pop" or "rock" single could exist on the radio beyond the standard format of the era. Poetry, stream-of-conscious delivery, anger and venom, all set to a rock and roll electric beat...this is possible, this is beyond doo-wop and blues-based influence, it's something new and it's now opened a door for others to follow. That record's influence in that way gets lost to time, unfortunately, but it was as much a blockbuster as Pepper in what it opened up for others.

Consider too that Brian and "Surf's Up" got top billing in April 1967, and those watching CBS in April 1967 heard and saw the song being used to both herald and question the future direction of pop music. Would "the kids" making and buying this music point the way for the future? Was a lyrical direction as detailed and cryptic as to make a casual listen not enough to understand the song the wave of the future in pop? Was this opening doors in the way pioneers of other genres had done, and making it possible to shatter then redefine the nature of what a pop song could do, or what it could be?

The producers of Inside Pop thought enough of Brian's new creation that they gave it top billing, in the finale of a show centered around breaking new artistic ground in pop music. It was so powerful that having the creator of the work basically demo it in his living room at a piano was enough to convey their message, one which the likes of Leonard Bernstein had been building up to in the first 30 minutes of the broadcast, enhanced further by scenes of then-current pop music stars and stars-to-be.

So Brian and Surf's Up were featured, they were heard, they were praised before Pepper was even released. But the real tragedy, at least for me, is that Sgt Pepper did get released and Surf's Up stayed locked away in the vaults for another few years...only to be released a few years after the very direction Surf's Up had been leading popular music toward had already been explored and exploited.

It's tough to be the pioneer in any field because ultimately the risk is either timing it too soon for mass public appeal or missing the mark entirely because no one had blazed the trail you were exploring and any turn you make is into uncharted territory. It's easier to follow than to lead, obviously, especially when a path has already been cut by whoever walked ahead.

And unfortunately for Surf's Up and Smile in general, a broadcast on CBS in April 1967 didn't carry the same weight as an official record release in June 1967. The timing wasn't there.

"Better" is strictly opinion in any sense of the word. Debating opinions is fun, can be informative, but it always comes down to personal opinion rather than context and fact. It's almost a moot point to say Forever Changes or Piper or any of the others is "better" than Pepper because in almost every notion of historical context and finding something's place in history, opinions are disposable and subject solely to the whims of those expressing them. ;D

I like Roy Lichtenstein as a pop artist more than Andy Warhol, I find his works very emotional, dramatic, and connect more with them than I do Warhol. Yet Warhol's Campbell's Soup imagery and his Marilyn screenprints and his other popular works are icons of 20th century pop art, and his name is a household word - How many visual artists today in any field are known outside their own fans or genres? Closest I can think of would be guys like Stan Lee in the comic industry. One could argue Warhol is perhaps the most iconic (and perhaps even influential) 20th century visual artist in the popular culture, surely the most familiar avant-garde or new-wave artist of the last several generations, as he is again a household word. So my thinking Lichtenstein's work is "better" doesn't amount to a hill of beans when trying to judge the men on their influence and places in pop culture history. Because Warhol will always win out on a larger scale, whether I think other artists are better or not, again because of context and influence.

So I'd never try to convince others Warhol is overrated on the basis of my thinking someone else chasing a similar artistic goal through pop art is or was better. Some artists, musicians, bands, etc are overrated, and some are overrated by those critics and wanna-be critics trying to champion the underdog or "knock down a few pegs" a popular favorite, but saying one or another is better takes it into arguing personal opinions, and there is no correct answer or conclusion in that. :)

Quote from: guitarfool2002 on March 17, 2014, 11:02:41 PM

You're not telling me anything I don't already know. But the borderline-rabid devotion to the Beatles as a band and Pepper as an album is just nuts, and a very narrow view of all the great music the late sixties gave us.

Yeah, it's all opinion whether you prefer Pepper or Piper. But to try to act like your opinion holds more weight because X # of musicians/critics/your mom agree with you is just pompous and silly.

Quote from: Mujan on March 17, 2014, 11:21:46 PM

Quote from: guitarfool2002 on March 17, 2014, 11:02:41 PM

My opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's, I've never said or implied that it did in a case like this, as it is only an opinion based on personal tastes and biases for or against what is being discussed. And I've done nothing of the sort in trying to say my opinion holds more weight because of the people who agree with it, or whatever, so let's define the "pompous and silly" charge to make it seem general rather than personal, which hopefully is how it was intended.

I'll stay with the issue for now that opinions of Piper, Forever Changes, and others were used to back up an opinion that Pepper is overrated. But if that starts to go into saying it is a "fact" that Pepper is overrated or isn't all it's cracked up to be, I'll say again go to the original sources and those musicians who were alive and influenced by it when it actually came out and gauge just how much of an impact it had.

Like other Beatles threads, I'm getting a feeling that there is more of an issue with and a backlash against the hype and the fan-based rabid devotion that could be coloring the music itself, as well as its place in a historical context. The band released the album(s), they had whatever influence they had, let's rate and judge them in those areas.

If we allow the reactions of rabid or crazy-devoted fans to color and affect the works themselves, I can say right now that I'd never listen to certain artists or bands who I like because their fan-base is bat-sh*t crazy in some cases, and seeks to read into and interpret every word of a lyric or every note into some highly cosmic, important, or socially conscious meaning to suit their own quirks and needs. And some are just beyond common sense in how they express their devotion to that band.

A point I made before: You can't blame the band for how their fans will react and act to their music. It happens too often that a negative opinion of how fans are acting gets in the way of judging and even enjoying some really good music.

I think Smile would've been a lot more intense then Sgt Peppers, in terms of vision and depth. Sgt Peppers' innovation in 1967 was remarkable, with all those styles on the record, with the album cover art, with the lyrics on the back, and more than anything (not so much innovation, but luck), the fact that it was released at exactly the right time to coincide with what became the Summer of Love, and a wider awareness of people gaining a higher consciousness (and a lot more people thinking they had a higher consciousness). Regardless, it was a cosmic moment, and books could (and I'm sure have) been written about how momentous the album's release and influence was. And I think it's a great record, a knock-out record (Brian said in 1992 it "might be the single greatest record I've ever heard"). But it's really not the all time great album, and for an occasion as momentous as a whole society/world of people opening up to themselves and landing on a higher plain of humanity (it's an idea that's far too incredible to be true), Sgt Peppers in hindsight doesn't exactly seem like the holy grail for such a year zero. A Day In The Life is the only track that could fit such an assessment. But it's not really about putting down Sgt Peppers, because it is a fantastic record.

It's just that Smile would've been, I'm almost positive, miles and miles ahead. And Brian knew this. Because he saw it. And it was a vision deeper than just an idea (in this case of a journey across America, of humor, of health, of good and evil, and of youth). All these ideas, that meant something to the time, did and were to intertwine and mix and all connect to each other. Because they did. And it was going to show musically, with little bits of Heroes and Villains in Love To Say Dada, or a bit of Wonderful in Child is Father of the Man (I hear it). Brian heard all this, and knew it's importance when it came to Smile. I think it's part of why he couldn't complete it. It was too great a task for a troubled Brian to continue undertaking. Brian was a kid emotionally I think then, though in terms of intelligence he understood a lot about of the inner mind and psychology and the way things worked. Coped with his emotional capacity, he more than anyone was able to create this ultimate expression of awareness at that time, when more and more people were becoming "aware". Plus, he was a genius musically (the only genius in modern music history, I believe), so it would've been better too. Brian was very, very in touch with himself. And while Sgt Peppers, like I said, had a lot of different styles (rock, neo-classical, Indian, dance hall) musically, Brian was creating a whole realistic, aware universe within each song. In Fire, you don't just hear a bunch of sirens and whistles going off, you hear the tension and the claustrophobia and the danger and you feel physically as if you're in that fire. The whole album would've been a scope of what life really is. Surfs Up is a tragic song. Fire is scary. Wonderful is adventurous and blissful. Heroes and Villains is epic. Our Prayer/Prayer is religious. And the "Bicycle Rider" theme running through the whole thing is obsessive and psychotic and is, for me (besides Surfs Up), the hardest hitting, brilliant thing on it (it being what I've heard). Each song really lives and breathes. And musically, with all these musical themes and tracks flowing (like water almost) together, it would've really been a mix of classical music and pop music and old and new and anyone not even aware of all the other stuff about it would be able to recognize it's importance in that respect. What Brian was doing was art. It was true, life-consuming, life-changing art that musically pushed boundaries too and as a vision (and as a series of musical masterpieces), would've been so complete and would've touched such a raw nerve to anyone aware and becoming aware of who they are, that it would've knocked Sgt Peppers out of the water. I know that was a very fancy-dancy, not so great explanation of it, but in short Smile would've changed everything, whether anyone would've payed attention or not. There's no real telling what Smile's success commercially would've been, but artistically it would've been the greatest, most advanced album of all time. And I think it'd still be, since no one's done anything like it since. With the influence of acid obviously all over it (not that I could tell ;)), and such a cosmic, omniscient, psychic depth to it, really tuned in people/hippies would've had their minds blown beyond comprehension. It certainly blew Brian's mind.

In short, Smile was (I think) art. Sgt Peppers was not as much art. Smile would've been that much greater because of how much greater Brian was, and the fact that Brian was one person. Not 4 men and a producer. Brian (with Van Dyke helping) was 1 guy, and thus the whole record was Brian's singular "whole new universe of experience", reaching as far into himself as he possibly could. Smile really would've been the sound of awareness. I sound stupid explaining it. In (real) short: Smile would've been a more advanced, fully formed version of what Sgt Peppers was. By a lot. And I think it would've kicked Sgt Peppers ass. Surfs Up is the greatest song ever written.

Quote from: Adult Child on March 18, 2014, 05:47:19 PM

Very well written review of this classic album.

It has to be considered, though, that Sgt. Pepper underneath the threadbare concept of the Beatles taking on the persona of another band, still prominently features musical performances from the Beatles as a self-contained band. Underneath all of the sonic innovations and production touches, the majority of that album was performed instrumentally and vocally by the Beatles as a self-contained band. If you heard a guitar, it was a Beatle, if you heard drums, it was a Beatle, if you heard bass, it was a Beatle, etc. Yes, there are legions of overdubs, yes those overdubs and orchestrations help define the sound of the album along with the innovative mixing, but does anyone consider it anything but a Beatles group album?

Consider that thanks in part to Derek Taylor's press efforts, Brian was getting a lot of press throughout 1966 as the keystone of the music, and was being singled out as the producer-of-note whose mind was creating all of these wonderful soundscapes in the studio. The notion that the end results were "Beach Boys" efforts almost got pushed aside in the press of the day. And when people saw them tour, they got a fantastic show but the sound of the records wasn't coming from the stage. After summer 1966, the Beatles did not need to worry about that as they quit the road. But it was some of the scuttlebutt going around among fans and fan publications of that time.

I wonder if Smile had come out, whether it would have been accepted as a Beach Boys album, or whether it would have further added to the conversations about who was actually making the music, and to what degree the notion of a self-contained band called The Beach Boys existed outside the live performances.

Again, somewhat old news and previous debate, but all of the talk about "What if?" Smile had been released on time, and how it would have existed alongside Sgt. Pepper got me thinking about the notion of a "band" making an album, and how if in any way that would have affected the fan reaction to an album like Smile where the band credited with the music did not - in reality - perform a majority of the tracks on the album as a "band".

I know Pet Sounds, I know Good Vibrations...but those were taking heat too from fans in '66/'67, an under-reported fact. So coming on the heels of Pet Sounds, would Smile have been accepted as a "Beach Boys" album, per se?

I'm just thinking one of the Beatles' strengths was that they had a stronger band/group identity when it came to fans buying their records with the expectation they would be hearing Beatles on a majority of the tracks.

Quote from: guitarfool2002 on March 19, 2014, 10:10:21 AM

Interesting point. I almost think it would've been better if SMiLE had just been a solo album. Brian was more interested in producing awesome LPs, Mike and the Boys wanted to go in a different direction than Brian, Caroline No was released as a solo single...it just seems to make sense. SMiLE could be credited to Brian Wilson, Lyrics by VDP and featuring the Beach Boys.

In a perfect world, that would've been Brian's first solo LP, with a Smiley-esque companion album from the Boys released at the same time (and performed at Monterey.) This Smiley type album could have the same music but more scaled down arrangements.

But this is all wishful 'best of both worlds' thinking on my part. I wish with all my heart SMiLE had been completed in '67, but I've grown to appreciate Smiley as a work of art in its own right, and I'm glad it exists. If the two could've existed at the same time, as companion pieces, I think it really couldve made a statement. You'd have the intricate, studio as an instrument beauty of SMiLE with the humble, honest simplicity of Smiley. I feel it couldve been an astute statement from the Beach Boys that pop music is at a crossroads, as well as a triumphant assertion that whichever way it went, they'd be up to the task.

The Smiley Smile Message Board

Smiley Smile Stuff => General On Topic Discussions => Topic started by: rab2591 on March 14, 2014, 12:56:54 PM