The Smiley Smile Message Board

Has anyone been through it yet ?  I've just started, looks pretty heavy duty in terms of in-depth musical comparisons and discussions. Quite different from all the other books.

Read some reviews... i heard it's over-technical and not for readers unless they're hardcore musicians looking to emulate the music.

Yea I've read a few like that...which is precisely why I really want this book!  I'll happily read all about Brian's musical brilliance all day long. 

If it's anything like the Walter Everett books on the Beatles, I'll definitely take a look at this.

This book is great!! I just got it yesterday and have read about half of it (up through ASL). I must admit, this book would probably be hard to follow if (1) You weren't familiar with every single BW related recording of the 60's and (2) You don't have much knowledge in music/songwriting. That said, since most of us here DO know every song, and a fair amount also play/write music, I'd imagine a great number of you will love it. The book is written in a sly, almost jocular manner, and I really get a sense of how crazy it must of been for BW to have all these ideas inside just waiting for the right collaborator to try them out with. I'd say this is a must-read (bearing in mind 1 and 2 above)!!!

In other words....right up my alley!

I just ordered one on Amazon so hopefully should get one within the week, I like the look of it!

Let us know how it is!

I have found on first blush that it is solidly researched and eloquently written. It is a valuable addition to the knowledge of the MUSIC of Brian Wilson.

Got mine today!
Don't delay, get it! It's good, of course there are musical bits in it (A bit like Revolution in the head) but nothing to alienate the reader, only skimmed it, but read the post Smile stuff and it seemed very well done, my only minor complaint is whilst it mentioned the odd unreleased track it didn't seem to go the whole hog with it, a lot of Brians best 70s/80s and 90s stuff is his unreleased stuff.

I'm only a few chapters into this, but it's by far the most detailed analysis of the Beach Boys catalog, describing in detail both musical influences and style and structure in songwriting.  The only disappointment is that not much has been written on the instrumentation so far, but I'm at the start of the book, and their career, so that's to be expected. :)

The fact that there is a chapter, in a book, analyzing the musicianship of the "Surfin' Safari" album just blows my mind.  I can't wait to read the rest.  If you're hesitating about getting this...don't.

I plan to get this soon, sounds like my type of Beach Boys/Brian Wilson book!. How far does it go into the BB catalog? Does it just cover the early music? or the later music as well? Either way I'm sure it'll be a great purchase :)

It covers all eras and Brians solo stuff but he later stuff is less indepth, it also covers extra outside projects. Having read a bit more of it, I would say it is an essential purchase to the Beach Boys book collection.

Strangely enough, much of the musical analysis is focused on pre-Pet Sounds (twice as much). pp. 1-222. Pet Sounds and after go from 222-330...that aspect of it is a little disappointing for me, as I would have preferred more in-depth treatments of SMiLE, Pet Sounds, Friends, 20/20 and Sunflower in particular.

Yes I agree, strange that. Though the author concedes that Brian is sort of 'going through the motions' post-Smile due to his lack of ambition, i'm not entirely sure about that, but i'd rather read more about 'This Whole World' than 'Cuckoo Clock'.

I have the book and it is entertaining- he goes into a lot of detail about songs and did do some good research.  My own research, however, prevents me from totally enjoying the book-because he completely trusted all the dates in Keith Badman's book.  A number of dates in that book have been called into question- such as a second Fire session on Dec 5- consensus is it never happened- or Feb 20 1964- Brad Elliot found that this was the date that numerous masters were given to Capitol, probably not the date they were all recorded- things like that make his back of the book list of songs and recording dates less useful. 

I can state with total confidence that it never happened, being the d*ckhead who totally misread a Capitol session sheet something like 15-20 years ago and spuriously assumed that the invoicing date of 12/5/66 was a date for a further session. My defense ? I was a lot dumber back then.

Oh man, that's classic !!!  "Skull of Richard" - the best chuckle I've had this week.  ;D

Thumbed through a few pages of the book this weekend. It does look like an interesting read and the author is well schooled on Brian/Beach Boys literature.

I think there may be some insight to gain VIA this book and if you are a really sharp Beach Boys fan you'll discard the mistakes.

It's business as usual SMiLE-wise.

Reading through more of the book, I'm a little dissapointed at the repetitive nature of his analysis.  After reading "This song is a variation of "Little Deuce Coupe", which was a variation of "The Shift", which is a common blues progression used in [Insert obscure 50's doo-wop song here]..." more than once, it just becomes tedious.  I don't need a 400 page book to repeatedly explain to me that Rock and Roll is a derivative form of music.  Why not examine the harmonies and vocal arrangements of the songs in detail, for instance?  And as I mentioned before, there's little talk about instrumentation and arrangement, a glaring error in any book discussing BW's music.  And how the hell can you write about the music of the Beach Boys without mentioning Carol Kaye or Ray Pohlman, or the multitude of session players?

I do appreciate the depth of his analysis at times, especially when he gets heavy into theory and composition, but a lot of opportunities to talk about the actual historical and creative origins are missed or omitted entirely.  How can you write about "You're So Good To Me" without mentioning it was written about Marilyn?  And as it's been mentioned, a lot of the research done in the book is from Brian's "autobiography" and particularly Badman's book, two of possibly the worst sources to consult in writing a BB book.  And since no new interviews were conducted for this, for the well read BB fan it will all seem very familiar. 

I still recommend the book, as it's the most complete assessment of the BW Canon, but I think AGD's book is an overall better presentation, with more accurate information.  Hopefully if this book ever gets a 2nd edition, a lot of the errors and inadequacies I've mentioned will be fixed.

(check's in the mail  :))

 :lol  ;)

Man, I thought the exact same thing when i looked through this book. Another book based on bad source material. I've only thumbed through it but the pages i scanned had some obvious errors in fact. I may be a bit overly sensitive to this. I found something like 30 factual errors in Carlin's book too, and that was in the first couple of chapters. Most people wouldn't even care about the little details or chronological gaffes...but they tend to drive me crazy. That said, i enjoyed Peter's book, and i probably will enjoy this one when... I get around(er) to reading it.

I'm with Jon here -  when people say, for instance, "what difference does it make if the chart position's like two places wrong ?", my response is that if the author couldn't make the effort to check something that easily accessible, then can they be relied on for newer information ?  As for basing your text on dubious source material such as Badman or Brian's pseudobiography, no excuse - there's this thing called the internet. Check out a few recurring names, email them, get the true picture. That's why Jon gets my utmost respect . He questions everything.

:lol That's my doing... I knew people would get a kick out of that one.
-BC

I have a question for Andrew who said;

Andrew, what if one were to find some text in Brian's bio that was unverifiable by a second source. And suppose that same text, if given a reality check, allowed one to explain a wide variety of previously unexplainable phenomena.

Wouldn't one, given that this piece of text is the best explanation of things to date, be forced (by rules of good reasoning) to accept this piece of text as most likely true.

Good point... but given the undisputedly dubious context, it would immediately be suspect. Though not as much as if it had shown up in a certain diary.

And... you're applying the rules of good reasoning to something Beach Boys related ?  :o Come come, my good fellow...

I believe for the follow up book - 'Inside the music of Mike Love', he's writing it with the full co-operation from the man himself, for a more 'even handed' approach :-D

Wait, are you guys seriously slagging on this author and his intentions? Seems to me he wrote a book about the MUSIC of BW, not the history, and though they go hand in hand, his musical insights are not invalidated by some recording session dates he got wrong. That said, it really is a poor choice to ever use the autobio as a source.

I'm not completely discounting the content of the book.  He has a lot of unique and interesting things to say about the music, and it's clear from the start that he has no intention of creating a historical biography of the group, rather he seems to be trying to augment the narrative of Carlin's book with a more musically intensive study.  His analysis of musical influences on Brian's writing (particularly the early stuff), is the best musically intensive writing I've read on the group.  Also, his analysis of the Four Freshmen canon as introductory material is a great move, and future books should take this approach.

But it wouldn't take too much research to discover the lack of credibility the Badman book holds in BB circles.  And though he does have a disclaimer about Brian's autobiography being a questionable source, the fact that he uses it so much still sets off a lot of alarms.  An author should be trusted by the reader to consult accurate information, and to check sources if possible.  Even though he has a lot of new insights on the group, the lack of credible sources weakens the overall book.

AGD said;

But you do see how fine reasoning could tend to validate some parts of Brian's "bio," right?

I honestly pick up an online vibe that people are supposed to totally ignore everything contained between the covers of that book.

But even if the book is just 20 percent correct, if you are citing something within the 20%, then you are correct.

You can cite part of Brian's bio and be 100% correct. It all depends upon which part one selects.

The parts of Brian's pseudobiography that are accurate- and I agree, there are parts - are most likely the parts stolen from other uncredited sources by Todd Gold to flesh out Brian's terse interview replies.  That or they're a result of basic research. It's an essential book, but hugely flawed and to be treated with circumspection.

The main problem I, and others, have with the book is that people out there STILL take it at face value as the truth from Brian's own lips, despite the many letters to Billboard, Gold's own admissions in same and Brian's statement under oath in court that he had next to nothing to do with the book. This, and the diametrically opposed treatments of the Divine St. Eugene of Landy and all those villains involved with Brian (from family on down) effectively mask any facts presented with fidelity. Bit like reading a social history of Germany 1923-39 written by, say, Goering. The facts might be spot on, but the treatment of the primary player most certainly won't be.

And I was, of course, merely jesting about applying logic to any given BB situation. We all know they're surrounded by fine business minds invaribly given to making the right financial or career decision. Especially Brian.

Awesome  (and appropriate)analogy.

One thing I forgot to ask...this book mentions Brian owning a Rambler in the early days (Pre-BB).  I've only heard mention of Brian owning a '57 Ford.  Did he own a Rambler as well?

Mike seemed to think so, but that could have been poetic license.  :)

He was a rockstar, of course he had more than one car.

But I wouldn't be surprised if that fact that he owned a Rambler was taken from the Brian's Back lyrics with no other source.

I've just started reading it, and it definitely reminds me of those Everett books.

I'm a musician with interest in the very technical musical details (especially analysis of chord-change patterns), so the book is just perfect for me (if just a bit over my head in places).

Just got it this week, and thought parts are fearsomely technical for the non-muso, it's an enthralling read, and is the very best kind of music book - one that makes you want to run and listen to what it's talking about. The author writes as if he's lecturing, whcih can be either good or bad. Here, it's good. I'll have a more detailed view later, but for now, a fine addition to the BB bbookshelf.

Scary footnote - of the books listed in the back as sources, I have something like 95% of them. This may not be a good thing.

Reading through this thread you lot all seem to be fantastically anal and ungenerous in your treatment of this book.

Its a major achievement, written with a great deal of insight, and an obvious love of BW's music, and yet all I read are squabbles about how bad 'The Badman Book' is (n.b. 'Bad-man...') and how criminal it is to believe a word of Brian's Autobiography. I suppose no-one bothered to read the bits in the new book that clearly state, on more than one occasion, that WIBN should be treated with extreme caution as a source, and that Phillip Lambert's conclusions are drawn with that in mind.

Jeez guys, lighten up...

And... as to those who keep spotting factual inaccuracies, facts - like history - only exist through a particular prism, and unless you were actually there you can't really claim the 'high ground' in the accuracy argument, as most of us have just read it somewhere or heard it from some guy, regardless of how credible they may be as a witness.

We should all be grateful for this brilliant new book, and stop bloody moaning.

Funny - I could have sworn I said it was a great book. But then what would I know ?


So it's not a fact that "Good Vibrations" reached #1 in the US charts because I wasn't actually in the States the day it hit the top ?  Carl didn't drum on "Moon Dawg" despite what  David Marks told us because, although he was there, we weren't and thus he can't be considered a creditable witness ? We've got a term for that in England: it begins with B and ends with -ollocks. I know I've said in the past "question everything", but only when it's reasonable to do so. Some 'facts' are, indeed, facts.

So it's not a fact that "Good Vibrations" reached #1 in the US charts because I wasn't actually in the States the day it hit the top ?  Carl didn't drum on "Moon Dawg" despite what  David Marks told us because, although he was there, we weren't and thus he can't be considered a creditable witness ? We've got a term for that in England: it begins with B and ends with -ollocks. I know I've said in the past "question everything", but only when it's reasonable to do so. Some 'facts' are, indeed, facts. I wasn't there when the Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, but I'm inclined to believe it really happened.

Which is why I like publishing my writings on the Internet...the minute I become aware that a correction is necessary, or any time new information comes my way...I make the changes immediately.  The whole process is much more fluid.

Just so. A huge boon to all historians & researchers.

I really have to agree with AGD. Criticisms of that book and Badman's book and others has nothing to do with whether they are entertaining.  I think Badman's book was fantastically entertaining and I like this new book by Lambert.  That being said,  getting the facts straight is important.   My problem with the perpetuation of errors is that they cause future errors- Examples- Gaines wrote that the BBs played a second Australian tour in late 64 and many other writers have copied that remark.  Early writers stated that the group did a 40 city US tour in 1962 and writers copied it.  Writers stated that Brian quit the road on Dec 23 1964 and was not onstage again till July 1976.  All of these statements are incorrect. Does it matter? It adds no greater enjoyment to my listening to my BB records. Knowing the truth does not make the world change in any significant way.  It does, however, make the history of the BBs more accurate and since people like you and I are interested in this particular history it matters. 

Well, that's just ridiculous, Andrew, and you should know better. No-one is arguing that "Good Vibrations" didn't reach #1 in the US charts. So Carl drummed on Moon Dawg did he? and you believe that just because David Marks said it? Supposing he remembered wrongly (the early 1960s was a long time ago...)? Supposing he was just being devilish and made it up? Who knows? (DM is probably right, but we just don't know... This kind of assertion is not the same as pointing to an irrefutable chart placing...)

The point I was making (and which you studiously ignored) is that its just too long ago, and we can't be sure, and if there's ever a story that doesn't get more accurate with re-telling its this one. Every time any one of the various notables make some assertion on this board we (or rather they) are re-writing history. Everyone gets it wrong sometimes, even the venerable Desper has been shown to be inaccurate in some of his rememberings of recording the Boys in the late 60s.

I'm just saying that we're arguing over the wrong things, over details, over accuracy for accuracy's sake, and we just cannot be sure, so lets put that nonsense aside and concentrate on the music. We have many wonderful expressions in the UK, bollox being only one of them. Nitpicking is another, and certainly appropriate for this crazy thread! ;D

How sure "we" can be depends on how paranoid we are. Maybe the Beach Boys weren't around until 1974, and through a massive government conspiracy it was decided that everyone would claim that they were actually around in the 60s?

For those of you that weren't around in 1974, how would you know? Maybe everyone else is pulling the wool over our eyes.
For those of you that were around in 1974, and claim otherwise, how can anyone trust you? We can't be sure you're not in on it, too.
For those of you that were around in 1974 and claim otherwise, how can you trust yourself? Maybe you've been brainwashed. It's not an absolute certainty you weren't.

But that's just ridiculous, right?

Good Lord. This thread is giving me headaches.

The main point here is that books and articles with bad facts can really mess up your perception of the music, and it causes a chain reaction when lazy journalists reprint the bad facts again and again. There are so many cases of this in the BB's realm that it truly affected some fundamental perceptions of the band AND their music. And now its VERY hard to turn it around cause people, like on this thread, chime in and say, "don't worry too much about the details let's just enjoy the music!" Well...yeah...that's why we endeavor to help you with that enjoyment by informing you with some interesting details about the creation of said music. One of my pet peeves is the thrust that has told us Brian used session people on nearly everything after the first couple of BB's LP's. How many times were we told that through the decades? It still has a huge general influence on how the BB's music is perceived and even enjoyed. Boy that Brian was a genius and the BB's could barely play their instruments...good thing he used the Wrecking Crew on those hits. Only problem with that is its mostly untrue. The BB's, Carl, Dennis, Al, David, Bruce played on many, many, many of the hits and many, many, many of the classic LP tracks...The only LP entirely dominated by Wrecking Crew is Pet Sounds, and the early Smile sessions. And we're just beginning to get that FACT across to the very hardcore BB's fans and we are STILL miles away from getting it into the Rolling Stone/General/Common Knowledge/Rock fact realm stream. That's a HUGE fundamental bad fact that's accepted as gospel. The list only begins with that one...and it goes on and on and on. And if we don't care enough to get it right then we don't do anything to clean out an old dirty oozing wound.

I was making a point by being ridiculous for effect, i.e. just because I don't personally witness an event doesn't mean it didn't happen, which is what you were saying. David was actually there, but now you're saying that your own stipulations carry no weight. This is pure Queen of Hearts stuff - you're not related to anyone called Priore, are you ?

This book is about the songs; how they were structured, what sort of musical devices he was building upon, etc. It is most definitely not meant to be any sort of social history of the guys. The author makes it clear what sources he relied on for the 'historical' parts and even acknowledges the controversial nature of those sources. As we've seen, no BB book has all the facts correct because, at this late date, there aren't any 'facts', just memories (and AFM contracts don't count), so, aside from a few date related issues, what exactly is the problem with this book?( Sorry about that incredibly long run-on sentence!) I don't feel like I was mislead, or even confused, by this book. I t certainly seems better that Priore's latest smile cash-in. One last thing...the potential argument that someone new to the BB might be slightly mislead by this book is far outweighed by the one stating that nobody new to the BB would even know what the hell was being discussed in it. So there.

Thankyou!  :)

It seems odd to me that this would be true for a band like the Beach Boys. There's bound to be a significant paper trail somewhere.

I have tons of hard-core documentation on Jan Berry's life and career (going well beyond AFM sheets) . . . and I'm truly blessed in that sense. It makes a world of difference, believe me.

Peoples' memories alone will always steer you off course . . . whether said people were "there" or not . . . whether you're researching something that happened 40 years ago . . . or even four weeks ago. "He said, she said" . . . by itself won't cut it.

People who were "there" are often decidedly wrong when you put their memories to the test, against documentation that was generated during the time period in question.

You need something to cross reference the memories against . . . (and not just other recollections).

M.

It seems like Jan was probably a little more aware of his legacy than the BB. Plus, after the accident, which was less than a decade after everything started for him, he was likely even more concerned with having a say in his history thru documentation. The amount of lawyers, managers, etc. must have grown exponentially for the BB as the years wore on, and all of their documentation is probably scattered far and wide. Jan was J&D, but, aside from the early years, who were the BB? They certainly didn't keep everything in a trunk at their folks' house like I imagine Jan did.

Yeah . . . Jan's records run the gamut, covering the periods both before the accident and after. All of his original business contracts, etc., are extant. And a whole lot more.

Here's the thing . . . people who make a lot of money tend to keep good records . . . even if it's done by an accountant.

Moreover, after the accident, Jan's father, Bill Berry, did a remarkable job of archiving things, and taking notes.

M.

Valid point (are you listening, Carol Kaye ?), but to take a recent case in point, David recalled there being a 2nd drummer on "Surfin' USA", and on this here very MB he was tracked down and named. Plus, as I've discovered to my cost, even contemporary documentation can be spurious. These people weren't thinking of future generations of researchers: they were either having fun, or doing the day job.

Yeah, that can happen . . . but I've found that contemporary documentation is generally far more reliable than peoples' memories. Particularly when it comes to business related matters (as with Jan Berry and Screen Gems) . . . and another huge boon is legal correspondence (of all types) and court records. These kinds of things generate a paper trail a mile long.

You have to cross reference the memories against the documentary evidence (and vice versa). People often do remember things correctly. But it can get muky, especially with people who have changed their stories (even in print) numerous times over the years.

M.

Multiple sources, a high degree of skepticism and a keen analytical mind.

Damn, I wish I had any of those.  :-[