The Smiley Smile Message Board

Ok, so just listened to this one twice again...and I'm convinced it's one of Brian's best songs ever...and one of his best arrangements. The vocals, even his own which he hates despite it's range, are just fabulous and everybody is giving their all. So let's talk about it...

I've read more than once that Brian (and/or Mike) might've written it about Murry's affairs with Audree...it certains makes the track cooler, but whatdya you guys think? Could it be that way? Also, I have an interview (text) where Dennis calls it his favorite BB song.

Ohh I LOVE LOVE LOVE this song ;D I think Brian sounds heavenly on it. Seriously, a voice of an angel. This song helped me get through my most recent breakup, it made me smile when nothing else could.

I read that too about it being written about Murry & Audree. Anyone got any confirmation???

This one sends chills through me, even after hearing it for decades. I can confirm that Dennis called it his favorite Brian song on more than one occasion.

It's really an interesting piece of arranging. It isn't a song I really love, although it's obviously a really impressive piece of work. To me, it feels like an example of Brian's growth as he moved toward what became his Pet Sounds style. The vocal is soul-melting, no question--backgrounds, too. And that "guess you know I've waited for you girl" vocal trade-off is great. I actually especially love the harmony voice in the "guess you know I've" part.

It's funny Jon mentioned chills, I got a shiver up my spine after hearing it just this night. It's just that even if it might be about Murry and Audree it's so cool to have all the guys singing about it, telling Audree to go on with her life. Even without that theory it really sounds like everybodys enthused.

Terrific backing track too. And I still contend that California Girls/Let Him Run Wild is just one of this best double-sided singles of all time. I can't imagine what it would've been like to have listened to that for the first time in 1965.

I've always felt the same way.  I think I read once that Carl was impressed by the complexity of the arrangement...and for good reason.  This track is really the "Summer Days" link to Pet Sounds...it's really one of the few tracks on that album that foreshadows what Brian would do later, along with "Salt Lake City."

At least instrumentally on Salt Lake City...Pet Sounds didn't have any lyrics like "the grooviest place that's why we never get tired of Salt Lake", and "the way the kids talk so cool is an outtasite thing".

I'm with Luther on this one -- a stunning piece of craft, but it's always left me a little cold, and I'm not sure why. I love the track, Brian's vocals are stunning -- but, yeah. I don't feel it. I'd go for something like "Good to My Baby" over this.

Let Him Run Wild is one of Brian's top tracks in my opinion.  It comes from that golden 15 months or so when he was at the apex of his powers.  Let Him Run Wild, You're So Good Too Me, California Girls--perfection 1965 style.  Add in The Little Girl I Once Knew and you have my top four BBs songs of 65.  1966 gets so much attention from today's music critics and fans, but 1965 is a real solid year.  I have made a bunch of "best of BBs 65" mixes over the years.  That year's output cut down to one album length collection just about rivals Pet Sounds.  Granted, 1965 is a little hit or miss.  Please forgive me, but Salt Lake City is an awful song!  But with a song like Let Him Run Wild you can really feel where BW is heading.  I listen to that song and just want to stay in that world--where everything was still possible and Brain was boldly exposing rock music's possibilities.

Oh my God...all this time I thought I was the only one who hates Salt Lake City...

The music ain't bad but the lyrics to Salt Lake City make me want to jam an ice pick in my eye.  In 1965 BW should have known better.


"There's a park near the city, yeah
All the kids dig the Lagoon now
It's full of all kinds of girls
And rides and we'll be flyin' there soon now
And girl for girl
They've got the cutest of the Western states"

Where is that ice pick?!

Well said. Side two of Today! (except Bull Session of course) is just magical! There are times when I actually prefer some of those songs to most of the Pet Sounds songs. It depends on my mood but yes 1965 really is neglected by music critics and fans. Obviously there's Party! which I wouldn't really count as it wasn't a 'serious' album, but that's so true what you say, one albums worth of songs from 1965 could easily rival Pet Sounds in my opinion.


Nup I'm with you and Song of the Grange - It's not THAT bad, but considering the rest of Brian's output from 1965 it kinda sucks! The backing track rocks but yeah as Song of the Grange says the lyrics just ruin it. And usually I'm not one for lyrics, but when they are noticeably bad then that's a bad thing.

"Good To My Baby", that has to be among the most underrated songs of the pre-Pet Sounds-era. Fell in love with it right away when I first heard the incredible backing track on the Hawthorne compilation album. To me, that's one of the prime examples of a great rock'n'roll track.

There's too little love for side one of Today!  :smokin

What I love about GtmB -- and close relations like Don't Hurt My Little Sister (and for that matter, I Get Around) -- is that it's the sweet spot between Surf n' Cars and Teen Art Music. Brian and Mike are co-lead vocalists on these songs -- Mike on the verses, Brian on the choruses, mainly. The tracks are driving, but with a bit more studio polish (and horn sections) than before. The melodies come from every which way. And Mike's lyrics are among his best -- personal, pithy, relatable and yet not hackneyed.

And Brian hasn't yet had it in his mind to make art -- he's trying to make damn good pop records. And no one did it better at that point.

Thanks for this riff on Good to My Baby and Don't Hurt My Little Sister.  You are right, they are transitional songs.  They have one foot in the  BBs circa 62-64 and one foot towards the future.  They are too advanced to fit on All Summer Long, but they seem more early-ish than say Please Let Me Wonder.  Interesting point.  Yet another micro genre of BW for me to ponder.

OK, so back to "Wild," Carlin said that Brian wrote the lyrics for this one himself. EXPERTS, can this be confirmed or was it with Mike?

Who knows, but my guess is Mike changed a few words and probably made it a bit less awkward...

"This track is really the "Summer Days" link to Pet Sounds...it's really one of the few tracks on that album that foreshadows what Brian would do later..."

One of the factors in Brian making the transition from Today! and Summer Days was a change from Mike's approach to lyrics to Tony Asher's. It would be interesting to hear some of the BW/ML songs that had the BBs singing about cars and beaches with Asher or Parks themes.  The instrumental sound of, say Salt Lake City, without the ice-pick lyrics would only add to Brian's acclaim. SLC (and others) is a great song but will forever only be thought of as a fun BB tune.

I'm not sure Brian or those of us who listened to rock music back then would have been ready for a Pet Sounds quality lyric to any of his earlier tunes but I think the surf-sand-street topics kept BW/BB songs in the summer-and-fun genre much longer than they should have.

Yeah the lyrics aren't great, but I was referring more to the track, melody and vocal arrangement.  I generally don't listen to songs for their lyrics.  So I guess that might be why I love "Salt Lake City" more than others. 

I love Salt Lake City. It makes me feel groovy! ;D

Totally agree. And I think there's quite a few Beach Boys' fans who prefer this period over the following one (1966-67). I can picture Mike Love using the terms you used, especially "the sweet spot", "teen art music", and "damn good pop records", in pleading his case. I believe this is the period that Mike wasn't ready to leave when he was having his "artistic" differences with Brian. Not that he (Mike) wanted to necessarily stay there forever, but at least visit for a little while longer. I know Brian had to follow his muse and move on, but what if he would've stayed in that Today/SD&SN zone for another year or so....

It's like asking the Beatles to stay in their "Ticket To Ride" zone or the Kinks to hold onto their "All Day & All Through The Night" style or Dylan to continue with HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED, etc. There would have been some great songs, but nothing as revolutionarily good as REVOLVER/PEPPER, FACE TO FACE/SOMETHING ELSE, BLONDE ON BLONDE or PET SOUNDS/GOOD VIBRATIONS/SMiLE.

SLC would have been right at home on any of the first three albums (at least lyrically).  The backing track would've been simpler, though. 

LHRW I believe would've fit really well on PET SOUNDS, all the way around.  This ties in with the statement others have made that LHRW was a major step toward PS.

Never mind Salt Lake City, I have to be the only Beach Boys fan who doesn't really care for Let Him Run Wild. Similar to Luther above, I think it's an interesting production and arrangement, but the song just doesn't grab me for some reason. And Brian's vocal, while well-sung, doesn't move me. I admit that I rate the Boys' music from 1966-70 more highly than I do 1961-1965, but I love me some 1964/65 goodness too - I think Today side two is fabulous, and I can't understand why the received wisdom on 'Summer Days...' is that it's a 'step back...' from Today... I think it's got some incredible songs on it. So why don't I like this? I never really did, from the first time I heard it.

Maybe it's a historical thing. To the Boys themselves, this track must have seemed obviously advanced in arrangement compared to their past efforts (see: Carl's comments), as were an increasing number of Brian's productions at this time. So perhaps it became a favourite for them, a symbol of the exciting new music they were beginning to release (even if Brian took a dislike to it because of his vocal). Similarly, I assume it must have stood out as another one of the new more complex tracks to fans of the day and critics the first time they played 'Summer Days'. So when BB books were written a few years later, everyone fondly remembers Summer Days and the musical advances shown by some tracks on the album including this one, and so Let Him Run Wild gets built into the history as a great track. What's more, in retrospect it's a pretty big signpost to Pet Sounds, too. Maybe that helped to ensure its place in history.

And maybe that's why I don't like it - I listened to it first in a different historical context. I wasn't a contemporary fan - I wasn't born until 1971, and although my parents loved the Beach Boys, I didn't really get into them until 1995. And then I explored from Pet Sounds onwards (Smiley, Wild Honey, and Friends) and then from Pet Sounds backwards through Summer Days, Today and the GV box set. And actually, I got Summer Days after Today, as I couldn't find a CD of it for a while.

In that context (having already become familiar with Can't Wait Too Long, Heroes & Villains, Little Pad, Friends, Don't Talk and You Still Believe In Me, and for that matter, In The Back Of My Mind and She Knows Me Too Well) Let Him Run Wild just... didn't seem that amazing to me. My high expectations may also not have helped. By then, I knew that this was a track everyone (except Brian, strangely...!) rated. So it seemed a let-down - not a huge one, but I was a lot more 'meh' about it than I'd thought I would be.

But, of course, your mileage may vary... and amongst Beach Boys fans, I'm very clearly in a minority on this one! And I have to allow for the possibility that some people just really, really like it!

However, personally I think I might take several other tracks on Summer Days over it... certainly And Your Dream Comes True and California Girls, but maybe even Help Me Rhonda and The Girl From New York City, just because they're so effortlessly, poptastically, the essence of big-primary-colours 1965 Top 40 music. LHRW seems awkward, fumbly and gauche to me by comparison. But I guess that's just me.

MattB

Let Him Run Wild is arguably my all-time favorite song by any artist.  Certainly if I made a list of a dozen or so that I love so much I can't choose between them, it would be one of the first (along with Surf's Up '71).  It moves me almost to tears still, after probably 1000 listenings.

A couple of thoughts -- first, I completely agree that the song is addressed to Audree and about Murry.  I think the actual lyrics are universalized a bit (perhaps by Mike).  The sentiment is not, in my view, specifically about Murry being sexually unfaithful to Audree but rather about him not being worthy of her, which is a very deep and powerful emotion for a boy (or man) to have about his father.  I think the song taps into very deep emotions, and as someone said, the idea that the Boys (led by Brian) are singing it to Audree is extraordinarily poignant.  I have also always thought that this emotional component is the real reason Brian has shied away from the song ever since recording it, not his supposed dissatisfaction with his vocal (though if you want to get really Freudian, he might dislike the fact that he was calling out his father in such a boyish falsetto voice).

As a musical composition, I think it is outstanding.  David Leaf suggested it was Burt Bacharach influenced.  I think that's true of the verses and chorus, which have such a smooth, natural melody that builds to a great cresendo.  The "bridge," or whatever you want to call it -- from the end of the chorus through "waited for you girl" -- is pure Brian Wilson, built on a fantastic diminished chord (I think it's Abdim) that leads to Db7 and then Dbminor7.  The vocals in that part are incredible.

The instrumental track is phenomenal, a typical dense BW arrangement using the wrecking crew.  The extensive use of vibraphone is especially effective, and gives the song its unique quality.

Finally, I really dislike the "steps on the road to Pet Sounds" analysis that seems to have originated many years ago with David Leaf.  Pet Sounds is a great album, but I think anyone who truly loves the Beach Boys and Brian Wilson music would have to agree that there is so much other great stuff (both before and after) that it is a major disservice to treat their career as nothing but a progression to, and then subsequent regression from, Pet Sounds.  (Some would include Good Vibrations and Smile in the apex, but even so I still think the theory is unsound.)  Let Him Run Wild is not "another step toward Pet Sounds," as David Leaf wrote in the two-fer liner notes.  Quite frankly, I think it is better than any single track on PS, at least partly because of the tremendous emotional intensity arising from the Murry/Audree subtext.  Whether Brian wrote the words or Mike helped him, I think it's safe to say that Mike, as a close relative who knew Murry and Audree very well, was well equipped to help Brian tap into that kind of emotion.

This is probably a subject for another thread, but I really feel that Tony Asher's lyrics for Pet Sounds detract from the album.  The lyrics are generally too vague and cliched ("I once had a dream so I packed up and split for the city; I soon found out that my lonely life wasn't so pretty.")  It's not really surprising, since Asher and Brian barely knew each other when they started collaborating.  Van Dyke got around the same problem partly because he and Brian really clicked and were much more on the same wavelength; also Van Dyke was a especially talented wordsmith with a real gift for unique, evocative phrases, which Asher was not. 

But Mike was an excellent lyricist in his own right, and he and Brian worked extremely well together.  And Let Him Run Wild is arguably their finest moment.

Wow, two fantastic posts guys.  I fall somewhat in the middle of your viewpoints...the song is one of my favorites on "Summer Days," and I agree that the subject matter probably runs a lot deeper than it appears on the surface.  It's almost as if Brian is telling Audree to ditch Murry..."not being worthy of her" is an excellent way to describe that feeling.  Perhaps that is the reason Brian doesn't like the track now, as you suggested; God knows Brian can make excuses for not liking something all day long, although this is the same guy who doesn't like his "Surf's Up" demo vocal, so maybe he's telling the truth.

Busy, I do understand what you mean about everything being on the "road to Pet Sounds," but I think people use that album as a landmark because it's regarded as such an achievement.  Not saying that they never did anything good after that (although I would argue that they never reached the levels of Pet Sounds/Smile, but that's for another thread), but it makes for the most logical yardstick, so to speak.  Even if you don't think it was the group's pinnacle, it was almost certainly Brian's, and I've always found it interesting to listen to his work up to that point and pick out little things that showed where he was going.

I don't totally agree about Tony Asher either, but don't want to take the thread too far off topic.  I did enjoy reading your post though (yours too Matt).

Well said!  Bravo!

Busy, we disagree on the merits of LHRW — what others hear as the 'heart-melting' BW vocal, I find a bit squawky and honky, almost a harbinger of his shouty early 21st century vocal delivery, especially on the 'Let Him RRRRRUNNNNN!!!!' line — but I agree absolutely with you that the 'steps to Pet Sounds' theory is hokum, or at the least over-simplistic.

I think you could fairly say, in very broad terms, that up to Pet Sounds and the SMiLE sessions the complexity of BW's arrangements tends to increase, and thereafter his contributions become less dense, before becoming less frequent into the 70s.

But viewing 61-66 as 'the climb to Pet Sounds' and 66 onwards as 'the decline after Pet Sounds' is just... complete bobbins. And yes, David Leaf's twofer notes are waaay guilty of this. I recall the notes accompanying 'The Lonely Sea' equate it to 'Don't Talk', as if the merits of this early ballad can only be weighed in comparison to... one of the ballads on Pet Sounds. Whereas The Lonely Sea is an excellent doo-wop/soul ballad-inspired tune in the vein of 'To Know Him Is To Love Him' in its own right... and completely different, musically speaking, to Don't Talk (Put Your Head On My Shoulder).

I will say, though, that the emotional impact of the Murry/Audree subtext has never made me feel more interested in this song. But perhaps that's because I only learnt about that subtext for the first time... on this thread! Which means that of the perhaps 50 times I've heard LHRW, I was able to enjoy this aspect of the song precisely zero times  ;)

And it doesn't do that much for me now. It's historically interesting, if it's true, but it's not majorly apparent in the lyrics (although you could say that this is one of the clever things about the song... it could be about Murry and Audree, it could be about a random real-life girl, or it could be a completely invented scenario). And I always think that if a song is supposed to pack a big emotional punch, but that to understand that punch, you first have to know the detail of the story behind the song, then it's not really doing its job quite right. In this case, if you have to sit a PhD in Wilson Studies to really 'get' LHRW, that makes it a bit self-indulgent rather than powerful in my book.

But of course, even if that is what inspired the song, you can still (as I suspect millions of people have) enjoy the song for its tale of a boy warning a girl about another, much less pleasant guy she's starting to go out with. And maybe that was what Mike and Brian had in mind: that Murry and Audree inspired the song in the first place, but they decided to put that raw idea to use as a song that lots of people could enjoy who had no idea about the individuals that inspired it. And as you say above, some of the lyrics have been more 'universalized' and are not appropriate in the context of Brian talking about his mother... ("Guess you know I've waited for you, girl" and "Before he makes you over; I'm going to take you over, girl") so maybe they did move on from the original inspiration, if indeed that's what it was, before finishing the song off.

My final gripe about LHRW is that I don't really understand the lyrics — they've always seemed equivocal to me. The verses warn the girl and push her to dump the guy, but then the chorus says 'let him run wild, he don't care', as if it's cool to let the uncouth boyfriend behave like an ape, and as if he is cool for 'not caring'. So like Luther and Claycc above (and Brian himself), I don't rate this one in the first rank of BW songs. For me, there are much better ones to choose from.

MattB

I see your point and agree on some level: to over-simplify any music by wholly discounting it as a stepping stone as opposed to a product isn't fair or accurate. I hope you didn't take my statement on LHRW (in which I did say it was a transitional piece ... and I don't back down from that. More on that momentarily.) as dismissive of the song.

But, it could also be argued that any artist's entire career is nothing but stepping stones to what history judges as their best work. It could be argued that an artist's post-apex career (again, based on how history views their work) is nothing but departures from that best work. I don't think that is to dismiss what else they do, but a simple line graph. If there is a high point, surely there are steps leading to it and falling from it.

More specific to this song, it is an example of Brian Wilson making music more along the lines of what he would do on what is arguably his best work (and inarguably among his best works), Pet Sounds. It is one of several songs in which he explored those non-traditional rock instrumentations and arrangements that he now-famously used later. I don't think that's to discredit the good work he did. But I, frankly (like Matt B) just am not struck by the quality of this song. It is a success for me as a study in arrangement and recording, but not in songwriting. Still, I love about half of that album. I love about two thirds of the previous album. I love maybe a dozen songs from their career before that.

Are those songs I love--I Get Around, Wendy, Don't Hurt My Little Sister, When I Grow Up, California Girls, Girl From NYC, etc.--extinct species on the evolutionary road to Pet Sounds? Maybe. It doesn't diminish their quality to say that the composer moved into other, generally regarded as better, territory. The beauty of recorded music is that we have fossilized artifacts. (I'm taking that metaphor a bit far, here...)

I always thought the chorus, "let HIM run wild HE don't care" was ALSO about the boyfriend.

One thing about the "step on the road to Pet Sounds" comment....I think, to be fair, whenever that comment was made/written, wasn't it usually accompanied with a preceeding or following sentence explaining why, such as "Brian's use of brass and strings", which, actually ARE Pet Sounds-like, and the song/album was the studio album directly preceeding PetSounds, and, LIRW would fit right in on Pet Sounds, which NOT MANY preceeding songs would. Wow, that was a mouthful....

Anyway, some chart trivia...I only recently noticed that Summer Days (And Summer Nights) went to No. 2 on the album charts. Didn't realize that...

Great thoughts here, folks!

I just want to weigh in on LHRW, interesting to learn that it was about their parents.
It is one of my very favorites, sublimely sophisticated in writing and production. I heard it early on in my fandom arc, and Summer Days on the whole, esp. LHRW, Summer Means New Love & And Your Dreams Come True (so beautiful but so short :'() were especially evocative to my young ears and got an inordinate amount of listens (I recognized the quality of You're So Good to Me but found it somehow jarring at the time). Well put about the "transitional" songs being "extinct branches of a species" or whatever the exact quote was.

Brings back memories of the exquisite process of revelation that followed, finding "Today" (Dance, Dance, Dance) as a used album and grooving to Don't Hurt My
Little Sister, When I Grow Up, I'm So Young, Kiss Me Baby and She Knows Me Too Well (what a song!), discovering Break Away and The Little Girl I Once Knew on Spirit of America, We'll Run Away on the American Summer comp., turning on to the great PS, grooving to Sunflower on battered vinyl, first hearing Our Prayer and Cabinessence on a used vinyl copy of 20/20 after great anticipation (and not being let down in the slightest, quite the contrary). Later the 1st fragmentary and the later revelatory Smile boots!! The litany of epiphanies goes on and on, but LHRW was an early one and a fantastic one, I LOVE that song!

Thanks for the great memories, inspiration and bright spots in what has been in all honesty a difficult life so far, Brian et al. You really hit the ball out of the park back then! God bless you. :)

Please don't take this the wrong way, MattB, because I definitely don't mean it to be personally insulting or disrespectful- but this type of thinking drives me nuts.  (Granted we all do it, me included). Hear me out, this is a personal crusade.


This is a very mild example of what I call "rearranging biases", for lack of a better term. Unless I greatly misunderstand you, it suggests that you have personally identified "Let Him Run Wild", which you don't like, as a track that must have therefore acquired its stature on something other than its merits.  Then you suggest some theories that would support your bias and explain why others don't share that bias. What could it be that blinded the rest of us?

To be entirely fair, I do this with Smiley Smile.  I just don't get most of that album, or why people love it, so I say to myself "They're reading some kind of false hipness into it", or whatever.  But that's just me rearranging my biases, and I hereby renounce it. You guys are fortunate enough to get that album, I'm simply not.

In more fairness, you do balance your thoughts at the end by saying "your mileage may vary" and "I'm in the minority"...but I submit to you that- by acclamation- (and I realize acclamation can be a slippery slope)- "Let Him Run Wild" is one of Brian's great, great, great songs, whether or not it reaches everybody the same.  And it gave me chills when I was nine, long before I had all that other baggage on board, before I could tell you which guy on the cover was Brian or Mike or Al and before I knew for sure who wrote what. It was the melody and the arrangement and the vocals.

I always put it this way: maybe I don't like opera much.  That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with me, or opera. I don't need to seek the reasons I don''t like opera because they're aren't any, and I can't discredit opera with a list of reasons.  It's not a think and reason thing, but you also can't feel and then reason your way backwards.

You'll never talk me into liking guacamole; I'll never talk somebody else out of it.  In a similar way, music is a totally emotional, sensory experience and when it happens, it happens on that level. 

You don't get this one, that's totally O.K.

Sorry for the rant, thanks to anyone who read and considered this far.

As to the lyrics, he is telling her in the chorus to "Let Him Run Wild" with someone else....and "one day he'll run into one...who's gonna hurt him, too..."..."Before he makes you over, I'm gonna take you over"... I always got that, but granted, it might have been made more clear.

You don't like guacamole? Listen, liking or not liking a particular Beach Boys song or member or album is one thing, but don't take it out on the innocent (and delicious) avocado. Sir, a duel!

Really good post, Surfer Joe. But I don't agree with you, especially that "music is a totally emotional, sensory experience and when it happens, it happens on that level." I would say that music can be a totally emotional, sensory experience and when it happens, it can happen on that level." But there are light years between those two sentiments. Different music works differently on different people in different situations for different reasons. That is one of the most amazing things about it. For example, I can absolutely marvel at the theoretical cleverness of certain Frank Zappa music on a totally non-emotional level: at times it is almost entirely intellectual, and no worse for it. Or someone can hit me both ways: Billie Holiday can be experienced either emotionally or intellectually. The Beach Boys work for me on similar, numerous levels.

Very interesting thoughts, Luther, and I was glad to see that you responded to this, because I always enjoy hearing what you think. I'll have to kick this one around, but you're right on one point, and I posted that particular thought too quickly and it's too absolute. It may be that music just works that way for me.

Maybe that's the gap I have with a few friends who are big Sondheim fanatics (don't get the wrong impression here! My old girlfriends will all vouch for me!).  I like and admire his work, but I don't like to have to sit and think about lyrics.  Some do.  And yet I love Dylan (maybe because it works for me without all the analysis).

But conceding your point there, I don't want that to distract from my larger point about making our logic backwards-compatible with our biases.  (e.g., Maybe this is why you mistakenly believe "Let Him Run Wild" is great.") Agree/disagree?

However, you're flat wrong about guacamole.  It objectively sucks and it's green. Meet me in the Wal-Mart parking lot in fifteen minutes, Marquis-Of-Queensbury rules.

*Not claiming this to be a fair representation of what Matt said.

I always thought the song LHRW, was about Dennis.............

Not disputing the claim, but where did the theory that LHRW is about Murry originate? An interview, book, inside unpublished source?

I remember it only from the Carlin book- unsourced, as far as I know.  It certainly could have appeared elsewhere.

Carlin says the song was "allegedly inspired by his father's extramarital affairs" and that Brian may have "been using the song as a subtle way to tell off his father." (p.73) But there is no source attributed.

Thanks Surfer Joe and Luther. :police:

Don't have much time, but I had to say LHRW is KILLER! Another example of an underappreciated Beach Boys tune that kicks the merda out of just about anything else by anyone....Truly a dynamic track... :rock

I like the arrangement/performance better than the song itself, but it's a pretty good song. I actually heard the Imagination version before the original, and the '65-era voices really make the song for me.

Yup. For me, it might have replaced Sloop John B.

Okay, everybody . . . just listened to LHRW again a bunch of times in a row, and I have decided to resurrect the "stepping stone" theory, but with a twist:

The Beach Boys' entire career, indeed Brian Wilson's whole life, indeed the entire history of recorded music -- no, all of human civilization! -- was a progression toward, and then a subsequent regression from, "Let Him Run Wild."  It's that good.  I swear to god it brings tears to my eyes every time.

(Although I could probably make the same case for "Surf's Up '71," "Til I Die," "Holy Man," and a few others.)

By the way, has everybody seen this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9a000jHxqo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9a000jHxqo) -- a truly remarkable cover.  The only thing they couldn't quite replicate was the incredible magic of the voices -- Brian and the Boys, in 1965, were capable of vocals that can never be equalled.

I love, love, love "SLC" because it's fun, fun, fun. Yeah, the lyrics are cheesy, but that backing track is like a symphonic Chuck Berry/Fats Domino collaboration in heaven and the soaring Beach Boys harmonies are simply majestic. Listen towards the end as the Beach Boys sing "Salt Lake City, we'll be coming... sooooon..." like five angels, and then the vibes kick in as the track fades out in a bombastic wall of sound. 'Wow' is all I can say.

Back to the topic of the lyrics, I actually think the concept works because it's so ridiculous. Who else would try to make a song like that about Salt Lake City of all places? It makes me laugh, and that's a good thing, isn't it? It's kind of like how "Don't Worry Baby" is about a car. I think the Beach Boys appreciated the humor in this and did it somewhat tongue in cheek. Brian himself said that he understood how silly the topic of "Don't Worry Baby" was when he was first singing it (such a heartfelt ballad towards a car, you'd think it was his wife). Remember, this is a guy that likes writing lyrics about eating vegetables and taking naps, and fans eat that up.

Sometimes "Salt Lake City" is one of my favorite Beach Boys songs. How about that Carol Kaye bass line?

Couldn't agree more, Dada.
In fact it's silly (albeit musically glorious) songs like "Salt Lake City" that really turned me on to the Beach Boys after quite a few years of listening to overly wordy prog rock.

Don't Worry Baby isn't about a car, it's about the narrator of the song's girlfriend being worried about a drag race. Ballad of Ole Besty, on the other hand, is about a car.

Another great post from you, bdn.  I don't see why people get all hung up about the phrase "stepping stone to Pet Sounds"-  as mentioned, it's explained perfectly when you think about how easily it would fit on that album- and not many other earlier tracks would have.  Heck, "Sloop John B" was a stepping stone to Pet Sounds, but nobody will be bothered by that statement because it actually made the album.

As to "Salt Lake City", it was initially just done as a thank-you to their rabid fans there, right? I love the song and  I love the lyrics. Makes me feel like looking at the cover shots for All Summer Long makes me feel.

Just an addtional thought regarding 'Let Him Run Wild" being about Murray etc...  is followed by a song called "I'M BUGGED AT MY OLD MAN"!!!! That's NO accident (IMHO).

Wasn't it a commercial thing way back then too, to namecheck a city (or more than one) to encourage sales in that area? Chuck Berry used to do that too, and the Beatles reportedly sold 200 million units of 'Back In The U.S.S.R.' in the Soviet-Union.

Dave Marsh theorized that it was about the anxiety that precedes the first night of sex.

I'll never be able to look at that song in the same way.

"Dave Marsh theorized that it was about the anxiety that precedes the first night of sex."

Nah, that was Born to Run.

 :lol this joke I get...

From a 2006 interview I did with Al, talking about the lead-up to the 'Pet Sounds' sessions:

"We were just in a touring mode almost constantly up to that point. We'd just come back from Japan and it was a total revelation to us. I mean, we hadn't heard anything like that, other than like, you know, like 'Let Him Run Wild' was kind of in that vain, in that vernacular. If you remember that one, I loved that one. And when I heard these other songs I went 'Well, that's an exponential leap (laughs).'"

I was just thinking the same thing last night and was about to start a thread about it, when I thought to search instead (don't want to be tagged indolent!) and found all of these posts about the subject here being Murray.

The reason I had guessed it might be about Dennis is that I had recently read a quote attributed to Brian about how the Rovell sisters were attracted to his brothers while he was attracted to them and waited for them to come around. The line "I waited for you girl" seems to fit Brian's approach here and of course, the line "let him run wild" could fit Dennis, although I certainly have no reason to believe he and Marilyn were ever involved. But then, I had to wonder why Brian was apparently adamant about keeping such a great song off of the 1993 GV box set. Seems a bit extreme that it's just about his vocal performance. Could it be that he felt guilty about expressing such a sentiment in a lyric about his brother in light of Dennis' tragic end?

All wild speculation, of course. In any case, it certainly is one of my absolute favorites. Chills up the spine for sure!

I think that use of the phrase "out of sight" is the best ever and as a young guy I'm employing it now, and the other dig it!

Its their last really immature song lyricwise, until Dr.Love took the reigns again that is...

The track and harmonies are prime BW, though. So I can still listen to it. I don't really mind the cheesy songs on that record, actually. Girl From New York City kicks like a mule.

I love Salt Lake City...great singing...great production...and it was so good to hear Brian do it live during the TLOS tour I think...might be a good 'un for the 50th tour.

Brian did Salt Lake City when I saw him last summer. Put a huge grin on my face.

Wish he'd played Let Him Run Wild too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md19cRRDdUY


Also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-caM6mTkro&feature=BFp&list=PLEE563142031288C5.

The song was actually going to be used as the title and theme of Born Free and was going to be called Let Her Run Wild but Brian balked on doing a re-recording when he found out the film involved lions which he described as the "sharks of the desert" after dropping his third batch of acid for the evening.  :3d

Which smiley icon do I use to convey bemusement?

 :brow

 :brow

 :lol

I think KokoNO is Ghost

I'm not Ghost. I looked up some of his posts out of curiosity and he's far more creative than I could ever aspire to be.  :hat

Ah, so you're just a nobody  ::)

Come on, my posts are simply cheap jokes that someone can scoff at  (or laugh at) and continue on. That Ghost guy was concocting eloquent phrases of spirituality, randomness and suicidal thoughts. I am amused greatly by the posts of his I found in the search, but it's an entirely different schtick.

Every great satirist returns with a new character

Lay off him... Are we going to accuse every slightly eccentric new poster of being ghost?

I think oldsurferdude is far more creative with his anti-Mike Love posts.

How is spelling a guy's name wrong creative? -_-

I find OSD's dislike and cynical ideas of Mike after watching him ham it up for decades at concerts funny. ;D

Let Him run Wild is a good synopsis of Brian's career, and his talent.  Equal parts genius, and over the top crazy. 

I have a very special life-long bond with this particular song.  When I was only 7 years old, my brother brought home the single "California Girls/Let Him Run Wild", and I always played both sides of 45s because from infancy I was a huge lover of all things musical.

I was absolutely stunned by "Let Him Run Wild", and played it over and over again. I thought it was one of the most amazing pieces of music I'd ever heard. And now, almost 50 years later, I still feel that it is one of the most amazing pop records of its time, and perhaps of all time.

Works for me.  ;D

Let Him Run Wild. 
Even though I had been listening to Endless Summer for as long as I can remember (I was 3 when it was released and my dad bought it on 8-track), I really got into it when i was about 10.  It was around that time that I started realizing that the world wasn't Brownie Scout meetings and soccer games and my mom having a snack ready for me when I got home from school.  Mind you, this wasn't traumatic...it was just learning.  I read far beyond my grade level, so I read books meant for kids older than me and was exposed to a wider world.  I also outgrew Highlights and other childrens' magazines...thanks to a TV Guide article, I learned that the actresses who played the main characters on my favorite show--"Laverne & Shirley--really hated each other.  And a few months later, People magazine told me about the "Death of a Beach Boy". 
So my appreciation of LHRW came out of that period...I was learning about the dark side of life, and that song is so damn dark.  That diminished chord sounds like November when it gets the sun goes down at 4:00.  Dig what I'm saying?  I don't know if the Murry/Audree story is true, but it's plausible.  That song is filled with pain and rage...Brian's high wail.  The build-up to the second chorus sounds like someone getting ready to throw a punch. 
Marilyn talked in one of the documentaries about "Til I Die" and marveled at how Brian could express his emotions in music.  Same thing goes for LHRW.  Brian has said that he doesn't like LHRW because he sang like a girl.  I think it's more like he just doesn't want to go back to that well of pain.  As much as I love that song, I wouldn't want him to do it in concert now...he can't sing it, and that is not, not, not a song for Jeff to sing. 

Salt Lake City - fine, harmless song.  Not one that I go out of my way to listen to, but I love the way Brian's band does it in concert, complete with fade out.

I hope it's OK to bump up this old thread because I've been listening to this song almost nonstop for the past two days, and want to add some things that haven't really been mentioned. I think I understand why some people think it's great, but others find something lacking.

I hadn't heard this song since probably sometime in the 70's and had pretty much forgotten about it, then I recently bought Summer Days (I'm pretty new to this BB fandom stuff) and within about 3 seconds after this song started, I was like, "WOW!" It's completely unlike any of the other songs on the album, and that hits you right away.

One thing I've always been good at is figuring out why a particular song is a good song. Some songs really jump out at me why they're good songs, and this is one of those. I always like to go line-by-line and analyze the thing.

First of all, I don't know if Brian did this deliberately or whether it was just intuitive, but this is a song which really goes out of its way to toy with the listener. From the outset it has the listener expecting, expecting, expecting, then finally delivers by slapping them across the face with the refrain. It's got this great tension which builds up, then is released. Lots of my favorite songs do this, but this one is especially effective.

Here we go. Song lines are in yellow, the chords to the best of my figurings are next to or in the middle of each line in white ...

Em When I Am watched you walk with him
Em Tears filled Am my eyes

OK, the first 2 opening notes of the song (on the keyboard, or xylophone, or whatever it is) already grab your attention ("knock knock When I ..."). Pulling out my guitar it kinda sounds like E-minor, but I'm not sure. Are we in a minor key? Sure sounds like it! We've got alternating E-minor A-minor on each of the first 3 lines.

Em And when I Am heard you talk with him
F I couldn't stand his G lies

So all of a sudden we've gone from all minor chords to all major chords. Maybe we're in a major key after all! What he's doing is dwelling on those minor chords to build up tension ... then teases you with the major chords. One might normally think the tension would be released *at* the unveiling of the major chords, but ... nosiree! For two more lines he's elevating the opening melody but in major chords, just for the sake of making you hang on a bit longer! At this point you just KNOW the song is going to explode at some point ... but not yet!

F And now be- G fore he tries it
F I hope you G realize it

I haven't even talked about the instrumental and vocal layering, which should be obvious and is always an effective way to build up a song. So in addition to toying with the listener via the transition from minor to major chords, you get even more anticipation via the layering. Then the ascending notes on "re-al-ize it" finally tell you the song is about to EXPLODE, which it does:

Let him run wild
He don't care
Let him run wild
He'll find out
Let him run wild
He don't care

(Guess you know I waited for you)

After the explosion occurs, which the saxophone line winds up, we get this sneaky little line "(Guess you know I waited for you)" which just oh-so-stealthily eases you into the next verse as if nothing had happened at all!

I won't repeat the other verses and the ending because it's just the same thing.

So, that's why this is such a great song! It's all about building up anticipation, and releasing it, done brilliantly!

And, here is why the song can be a bit frustrating: The melody isn't all that great. I'm referring to the one in the verses, mostly. The vocal "explosion" in the refrain works fine - after all, it's supposed to explode! - and I even find Brian's screeching in the refrain to be effective because, again, the refrain is supposed to be this massive release. People scream to release tension! But I can definitely see why some people might find this song a bit sterile because it's easy to expect more from the main melody. On occasion I find Brian's falsettos to be a bit overdone, and this is arguably one of those cases. But IMO that doesn't detract from the song - this is one of the occasional songs where a nice melody isn't really necessary, because the design of the song and the arrangement "do all the work," so to speak.

Anyway thought I'd add my thoughts to this old thread.

EDIT: BTW I just figured out that McCartney's Every Night is structured similar to this, albeit a little more drawn out. Maybe more on that later.

Not to be pedantic, but the verse chords are e-flat minor 7 to a-flat minor 7, then d-flat (still) minor 7 to g-flat 7.

So your analysis isn't quite right.  What happens is that in between the verses and the choruses, there's a key change of sorts, though an enharmonic one, I think.  The interesting thing about the verse chords are that they very much exploit what would be a typical jazz progression, following the circle of fourths.  You'll notice all the chords are a fourth "up" from the previous chord.  e-flat, to a-flat, to d-flat, to g-flat.  Now, you'll notice that if you keep going with that pattern, the next stop would be c-flat.  That is where the progression wants to go, because humans have been conditioned to like this sequence, after all, it's really a bunch of V7-I cadences in a row.  And your "explosion" is simply landing on the tonic, which, as I say, humans have been trained to enjoy.  Or maybe it's hardwired into us?  Who can say?

So it feels good to land on the c-flat in the chorus, only because there's a key change, we can safely call it B now.  Or you can just do what I do and notate the whole thing in the key of B, which is also legit and probably more right, but I tend to use flat keys when there are horns involved.

The song has always been a favorite of mine going back to my first ever Beach Boys possession, an 8-track tape of "Best Of..." volume 2. I loved the song.

The harmonic analysis is there, but consider how adept Brian was at songwriting and working with song form in general, especially in this tune. The best tool I hear in this song is how the chord changes in the verses are jazz influenced, the modulations are Spector influenced where the melody remains somewhat constant while the song modulates underneath, and the whole affair sounds very much like a Bacharach influence, and Brian wears it on his sleeve here.

But listen to the chorus - with all of that going on, all of the complexities and tensions and modulations and deceptive cadences and whatever else...the point of the song where you as a songwriter want the maximum impact, the maximum punch and pop, Brian lays the hook and title of the song over a simple I to IV chord progression, which anyone given 5 minutes of musical training could bang out on any chordal instrument.

It allows the hook to burst through, the complexities in the harmony of the verses don't crowd it out or overwhelm the simple message, and the hook and title of the song is delivered with a lot of kick under the simplest chord progression, repeated, in popular music: I to IV. Then, to transition back to the verses, a totally new link section, call it a pre-verse or post-chorus, where the musical complexity and darker chords return.

It's a simple technique, but as is still the case, ultimately for the general public listening to a song, it's all about the hook. And a simple trick is to keep everything going on around the hook playing a support role for that hook, and that includes simplifying where possible so the hook comes blasting out.

This particular song really demonstrates that, I think it's a brilliant bit of songwriting. I love the vocal too, even though Brian himself apparently didn't like it and I believe he vetoed it from the '93 box set.

@aeijtzsche

Thanks! As I said I wasn't sure about the chords, was just trying to figure them out on my guitar, which can be an inexact science. My guitar might also be out of tune.

After I finished writing that I noticed the refrain seemed to mostly dwell on C (which, as you just noted is really C-flat, I need to tune my guitar!).

I have ambitions to turn this thing into a folk (or "folk-y") song, maybe I'll do it over the long weekend.

But note that even the I to IV is messed with a tiny bit, the underlying bass note in the keyboards, if not the bass instruments, is B throughout, making a pedal tone, and making it I to IV 4/6, that is to say, a second inversion IV chord.

Brian loved those pedal tones! California Girls being a great example, not just a pedal tone but a traditional Bach-style pedal bass figure on those first two verse chords! It makes that second chord sound more complex than it really is. The man knew his way around chords, for sure.

I come back to a discussion recently where someone asked about the vocal harmonies on California Girls, and when I posted the transcription, the realization was that he was stacking in simple triads, with maybe one tension (a 7th) in one of the vocal harmony chords. Yet when you hear it, it sounds like more going on - yet underneath he had the Boys singing triads and triad inversions, nothing as complex as what I think many would assume.

This came out in a big way on Pet Sounds, where he had all kinds of "slash chords" and upper-structure triads that are actually more simple than they look and sound. It's one of the tricks I later discovered Steely Dan used on a lot of their deceptively complex chord progressions. Boil them down, and they were stacking triads.

I think Bacharach, on the other hand, coming from his formal background did indeed use a lot of complex structures, altered chords, and tensions beyond the 7th, and a lot of his chords were really that much more complex than stacked triads.

Great musical analysis, guys, I love this stuff, just keep at it.

It is a sad sign of increasing age that I saw this thread on the board, and immediately thought "Oh, good, a new thread about Let Him Run Wild... I can post about how I don't actually rate it all that highly, and I'm sure to be about the only poster of that opinion". Then I realised that someone else had already done that. And only THEN did I realise that this was an old thread, and the person who'd voiced that opinion WAS me, three years ago, in a post I have completely forgotten making. Whoops.

Anyway, I stand by what I said then. LHRW is, to me, still merely an OK 1965 Brian song, and I'm totally down with it not having been included on the GV box.

And in a somewhat overdue reply to Surfer Joe (who may, for all I know, not even read this board any more or have been nibbled to death by an okapi in the interim) I totally see what you're saying about rearranging biases. And I utterly accept that many posting here may have been instantly taken with LHRW on first hearing it. As I said back in 2009, YMMV. Music can be very beautiful, very technically accomplished in the composition and the performance, and you can still find that it doesn't move you, even though the same piece does for other people. And so it is, for me, with Let Him Run Wild. It's good - I just don't find it as earth-shatteringly good as some of Brian's other 1965 output.

And to Surfer Joe again and also Sheriff John Stone on the subject of the lyrics... yeah, I do now see what you both meant. "Let him run wild, he don't care" IS ambiguous. It could mean, as I took it originally: 'it's fine to let this crummy boyfriend behave like a jerk - and it's really cool, isn't it, that he just doesn't care as he does it?' In other words, ADMIRING the boyfriend's attitude to the female character - which doesn't fit with the rest of the song. But it can also mean "get rid of him, cast him free so he can run wild on his own, and move on, girl, because he doesn't care for you". And that does fit with the rest of the song, and is probably what was intended. But I just didn't get it... duh.

Anyway, enough of the four-years-late replies to old threads! Make with the musical discussion again already...

I don't think that interpretation is plausible.


Let him run wild [without you]
He don't care [he doesn't care about you anyway]
Let him run wild [and prey on other girls]
He'll find out [when he meets a girl who hurts him the same way]


Sorry.

But the phrase 'let him run wild' doesn't seem entirely insulting. The song seems kinda territorial, some kind of poor 'but he doesn't understand you' riff. It's a potentially jilted dude singing it, IMO

I think sometimes people try to over-analyze lyrics. When you're writing a song, you've got to not only tell some sort of story, but have that story fit into so many beats per line, or beats per verse, while also (usually) making the words rhyme. More often than not it's close to impossible to have this perfectly consistent message and wording fit into the notes you're trying to sing; lyrics writing is usually a compromise. So if a song doesn't make total, perfect sense, it's probably because the composer had difficulty finding the right words given the number of notes he had to work with, or maybe he was under a tight deadline and rushed the writing of the song, or something like that, and the listener should probably be satisfied with the general message of the song without getting caught up in the details of the words.

OK, somebody help me out with the chords in the transition from the refrain to the verse (the part with the sax solo and the "Guess you know I waited for you"). There's a C# minor in there somewhere but that's all I've been able to figure out. Disclaimer: I'm more accustomed to referring to chords in terms of sharps than flats, so bear with me.  :-\

With some help from aeijtzsche's comments above my guitar chord sequence for the song goes as thus:

The first 3 lines alternate between this):
(http://www.guitarchordsworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/DEbm7.1.gif)

And this:
(http://www.guitar-resource-center.com/g_sharp_minor_7.gif)

The 3rd line goes to an E, then until the refrain it's just alternating E and F#.

Then the refrain is just B and E, each chord taking up a whole line.

Then there's the transition which isn't obvious to my ear what the chords are. HELP!  :(

If you want to go all with the key of B throughout and make it all sharps:

D# min 7 / G# min 7   x 3

C# min 7 / F#7  x 3

B  /   E/B   /  B  /  G# dim / C# / C# min / no chord

repeat

Nit picking: The B and B/E chords, first three chords in the chorus, get two bars each, the rest are one bar each as indicated.

Look at that "no chord" bar for a touch of Brian's musical skills in a simple three-note group.

There is a melody there, if transcribing in sharps it's D#-F#-G#-F#-D# on the words "waited for you girl". Put into a harmonic context, the vocal is the feature on that one bar, consider what chord those melody notes are outlining: D# and F# are the two strong chord tones, the 1 and the flat 3, on the D# minor triad. If he had gone to an A# rather than the G#, it would have been the entire D# minor triad...instead I'd consider the G# a melody note, a passing tone, whatever traditional term would fit. But there is no doubt with the 1 and b3 being heard in that "no chord" bar, that Brian is suggesting a D# minor chord.

And there is the mini-brilliance of that bar: Acting as a transition from chorus to verse, Brian's melody anticipates the strong opening chord, the first chord of the verse and also the first chord heard at the very beginning of the song. It's going back to the familiar, back to the starting point, without hammering it home and without, ultimately, a strong chordal resolution in the form of a traditional cadence or even a V chord or tritone followed by a resolution to lead it back.

Yet, that one bar bridges the gap *perfectly*, and with nothing more than a simple bass vocal (also sonically contrasting the high falsetto of what surrounds it BTW) Brian has that bass note land squarely on the root note of the opening chord of the verse, landing on familiar territory for the listener:

The last bass note of the chorus/transition is the root note of the first chord of the verse. It's a resolution without a resolution, at least in the traditional harmonic sense, yet that last note feels right at home as the falsetto verse melody takes over.

I think moments like that are pretty cool, I won't say brilliant or use the overused term genius, but they are clever and worth noting for anyone who writes songs. Incredibly cool choices.

Let Him Run Wild is my favorite pre-Pet Sounds song. The lead vocal by Brian is amazing and the harmonizing by the others is fantastic. A perfect song, in my opinion.

It's a great song with a lot of depth in its production.  I don't see how anyone could not like it.

Got it! Thanks!

guitarfool's comments are spot on, I hadn't caught the no-chord segment and it works just beautifully! The  G#dim-C#-C#min segue is even easy to play on guitar since it's all on the same bar. Toying around with that segment I discovered if you only play the C#min once it adds just a wee bit more suspense before the next verse kicks in.

Bumping up this thread once again ...

Does there exist anywhere an instruments-only track(s) to this song?? Can't seem to find it anywhere on the web, but maybe I haven't looked hard enough.

You mean the track on Stack-o-Tracks?

I was thinking of something more "deconstructed" than the track on Stack-O-Tracks. Preferably individual instrument tracks, if they exist.

Ah, I see. Simple answer, no. Long answer, Not that I know of.

OK, here's what I'm actually trying to figure out: In the instrumental lines which serve as a sort-of counter-melody ("When I watched you walk with him, tears filled my eyes" DAH DAH DAH DA), what is/are the instruments forming the "DAH DAH DAH DA?" It sounds like an electric guitar, but something else is being played with it, and I can't figure out what.

Also, there's something nifty-sounding that plays simultaneously with the word "Guess you know I ..." Not sure if it's the same intrument(s) or not, maybe-kinda sounds like the same but I'm not sure, but it would be interesting to know.

Just sounds like an interwoven sound of two different guitar tones to me.

Hmmm ... doesn't really sound that way to me. There's something ... "slurry-er" in there which doesn't really sound like an electric guitar. Unless one of the players is doing something different with his/her playing.

RE: some of the comments concerning SLC and it's crummy lyrics (which I completely agree with) - why'nt somebody write some new lyrics to it?  Some of you music makers on here are purdy good, so give this a try, consider it your Smiley Smile dot net home work.  Then you could share a writing credit with BW (not a bad deal, eh?).
Anyway, back to LHRW - awesome song and generally good advice.

Only thing I can think of would be an organ with a predominant guitar, maybe? There are takes on the UM set that may shed some light on the matter, but posting from my phone at the mo.

I think if we figure out what this is we can figure out what the other instrument is, because the more I listen to the Stack O Tracks track, the more it sounds like the same instrument.

It makes a sort-of vibrating slur sound. Some keyboard with a weird effect??

Also, do I hear a harpsichord buried in there, I Get Around-style? In the line "And now before he tries it ..." and the corresponding verse later in the song.

What you are hearing is guitar.  What is interesting about it is the treatment of it.  It seems to me that they did something unique with the reverb--in fact the reverb may have been split somehow.  If you play around with the backing track and do some OOPSing and balancing, it seems that the guitar feed might have been sent to the "main" reverb, but also to either an EMT plate or even a spring reverb, and that return was sent to another track.  It's very metallic, and really lags behind the dry signal.  Another really cool effect that we will truly never know how exactly it was achieved.  There is some natural chorusing because two guitars are playing the line.  I suppose there could be some light amp tremolo on there too.

There is no harpsichord or organ on the track, either.  There are two keyboards, a piano, and what sounds to me to be a Wurlitzer electric piano that really only plays during the choruses, hammering chords.

Thanks! Was starting to wonder if it might be some engineering trick.

As for the other line, might not be a harpsichord, but something "hard" does kick in at that spot. If you've got headphones listening to the stereo version, it's in the right side. Almost sounds like it could also be a tambourine, played far away from a mic. Or something like that. Whatever it is, it sounds "hard" - maybe it's the Wurlitzer. This one isn't a big deal though, was mostly wondering about the other one.

Yeah, seems pretty obvious to my ears. It is similar to the guitar effect on California Girls.

What spot are you talking about, now?

Upon further listening, I think what they did is sent the two lead guitars to different reverbs, one guitar maybe to chamber and the other one to the spring or plate.  But then they brought the returns back from each to the same track, which is a different track than the one they printed the "dry" or should I say drier guitars on.

The one I thought might have a harpsichord in it, mentioned above (repeated below). No big deal.

Are you talking about the chordal instrument that comes in at that point?  That's a trebley acoustic guitar.

BTW, I don't know anything beyond basic stuff for this engineering stuff (even though my father did a fair amount of it himself!), so pardon what may seem to be beginner questions.

Hmmm, I guess it could be an acoustic guitar, though to me it still sounds more like pounding on a keyboard. But I suppose it's hard to tell. If it *is* an acoustic guitar that would explain why I thought it maybe sounded like a harpsichord (plucking - or strumming - strings). It first kicks in about 17-18 seconds into the song.

It's an acoustic guitar, no doubt.

If memory serves, lhrw is a track for which no AFM sheet has circulated, so we don't have the luxury of having an idea who was paid for the session, so it's harder to sort of mathematically eliminate different possibilities.  Nevertheless, the session out takes confirm that it's a guitar, and that there's no harpsichord on the track.

Wow, that is a crazy guitar sound. I always thought it was vibraphones.

There's a vibraphone on LHRW also.

I noticed in these threads when we're all listening, trying to pick out instruments ... I think maybe people are discounting the influence and power of the echos/reverbs and the tape sound on these tracks. Certain phasing effects are inevitable on multi-track tape recorders, which is even more pronounced after going through a couple generations. If you print some of the echo to tape on one track, combined with room bleed and maybe another echo on an adjacent track ... it will become a subtle 'effect' in and of itself. Not to mention maybe a reverb going back through a chamber again. Brian's most important instrument until Wild Honey !

But it's sooo much easier on the wrist to just slap a capo on the first fret and play it as open Em7, Am7, Dm7, and G7.

Perfect song - amazing backing track and stunning vocals!  Better than several on PS.

Does anyone know what month(s) this song was recorded?

An inquiring mind needs to know!

AGD's website has the info
http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/

June/July, at least according to the Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_Him_Run_Wild

Thanks! Somehow I missed the Wiki article on it.

I only got it back on Wikipedia a few days ago so if you searched for it prior to then, you wouldn't have found it. There's a possibility Google hasn't archived the revived article yet as well.

 Now this is a perfect example of why it's best to use AGD's site.  If you check the site, you'll see this is noted as being recorded on March 20 and June 4th;
The LP was released on July 5th and the single on July 12th.

Wiki, on the other hand "appears" to show a recording date of March 20, but also has this info as "Released":  track: July 12, 1965 at Western Studios and vocals: June 5, 1965 at Columbia Records Studio[1]  ( the >1< is where they reference AGD's site)

Why wouldn't everyone go to the site forst? It has almost any information youy could hope to find! 
 That being said, I'm a little suspicious of the June 4th recording date, as to just what was actually worked on there, as there are test pressings of the LP dated prior to to June 4th.  A question for the scholars to decide, I suppose

Y'know I admit I got lost on AGD's site. Saw this page here:
http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/60ssingles.html

But I didn't see anywhere where it says the recording dates???

Yeah that would be it. As recently as a couple days ago I noticed there was no link to a page for it on the page for Summer Days. So I didn't bother looking for it by itself.

Shows and Sessions

Thanks! Just bookmarked that page.

I also just discovered what they were doing on my birthday!

And just as a footnote, that is one helluva hectic schedule they had in those days! Hardly had any days off! I think I would be constantly exhausted if I did that.

I didn't like this song much at first, but it has grown on me. That little "Guess you know I waited for you" bit is gorgeous. SD&SN is a dang underrated album.

Agreed, I find it more entertaining overall than Today! (which is a great album too) with less ballads which could make Today side B a little repetetive imo. The 'radio songs' on SD&SN trumph those on Today  ;D

Totally agreed.