The Smiley Smile Message Board

The more I think about it, it seems like Smiley Smile was just as much a quickly made record to appease the record company as BB Party! was, and there are many similarities between the two.

Consider:

The two albums were made because another more important record was going to (or in the case of SS, had already) take(n) up too much time, thus necessitating a stop-gap release. In the case of both albums, I find it obvious Brian would have had the mindset of not putting his true, true heart into the projects (and getting something done QUICK was the primary concern), but no matter what happened, in that era, even Brian slapping something together quickly like SS was still going to be rad in its own way.  Also in the case of both, there were some quickly-done re-recordings of other more properly recorded BB songs.

Plus, I think they both share an atmosphere of the guys hanging around a room. Obviously, Party! is a very specific attempt to feign that imagery, but Smiley Smile (with its stoned-out laughter and bits of odd talking/chatter) to me is somewhat of a psychedelic equivalent.

Lastly, I also think that listening to these albums (both being the immediately-released albums directly prior to and post Pet Sounds), had to both be a very similar WTF moment for listeners unaware of the history and reasons for the respective albums existences. If a 1960s listener (without our geek knowledge) were to listen at the band's released output at the time (minus SMiLE of course)... the experience of hearing Pet Sounds bookended in its chronology with these two strange, comparatively minor albums had to be very odd, yet somewhat similar. Or so I would think.

Do you think the band themselves ever saw things like that, and thought of SS as a sequel of sorts to BB Party? Or at least a rehash of a similar scenario?  I can't imagine this thought was lost on Brian or the Boys either. The parallels are there, IMO. It's kinda like the Lincoln/Kennedy coincidences, only with some probable actual intention behind the parallels. Not saying that Brian wanted any listener to actually think SS was intended as a Party! sequel, only that SS feels born of similar reasons. The SS stoner party vibe, however, makes me think there may have been a modicum of intention at parallels by BW.

I've been thinking too that Smiley was an attempt to do the SMiLE feels in a "Party!" recording mode, a try to do it in a looser way (looser, not loser). I doubt it had to do with pressure from Capitol though.

I think if you take the pressure from Capitol part of equation out entirely, that changes things drastically; I can't imagine BW would have felt quite the same level of freakout to just get something done and released quickly. I believe that while Party! seemed to be a more concerted effort to make something more "commercial" and "relatable" to listeners, and SS seemed to give less of a f*ck (sans the inclusion of Good Vibrations + Heroes & Villains), both were in part a result of getting Capitol off BW's back. They both served that purpose, even though the latter was sort of a career killer.

But yeah, Micha - I also think that Smiley was an attempt to do SMiLE in a Party! type recording mode... just with more obviously bizarre results. And Vegetables was almost the enlightened, new age version of the promo Party! Potato Chips.  ;D

A bunch of heavily stoned, not particularly creative (bar Brian) guys trying to salvage something quickly under those circumstances. That Smiley is so full of beauty and mystery is a wonder.

Unlike Party!, Smiley Smile wasn't released on Capitol Records, though. I admit I have no idea of the amount of pressure Brian was facing from Capitol after the band sued them.

I've considered this before, and though I think that Smiley Smile is sort of in the same spirit as Party, I'd say they are fairly different. Mainly because SS is an original album and Party is a live/covers record. I tend to think of SS as more of a transition from Pet Sounds to Wild Honey, strange as that may seem. I think of the albums that followed ('68-'73) as sort of a cross between Pet Sounds and Wild Honey really ... or rather using the stylistic concepts of those two records as a springboard for future development, under Carl's leadership (or Brian's leadership in the case of Friends).

One interesting thing to think about is that Pet Sounds is bookended by Party and Smiley Smile ... which sort of makes it all the more unique. If you just look at the original album releases from a casual point of view (minus the backstory and Smile drama), it's fascinating on it's own.

CentDep...A WTF "moment"?  I've been wondering WTF??? for 47 and a half years... ... ...and counting.  I disagree in a sense with Donny.  SS had Smile covers on it.  Absolutely my LEAST FAVOURITE Beach Boys album ever...even with Good Vibrations and Heroes and Villains on it.  It was like they HAD to be included there.  What an insult!!!  2 roses planted it an 'ooze' that was never going to help them to live.  The presentation of these two gems was just insulting.  Well beneath their dignity and sophistication.  So far below what they deserved...what *WE* deserved.  It was a Monty Python "bunt".  I'm certain that's exactly what Barl Wilson meant.

If SS was Party Part 2...NEVER run out of beer at the recording studio again. 

"I know that you'll feel better when you send us in your letters and tell us the name of your...your favourite vege-table."  [THE ONLY decent part of that cover of a pretty wonderful song...]

So...now...at long last...I'm about to "feel better" by telling you that my FAVOURITE 'vegetable' back in the FALL of 1967 was... ...  :brian ... ...Brian Wilson. :o

Nah. I think any similarities to party were probably unintended. I don't believe it was a stop-gap. Those first two awful, unnecessary best-of releases imposed by Capitol probably filled that purpose in Brian's mind. I think Smiley was a legitimate attempt at a good, creative endeavor. I think the use of SMiLE songs that were the most finished was desperation because they didnt have time to write a whole album of new songs. The few new songs they did were throwing a bone to Mike. The singles were imposed by Capitol. The minimal production was what the SMiLE sessions had been leading to, the old recordings were scrapped because Brian lost interest, they'd be too tedious to compile, and he felt he had missed the moment. The goofy moments like laughing and talking were, imo, going to be included on SMiLE had it been finished. The Boys in a room feeling was a product of the minimal production and an attempt to get that close knit feeling back after all the tension the past few months.

To me, that's Smiley. Aside from the off-putting, flow-killing singles (which wasn't Brian's doing) it's amazing we got such a cohesive, unique work of art out of all the chaos going on. I'd really love to know more about these sessions. What the Boys thought of it, if Brian was truly behind the new direction or heartbroken over SMiLE, how smooth the transition in direction was, etc.

So, no party. SMiLE. But not quite. Almost like a...Smiley Smile. Y'know?

It shouldn't need saying but....Smiley Smile is one of their best albums. I love everything on it.

And THAT'S what makes having such a wide fan base incredible 'UB'.  The whole body of work gets appreciated...and NO DOUBT there's a MESS of that 'library' ...like the majority of it...which we BOTH love.   S'all good...as the 'saying' goes.  :hat

It definitely takes awhile to get the feel for, but once you do it's wonderful. One of the most unique and brave albums ever released by any band. If it, or something done in that style, had come out after SMiLE, rather than in place of it, and preferably in early 1968 when the production race was winding down, it'd be hailed as a work of brilliance rather than seen as a misfire.

I love Smiley Smile to death. I really do! But I think there's a difference in BW putting his heart into something, and PUTTING HIS HEART INTO SOMETHING (!!) - you know what I mean, Mujan? With Pet Sounds, SMiLE, Brian was bleeding for his art, trying so, so hard to make perfection. I feel an element of dejection on SS, even though he found it in himself to keep forging ahead. IMO, even though there's a careless element in both SS + Party, I think to a degree Brian was ultimately trying to make good product both times. One could argue the self-sabotage route with SS (this has been pondered for years by fans), but in the end, I think he wanted both albums to be good. Even Party!.

I understand. I chalk it up to the production race and self-imposed competition with the Beatles. Pet Sounds is so good because he purposely wanted to make an album with all good stuff that sounds completely cohesive like Rubber Soul. And with SMiLE, he wanted to make something beyond a pop album. A teenage symphony to God, music people could pray to, a two movement cantata, I think he's on record describing in those terms exactly.

With Smiley, and later on Love You, I think he was more making experimental music he wanted to make and not giving a damn what anyone might think. Smiley doesn't have that same blood sweat and tears feeling because he wasnt about that anymore. He thought the Beatles, and I assume other psychedelic bands like Jefferson Airplane and all the other up and comers had beaten him to the big production sound. So why bother? Instead, he'd do something different. A stripped down sound, with "mistakes" and human elements like laughing, drinking water and studio chatter in there. Something unique and capturing the druggie scene but from another angle. I think if anything was self sabotage, it was 15 Big Ones years later.

Was it a kind of snub to the guys in the band that weren't supportive of Smile??  I don't personally think all the giggling etc would have been put on Smile, he meant business then.  He gave up a little after that and you got SS.   Eh, dunno.

I can see the validity of considering Smiley as a weird druggy version of Party - to a point. There is some truth to the view that each was a stopgap intended to buy time and/or satisfy Capitol. Party is sort of a roots project, an exercise in nostalgia in light of where rock n roll had progressed to that point in '66. And, stripped of the bogus party chatter is a pretty impressive recording in its own right - Devoted To You is a jewel.  

Smiley, though, could be, and has been, viewed as the logical summation of the Smile project.  It has been argued that Smile could never have been completed in the form in which it was eventually released for the simple fact that it was physically impossible in 1967 to assemble all the pieces - cut and paste.  

I don't know if it has ever been clarified as to why Brian went minimalist, other than that he began working at home rather than in a proper professional studio. The Hawaiian shows seem to reveal a conscious decision to go minimalist. A rock n roll show with nary a guitar in sight nor sound? WTF indeed! Both the rehearsals and the latter studio sessions recorded to salvage the live recordings reinforce the perception that minimalism was the chosen aesthetic in the summer and fall of 1967.

The release in 2012 of a remastered Smiley confirms, in my view, that rather than a sloppy throwaway, it was in fact a conscious artistic departure. Druggy? For sure, but the delicacy of effects reveals an artist in full control.

In the end, I have to wonder why it was released in the form in which it has come down to us? Why was the mastering so muddy as to obscure the subtle delicacies? Why is it sequenced as it is? And why, if it is the summation of the Smile project, are key pieces missing? Pieces that might have been completed with little additional effort? - Sit down to the piano and knock out a stripped down version of Surf's Up that would itself be a knockout in 3 or 4 minutes!!! A live, in the studio Good Vibrations? 4 more minutes!!! Finishing touches to Cabinessence? OK, maybe an afternoon!!!

Why, why, why???  

The other idea I had about the SS/Party! connections is this: the BW-penned original songs that were recorded on Party! were goofy renditions of preexisting songs (for which superior studio versions existed); obviously the BB (not cover songs, but BB songs) on Party! were not meant to be THE versions of the songs, only a sort of minimalist/goofy versions of them.

Consider, if (and it's a BIG if) BW had, at the time of SS's release, thought to himself that perhaps he'd go back and finish working on SMiLE at some later point (and I don't think this is out of the question, I think he may have considered this, but gradually avoided doing so), that the SS re-recordings of SMiLE songs were possibly filling that same role, in that they were minimalist/goofy (still totally rad) versions of the songs, but that eventually it may have been planned for the superior much-labored-over studio versions to be released. This would be the inverse of Party!, in that unlike Party!, the superior studio versions hadn't been released yet.

Just a thought. I may be talking out of my rear end, but I find it interesting to ponder/discuss this stuff.

Well, thats the alternative theory. And the one that's been the most popular until very recently. This is why I'd really like to know more. What the day to day sessions were actually like, Brian's general demeanor at the time, what the boys thought, etc. Could really shed some light on things. But for me personally, Brian and Mike seemed fairly positive about it. Mike even seems to consider SMiLE/Smiley one and the same in an interview I recall reading from the time. I'm of the opinion that Brian was making the best of a bad situation--the initial spark of the SMiLE project was done, for a variety of reasons he lost interest in it and his collaborator so it'd just be somewhat phony to him to continue that project. The modular style of recording coupled with his inability to make up his mind meant it'd be an endless tedium to edit together. And since he knew the Beatles and other bands were destined to beat him to the punch, he figured it'd all be pointless anyway.

So he went in a new direction, but with Capitol breathing down his neck he didnt have time to start completely fresh. So he recycled a few SMiLE songs that were the most complete and could work outside the original intended context. Meanwhile he has Mike write a few songs to soothe any hurt feelings and quickly fill the gaps. Some of the more salvageable ideas like the comedy and sound effects were used. It's debateable how exactly it would have fit exactly, but Brian *is* on record saying spoken word humor would be on the original SMiLE LP. He was serious about SMiLE...and Smiley Smile. He was aiming for high art with SMiLE but only a fun but great, album with Smiley. I don't see why comedy and off-the-wall additions like sound effects should negate either. It'd be a cool little idea that was completely unprecedented at the time. Frank Zappa, Hendrix and other artists ended up doing similar things on albums that'd be considered brilliant in the months to come.

An entirely plausible scenario.

And yet, the pieces with which to produce a coherent and artistically satisfying statement were either completed, (the non-single tracks released on the album, plus You're Welcome, released as the flip side to Heros) close to completion (Cabinessence, Cool Water) or might be produced in the minimalist manner in a minimum of time, (Surf's Up, Good Vibrations).

Such an assemblage, properly sequenced and mastered to the highest fidelity sound available at that time would have, in my view, fulfilled the promise of Smile.

I agree 100%. While I love Smiley (minus the singles) I think it was a mistake to release it when SMiLE, in some form, could presumably have been finished over the summer if Brian really wanted to. I think he just...didn't really want to.

I can't say this enough, I want to know more about these sessions. I really hope Brian and Mike's new books go in depth about it. I think Mike's might, but I don't hold out much hope for Brian.

I take the time to repost here some ideas I had awhile back:

 I have, filed away somewhere, an article entitled “Smiley Smile is Smile,” written by I can’t remember who and don’t know when, but posted somewhere on-line sometime around the year 2000, plus or minus 4 or five years before or after.

OK, so there’s my bow to the citation gods, but what follows is not really about that article.

Well, yes it is, insofar as what I’m about here takes the idea that Smiley was not merely a poor substitute, but in fact a perfectly logical, internally consistent, culmination of the Smile project. And that as released was poorly mastered, improperly sequenced and, despite the fact that all the pieces were readily at hand, inexplicably incomplete.

An incomplete album, the pieces of which can now be brought together to reveal a coherent artistic statement, on a par with Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, which must remain the benchmark against which all others are measured.

Guitars have been almost wholly removed, producing a minimalist aesthetic that is nevertheless “musical” – these guys were not simply producing an aural account of their hash parties – although the sweet, dreamy aroma of hashish does indeed permeate

The 1967 production is muddy, the 2012 Stereo Remaster reveals, not a stoned out indulgence, but rather a masterwork.


 1. Well, You’re Welcome (Smile Sessions)
 2. Heros and Villains (2001 Stereo Mix) edit sections sequence from 1,2,3,4 to 1,3,2,4
 3. Wonderful (2012 Stereo)
 4. Gettin' Hungry (2012 Stereo) edit out 1st instru section to “I wake up in the morning…”
 5. You're With Me Tonight (Previously Unreleased)(Hawthorne)
 6. With Me Tonight (2012 Stereo)
 7. She's Goin' Bald (2012 Stereo)
 8. Whistle In (2012 Stereo)
 9. Good Vibrations (Concert Rehearsal) (Previously Unreleased) (Hawthorne)
10. Mama Says (2000 Wild Honey)
11. Vegetables (Stereo Extended Mix) (Previously Unreleased) (Hawthorne)
12. Wind Chimes (2012 Stereo)
13. Fall Breaks And Back To Winter (Woody Woodpecker Symphony) (2012 Stereo)
14. Cool, Cool Water (Track)/ Water [Stereo Mix] (Unsurpassed Masters)
15. Little Pad (2012 Stereo) edit out
16. Surf's Up (1967 Solo Version)(Bonus Track)(Smile Sessions)
17. Cabin Essence (Smile Sessions)
18. Cabin Essencence Tag (Unsurpassed Masters)

Running Time: 42:22

Yes, I've read that article. At the time, I thought it was revisionist borderline apologist. Now, I think there's some truth to it but the real story is more complicated and sad. Smiley isn't SMiLE. It's Brian trying to salvage what he could after the initial project collapsed and he decided to go in a different stylistic direction, while the record company demanded product ASAP and without his collaborator. It contains many elements, mostly the humor and weirdo druggie vibe of its predecessor and some radically redesigned songs but that's really it. Musically and thematically they are worlds apart and many things Brian wanted to explore with SMiLE, like reinventing the band's image, the actual elements, and the idea of a symphony that could be spiritual are all absent on Smiley.

I like that setlist, barring a few changes in the order. Very interesting idea though. I'd like to try it out.

Ugh. Sgt Pepper is NOT the benchmark. The United States of America, We're Only In It For the Money, Forever Changes, In the Court of the Crimson King, Piper at the Gates of Dawn, Surrealistic Pillow, Cheap Thrills, Axis: Bold as Love, Strange Days...

I could go on. Those are all better benchmarks of the age, better overall albums and far more psychedelic and progressive than Pepper and that's just off the top of my head. Even Revolver is a better Beatles/psychedelic album than Pepper. Pepper is only the benchmark by posers who dont know anything about music and blindly place the Beatles as the unquestioned gods of pop music for the sole reason that they're the Beatles and everyone tells us they are. /rant.

hmmm...?

That is not a nice thing to say about TMinthePM.

If you look at an even bigger picture, the evolution starts at an album project called "Dumb Angel" - with high philosophical aims and an intro which is a prayer sung by angels. Sad themes like the destruction of the American Indian and the downfall of civilizations in a columnated-ruins-domino. Then humor is inserted, the project gets renamed "Smile". The music causes turmoil and grief. Thus humor is accentuated even more, it becomes "Smiley Smile", smilier than smile. A lot of fantastic music recordings gets lost in the process, some are created newly. That's what happened. I think.

I didnt state it as kindly as I could have, but Pepper is as overrated as anything could possibly be regarding music. It's a nothing special album that's only considered the greatest ever because they adopted psychedelia at just the right moment and hopped on the bandwagon. There's no musical or thematic cohesiveness except the reprise before A Day in the Life. Which isnt even that great or "deep" of a song even though everyone likes to pretend it is. Because the Beatles wrote it, I guess, or something. I'm sorry, but thats where I stand. In any case, there's far better albums out there. I'd personally consider Pet Sounds, Forever Changes, USA, WOIIFTM and In the Court of the Crimson King to be far worthier candidates of any benchmark by which other late 60s and/or psychedelic albums are measured. Just about any other album from the time period, even the unfairly maligned Their Satanic Majesties Request are just as good if not far, far better.

Sorry for the rant, but that's an opinion I feel very strongly about thats been brewing for awhile. To get back on topic, I actually think the SMiLE fragments, unfinished tho they are, are even better than those five albums or any other music any band at the time or since was making. And, I think your timeline of the project shifting focus and name is quite interesting. I think Dumb Angel would have been a cooler titled than SMiLE in any case.

Cabinessence certainly ranks alongside A Day in the Life, which is one reason I place it at the end of the comp. There is simply nothing that can follow it. And it rather neatly ties up the whole by recapitulating the Frontier Theme of Heros, which I would not take too literally as I hear the whole as a journey to the frontiers of the psychedelic American psyche circa 1967, the western imagery being best understood metaphorically.  Even in completed form there is a minimalist feel to it, a spacious vastness. Good Vibrations I think should remain at the center, the heart of it all, but not the single version. The rehearsal version sits so comfortably in the midst of the other tracks and concludes a string of - for want of a better word - love songs, each being thematically boy/girl. I see it as a two sided lp with Vegetables opening Side Two and taking us thru the Elements - Earth, Air, Fire and Water - Vegetables, Wind Chimes, FallBreaks, Water Chant - resurfacing on Hawaiian shores with Little Pad, cosmic rumination with Surf's Up and cosmic grandeur with Cabinessence.   

Oh why didn't they consult me back then!?! I could have taken time off from the tenth grade - cheez.

No offense taken above. Strong argument, well supported, eloquently expressed - a pleasure to read and ponder.

Smiley's droning organ on an original LP copy is amazing in itself.

Mujan...I agree with you that Sgt. Peppers is over-rated...severely over-rated and really?...It hasn't stood up to the test of time like Rubber Soul or Abbey Road have.  The thing is though...it gets and deserves 'cred' for being a 'first' and for it opening up some doors and new directions.  They 'scooped' Brian.  Not THEIR fault.

In short...Sgt. Peppers is a very good album but I no longer consider it to be a great one. :hat

TIME.  It can be your friend.  It can also be your enemy. >:D

What you're missing entirely is how Sgt. Pepper was received on its release in 1967, and how influential it was in not only music but also popular culture in general. That is not an overstatement - Do some research into what the Beatles' peers thought of Pepper in 1967 and how it changed the game. Again, not an overstatement. The big flaw in such an analysis as above is also labeling this and other albums "psychedelic", by doing that with the other releases you're effectively doing the same thing to them as you're railing against those who do it with Pepper.

Evidence of this? Find some listeners who aren't as familiar with a few of these and play them the other albums mentioned, then ask if they sound "psychedelic". Or better yet, ask those new listeners to define what psychedelic music sounds like, or should sound like relative to 1967 to fit that label. Then let the fun begin.

See, the problem with these kinds of rants and music criticism and journalism in general in the internet/blog/social media age is a level of naivete mixed with ignorance mixed with selfishness where the blame falls almost entirely on frame of reference. I've read critics, or self-appointed "critics", write and pontificate with a frame of reference that suggests alternative, indie, punk, underground, and their notion of "important" bands started decades later than it actually did. But try to tell that to one of these nouveau rock critics...the perspective and frame of reference is totally warped by a general inability to accept a simple truth:

Some things are exactly what they were. No amount of critical "re-evaluation" can change certain things, because they are what they were. In the case of Sgt. Pepper, for one, it really was that big and that influential of an event when it was released. Do we blame media hype and ballyhoo in subsequent years for how it was perceived in 1967 and immediately after? I'd hope not.

It's perfectly fine and valid to re-evaluate a work of art, it's more than fine and welcome for anyone with a critical bent to suggest their own feelings and thoughts about that work in a critical discussion, but anyone who wishes to be taken seriously as a critic, as a journalistic voice in any way, or even as an authoritative voice in a historical analysis should take a breath before putting pen to paper and consider a few things.

Technique. The bigger posers are those who think their opinions are and should be taken as absolute truth if not fact. I don't like Sgt Pepper? I'll translate that opinion into telling the history as a concrete fact that the album was overhyped from Day One and actually wasn't as good as other, less known titles which didn't sell as well. I don't like something? I'll convince others who like it how much it sucks! Yeah, that works every time. Amateur hour.

Perspective. What was the scene, what was the sense of those experiencing something before, during, and after the event itself? In this case, what was the scene and what were fans, musicians, and the Average Joe thinking in the months before and after Sgt Pepper was "new"? That's relatively easy to suss out.

But to put a 2015 or even a 2002 or whatever other year's mentality and perspective into retroactively deciding an album's relative worth ignores the influence and impact the album had when it was new and breaking down doors. Read any number of musicians and artists from that era, and their thoughts on Pepper.

So "Forever Changes" may be a terrific album, it may be 1000 times better than Pepper, it may be the most important album released in 1967...as opinion that's fine, and it's a personal favorite of mine too, but to elevate it or any of the other titles often cited (when looking to diminish the Sacred Cow Sgt Pepper) into the same sphere of influence as Sgt. Pepper in 1967 is simply more personal opinion than fact. Basically, like it or not, that Pepper album was one of the landmark releases of its era. No matter what the media or overzealous fans have done to it since, the original influence that led to all of the hype was fact.

Ever go to a restaurant and have a meal which, when finished, you sit at the table thinking or even saying "that was the best meal I've ever had"? I'll bet there have been several if not many more cases of eating a meal and declaring it "the best I've ever had" through the years. Might try a new restaurant, might get a total surprise from an old stand-by restaurant, may even travel to another country and try totally new food..."That's the best I've ever had"...

Now, does saying that more than one time in one's life make the *original* best meal any less good than it was at that time in that place and with that frame of reference? In 1967 Sgt Pepper was pretty close to if not exactly as advertised in regards to influence and being a game-changer in the pop music business.

(http://i954.photobucket.com/albums/ae25/explosionslash/Slow-Clap.gif)

Perfectly put, Guitarfool.

Dont take mujan too seriously  :3d think of the good times talking about Smile, and not the bad times talking about any other music

I've sometimes thought Revolver superior to Pepper, but, playing the two back to back daily for a couple of weeks recently had to admit Pepper ups the ante, especially with the associated singles added to the play list - Paperback Writer/Rain, Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane. In fact, I never listen to either without the singles added. Hell, I don't ever listen to anything by the Beach Boys or Beatles in their original released configurations. 

Well put. Pepper is the benchmark for hype over substance.

Actually, as I recall, the world paused in June 1967 to listen to this remarkable new release by the Beatles. No hype was necessary, it so perfectly captured the Zeitgeist of the Age.

My friends and I did the exact same thing in June '66 that we did one year later.  We went to the closest record store and picked up Pet Sounds///Sgt Peppers.  [my buddy Jeff bought the Duophonic Pet Sounds...I just got the mono version]///[one year later it was ALL about stereo]

We went home and played those albums about 3 times...straight through...and discussed their various, plentiful and obvious merits.  Both jaw-droppingly great.  But Pet Sounds, and Rubber Soul...and Abbey Road have a timeless quality to them.  Only production values date them.  Sgt Peppers by virtue of poking into different far-reaching corners and also in not fully realizing its 'theme' now sounds dated content - wise.  Still important.  Still impressive.  Stil chalk-full of great tunes but dated nonetheless.

Forgive me if I come across as being pedantic, but you could not have bought a copy of Pepper in June '66.

As for Pet Sounds - that was a challenge for 15-16 year old ears. The four singles sold the record, and it took repeated listenings as it revealed itself. In fact, such was my experience with all Beach Boys releases in the years following, Pet Sounds thru In Concert. So overwhelming was the effect of the Fun in the Sun classics that I (we) kept waiting for a return to form. But that "form" was essentially exhausted and the new material required an indulgent ear an a bit of time to sink in. I can recall a Christmas party in '66 where we played Pet Sounds alternately with The Fugs, and played spin-the-bottle to Hermans Hermits Greatest Hits as well as Between the Buttons - never suspecting the meaning of that last one. 

I had to read twice to get what Add Some meant: He meant that in June 1966 he and his friend bought Pet Sounds together and one year later they bought Sgt. Pepper together.

Personally, I enjoy Revolver way more than Sgt. Pepper, and can't understand why Abbey Road is thought to be a great album. If I made a best of Beatles collection, nothing from Abbey Road would be on it.

I have a friend who absolutely loves Pepper. A few years ago we rode in a car together and I had SMiLE playing. Knowing my fandom she asked after a while: "Is THAT the Beach Boys?" Yes. "That's depressing music." And that was when "Holidays" was played which I feel is pretty upbeat. Since then I'm convinced that SMiLE never had the potential to become a phenomenon that Pepper was.

Abbey Road was patched together. Maxwell, anyone? And Medley is a bore. Otherwise some good tunes. The White Album is light years beyond that. And now that I think of it, The White Album bears a considerable resemblance to Smiley Smile, problem with Smiley being its pieces are scattered across a couple of albums, singles and flipsides, whereas the White Album at least presents it's Doll's House in a package...err...with a couple of singles, flipsides and studio rejects (What's the New Mary Jane) also scattered about.

Two definitely inward looking albums, yeah, I never before made the connection.

I know I'm repeating what's been written many times, but it's important to note that the Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane single was originally part of the group of songs the band started to work on in the studio when they regrouped after a hiatus that lasted from August 1966 to November 24, '66 when they regrouped and John played them Strawberry Fields. It was Strawberry Fields, then When I'm 64, then Penny Lane which took them into January '67...interrupted only by the Christmas recordings, and in Jan. '67 the famous/infamous/mostly unheard "Carnival Of Light". Mid-January it was "A Day In The Life" that was started.

So there really was no concept - and the band members and staff like Martin and Emerick acknowledged this - as they worked up these songs in late '66 and Jan. '67, it was just the next project they were recording. It wasn't Sgt. Pepper until McCartney showed up with the title track on Feb 1, '67.

It's obscure to think of it this way today, but the notion that the Beatles could separate themselves from being the Beatles and stage a fictional revue as the "Lonely Hearts Club Band" seemed to be a very liberating notion, and one which led to a creative spark that saw the next 6 weeks (Feb into March 67) produce the bulk of the album and some legendary overdub sessions. Remember in that "hiatus" when they all did their own thing in Fall '66 after the final live show, there were plenty of rumors circulating that the band was finished, that they had split up, etc. Getting back together in late November '66 was when they also decided as a group to take a giant leap forward, and have no boundaries on what they could do on their recordings. Revolver was liberating, it was groundbreaking, but at the same time they still felt constrained because they had upcoming tour obligations to make...which meant they still were limited in how much time the project could take.

With this new project, and Strawberry Fields in particular, the "Revolver" crew was in place, but they had no constraints and were free to experiment, even moreso than Revolver.

That's one of the big differences to note, which non-musicians may not immediately notice even after dozens of listening sessions with Pepper and the Strawberry/Penny single: They could spend hours getting their parts just right. McCartney in particular went above and beyond what he had ever done on bass. He would often add bass near the end of the tracking process, so he could interact with the melody, and other instrumental parts. He would spend hours, often late nights, and often with only Emerick and a tape op perfecting the most minute details of his bass parts. If you hear any of the 4-track takes, you'll hear how these parts were done often phrase by phrase to get the exact touch and tone he wanted on the song.

That is not fan-boy exaggeration. They - especially Paul - had the time to perfect the parts which previously they may have had to settle for a few out of tune bass notes, an obvious tape splice to fix a mistake, etc...due to time constraints. They had none - the freedom to get it just right was available. John was up to the task with at least 3 of his more complete and visual songs, added of course to Strawberry Fields which was and is a masterpiece. Paul took a lot of cues from Pet Sounds and created his English version of "Wouldn't It Be Nice" with Penny Lane, stacking multiple keyboards, adding a shuffle beat, and more orchestral-type horns like Cor Anglais and piccolo trumpet, versus Brian's brass and saxophone-heavy "American" arrangements...while telling Emerick how much of a "clean American sound" he wanted for this new music. Those bass lines - Paul was a creative player going back to 1964 but on Pepper he took that extra time to compose bass lines - in part inspired by Beach Boys records and James Jamerson on Motown.

I've always had Revolver as my perennial go-to Beatles album, since I was probably 12 or so, but the way Sgt. Pepper has so many layers and so many little details which went into its creation as a purely "studio" album makes it a great listen every time. When you think you've burned out on it, you can zero in on the Indian instruments from Within You Without You, or the bass line on Lovely Rita, or the non-specific instrumental hazy swirl of noises and sounds that start floating throughout "Lucy", or check out Paul's El Pico amp tone on one track or another, some of the more intricate guitar interplay buried in certain mixes...and Ringo's trademark drumming throughout the album...it is a pretty fucking great album that shows a band using what they had as a 4-piece rock combo to go above and beyond the limitations of that setup and explore outside the comfort zone, or even what was possible from a four-piece rock band in a recording studio with four tracks to work with.

They used those technological limitations to their advantage, they capitalized on the strengths of the "team" around them, and focused on what the core band could do versus what they could not. That's one reason I love the album.

I don't get the overhype bit. I never did, and never will. Sour grapes, or some pseudo-critics' way of championing the underdogs by bashing the more popular, who knows. I know basically where it's coming from, I know why it's become more prevalent, but what this album did in 1967 was massive, and it was a massive influence immediately upon its release. That can never be overstated.

Getting back to the OT, the Party-Smiley lineage, I think Party was in fact a true "concept" album where the intent was there from the first notes recorded. It was to create the atmosphere of an informal, pull out the guitars at the party type of vibe. No pretenses, no delusions of grandeur, just an attempt to capture what was something of a hobby at the time. Some records captured this too, deliberately trying to sound like a frat party or other scene. "Double Shot Of My Baby's Love" by the Swingin' Medallions was one of a handful of "party" type records where it sounded like they stuck up a mic at a frat house and rolled tape. "Louie Louie", The Kingsmen...no crowd noise, no clinking glasses or dropped beer cans but damn you could almost smell the stale beer and cigarette butts on the floor of that record. Along with the flasks of gin and Windsor Canadian some of the band members swiped from Dad's liquor cabinet.

That live atmosphere, like you were hearing a party underway, totally informal, correcting mistakes be damned, it was like audio verite. But the BB's "Party!", whether it was done to get Capitol their next release under pressure or if it were simply what Brian as the producer wanted to capture, it had no set rules going into the deal. You can hear it on the session tapes, in some cases they're still finding songs to play, it would seem. Between the jokes about LSD, Sonny Bono, and Hal Blaine missing a flight, they're basically hanging out and recording informally. Which was the whole point of this "concept" going in.

What turned out to be a stroke of near-genius was how it may have humanized the band in a way, as you heard these pop stars doing stuff you and your friends were doing in garages, on the beach, in parents' basements, at whatever party was happening last weekend, whatever. And they were also deconstructing and poking fun at their own number one hit songs...all of this, the "concept" if you will, so popular with the fans that in 1966 the band specifically added what we'd later call an "unplugged" set into their live shows. Dennis singing "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" just as he did on the album...a brilliant touch. Barbara Ann, live, where the crowd could sing along just as all those "guests" had done on the album's party - the fans were doing exactly what was on the record, and for decades they still continued that singalong, clapalong vibe as that song was often the closer, the crowd-pleaser. Just like the album.

Can Smiley Smile lay claim to any of that "vibe"? The actual work done on the album isn't obvious on a lot of the tracks which sound like informal recordings. But take Jim Lockert and Stephen Desper's comments through the years on the techie side of the album's creation...despite the ol' Dualux radio board and all the other rented gear. It's deceptively simple in sound, but not its creation.

Take away the two previous singles on that album, how much actual meat is left on the bone, song-wise? Stripped down, leftover Smile...a truly sublime and beautiful ode to Hawaii, a truly unique and outlandish instrumental that suggests walking through a deep winter snow with a plodding organ pedal bass line then hearing birds singing as spring rolls around (who does THAT???), some vari-speed ELTRO effects which supercharge a pretty pedestrian Smile re-write, an ill-conceived Brian And Mike duo-solo joint with a killer chorus hook but terribly off-kilter and non-grooving discordant verses...it's a mixed bag overall. To me the two singles sound like they came from Jupiter while the album was created on Pluto.

Don't get me wrong, I love the album and play it for anyone with open ears (especially Little Pad which is truly magnificent, one of the best wordless melodies in all of pop music), but I don't hear much of a concept, a unifying thread to connect the tunes, or even much of a cohesive "whole" to relate track to track. Party has that, and had that concept going into the project. Pet Sounds had a unifying theme after the fact, Smile had a notion of the Teenage Symphony To God which morphed into several variations and sidetracks...but Smiley Smile apart from the recorded sound of the actual fully-developed songs really doesn't connect to anything as previous albums had done and subsequent albums like Friends would do.

Excellent!

I can expand on my opinion on Pepper more if you'd like, but I have mixed feelings on if I should since its irrelevant to the thread and I didn't mean for my rant to cause this big tangent.

In any case, I'm just checking this board on my phone before bed so I don't have time to write anywhere near the essay you have, guitarfool, but I will say a few things. One, I think we judge albums differently. I go by what sounds best to me, the percentage of good tracks to mediocre/filler ones, cohesiveness at least in terms of "musical flow" but preferably some kind of thematic statement as well, and just straight up creativity and innovation. You seem to judge based on how influential an album was and how popular. You look at what Pepper meant to people at the time and what a big deal it was. I'm looking at it now, removed from that initial shock value and judging it by its own merits compared to its peers. I must propose as well that I don't think it would have had anywhere near the same impact or lasting reverence it did had any other band released it. I honestly think it's pretty tame and watered down compared to most other great late 60s albums, but because it was The Beatles it reached a wider audience it made psychedelia mainstream. I still think just about every other band, and the Beatles themselves with Revolver, captured psychedelia better. I think there's some pretty substandard songs on Pepper as well as lame subject matter. Writing about a child's drawing and old poster isn't particularly deep or creative.

I respect you and your opinion, but please don't write *mine* off as sour grapes.

rab, funny you should bring up Citizen Kane. I think the comparison is very astute. Although I still love Kane and am a big Welles fan, I think that's another overrated "it's the best because everyone says it is" work of art.

Woodstock, glad we can agree on SMiLE at least. I'd hope just because we disagree on other stuff you won't dismiss me completely though.

No no! It's cool! The thread veered onto another track, but so what? We can always take it back, so say your say! It's interesting.

... the drawing was just a starting point. Julian would have been some prodigy if his drawing contained everything in LitSwD.

I feel the same way about Citizen Kane.

Not sure that many people still think of Pepper as the be-all and end-all of the Beatles these days, at least in the UK.  Some revisionism happened, I think, around the late 90s or early 2000s.  It's just the benefit of hindsight, and folk recognising the better music.  It seemed to me, around that time, that Revolver started getting more regard in its place, which is fine by me.  Pepper presented a liberating concept, but it wasn't much realised in the contents of the album and the music itself was mostly just Revolver part II.

If it got so much hype in its day because of the concept, it's only natural for it be later called out on it, given it was a bit of a con.

Guitar fool, when is your magnum opus book coming out? ;D

He writes one with every post.


From what I recall, the album was intially going to be based on their growing up in Liverpool, which was dumped when Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane was cribbed for a standalone single. Then Paul brought in the concept of of the Sgt Pepper band peforming a variety type show. They got as far as the title track & Reprise and The Benefit of Mr Kite before in the words of Ringo they said "Sod it, let's just do tracks". So no concept, bar the artwork and costumes.

Two MUCH better albums from '67 Mujan forgot about were Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd. and The Nortorious Byrd Bros - neither exactly underdog groups, esp The Monkees who were selling a considerable amount more records than The Beatles at that point.

Just a few thoughts on the Pepper material.

Perspective is a major player in these discussions. I come from a musical/musician mindset, playing, recording, arranging, songwriting, etc. At some point I realized I immediately zeroed in on the music and the groove over lyrics. That's my viewpoint, what some would call my bias, but that's just how I'm wired to hear music. Lyrics and their deeper meanings are like the decorations and icing on the three-layer cake of a record. I listened to certain songs - Steely Dan comes to mind - dozens upon dozens of times before knowing or caring exactly what they were singing about. When I did learn those things, like "Rikki" was about sadomasochism, "Kid Charlemagne" was Owsley and his LSD, "Peg" was about the low-budget seedy porn industry in LA, etc etc etc...it added a lot of knowledge and background and additional layers of understanding but none of that meant sh*t compared to the way the records sounded. If they didn't sound as they did, if there wasn't that groove and all associated musical elements, I wouldn't have listened again.

My bias, laid out for all to see.  :)  The famous LA story about Mike Nesmith putting a fist through the wall of a swank hotel after Donny Kirshner and Herb Moelis gave him a quarter-million dollar royalty share check and told him to play ball...Mike had also said to Kirshner "We could sing Happy Birthday with a beat and it would sell a million copies", and the guy was right on the money. That's, again, what I gravitate toward on any song I hear - How does it *sound*. If they're singing about Lego blocks or Manifest Destiny, that's secondary to what I feel in that first ten seconds or so of hearing the groove. Simple as that.

So I read some of the comments here and other places about Pepper vs. Revolver, some of the statements, etc. I have no problem with sharing and debating opinions. But let me say honestly, I think some of those opinions might change or at least be reconsidered if the wider-angle lens of perspective is put onto the camera which has been capturing the landscapes that may have formed those opinions.

I'm not out to hammer any ideas or thoughts, or say "you MUST think this, your opinion is WRONG!" (enough of that goes on already, you know?)...but at the same time consider where the opinions come from and where a wider lens could capture more perspective.

Sgt Pepper, regarding in Mujan's terms judging and album "straight up creativity and innovation". I'm not out to call out anyone or anything, but rather to offer ideas to consider, and consider a re-think of some previously held thoughts.

From a recording, arranging, production, engineering angle: Mujan, I don't know what you've done in recording, or music, or whatever else is the case, but I can state as fact that there are innovations as well as straight up creativity - specifically very creative technological solutions to break though the limitations of both 4-track recording and the limitations of EMI/Abbey Road in 1966/67 - which mark the "Pepper era", I say that to include Strawberry/Penny.

Creative ways to get new sounds, creative ways to "fix" certain sonic and tech issues, creative and innovative techniques which - let me stress this point in bold and return to it later with Revolver - are now commonplace and available on the cheapest DAW recording platform on a store-bought Mac but which were new and had not been done in 1966-67.

Innovation, creativity? Take the most low-end, stock, consumer-grade digital recording program, Garage Band or even your computer's audio recording app...and you have infinitely more power and tools available to you then the Beatles, Emerick, Martin, et al had when recording Revolver and Pepper in 66-67.

Think about that for a minute. On your iPhone/iPad, with a 30 dollar interface, you have more access and more flexibility in recording and editing audio than they did to make Pepper, Revolver, Pet Sounds, or any other album made in that and subsequent eras.

With all that power, with all of that flexibility and control literally at your fingertips, is anyone able to capture the sounds and the textures of those albums in 2015? All that power, yet who can match it?

Remember, these sounds we all take for granted, all of the "weird sh*t" that has been a part of some amazingly creative records through the years in all styles...someone had to break down the doors and make it palatable. Make it marketable. Make this "weird sh*t" gradually acceptable in the mainstream, in the world of pop music.

The Beatles didn't invent it (I'm not that naive or that blinded by fan devotion to suggest that), but they sure as hell kicked down a lot of doors and held those doors open so others could follow them in and actually make a mainstream buck or two doing it...The best and most innovative record in the world wouldn't mean jack if no one heard it.

Pepper was innovative and creative as hell. Still is. I'm just suggesting instead of getting hung up on circus posters and lyrical content, widen that focus a bit, put on a wide-angle lens, and look at what others see and have been seeing (and hearing) since 1967.



After all of that... ::)  ;)....Revolver. I have a simple thought to consider on why Revolver's perception and cache has grown and may have even eclipsed Pepper especially in the last 20 years or so. I admit and acknowledge it has.

Consider again my musician bias. Revolver has many of the "pet sounds" (intentional pun) that rock/underground/alternative/indie bands love and use on their own records. From the way drums are close mic'ed (snare sounds especially), to the way guitars are mixed and even played within a song, right down to McCartney's looping/loping bass riffs like Taxman pushed far up in the mix...combined with the pumping compressed drums...

Revolver is accessible and reachable as a sonic palette for so many artists and bands, especially when playing live. You can have a rock band in 1993 up to 2015 taking the stage and doing their versions of borrowing the Revolver sound and using it. I hear Revolver *all over the place* when I hear rock bands play, live and on record.

The drum sounds especially, but as much in the overall grooves and textures. That makes Revolver naturally more accessible, more possible to emulate and borrow from, and therefore more influential to the 90's-present era of rock musicians who would draw influence from something they could reach sonically and musically versus the more unusual sounds and textures of Pepper.

Ever wonder why you don't hear too many bands or artists trying to get a "Good Vibrations" sound on their own records? Some records are so unique, they're simply unattainable. So you get more "tribute" or emulations of Beach Boys and Brian records that lean either toward Today/Summer Days sounds or the late 60's Capitol sounds like Do It Again or even Wild Honey/Friends. Those you can come close to and borrow from, like Revolver's amazing sounds.

Because someone always has to write the rules and be the first so others can then bend and break them to suit. ;D

You bet your sweet bippy I do.

But seriously, I want a book from guitarfool. His posts are a highlight of the board.

Nice work, GF.

Two books come to mind as I read your post - Goeff Emerick's (hope I've spelled that correctly) memoir of working with the Beatles at Abbey Road, and Revolution in the Head, by ??? MacDonald, the last the best I've ever read (repeatedly) concerning the Fabs.

when it comes to SS I kind of think of it like when Kurt Cobain recorded "In Utero" his intention was to make the worst album he could so that it would fail, of course in doing so it became a masterpiece that was so unique people just thought he was being artistic, I'm thinking maybe Brian was getting back at the other guys for not supporting Smile so he set out to record the worst album he could, and it became an art statement....lol.. like his ex wife Marilyn said in IJWMFTT about Brian and the other members of the group after Smile(and I'm paraphrasing) "Look if you think you can do better than go ahead." Brian gave the producer helms to the other boys, washing his hands of it, hence it being Produced by Beach Boys..

I think it was "If you think it's so easy, you do it." - At least that's what I remember, but it's the same point really.

Interesting, this is not how I feel at all. The only two tracks that retain a little bit of that "Revolver" vibe IMHO are Good Morning and Lovely Rita. But I just don't like the sheer sound of them as much as the overall sound of Revolver. I don't know the reason, guitarfool could probably write a full message board's worth of detail about it, be it the placement of the mikes or the way the reverb is used.

It's really a thing like preferring dark hair over blondes or vice versa. I don't care how much innovation or creativity Pepper contains more than Revolver. Pepper feels to me like watching a rainy English afternoon with a cup of tea in my hand (which can be nice in a way), while Revolver is like watching an exciting football (soccer) match.

I don't believe that Revolver is regarded better by some because the sounds can be recreated more easily. It just has a more natural sound.

Party
Pet Sounds
Smiley Smile

A party sandwich.  Party! is the top bun.  Light, airy, fluffy.  Pet Sounds the meat & veggies (or tofu for those with a hard-on for the lousy Beatles).  And Smiley is the bottom bun -- that absorbs all the burger juice.

as far as Sgt Pepper, I just recently heard the Mono mix, and don't get me wrong the stereo mix sounds excellent but the mono version sounds "Unique" in the same way that Pet sounds sounds great in stereo but has it's own "Unique" sound mixed in mono...I hear more of the pet sounds influence on the mono version.. but yeah I always thought it was overrated, I like Magical Mystery tour better because the songs are better, I also Like Abbey Road mainly because of the production but I like how it has the Beatles from ALL time periods represented on it, it has heavy guitars, it has pianos, it has orchestral music, it has harmonies, it has ballads, it has political statement (maxwell silver hammer) it has earthy Folk music (Her majesty) it has the moog synths, it has all the Beatles actually playing together unlike the White Album, it has psychedelic sounds and lyrics (Come together and Polythene pam), it has a happy kid song, it has a blues type song (Oh darlin) and (with the exception of Her Majesty) it has no fillers. it's the beatles going back to the basics but with great production..I just wish the "Let it be" album was like that, even though I think that "I,Me,Mine" comes closest to that..

 :lol

that's both hilarious and remarkably accurate. I can't think of many bands who have released an iconic record (which is not the band's 1st or last record), and to have that record bookended on BOTH sides by such unusual, drastically different (from the iconic record's sound) albums, especially all within a short time period. It's quite unique, AFAIK.

Of course, if you put Summer Days and Summer Nights (the last "proper" studio record), and have the Boys finish SMiLE and release it, it seems like a much more logical progression in a Pet Sounds sandwich. The only real reason the actual released album chronology is so bizarre as it is, is because of a stopgap-to-buy-time quickie record (are there any people here who really think Party! was conceived for any other reason?) and the unprecedented amount of unreleased SMiLE recordings (which show the natural, yet huge leap forward, artistic progression that was **supposed** to follow). Can someone please just invent a time machine and find a way to help get SMiLE completed in '67? Let's get on that, people.

That's a very interesting theory. "In Utero" is my favorite album, and I very much like the comparison you've drawn with "Smiley Smile." I can see it. Both are masterpieces, to this listener.

I wonder if Brian would have been able to release an album to "buy time" to help him finish SMiLE, if such an easy option were afforded to him. Not saying time was all he needed to finish it, but it was one of the things he needed.  As I stated in an earlier post, I theorize that maybe SS was an attempt at this in and of itself, if he had it in his head to maybe finish recording SMiLE at a later point (which of course, he did - mucccch later).

He was lucky that Party! filled that role when it did, but maybe it was obvious 1.5 years after Party! that the public wasn't gonna accept another record like that, due to the exponentially sped-up rate of change in popular music, and expectation from the public.

Was Lei'd in Hawaii almost another attempt at an album with the Party! mindset too, to get an easy-to-record album done quickly in order to buy time for writing more new songs?

Sometimes I wonder if it wasn't for the better that we got to choose our favorite bits from the big pool of recordings. I'm certain I would appreciate a 1967 finished SMiLE less than my own I-put-on-it-what-I-like SMiLE compilation. If I imagine a 1967 SMiLE without Holidays and Look (SFC) but with the Rock Me Henry Wonderful in place of the harpsichord version...

On the other hand, it would be nice to have a fully orchestrated version of Surf's Up with those Good Vibrations era sonic characteristics in place of the prog-rock-era cobbled together picking over the bones from 1971 which does next to nothing for me.

I'll bet ya anything that if SMiLE had in fact come out in '67, that regardless of if immediately became a game-changer in music history or not (debatable by some, though I for one think it would have), that we'd STILL have gotten an official Capitol huge box set of fragments/parts by themselves many years later, as was the case with the completed album Pet Sounds.

100%.  [well as close to 100% as one can come when guessing about something which really didn't and therefore couldn't happen]  Still THAT'S how I think it would have gone too Cent Dep.  I disagree with Brian D Wilson.  I think the general public WAS more than ready...that they were, in fact, primed and pining for something which Smile would have delivered by the hay-wagon load.

So?  We got albums like...Sgt Peppers, Their Satanic Magesties Request, Days of Future Past,/On The Treshold of a Dream/In Search of the Lost Chord/Tommy/The Genuine Immitation Life Gazette...for goodness sake...,and 'Prog Rock'.

Yes.  We were MORE than ready for Smile. :hat

I dunno about Kurt trying to make the "worst album he could" or Brian doing the same in regards to In Utero and Smiley Smile, because there's some killer songwriting on both those releases.... But  I do agree Kurt & Brian had similar intentions with them, trying to relieve  pressure from the record company suits to follow up hit albums they wrote/produced.

And in a way, they succeeded. Neither of them were forced into rehashing their old sounds, and neither achieved the lofty commercial heights as their earliest works..... Though it's a goshdarn shame what happened to both of those creative geniuses, because with one we lost decades of great music, and the other we lost a whole lifetime of great music....


Mental illness and drug addiction are some of the worst things. Glad people finally came around and stopped stigmatizing, and started being more accepting of those "eccentricities".

Good point, could be.



I wonder if Brian D. Wilson really disagrees with you or if that's only the official version for interview perposes.

Personally, I think a 1967 finished SMiLE would be regarded as highly as Satanic Majesties and The Who Sell Out. Pet Sounds would still be regarded as "THE" masterpiece.

To address some recent points that have been raised:

Until/unless we get more insight, it's unclear if Brian was self-sabotaging or genuinely trying a new direction when the old one didn't work out. I tend to think he took the boys criticisms (it's too complex to play live! / the lyrics are too obtuse and depressing) and tried to rectify that for Smiley. He just didn't do it how the Boys wanted, and intentionally so. You want something more stripped down? Here. Have fun. But I'm still not comfortable writing the album off as intentionally subpar. Maybe a dig at the Boys criticisms, but I still think he wanted to push boundaries in a different way and still wanted people to like it.

The fact that we can mix our own SMiLEs is a definite silver lining, but in no way an ideal scenario to Brian just finishing it properly. I want the complete vocals to Worms, Child, Look and others. I want a complete Surfs Up and Elements. I want to be able to introduce people to this music without showing them BWPS, the unfinished TSS or my fan fiction mixes. I want the public to have acknowledged the true masterwork instead of the lame Pepper as the statement of the decade. I want this new direction of Brian's to have been encouraged so he'd keep going and make more albums of that calibur.

I agree 100% with Add Some. The world was absolutely ready for SMiLE. It was poised to take the public by storm.

BWPS is smile... ::)

No. BWPS is the one that was recorded and released by Brian Wilson...ya know, the artist who created the music. So, uh, that doesn't count as Smile.

I'm not gonna get into that again, not here.

But I vastly prefer the Wrecking Crew instruments and Beach Boy vocals, and I know the majority does too. So if I were to tell someone "check out SMiLE, it's the best" I'd want them to hear, well, the best.

BWPS is BW's final word on SMiLE. I like the sessions a damn lot, but it gets annoying since it is unfinished. BWPS is the key to the puzzle.

I think this is the wrong thread to debate this old point again.

I want people to be able to hear SMiLE the Beach Boys album. The 60s album. The psychedelic album. Without having to just settle for TSS or fan mixes. Is that better? Is that the semantically correct way to express this point, without starting a debate on BWPS' legitimacy?

Quote: "We were MORE than ready for Smile."

The assertion that we were all waiting for Smile to be released in 1967 has always puzzled me. Granted, I was only a kid in my mid-teens, and rock n roll was certainly central to my existence, but I never knew what was coming next. I'd just be down at the record department of Times Square Store in Babylon, N.Y. scanning the display racks and flipping thru the bins (Beach Boys/Beatles back to back and always my first stop). Never even heard of Smile till, I don't know, maybe the early 70's.

 

You're taking it too literally. That just means the world was ready for the far out, challenging, psychedelic type of music SMiLE had to offer. The abundance of crazy progressive albums from '66 to '70 ought to be proof of that.

Yeah. OK. That is certainly true.