The Smiley Smile Message Board

I ask this because the other day I decide (after almost a year) to put the album on my turntable. I had been listening the '66-'67 music almost religously and decided to listen to the 2004 version. By the time I had got to "Child is Father to The Man" I lost interest and turned it off. Now back when it came out I would listen to it a lot, but since listening to my records of the original material I just lost interest.

Maybe it's the fact that a 24 year Brian Wilson (at the height of his creative powers) with The Beach Boys singing is going to be a much provacative listen then a 62 year Brian Wilson with his band essentially doing cover versions of the same songs.

Maybe it was getting my copy of the 3 LP boot and seeing that original cover art in LP size and thinking that I am now the owner of one of the coolest items imaginable. To top it off it also came with all the goodies (poster, booklet and session worksheets)

or maybe I just listened to BWPS too much.

Anyway. Just wondering if you still feel that the album still stands? Do you still listen? Do you feel that it will be remembered years from now or has BWPS just sparked interest in the old material?

I wouldn't say that's fact - except to say that is a factual representation of your opinion. My opinion is they aren't "covers", and I find Brian's band's singing every bit as compelling as the old BBs. So we disagree on that, but that's really not germane to the interesting question you posed.


I think it definitely does still stand - but I rarely listen to the studio CD or vinyl. The live performance DVD simply blows them away. I play the "Live" DVD more than the CD by about a 20 to 1 factor. I play the DVD quite often.

For me, the most exquisite moment of the whole BWPS thing was the live performance I saw back in September 2004. It was stunning. The CD just doesn't capture the "electricity" the live performance created. I'm still amazed it could be performed live with that level of musicianship and feeling.

"Has BWPS just sparked interest in the old material?" I think people's level of interest in the old material is highly dependent on how into it they were before the BWPS release. Meaning that for the average buyer of a recording of BWPS there was little interest in the old material, and there is likely less now. I know in my case I pay no attention to the old material at all anymore. It has only historical interest to me. I do find myself very interested in how BWPS came to be though, the "making of" tracks on the DVD are also still getting a lot of play here.

My 2 cents anyway...

Ok maybe "cover versions of the same songs" was a bit harsh. Brian's band is absolutely phenomenal. I went into BWPS as a casual fan of Brian and to be honest the album turned me into a SMiLE geek. But I've been listening less and less to the 2004 version and more and more to the '66-'67 versions lately.

I was just wondering if anyone felt the same

Yes, I prefer listening to the original 60's material, because it has this unduplicatable sound Brian created in the 60's. The current band did a perfect job re-recording SMILE, but not even Brian seems to be able to recapture the magic he put onto tape in the 60's, that's why those records are so great and will stand forever. I don't think BWPS will ever reach the popularity of PET SOUNDS, but this now finished pop symphony will always be an important part of Brian's music catalog legacy, which is part of music history. For me, it's not just a song or an album, it's the whole picture a musician paints in his life.
What I don't like about BWPS is some of the sequencing. But that's just a small point. I think they should have used what was sequenced in the 60's. "Surf's Up" at the end of the album and stuff like that. The "Wonderful/Child Is Father" pairing is great.
I'm happy that SMILE was finished and how it turned out, but it's not the last word for me. The 60's tapes will always be first. When I want to 2004 smile, I watch the Live DVD. Brian really shines on it.

I went to 2 Smile Shows Election Night Nov. 2004 in L.A.  and to the Hollywood Bowl in 2005.  As stunning as the 2004 show was it struck me that the 2005 edition was even better.  I perceived that there was more of a jazz element inserted in the 2005 performance and it was a great move.  I thought the performers had (not long but significant) moments of improvisation and that this helped the performance considerably.  In particular it added freshness and vitality that  addressed the re-recorded-from-1967 factor mentioned above that is in the back (or front) of everybodys mind.       

I'm jealous. My second look at Smile live was in summer 2005 at the Pabst Theater in Milwaukee. The air conditioning broke down in the theater, the theater management handled it very poorly, and I heard later that a couple people in the band got sick from the heat on stage. It was a major disappointment, there was no way the band could be into it. Survive it would likely be more accurate in describing their goal. As well, this was during the period when the live sound mixes were not very good.

I wonder if that's going to be my last hearing of it live (in person). I sure hope not.

I play BWPS less these days.  I agree that the DVD is a bit better, and it is usualy the one I play when I do get the urge to hear Brian's released version.  I saw the band perform it in early October, 2004 in Madison, WI.  It remains one of the finest live shows that I have ever seen in my 50 years on earth.  However, I have always loved the Smile era recordings done in the '60s.  Besides the obvious things like Brian's unbelieveable voice, which was in it's prime then, there is a certain vibe on those recordings that could never be duplicated after the fact.  One has to take into consideration factors such as Brian's 'on top of the world' confidence, which sadly has never come back, and the drive that came with that confidence.  One must also consider the time period that the recordings were made.  The music industry was in a completely different state, times were changing very rapidly then.  The Smile stuff recorded in L.A. in 1966-'67 by Brian, the Beach Boys, and the wrecking crew was so cutting edge then.  There had been nothing like it recorded by any pop/rock band at that point in time.  In my opinion, it was these types of things that made those recordings special.  A couple of the problems that I have with the 60's recordings: Unfinished instrumental and vocal tracks, sound quality issues with some of the tracks.  It would sure be nice to get an officially released box set, using all of those tapes that Brian has 'in a safe place'.  C'mon Brian, we know you've got that Dumb Angel reel somewhere.       

I think it still stands up, and I still listen to the CD from time to time.  Not nearly as much as I used to, but I can say the same thing about every other CD in my collection.

I'm afraid BWPS NEVER stood up. To my ears it has always been a really bland recording, with hardly any real dynamics and some pretty lousy BW vocals. There is none of the subtle beauty found in the 66/67 recordings, and none of the magic. It IS a cover album. Still. there are some people who, when I try to turn them on to the BW/BB scene, prefer the new "finished recording" and use it to spread the word, so it's not all bad.

Does BWPS still stand? YES!!  And it's the only one officially standing. The vast majority of people who sent this album into the top 20 have not heard what we have from 66-67, and if those sessions happen to be released in my lifetime, I would be extremely surprised. It's only been a year since BWPS has been released. Has the glow worn off of the album already?   rusted and tarnished so soon?

I totally agree with Jim McShane that the live performance is where its all at. I love the DVD but when I was actually at the concert in Dallas, it was the moment of a life time for me.

I still listen to the cd and dvd from time to time and I like them, especially the dvd. But if I had a complaint it would be just one thing; Brian's producing of today is about hitting all the right notes, which is fine. But the 66-67 Brian was about getting the emotion behind every instrument and note. Now I'm not saying that there was absolutly no emotion. There was, but not nearly as much as there was in 66-67.

Having said that, Brian is in his 60s and to compare him to a 24 year old Brian is unfair. The effort and energy he has put into this is all I can ask (if not more then I excpected) from Brian today.

I get the impression that some people think that it should never have been released at all. Its Brians album, he can do what he likes with it, if he wanted to finish it (and it is finished) then i'm not surprised, who cares if he was co-erced into doing it, shouldn't he have been co-erced by the Beach Boys back in 67? Yes of course.
The people around Brian knew that this was good music and it should be out there and so it is, and now millions more people know and dig Brian Wilson than they did before. Of course there are elements of the original that are better, yes the vocals are the Beach Boys etc etc., but they didn't want to sing on it and they weren't keen for it to be released.
I think perhaps people should be looking at the accomplishment that it took for Brian to do after all these years, its great music, great melodies, great arrangements.
Thats why I can sit and enjoy Sweet Insanity for instance without worrying whether the tack pianos are real or the harpsichords are real (though I know there's none on there) or why the production is ridiculous, at the end of the day, its the songs that matter, and Brian made those fragments of stuff that he did back in 1967 into proper songs.
Perhaps Brian thought that going back to finish Smile would get everyone off his back and stop people whingeing about it?

Those folks mean well and will stay out of this thread.  ;)

Its crazy I remember I use to listen to that 3 times a day just to learn the lyrics so I could sing along at my first show... gosh it feels so long ago. Once I found out it wasn't the only smile then no it didn't stand. I even like Smiley Smile now, so I am more sold on the 60s productions then the protools one. Some of it is good on BWPS but if you try to compare it with the orginals, its like building sand.

So are we back to "BWPS isn't the real Smile" again? It would appear so...

One thing I'm virtually sure of - we'd NEVER have gotten a live performance of Smile like we got in 2004-2005 if it had been finished in the 60s. IMHO the live Smile performances are virtually without parallel from any time period. It was like hearing Paul Whiteman's orchestra play "Rhapsody In Blue" for the first time.

Did I say it wasn't the real thing? No I didn't. I just prefer the other version. Okay if you played Smile to a load of people who had never heard Smile before which one would they like better? Some would pick BWPS because it was in their eyes completed and it has more words then the last one. I would think a good chunk would pick the latter because for one The Beach Boys are actually in it and its Brian at his best sounding. I am looking at it because I never experienced the whole drama of it coming out for 20 some years so to actually listen to it in fragments made it only more cooler for me. Its just my 0.02 so take it or leave it  :P

It's not worth arguing about anymore - but while I didn't maintain you said it wasn't the real thing (I merely posed a question), descriptive phrases like "the protools one", and "its like building sand" could easily lead someone to ask the question I did, wouldn't you agree?

Yes but there is things about BWPS I don't agree with using. The protools thing left a bad taste in my mouth after I realized what it was (studio sense I lack in). I was trying to dig deeper into saying like it was sand in covering up the real thing. I don't like people that say there is only one smile. There is a lot of smile's. Its people's perception. Thats why I am not crazy about people like David Leaf who someone said romanticized about it (then again what doesn't he romantize on in Brian's life? I am sure he has every excuse for everything he's done...) I guess I should have gone deeper into what I was saying. I use to do that but it took threads up and too many battles. I miss those days. Same threads on who really said what in vegetables and does air actually exist  :lol

Back to your  regular scheduled programing...  :thewilsons

One thing about people using the word "protools" all the time when they don't know much or anything about it -- and I really don't mean this in a negative or insulting way, but I just want to make note of it.

Protools is one of many kinds of recording software out there. It is the most prominent, but not anywhere near the only one. And at its heart, it is nothing more than a way to make multitrack recordings onto computers instead of onto tape. Otherwise, it is basically the same concept as the original 4 and then 8 (and 16, etc.) track machines that Brian and everyone else were using in the '60s.

Now, the benefits of using such software instead of tape are numerous. Among them are that:

1) you can have unlimited tracks, whereas with physical tape you were limited to 2, 4, etc.
2) you can overdub to your heart's content. With tape, after you've used all your tracks except one, you can "bounce" those onto the final blank track, but it will reduce quality. With software such as Protools, you never need to bounce tracks, and if you did, it wouldn't lose quality.
3) mixes can be done with automation, meaning that people don't have to remember that at 1:13 on track 3 this track has to go up, that one down, etc. It can be programmed, auditioned, changed, etc.--all without using tape.

There are many others, but these are a few basic things.

My point is, Protools, like all other software used for recording, is really not much different at heart than a mechanical, 4-track tape recorder. The advances are tremendous, and there is nothing evil or dubious about it.

It seems to me that every time people say "protools," what they are actually complaining about are either sampled instruments--which has nothing to do with Protools--or about pitch correction, which doesn't have to have anything to do with Protools. Again, I am not trying to pick on anyone, and of course it isn't anyone's responsibility to know about recording if they don't do it. I just don't want Protools or any other software to have a bad name. It isn't cheating to use software instead of tape. It isn't cheating to use automation, or to use multiple tracks. No doubt there were people who felt that same reflex when people used the first 4-tracks, or 8-tracks, or stereo sound, or effects units, or synthesizers (remember Queen posting "No Synthesizers!" on every album they did in the 70s?).

To not like the sound of a sampled instrument compared to the harpsichord itself is fine. To not approve of pitch correction is one's own choice. But don't blame the software. Hell, I am sure Brian would have wanted to use it himself if he were 20 years old when it was coming out, instead of (however old he was...50 or 55 so, I guess).


Oh, and I forgot--yes, BWPS holds up for me. It isn't as good to my ears as a BBs one might've been mostly because I miss Brian's young voice. As for the other BBs* v Brian's current band, or a few natural instruments missing for the sake of more convenient recording, I'm OK with the result. It isnt like we were given a BW88-style treatment of Smile.

*I'd have liked some Carl, too, though. Otherwise, I don't much care either way.

Pro-tools ruined recording. I think Bruce said as much fairly recently. I am a studio engineer/producer, very much inspired by the sound of things from the mid-sixties until the mid-seventies. Saying pro-tools is like a tape recorder is ridiculous! First of all, the very 'limitations' of tape are the things most of us LOVE about the way BW's 60's and 70's recordings. Recording is, or at least can be, an art form. Using your mind to plan out a session(What instrument combos will go on which track, how to make a balanced stereo track, etc.) is, for me, more than half of the fun of doing a session. I don't mean to sound like a sound-nazi (which I am), but pro-tools, and digital recording in general, take all the warmth, spontaneity, and 'art' out of recording, mixing, and mastering. It's fun to ride the faders. I enjoy needing an extra set of hands to help with a final mix. Well, whatecer. I realise this has gone off topic, but man I can't stand pro-tools!

Oh come on! It didn't take the art out of recording--it CHANGED the art of recording. I am sure you found many, many engineers and producers in the 60s who thought overdubbing took the art out of recording because a band no longer had to be good enough to do things in one take. A brilliant artist makes brilliant art. A bad artist makes bad art. The medium is probably the least important part of the process in my opinion.

As for using Bruce as a source...he's in his 60s. It isn't hard to believe he'd prefer what was around in his heyday. Ask someone like Prince Paul, who is a very good hip hop producer of the past 15-20 years. Ask an artist like Beck or Mark Everett. Obviously, they'll say otherwise. Of course, now is when you say "oh, but everything now sucks, they suck," and so on.

But that kind of stagnation is what makes young people dislike listening to their elders. Times change. The recording medium didn't ruin music any more than electricity, multitracking or fuzz boxes did.

One thing I can say for certain is BWPS exceeded my expectations.  The attention to the details of the original recordings is remarkable to these ears, despite the presence of "artificial" instruments and recording medium disparities.  The one frustration I have about it is that Brian's vocals sounded better later in '04 (after getting the new teeth?), and I wish it the recordings had been done at that time.  Because of that, I agree that the DVD performance is the way to go with BWPS.

Luther,
    I AM young(32) and agree that there are some musicians out there who use pro-tools and other digital recording media to amazing effect (the Flaming Lips come to mind), but that does not mean its the same as, or superior to, analog. Why do you think they have so many plug-ins for computers to try and make them sound more analog? Saying the medium used is the least important aspect seems a little over-the-top when we are talking about recording artists. Agree to disagree. I know I won't sway anyone's opinion, but man do I hate pro-tools!!! Love and Mercy...

For me Smile, finally completed, that shows the rehiblitation of Brian's health, stage fright and career. How can some people think its a bad thing that Smile was completed?

The original music as stood the test of time for 37 years, and Brian has made sure that music will now be able accessible to a wider audience. People who have heard the about the legend since it's release may go out and the GV box set / bootlegs to see what the original fuss was about!

The completed album is excellent, and I'm still listening to it now.

As for the Pro-Tools ruined recording arguement, what a load of bollocks. Pro Tools is a brilliant innovation. If it's so bad, why did Brian use it? He's a producer. If he'd access to it in the '60s would he have used it? Would the Beatles have used it? Of course they would, "tape limitations" possibly held back some of that creativity.

<<(remember Queen posting "No Synthesizers!" on every album they did in the 70s?)>>

Absolutely!  As a kid, I always wondered what the hell that meant!

Queen's first album to use a synth, 1980's "The Game", was lousy. The fact that the truly insipid "Another One Bites The Dust" was a hit totally derailed the band's artistic sense for years (they were just starting to return to some semblance of their former glory at the time Freddie Mercury passed on). I'm not blaming the synth, but the more organic production ideal they held in the 70s truly benefitted the material.

But back to BWPS - The original 60s sessions for "SMiLE" were certainly more magical in of themselves, but nothing compares to the material presented as a completed work. I remember the exitement I felt hearing the early edit of "Heroes & Villains" for the first time in 1990 (because it wasn't in pieces) and wishing that more of the "SMiLE" material had that finished feel. BWPS gave me the same thrill of hearing the fully realized potential of this stuff. About ten years ago I dreamt that someone played me the completed "SMiLE" album and it was astonishing; BWPS was/is just as good as the one I heard in my dream.

When it comes down to it. The question I was asking was. 20 years from now will people be talking about SMiLE more as that lost Beach Boys album from 1967 or as a 2004 album completed by Brian Wilson?

Both, I'd say.  Because you can't mention one without the other.

care to elaborate?

In twenty years I think I'll be talking obsessively about 66/67 with a casual mention of 04. That's how it's been since I was 11 and my mom introduced me to this stuff, that's how it is now, so I doubt my M.O. will change any.BTW, I DO like BWPS, just not as much as say...Love You.

I think that the legend is largely 1966/67, and that will always hold people's attention. That's when the band was reaching its apex, that's when all the drama began to really unfold, that's when Brian and the BBs fell from their commercial heights...it's the more lurid, enticing story. "Brilliant work drives genius mad; simple-minded or jealous band revolts; etc." (I don't believe that...I am just saying that's the story) Of course, BWPS ends the story, and so it will be hard to mention one without the other.

Agree to disagree. I just think there are more important things in making music than whether it was on one medium or another, and you must admit that digital recording opened the process up to huge numbers of people that otherwise didn't have access. That is a bonus, although it means that with more people "practicing" the craft, more of them suck and more of the result sucks.

I agree that much of the digitally recorded music is absolute trash, but it is the bad musicians' fault. You could point to any era and find that to be true.

By the way, I just spent way too much money on some home studio gear today to upgrade. Be nice to me.

Hit Pro tools on 24 bit, and you will have enough headroom to compete with analog any day. Ask Linett..It's like the oil painters who turn up their noses at pastel, if you are a great artist, you can paint in any medium...

The bulk of your complaints here seem to be more about multi-tracking, rather than the Protools DAW or A-D converters or whatever it may be. 




Indeed, Chuck Britz said that he got out of doing pop recording because there was too much overdubbing for his tastes.


I think it depends on the artist.  For some artists, their brilliance is inherant and exclusive to their medium.


None of the things you mention here ruined music as a huge entity, but they did contribute to massive changes that I'm sure were very polarizing at the time.


The Lips still do a lot of tracking to 2-inch.



Because there's a demand for that sound from people who either can't tell the difference or can't afford the real thing. 


Do you just hate pro-tools, or do you also hate Nuendo, Adobe Audition, Logic, Cubase, etc, etc? 


Here we go turning a BWPS thread into a recording debate again (and well before I showed up, too).

I think that any problem that I've had with "pro-tools" or any DAW has little to do with the sound of the recording medium.  Perhaps earlier in my life I might have associated digital audio with a less pleasing sound, but now I realize that for me, it's the magic of people playing together in the same room that I was missing.  And, as I alluded to earlier, that was really a problem starting back with the advent of 16-track, or even 8-track recording.  I truly believe that there is something special about getting a bunch of incredible musicians together and getting a complete take.  It's a romantic ideal for sure.  I've literally cried over not being able to assemble a group to record some of my songs, but it's really no use.

Now, of course, that's not practical for the average joe, and thank goodness for cheapish digital recording devices or I wouldn't be able to realize much of my own music unto "tape".


On to BWPS...my thoughts on it haven't really changed.  It never has done anything for me on a personal level.  I certainly appreciate the salubrious, joyous milestone it was for Brian, and having met some of the people involved I appreciate how important it was to so many people.  Which is great, I'm glad it was recorded and meant so much to people.

So I'm not going to ever say a bad word about it again.

Ditto, except I do say a bad word [ie. "boogers"] against the inclusion of the alternate version of "Good Vibrations" in that I think it was inappropriate.  If only Brian [Darian?] had asked me first, we could have avoided this unpleasantness.

It'll always be referred to as the lost Beach Boys album from 1966/67 that was ultimately completed by Brian Wilson in 2004.

BWPS will, sadly, go down in history as the last good album (and I like it) from any surviving Beach Boy or combination thereof.  The best since 88 or POB.  To be honest, as much as I appreciate it as a work, I don't listen to the various versions of SMiLE I have or BWPS that frequently because (excepting Surf's Up), they lack a little warmth and the emotional attachment that I normally get from BB stuff (up to and including Love You, but only sporadically afterwards).

aeijtsche, thanks for saying a lot of what I was trying to say--and far better. (Other than the parts in which you disagreed with me. No thanks for those.) But the bulk of your post above amounted to what I was aiming for.

aeijtzsche,
    I'm just using 'pro-tools' as an all inclusive word meaning digital. All I know is, everytime I've 'had the chance' to use digital means to reach a musical end it has sounded worse than my original crappy four-track demo. There is something inherant in the digital domain that KILLS me, and to my ears, kills the recent BW albums (although I somehow love the '88 album, so go figure). Now I can't even remember what the original topic of this thread is...Sorry to all for this extreme tangent!

Believe me, I know what you mean...but I think that in order to truly have a hatred of something, you should be able to quantify what it is you hate about it.  Now, maybe you can do that.  You haven't on the thread, at least.  Personally, I'm not really able to come up with a genuine "reason" to dislike digital sounds.  I mean, for one thing, where do you draw the line?  CD playback is digital, so do you hate the sound of every CD?  I certainly don't, though generally when compared to a vinyl version, CDs have tended to pale in A/B tests.

The Pet Sounds remixes were done in Nuendo, I believe, and subsequent remixes over the years have been synched and mixed in Protools.  And you know what, I think most of those stereo remixes sound absolutely gorgeous.  I might not have done them exactly the same way, but in terms of the sound, I love 'em.

So is it simply having analog somewhere in the chain?  Because obviously on BWPS, Mark used a lot of nice, old tube pres and compressors and such, including the same pres that Brian recorded through back in the day.

Tape compression?  I don't know, there are pleny of recordings out there that haven't really driven the tape that hard and still sound nice.  So is it just something inherant in tape? 

Honestly, you got me.  I just find that backing up any "tape is better" argument without resorting to vague hocus-pocus falls short.  That doesn't mean that I don't prefer the sound of tape, I do, but it's not something I'm going to argue about any more.

Now, getting a group of outtasite musicians in a room together with knock-out instruments and lots of leakage...that I will argue about.

But that was done for the recording of BWPS, so, I have nothing to argue with.  Just a "hurrah for BWPS' presence on the earth."

I was quite disappointed when I bought BWPS and went home to listen to it. The mix sounded weak and I remember how superdisappointed I was when I heard the fire track! The original was so beautiful; a masterpiece, the new one was just... noise.

I don't even remember the last time I listened to the cd.

But I guess I knew that it won't be like the original recordings.

Don't really know much about digital recording, but I know I hate synthesizers. I like real pianos and real harpsichords.

Hate the sequencing, i.e. tracks cut together/editing, which is definitely not in the mold of Good Vibrations or Brian Wilson. Lazy, no imagination. Put together more like a Vigotone bootleg than a cohesive album despite the three sections. But to me, splitting everything up evenly into those three sections is not very imaginative and not how Brian would have cut it all together 40 years ago.

Hate the mish mash lyrics on Good Vibrations.

62 year old Brian Wilson and Wondermints don't come close to touching the vocal blend of the original Beach Boys. No magic or chemistry together either. Man, if 29 year old Brian thought the vocals on 1971 'Surf's Up' were merda, especially the second section of the song with him on piano, I wonder what he'd say about BWPS.

I don't like BWPS and I haven't listened to it since it was released and I listen to the Beach Boys music every day.

I don't know what Smile is, but Brian Wilson Presents Smile is a 60 something Brian Wilson going along with something that other people put together, and really what I want to ask is "What's the point?"

If they thought the world is ready for Smile, then why not release a box set of the original sessions?

I just thought of something that I don't really like, but don't hate either. Some of Van Dyke's new lyrics. "Is it hot as hell in here or is it me...." That is my least favorite. Although I do actually like the "Rolling down the ocean liner..." Of course I believe that those lyrics were written in 1966 but not recorded.

Very well put. Thank you :police:

Why do I get the impression that the negative comments about BWPS come from mostly those folks who didn't get a chance to see the concert live? Or didn't even try. And I feel that many of these same people have the "original" recordings and think, for some reason, that they hold the real McCoy and the rest of us are missing something better.

They do and you are.  :police:

I have a VERY negative opinion on BWPS and was going to stay out of this, but I'll say something: We'll have 10 more pages of flaming about its merits and no one's opinion will change one inch. Why bother?

What I don't understand it. One of the most important moments in the history of music was recorded and it's not available. I'm talking of course about the Smile premier in London. Sure there was mistakes, but Brian's only human.

I saw the concert and met mr. Wilson in Stockholm in 2004. The concert was cool even though the band seemed a bit tired or something. Still, the cd is just weak.

I don't think the original question was intended to be a review of the CD. Where will BWPS as a whole stand was the question I think. Which means the live performances, the DVD, etc.

Am I correct?

Not liking the CD would seem to be a different question. Is there somebody here who saw BWPS live and didn't like it, wasn't amazed by it? Don't the vast majority of people here who have viewed the DVD live performance find it to be really good? Don't most people here find the reviews of BWPS (live, DVD, LP, or CD)  - especially given its rank on Metacritic and the wide range of reviews/reviewers - to be a very positive part of the BWPS experience?

Long term, all those will figure into the whole BWPS image IMHO.
 

Let's see...Smile, weak...GIOMH, awful...Imagination, sterile production. ...BW88, 80's synths and drum machines.  ...Sweet Insanity, more of the same...Makes you think some people just cannot be satified, or wish that Brian had stopped after 1985 . The guy is not going to create Pet Sounds for you ever again, so you may want to lower those expectations a bit. I'm just glad he's still getting up in the morning.

On topic answer: The whole BWPS multimedia project will be viewed as 2004 Brian Wilson revisiting the album that the Beach Boys never finished in 1967.

PS: I'm not interested in debating what "finishing Smile" means. Whoever disagrees with my 'projection' is free to post their own.

There may be some truth to this. I was at the 2nd RFH concert, hadn't heard lots of the Smile stuff before this, and the concert just blew my mind. I was a Smile freak from that day forth.

What's great for me is that as BWPS was my first real intro to Smile, to certain extent it IS Smile for me and whenever I listen to it I'm reminded of the excitement I felt when I first heard these tracks. As such it's an uncomplicated and hugely enjoyable listen for me and I never seem to tire of it.

Aside from these personal associations I think it will stand for a long time because:

Pros
1. It's Brian and VDP's last creative work on these songs and so arguably is a completion or conclusion to Smile.
2. It allowed us to hear previously unheard vintage parts such as the new Worms melody, (imo) the SFC melody, possibly the Child melody - who knows: More Smile mystery!
3. It has new melodies and lyrics written by the original composers and these new parts are great.
4. It's a chance to listen to a version of Smile sequenced by Brian (I believe) that flows beautifully and works as a cohesive whole.

Cons
1. It doesn't have the same magic sound as the original boots. Who cares, they're still there for you if you prefer. Why should BWPS and the 66 sessions be mutually exclusive? I just don't get the argument that it doesn't sound as good as the originals therefore it's null and void.
2. It's not what Brian intended in 66. Of course it's not! Hang on, we don't even know if Brian knew how to sequence Smile in 66 so BWPS is the only Brian sequenced Smile (or Brian endorsed Smile sequence if you prefer) in history.

I think BWPS suffers a lot due to its constant comparison to BW fans' ideas of what Smile could've been in 66. Any album is going to fall short on those terms. I think if you listen to BWPS on it's own merits, take it at face value, then it's hugely rewarding imo. I think it will feature in top album polls for years to come.

I prefer the CD to the DVD but seem to be the only one. Seeing Smile live was mind blowing but the DVD performance seems a bit contrived to me. Don't know why, maybe because it's very obviously performed for the cameras. I guess it just doesn't seem any more real than the CD to me.

Amen. I made a similar post in the "Alternate History" thread a few minutes ago. (I expect to be beaten up, btw.)

Oh, but I disagree about Smile being weak. I love the album.

It IS the completion of Smile. I don't think there is any "arguably" involved, except among people who don't like the way it was completed. But like it or not, it was the one and only album legitimately released as Smile.

It's funny - I was auditioning some speakers at an audio shop last week and I happened to have BWPS on CD with me so I used that to listen (since I was familiar with how it sounds in my own system). The handful of people in the shop had no idea it was something that had its origins in the 60s! They just thought it was a pretty weird CD.

When you get away from the core BB/BW fan group I think the knowledge about Smile's roots is pretty thin.

Or one could argue the legitimacy of a group's album released by an individual.

That is true. But as the primary composer and with the Beach Boys acting largely* as hired musicians on the sessions for that album (when they were involved in those sessions at all), it would seem that Brian Wilson is the one with the right to determine if and when it is finished, and what "it" is. Now, the result might not be the best that could have ever been possible (and I would say it is not), but it is HIS work, primarily. It isn't as if Bruce Johnston recorded and released an album claiming to be Smile.

*Not completely. I am not saying none of them had any say in the artistic product. But there are no Dennis Wilson songs, Carl Wilson songs, and so on. They're Brian's, for the most part.

Maybe the world isn't ready for it yet.   :p


IMO: whoever heard about Smile knows that in 1966 etc. I don't think it will ever change. To be fair, I've had contact with some who don't care about the BB and dig BWPS. But I've talked to many more who prefer the old Smile recordings and don't know Sunflower from Little Deuce Coupe.

99.9% of the population has never heard the Smile songs, even the ones that were released on CD, like Cabinessence. I was one of them when BWPS came out. I was blown away by the album. It is good music. It's a great piece of work. Bringing nothing to it (not being an audiophile, not being a BB fanatic with bootlegs, not owning the GV box set), it is one of the best albums ever made.

If, in 100 years, a group decides to perform Smile live, well, why not. It's terrific music. It's a great work that can even stand alone from the Beach Boys, even Brian. And it deserved to be released in a completed form.

Amy B, when you first listened to BWPS did you think it was a brand new release by this guy whose name you had never seen before, Brian Wilson?

Why should that matter?   Is it hard for you, Mr. Bear to believe that someone who had no knowledge of SMiLE and little knowledge of BW's history to actually *GASP* like BWPS?  In this instance, opinions like Amy's are the only ones that are valid. She went into it listening to the music on a total visceral level without any of the baggage that others carry.  Which is the way it should be.

I've shared BWPS with people who didn't know who Brian Wilson was and let them listen without telling them the story. Some loved it, a lot liked it and some didn't. Pretty much everyone thought it sounded like "an old 60s album." Probably the only person who wasn't a fan before it came out but still really likes it...my 60-year-old mother. But to be honest, I think the documentary nudged her into liking it more than she might've.

As much as a lovable, great work as I think it is, there aren't a huge number of converts from it.

Who knows, though, maybe it wouldn't have converted many people in 67, either.

I had, of course, heard of Brian Wilson. In fact, I liked the BBs music and even owned Pet Sounds. But I wasn't a major fan and didn't know most of the more obscure music. Shortly before BWPS was released, I heard Pet Sounds for the 100th time, but for some reason, I heard it on a new level...so I was primed and ready to become a more major fan. I had heard OF Smile as "the lost album," and had heard GV, of course, and H&V, which I had on a compilation.

But that was it. The first time I ever heard most of the Smile songs was when I went to the Nonesuch Web site to hear the tracks for BWPS. Upon hearing "Our Prayer," I almost cried. And that was Brian's band.

Later, having whetted my appetite to hear more, I bought the GV box set. It was only then that I heard the 1960s Smile tracks. Of course I love them. But I also love the 2004 stuff. I can see how, if I had heard and become accustomed to the BBs Smile tracks, BWPS would have sounded odd or maybe even inferior. But as a relatively new, unjaded listener in 2004, BWPS was a revelation. It's because of the sheer quality and beauty of that music. That's the only thing I had to judge it on.

It's not exactly Fun, Fun, Fun, though, you know? It's not something that's going to have mass appeal.

My God, love and mercy for you too.  :p

I'm not questioning if Amy B should like it or the merits of the product, read the whole thread to understand how we got here. We're discussing how BWPS stands today in the general audience's eyes, and how it will be taken in the future. In this context, I'm making a point that whoever press play to listen to BWPS knows about its fabled sixties background.

She tells us that she had heard OF Smile as "the lost album" and knew GV and H&V. That's what I asked her.

Brian is a co-author on most of the songs and the producer for hire by Capitol and deserves most credit for the development of the material but  I'd go alot further in giving the Boys creative credit because those who attended the sessions do.  If the Boys were musicians for hire then Brian was too. Regardless of who knew whose name or history back then or now, The Boys deserve a lot more ownership than many are willing to give them imo, the material was developed by them for them as a group and they together did pay for all the sessions in which they developed the material by multiple authors [with the most authorship to Brian].  One can legitimately question the right of Brian to solely benefit from that group effort on the group's dime under the group's banner.

Aside from their vocal contributions, and a few small instrumental parts (by Carl and Dennis), what else did any Beach Boy not named Brian contribute?  None of them co-wrote any of the songs, they weren't there when Brian recorded most of the tracks.   You make it sound like they were at all the sessions saying things like "hey Bri, why don't you have the horn play this little riff over the A flat chord?" during the recordiing of Wonderful.  Brian was the one arranging and producing everything, and the concept was Brian and Van Dyke's alone.  Just because it was written for them doesn't mean that they have any claim to the material.  How do you figure that Brian was just a musician for hire?  He wrote the music, nobody else.  If anybody has been under-recognized for their contributions, it is the Wrecking Crew, not the Beach Boys.  They brought Brian's musical vision to life.  That's not to say that the BB's weren't an integral part in bringing Brian's vision to life as well; the boys did some of their very finest singing on Smile.  But they didn't put in any more or less effort than the Wrecking Crew, and you don't see anyone saying that the Wrecking Crew deserves to benefit in some way. 

The bottom line is that, in my opinion, it is Brian and Van Dyke's work, and as such they are the ones who have the exclusive right to benefit from their work.  Without Brian and Van Dyke, Smile would not have existed for them to benefit from in the first place.  Even Al was quoted at one point as saying something like "yea we could probably finish it, but Brian should really be the one to do it."  Carl seemed to have a similar opinion, especially after trying to reassemble in in '72.  Even if some may not like the way he finished it, Brian is the only person who could have legitimately finished the album and called it Smile.  Had it been anyone other than Brian, nobody would have taken it seriously, because it is Brian's work, not the work of the Beach Boys as a collective entity.  Had the remaining Beach Boys come together to do it with Brian at the helm, that would be a different story.  But seriously, would anyone care one bit if it was "Bruce Johnston Presents Smile"?  No disrespect to Bruce, but its not his project to finish, and he knows that.  Just because he sang on the original doesn't give him any claim to the material.  Same goes for Mike and Al.  Smile belongs to Brian and Van Dyke, nobody else.

Let's face it: some people here have their own agenda.  They were always going to like it/not like it, no matter what.  Their vision of the band and where they should have headed is different from reality - and different from my vision too.

"Producer for hire"?? :lol

Brian was one of the "musicians for hire"??

Are you serious? The rest of the boys should get credit because they paid for the sessions?? If someone donates a piece of canvas to Degas or Van Gogh do they deserve partial credit for his masterpiece painted on it? Aren't you also forgetting the rest of the band did get monetary and other benefit from those sessions with the release of Smiley Smile, H&V, Surf's Up, etc.?

I sometimes wonder if that is what you really believe or if you post it just to get a reaction.

I look at it this way. There were only three people that were indispensable for Smile/BWPS to exist - Brian and Van Dyke. For it to get finished add Darian Sahanaja. 

None of this means anything as regards the original poster's question IMHO. Very few people care at this point, let alone in the future.

My intensions were not to start more "which is better arguments" although that's obviously already happened. Just to make things clear my question was this,

After over two years, now that the hype has died down. Does the album Brian Wilson Presents Smile still stand as the masterpiece everyone made it out be?

Just for the record. I am not bashing the album I believe it is a 5 star album. It's just that lately I find myself listening to the '66-'67 music instead. When BWPS first came out I (like other members of this board) was not a BB or BW geek. I only had Sounds of Summer and Pet Sounds. BWPS floored me like no other album. From then on I wanted more. At one point in time I declared it superior to the original versions. But now my opinion has changed. Still love the album, but there's something about the original that gives it the edge. In spite of the unfinished nature of it.

I hope this clears things up a bit.

I think everyone understood the question. But it is inevitable that when explaining one's opinion of why it does or doesn't stand as a masterpiece that the 60s recordings get brought up, and then that one's opinion of which of the two decades' work on it is better. Even your explanation in the previous post (in the "Just for the record" paragraph) gets into your preference of which is better.

BWPS is a great album. It doesn't "mean" anything, it's not "relevant", it's not some mystical holy grail rescued from the past, but it's great music.

I wish they'd used Frank Holmes' original artwork though. Whatever album I listen to I always have an image of the album cover in my head. I'm sure this is true of most people - Pet Sounds sort of sounds green to me.

I can't remember why they didn't use it but I dream that when this album is inevitably repackaged they replace the current artwork with the Smile Shop.

And they re-record Mike, Bruce and Al lead vocals over some of the tracks. I love BWPS but original BB vocals would be the icing on the cake. What are their voices like nowadays - surely they can still deliver the goods?

If they made Brian's voice sound good, they can do the same for the others.

Seeing Brian do PS and Smile live was way above what I ever thought I'd see live from a BBs related perfomance. Not only PS, but songs from Sunflower, Holland, Wild Honey, etc.

Before this I felt like the BBs history was incomplete. But now, if they decide to all retire, I would be ok with it.

Bless Brian for having the courage to produce BWPS, but many fans will never be satisfied
until they get the "real thing"...myself included. The DVD is superior to the album, and yes,
it still stands. Brian has the convenience of bandmates picking up the falsetto parts he can
no longer hit, now being a senior citizen. The vocalists are adequate but can never be fairly
compared to the BB's under any circumstances. The band is great. Here's hoping that Brian
will dust off the masters, mend a few fences  :grouphug and release the original product to
a waiting world. It would put all the loose ends to bed and be a beautiful tribute to not only
his brothers, but his fans. Plus, Mike needs the money  >:D.

This morning I listened to the vinyl with headphones on and I got lost in it. I then followed that up with the DVD and it didn't quite hold my attention.

my conclusion: BWPS does still stand. The vinyl is the best version with the DVD a little behind. The CD is null and void for me.

Just listening to BWPS now as I type, and I gotta say, it's doing nothing for me. When it came out I was scared/excited just like anyone else, and was kinda bummed after that first hearing. I was really hoping some interesting questions would be answered, like what does part2 of Sur's Up sound like. Turns out it sounds just like how Carl pasted it together, except with crappy strings that were TOO in tune. Turns out as well that CITFOTM's lead vocal melody sounds nothing like a BW melody, lacking any dynamics or heart, but sounds more like anybody could have written it. Same for Holliday. There just were not any revelations (except for Worms) and it didn't sound very good. The more I hear it, the more I'm convinced BW had very little to do with BWPS; certainly his heart and soul were not even close to being invested in it.

Here are my major pluses/caveats if you want to do a strict comparison between the original sessions and BWPS.

+ The arrangement isn't bad, considering there never was a concise "plan" for it.  Still would've ended better with Surf's Up.
+ Brian does a really good job singing (Don't really care about the autotune/help from Foskett)
+ The missing melodies on Plymouth Rock and Blue Hawaii are relevatory.  Love the new lyrics on Blue Hawaii especially.  "I lose a dream..."
+ All of the transitions and fades are well done.
+ For the most part, H&V is perfect.

- Synths instead of a real harpsichord and tack piano?  You can't even drag 'em out for a studio album?
- A lot of the mix sounds odd, very "flat" to me, especially the horns.  Probably has more to do with mixing for multitrack for stereo vs. mixing for a multitrack for mono.  I wished they had "stuck to the formula" this time.
- I don't care if the original BB's weren't classically trained musicians; they had a texture to their voice that the 'Mints just can't compete with.  Unfair, I know.
- Mrs. O'Leary's Cow is a mess.  Love the "Fall Breaks" backing vocals, but the actual track just sounds like noise, and seems very sanitary and normal compared to the original.
- A lot of the new lyrics are pretty rough, and don't really hold a candle to the wordplay going on in the original lyrics.  Don't dig the pirate stuff in On A Holiday, or the "I Believe" stuff in CITFOM.

I think the real issue is whether you prefer the more spur of the moment/organic recordings Brian was doing in the 60's or the methodical, precise digital recording featured on BWPS.  It's difficult to compare the two projects, because whatever Smile was going to be in '66/'67 isn't BWPS.  And the man who created both are two vastly different people, seperated by years of illness, drugs, cigarettes and booze and just plain years.  I think Brian is about as emotionally invested in the Smile material as he was the years following '67, which is to say, not at all.  And I think some of that comes through some descisions made on BWPS.

Well said. Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks wrote and put together Smile, with support from Darian, and had Darian been around in 67, I would say he'd had a hard time dealing with the Brian of that time. Smile came out when it was supposed to, and the 60s recordings are deserving of release as historical documents, is a set of some sort.

I think it was going to be unlikely that BW would have the confidence to mess around with the well known structure of Surf's Up unless he actually remembered his original intentions from 40 years back, and if he didn't want to step up in 72 and say 'Hey guys, you're missing this great 2nd section to the song' maybe there was no part 2 in 66. After all, he remembered that the Child lyrics were to be sung over the coda in 72 (presumably a 66 idea) so he wasn't adverse to pitching in ideas from 66 however lethargic and disinterested he had grown.

The new Child melody on BWPS is not my favourite but I think it works well with the lyrics and, who knows, it may be vintage.

The new melody on SFC I'm convinced is vintage and so that and the remembered Worms parts are worth the price of admission alone for me! If it isn't vintage then, hey, Brian can conjure up tunes as great as anything he was writing at his peak imo. In fact, that whole cycle of life section still blows my mind. I was lucky enough to be at the 2nd RFH show and it simply knocked me out - best musical experience of my life - so I guess I'm biased on this one.

It's all a matter of personal taste of course, and also depends on you're relationship to the Smile material, but for me, all things considered, I think Brian, VDP and Darian did an unbelievable job. Does it need to be compared directly with the original sessions? Of course it doesn't sound as spontaneous as the originals and I don't think anyone could touch the BB's original vocals but I treat it as an accompanying musical document to the sessions - Brian's Smile mix and last creative word on the subject, rather than a direct replacement of the 66/67 sessions. When I want to muse and get frustrated over a tragic missed opportunity I listen to the original tunes, when I want to just enjoy the music in a cohesive, flowing form then I listen to BWPS.

I remember reading (a Darian interview?) that Brian was asked what the backing track to the second segment of "Surf's Up" was supposed to be and he recalled there was a string arrangement. Given that Brian was definitely moving towards more minimal arrangements after "Pet Sounds" and "Good Vibrations" (an arrangement already minimalized a bit from its original conception) and that the original "SMiLE" sessions are full of moments where the arrangements break down to a bare keyboard, I think it's likely that the backing track to the second segment of "Surf's Up" was originally going to be piano, strings and vocals.

I've never once been disappointed in a listen to it.
Sure, it's not perfect, but what is?

The most uplifting part of it for me is the new simple vocal intro before GV.

It still stands TALL for me.

Beautifully put.

The 1966 Good Vibrations for starters... :police:

caught by the Sherrif!  Is that a theremin siren I hear in the background?  ;)

When I listen to the old material, I don't let the fact that it's not complete bother me. I just enjoy the music.

That's exactly how I feel. I'm just glad that it exists at all.

Yes.

I believe the second movement of BWPS is one of the best things he's ever done.  I've heard the original recordings and I was not disappointed one bit at Brian's 2004 presentation.  It is what it is.  We will never know what could have been.

I will say that I feel the live version on the DVD packs more of a punch than the CD did for some reason.  The background vocals had more of a natural blend approaching Brian, Al, Carl, Mike, and Dennis together at their best.  No one will ever duplicate the soaring harmonies that they created.  However, Brian's band comes real close.

Amusingly enough, that is easily my least favorite segment of the three--particularly the two middle tunes. Go figure. To each his own.

Yep.  Exactly.

Well said.

I'm just happy we have both SmiLe and BWPS. 

All well and good except for one (ahem) minor point: we don't have SMiLE. We have tapes from sessions that were intended for it. That said, I'm glad to have both, too, and find great value in both.

Right Luther. I find it amusing when people say they have SMiLE. Like they're special and have something the rest of us don't. Actually, they're amusing themselves.

I don't know, Dave. Maybe years ago before the internet, but SMiLE music isn't hard to find now. Besides, most of it was already released on past Beach Boys' albums.

Yes, sometimes people will say that so-and-so album is "awesome, man" just to jump on a bandwagon or to fit in. But when people are passionate about the 66-67 SMiLE sessions, I take them seriously. I mean, a large number of people do say that the SMiLE music is Brian's peak/best/genius/work of art. IT IS THAT GOOD!

Just to clarify my point, I am not arguing the quality or availability of the SMiLE session material. I only intended to state (emphatically) that it is not a finished SMiLE, nor was there ever such a thing.

You're right of course.   Thanks for the clarification...I should of been more clear :hat

And for another clarification, by using the word "have" I wasn't bragging like I've got something special.   Whats so special about buying the GV boxed set to listen to the tracks allegedly intended for Smile? 

I simply walked to the store...picked up the GV box and took it to the counter with wallet in hand...made the exchange with the clerk...went home and selected the track "Our Prayer" and listened to it while reading the liner notes, which said this song was intended for an album called Smile and etc...after listening I placed the CD set onto my bookshelf and went to bed.

So, in essence, I store the GV box set in my bedroom, or "have" a CD collection holding a set of tracks intended for a lost album apparently called "SmiLe" or "Dumb Angel" at home in my bedroom...at least until I die, and my family sells the box set at a used store for someone else to buy and have and enjoy and speculate and etc...

Hardly special   :)

BWPS still stands, and higher than any album I've heard recently, or not so recently for that matter. Who can deny that there is more musical merit to this album than on any other record of rubbish put out by some hipster jerks trying to be cool. Brian has put pop music on a whole new level of existence with this album, and I don't think it will be topped. We all know that if finished in 67 it would have been better than BWPS, but it wasn't so it doesn't matter. Play this album compared to anything else and this album will triumph with it's insights, soul, swing, songs, and overall HAPPY FEELINGS that aren't lame. Brian addresses almost every emotion on this project with great success. I really feel his pain in this music as he deals head -on with a bunch of BS and tries to overcome the pain of living with sheer will power and strength. It makes total sense to me that he would finish this album singing...'gotta keep those a' loving good, vibrations a happening with her.." I will always testify to how superior this album is to any other, except Pet Sounds, on certain days.

noname.......I Agree completely. A classic work of art.