The Smiley Smile Message Board

Amongst all this excitement (very much shared by myself) at the imminent release of the Smile Box Set, I got my copy of BWPS out a couple of days ago and gave it another listen. I'm just curious to know what everyone makes of it in light of the last 7 years. Is it an abomination (as seems to have come across in some postings here now that the BB's recordings are being compiled), or a brilliant piece of work ? Has the opinion of it been, like much of the BB's history, subject to revisionism, especially as myself and many others considered BWPS to be the last word on Smile ?

I never considered it to be the last word on Smile, and I don't think anyone outside of Brian's very innermost circle did either. Darian certainly didn't.

Looking back now, I still think it's an astonishing piece of work, and a more astonishing live performance, and never an abomination. Sure, there were holes to be picked, but given Brian's preceding studio offering...  ;)

BWPS is a modern reimagining of the original material... and now, we're getting that original material. I'd call that having your cake, eating it and going back for more.

I did certainly not change, or 'adjust' my opinion on BWPS. It is a standalone victory, one man's masterpiece, and it will remain that way for me. The review of it that I particularly like is that of Robert Christgau, who assessed it against the current cultural and economical backdrop in the U.S. (the West), and found it a tremendous and poignant reminder of a spirit that seems (temporarily? forever?) lost to us.

And let us be aware of the fact that the Sessions most probably won't come up with what the 1967 LP could/should/was intended to have been. It is incomplete, there is no final verdict, and most likely we'll be blessed with a lot, but also be confronted with the fact that there's missing a lot.

I hope no one seriously considers it an "abomination"; if they do, I might suggest they're either very stubborn or fond of winding people up for the sake of an argument.

For me, I think in retrospect one of the most amazing parts of BWPS was how a group of musicians was able to perform that music live. The musicianship on that tour was superb, and the fact that they actually broke down one of the original "walls" facing Smile in 1967 - the ability to play the music live - was very inspiring. And to top it off, that band of musicians on stage looked like they were having fun, and that meant a lot more to me than if they had been looking studiously at charts or their shoes for the performance.

It was an awesome time. I love the studio album, but actually experiencing it live was the rush for me. That was never supposed to happen with that music.

It was amazing, in no way an abomination.

It avoids all the "fanboy" compilation pitfalls (thank Brian there's no "Speeches" or "George"), and makes for a smooth, flowing work of art.

Is is the ultimate "SMiLE"? Is anything? Who cares...it's there to be enjoyed, and I enjoyed the hell out of (twice live in LA).

If you hate it, you can always go back to your boots and the upcoming box set and twiddle til your heart's content.

I have never understood this whole "BWPS is horrible" nonsense.

I enjoyed it much more in concert than on CD. Maybe it was just seeing with my own eyes Brian actually sing this stuff that he had shunned for years. At one point during 'Surf's Up' I had tears in my eyes. It was pretty powerful.

Great call, applause!

I love it to bits. A big, big part of why I am fan.

I think the third movement doesn't flow as well as it should, that reflects the unfinished quality of the thing, but it's still great. Prefer Holidays as an instrumental.

Abominination? Honestly, if you don't care for it that's one thing. What really blew my mind about BWPS, aside from the fact that Brian sang really well on the studio version, was that all of the pieces went together, everything clicked and that's something that unfortunately no other Smile recordings can quite capture to the full extent. It all made sense, Brian was writing endless variations on a theme and he knew what he was doing. The studio recordings from 1966 are, IMHO, better constructed and better sung than the 2004 disc, that's a given. However, they still remain fragments and incomplete. The Smile Sessions set coming this year will be mindblowing to say the least, I have no doubt; but I will always view the 2004 release as it's playmate if you will. They complement each other nicely and I have a sentimental attachment to both. Deep breath.

Yup. There are days when I wish that BWPS was the very first thing I ever heard of the BBs/BW oeuvre. And that, with this in mind, I could have worked my way backwards into all of the rest (and now, of course, forward to the Sessions dinner-for-gourmands).

The 2nd Movement on BWPS is a thing of beauty. Those 4 songs just flow together so well. It is a very moving piece of music.

This was the first exposure I had to Smile, and the first BB-related album I bought and seriously listened to after Pet Sounds. I thought it was strange, moving, and fun -- conceptually what I expected, but not at all in the execution. I liked it fine the first time, but by the third or fourth listen I was totally in love with it. And I remember noting at the time that a) the backing vocals sounded just as good as the Beach Boys, and Brian sounded excellent; b) the new-old Good Vibrations lyrics fit really well; and c) the instrumental tracks easily topped the originals (after I had done some reading and heard them).

As it goes, I've since reversed my opinions, but not to an extreme. Nowadays I prefer the officially-released BB versions when I'm just listening to certain songs individually, or in a playlist. But BWPS does it for me when I want to hear a version of the album in full. I still haven't heard a compilation or sequence that didn't sound incomplete or inferior to the 2004 sequence (which I'm sure runs contrary to the opinion of many here, but I guess that's what makes the debate fun).

A friend of mine just caught the 1st half hour of BD on Showtime today...he was amazed. I tried telling him that BWPS is good, but the original is Gold...lots of new fans will be turned on to the BB's because of BWPS for a long time to come...

Oh, a little secret, come close.... (sshhh...get the vinyl version of BWPS, it is so much better. Don't tell anybody...)

It’s definitely a triumph, and I’d listen to it a lot if I didn’t have the original sessions.  But to me it lacks the edginess, and certainly the beautiful vocals of the earlier recordings.

Having said that, I think the last minute of On a Holiday is truly magical.  That’s the part where Brian sings “long long ago, long ago,” followed by slowly ascending vocals that gradually become “whispering winds.”  That clip alone is worth the price of the CD, and seems to channel their 1966-67 work.

I was fortunate enough to see the 2nd RFH show and I have to say, during Song For Children and Child I had what can only be described as a musical epiphany. There's that quote in the BD doc at the end where one of the audience members describes how BW has this ability to show you your own soul with his music. It's a funny quote but this is exactly how I felt hearing Child for the 1st time. Needless to say I was totally hooked on smile from that day onwards. When BWPS came out I must have played it about 10 times a day every day for months. My girlfriend wanted to kill me!

7 years down the line I think it's endured well. I agree with those that find the 3rd movement not quite up to the standard of the 1st two but there's still some great moments in that part too. It's astonishing how unified and natural movements 1 and 2 sound.

I want to listen to it now, but I took Noname's challenge and have banned myself from Smile until the sessions are released!

Wow this news of the smile sessions being released is just incredible. I can't get over it.

Yes, the entire second movement is just so powerful - the first night, by the end of "Song for Children", I was a wreck.

It's reassuring to note from the above posts that BWPS is well-loved, I thought it was wonderful, especially the way that some missing pieces from the great Smile jigsaw puzzle fitted together into a coherent running order. I saw the concert from the front row in Portsmouth (1st in the queue for tickets, 2 feet from Brian !) and have a boot of the same show, that evening must rank among  the top 5 live experiences I've seen in any style of music !

Not meaning to stir up controversy, just that some of the posts I've read over the last few weeks have given the impression that BWPS doesn't really seem to matter anymore now that the "real thing" is seeing the official light of day. Thanks very much to everyone for the reassurance that BWPS is a relevant chapter in the story and is a valuable companion album to the forthcoming release.

In terms of the work itself this is as close to SMiLE as we will ever get.  Any speculation on SMiLE 1967 would have been is just that.

I am astounded by BWPS every time I hear it.  The flow is as good as it gets.  The sum is so much greater than its parts that even though the Beach Boy performances in 1966-67 recordings are better than the 2004 work I get more out of listening to the suites instead indvidual songs.

I would love to see a symphony and its chorus try to tackle SMiLE.

I love BWPS and it is really the main reason that I am here on this board today...when I first got it and listened to it my knowledge of the legend of Smile was very limited.

Since learning more about the whole thing (mainly on this board), I have come to form the opinion that it was a slight shame they didn't use real harpsichords for the final version lol.

BWPS the PERFORMANCE is impeccable. BWPS the album and subsequent "final statement" on Smile? HELL no. Read my post history for explanations.

I have teeny tiny misgivings about BWPS, but so what...it's fantastic. Considering how things could have gone way, way wrong, or how short things could have fallen (remember the original plan of just playing the songs in some kinda order live?), we got the jackpot. Gold either way.

And at Disney Concert Hall, Brian's vocals were PERFECT. No lie. No bum notes. And it sounded good, and joyful. Could not ask for more. Strong, strong stuff.

So they vinyl is that good, huh? Is anybody here friends with the good (and retired) Dr. Ebbetts? Because I'd love to hear it someday...

All this 'final statement' blah blah blah stuff is nonsense.  The album is what Brian recorded over the period of what, two weeks?  It represents what it is.  If you play *THAT* album, and enjoy it, then that's all that matters. 

You could probably track down 50 other performances of almost any song on the album... and now the boxset is coming out with the stuff originally recorded...

Personally, I think it's a great album, and I like listening to it.  It's not the final statement, or any of that, it's just a great album that stands on it's own even without the backstory.  Play it for somebody that's never heard it, Heroes and Villians alone will blow their mind.  No explanation necessary. 

LOL.  Then why are we here, and why do we care about the upcoming box?  I guess the real Good Vibrations is from 2003, not 1966, right?  And that fade to the "alternate" Heroes, that's not really Smile, because it wasn't on the BWPS version?

The Brian Wilson version is fine, but it's not the Beach Boys, it's a re-record, and it uses lyrics and concepts that were new in 2003.  It is NOT "as close to SMiLE as we will ever get."

And I like speculation.

I heard BWPS prior to hearing any Beach Boys Smile material, so everything on BWPS was entirely new to me. The album absolutely floored me in terms of being a unique entity. I'd never heard anything remotely like it, outside of Sgt. Pepper. Just sat in the car and listened to it spellbound.

Since then, I've come to appreciate and favor the original material, but it's never lessened my appreciation for BWPS. Without it, I seriously doubt we'd be hearing the original Smile material as planned, because BWPS made Brian face and (mostly) conquer his demons from that troubled period.

(duplicate post)

I do agree with those who prefer the live version.  As such, I listen to the Carnegie Hall recording (broadcast by NPR) more than the official BWPS.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4182988

There's a reason that BWPS has a score of 97 at metacritics (and is the highest-rated non-reissue).  Two words: THE MUSIC.  Let's face it.  The Smile songs are incredible, and the musicianship on BWPS is great.

It'll be interesting to see how the Beach Boys' Smile Sessions will do with on metacritics.  97 will be hard to beat.  Most here (including me) prefer the original tracks and the BBs' vocals, but the Sessions' incompleteness (at least compared with BWPS) will likely earn a few demerits from some critics.

It's been nice to see folks give BWPS some love.  I find myself agreeing with so many of the positive comments about BWPS...  Yes, the live performance (esp. the premiere) was more astonishing than the recording, truly a once-in-a-lifetime experience.  The recording is "brighter/lighter" than the original recordings, which makes sense for an album called "Smile."  Yet it has a very spiritual 2nd movement (esp live).  I enjoy it for a "finished" version, instead of listening to some beautiful tracks and trying to ignore how unfinished they feel ("Look" and "Holidays" never did much for me until BWPS). The 3rd Movement is actually the one I played the most, I guess because it had the most "new" material, as well as "In Blue Hawaii," which is in my Top 5 of the BB/BW canon...(."down in blue Ha-WAAAAAAA-ii"....those few bars are worth the price of admission).

Yes, there are some things I'd nitpick (while others complain about the harpsichord, it's the piano on "SU" that bugs me), and yes, I prefer the BB versions, esp. for the songs they finished (particularly CE and SU).  But ultimately I find it a SATISFYING whole.  And SOOOOOOOO much better than we had any right to hope for.

I was lucky enough to be at Carnegie Hall for the two shows they recorded for use in this broadcast, and it remains my most-played version of BWPS.  I also got the studio version on vinyl, and it is definitely a much warmer mix than the CD - if you can find it for a reasonable price, grab it.

Ebbetts? You listening? Ebbetts...?

My feelings on BWPS have changed a fair amount since it came out.  Upon release, I really enjoyed listening to it, and did so quite frequently.  Seeing Brian perform it live at Carnegie Hall was the pinnacle of the experience for me.  I agree with others who have said that the piece truly works best as a live performance.

After awhile though, the novelty wore off.  As great as it was to hear the completed work (the second movement especially), I can't listen to it without comparing it to the original versions/sessions, and aside from the completeness factor, it falls short for me.  This is true of some songs more than others, but for example, listening to the newer version of "Surf's Up," all I'm thinking while listening to it is why am I listening to this when I could be listening to Brian's piano demo?  Same goes for the other tracks that were completed previously.  I enjoy the newly completed tracks a bit more, namely "Song For Children," "Child" and "In Blue Hawaii."  Those are the tracks I keep coming back to - for the rest, I'm much more content with vintage versions, completed or not.

I do think that BWPS is an incredibly important part of the Smile story (as well as Brian's), and don't get me wrong, I'm happy that it exists, for many reasons.  The music is so unique and timeless that it will be celebrated as one of the great treasures of American music.  I suppose I just have a hard time listening to it as it's own entity, rather than a re-recording of things that were already done better the first time and a few new very well-done completed tracks.

How can I burn the Carnegie 2-parter at NPR onto CD?

I'd never heard that Carnegie Hall version before - amazing! One of my biggest gripes with the BWPS DVD, and loads of other recent live performances, is that there is constant heavy-handed post-production, sometimes dropping in studio vocals. Great to hear the perforamance raw, and perfect.

I think the music and performances of BWPS are fantastic - my problem is with the production and mixing. I think it lacks subtley, everything is up-front and in your face. There are a couple of notable exceptions - as has been mentioned In Blue Hawaii is really well produced (particularly the faded Brian vocal "hawaiiiiii" over the brass, and the whispering wind section); and the You are My Sunshine section. I feel that actually more effects could have been used on Brian's vocals in the studio version (I know, slightly contradicting what I said earlier) - but he sounds great coming through compressor or whatever it is they used on You Are My Sunshine.

Lastly, I think there could have been more opportunity to drop in some surprises, hidden bits and pieces (a sample of two here or there from the original session, a BW falsetto, a bit of Carl or Dennis) just to add a bit of mystery. But that is really an unreasonable complaint.

Overall, still love it.

I think (like most here seem to) that one has to differentiate between BWPS as a completed composition and a recorded album. The composition to me IS the final word on SMiLE. It's SMiLE as history made it. The 66/67 sessions are a first recording attempt that was aborted.

There is many examples of artists that first tried to do a work, then abandoned it and finished it later. One of them is famous German poet Goethes most famous work "Faust" which he started as a young man but completed it close to fourty years later - like Brian did with SMiLE. Like SMiLE, Faust had been published in fragmentary form in the meantime. But not the 1770 fragments are regarded as THE Faust, the 1808 finished version is.

I love the final composition of BWPS, which is THE SMiLE. We will never have another one.

Well, and then there's BWPS the CD. While I liked it at first, I'm not into the sound of the recording anymore at all. I rather enjoy listening to the live version on the Beautiful Dreamer DVD. The individual fragments of the 66/67 recordings are still better individually, but they don't make a whole.

I'm totally with you there. My favorite song on BWPS though is "On A Holiday" - except that it's way too short!

Absolutely. I was in the audience of the first three performances in London 2004. The first time around I was stunned. The second time I was actually a bit disappointed because there were some fragments that I really had expected more of. But the third time I finally "got" it and now I love it.

Love it, for at least the next several months if will be one of my favorite albums ever. But once The Smile Sessions are released, BWPS will lose some relevance. It will go from "So you're supposed to be that Smile album? Oh well, OK, you'll do." to "Thanks for keeping Smile's seat warm. Good job. Bye.".

I recommended downloading this, Don

http://www.nch.com.au/switch/index.html

The 2nd movement is a masterpiece on its own. My first exposure to the completed 2nd movement was via the Bristol DVD that Bruce likes so much. I was in tears throughout most of it, to be honest. I stated there and then on the old Smile Shop board that "Wonderful" should be released as a sigle. It was (in the UK) and it was a palpable hit....on 45RPM vinyl only!

As for BWPS as a whole.....at the time it was the nearest we were likely to get to Brian's final word on SMiLE. It was *a* completion of the project, but not what would have been in 1967 or what might have been in 1972, or 1998 or whatever. The fact that Brian, Darian and Van Dyke were able to draw all the pieces of the jigsaw together and make something so very coherant was nothing short of astonishing.

I did get to see a live show a few weeks before the album was released. And as others have said, that music was never really envisaged as a live performance....it was the ultimate studio record. But live, it blew me away. The whole thing flowed from start to finish, even the obviously more recent 3rd movement.

It is what it is.....a wonderful bringing together of the strands. It works as a whole, and each movement has its own character. It is in no way an abomination - indeed the fact that it is so coherent is a huge testimony to the work that went into bringing BWPS to fruition.

As for the discs themselves, it is one of the few CDs that I can actually listen to (as opposed to vinyl). Mark Linett did a stirling job. And the US pressing of the vinyl is to die for. Which is why I bought two copies...

Agreed. The album released as Brian Wilson Presents Smile was completed by the original creators of the project Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks (obviously with important contributions from Darian Sahanaja and perhaps other band members). For that reason alone, that BW and VDP returned to, worked on and signed off on the project in 2003/4, for me, that record is THE COMPLETED SMILE.

The upcoming box set is a compilation of the earlier uncompleted sessions from the '60s and is obviously wonderful to have and fascinating in its own right. But the '60s sessions, however wonderful, are kind of earlier drafts or a collection of beautiful fragments that have an important place in the history of Smile and the BW story, but IMO the finished article has to be the 2004 album release.

This is spot on.

I never thought Smile as remotely completed until I heard the 03-04 sequence. It rocks.

In retrospect, I think the 04 recording is very much its own animal. It's a much brighter, less moody take on the material. But I think of it as an reinterpretation -- much as orchestras will put new and different spins on classical standards with different conductors. The strangeness / scariness is gone, replaced with a determined upbeat-ness.

I also think -- again, in retrospect -- that it probably meant less to Brian to "finish" it, then it did to his fans. But the public and critical response to it -- I think that ended up being very meaningful and important to him. He's done some really good and solid work since.

Great achievement for all involved but on a personal level: didn't grab me, listened to it a couple of times when bought but not since.

Since most discussion is about how BWPS duplicated the original sessions (successfully or not), I feel the most interesting aspect of it is the new ideas it brought to the table. The most obvious of these are the newly completed songs "On A Holiday", "Song For Children", "In Blue Hawaii" and "The Child Is Father Of The Man". Dismissing these tracks as inauthentic because they feature new lyrics is missing the point; they are fabulous works on their own. For those of us who so longed to hear Brian and Van Dyke work together again, these newly finished songs are a true joy (and a bit better than "The Waltz"  ;D). Movement #2 is brilliant and this is largely due to the care Parks brought in contributing new lyrics that supported the theme of the earlier lyrics without overwhelming them (with moments as heavy as "Wonderful" and "Surf's Up" at either end, you wouldn't want to overwrite the middle portion). The subtle one verse lyric for "Child..." completes that song for me and while "I Love To Say Da Da" is pleasant enough, "In Blue Hawaii" is the song fully realized; it's like only hearing the backing track to "I Get Around" for decades, then suddenly hearing the song with all the vocals, lyrics and melody.

There are many great production/arrangement ideas as well. I think it's marvelous that every time a "vintage" song is interpolated ("Gee", "You Were My Sunshine", "I Wanna Be Around"), the vocals sound like they're coming from an old victrola as if those songs are memories filtering their way into the "present tense" of SMiLE. Positioning "Cabin Essence" after "Old Master Painter/You Were My Sunshine" reveals the aural painting of the sun setting (the descending string note) followed by a lamp being lit in the darkness. Similarly, the positioning of "Vegetables" after "I'm In Great Shape" not only ties in the idea of produce being gathered from the "great shape of the agri-culture", but establishes a poetic connection between the lines "I wanna be around to pick up the pieces of your broken heart" and "I'm gonna be around my vegetables...", not to mention how well the sounds of the workshop blend with the percussion that opens the "Vegetables" backing track. The fuller backing vocals to "Surf's Up", along with the delicate string arrangement on the middle section, provides a glimpse into a possible approach Brian might have taken with the '66 version. The slight alteration of the last reprise of the horn/woodwind section of "Song For Children" to make it more closely resemble the final vocal modulations in "Good Vibrations" is a lovely touch as is the reprise of "Our Prayer" at the end of "In Blue Hawaii". Finally, as I've mentioned elsewhere, having the harmonica and melodica play in counterpoint at the end of the verses in "Cabin Essence" instead of in unison is an improvement over the original arrangement in my opinion.

I think BWPS was a great way to introduce this music to those who were not familiar with the original sessions. The Beach Boys tracks may have more depth and skill (and better vocals for the most part), but I doubt they would have impressed listeners in the same way as hearing this tightly-edited, and finished-sounding, presentation.

Curious, why didn't it grab you?

Great review, Roger Ryan. I enjoyed Reading that!

Can't think of a thread in recent months where I've agreed so much with virtually everything that everyone says!

Only one thing to add: after sitting through the first performance of smile at the RFH, I was gobsmacked. And what I thought was one of the most amazing aspects was the realisation that Brian had just drawn a line under the 1060s.   As if to say: "Hey Human race, it's okay -  you can all move on now, I'm done here."

Roger, well written.  You brought up some points I had not noticed.  And I can more appreciate "I Wanna Be Around", which seemed a bit unnecessary and stuck in to me. 

And perfect "I Get Around" analogy for "In Blue Hawaii."  I LOVE LTSDD, but could not listen to it without thinking "if only they'd gotten to the vocals..." or "what would have filled this blank space?"  or "what if he hadn't canceled that last session?"...enjoyable, tantalizing, but ultimately imbued with a sense of loss.  We'll probably never know BW's original conception for Dada, but I'm very satisfied with "In Blue Hawaii".

The 2003 additions to Smile are all lovely. In Blue Hawaii and Song for Children particularly are jewels that any artist could be proud of. I like the lyrical reference to pirates in Holiday. The second movement in my mind ranks with Rhapsody in Blue as some of my all time favorite music.

The lyrics to Roll Plymouth Rock are a huge contribution to the flow of the first movement. That movement evokes the change from Pre-European America to agrarian America eloquently. My grandfather uncovered the cornfield in 19th century rural Illinois, and was a member of the local Grange.

Movement 3 is breathtaking...especially from Wind Chimes on into Fire. then into In Blue Hawaii....When I heard those vocals on Fire, I knew that they had always belonged there. Being in London for the world premier was an experience I will always count as a musical highlight of my life....like when my mother played Rhapsody in Blue on the piano for the first time with me there to hear it. 

I don't know exactly, it just did not grab me. I'm more of an originalist I guess. The hype and what seemed to me to be overstatement about it sort of turned me off too probably but it just didn't excite me. I'm glad it happened and others love it however.

Movement 3 is the only flaw, in my opinion.  It seems that Movements 1 and 2 are as they always should've been (I do like "Do You Like Worms" after "H&V" instead of "Barnyard", as bootlegs have done... that sounds dumb!), and Movement 3 is ALMOST perfect.  But "I'm In Great Shape/I Wanna Be Around/Workshop" is a completely pointless addition.

I mean, why start that section with an otherwise unused H&V chunk, bizarrely segued to a piece that appears totally out of its apparent context (rebuilding after the fire)?  The people who went to see Smile Live had to be scratching their heads at that one.  I've actually reburned the CD WITHOUT that track - just starting at "Vegetables".

The point about them being "fabulous works on their own" is important.  Actually, people can agree or disagree about their quality, but they need to stop making ridiculous statements like BWPS is "the final word on SMiLE" and "SMiLE as history made it."

As Roger says, the BWPS tracks are their own works.  BWPS and the 1966-67 sessions are by different groups, with different lyrics, different tracks and a different purpose.  Claiming that the one excludes the other is just dumb.

The "otherwise unused H&V chunk" was listed as a track on the back cover.  As for IWBA/FN, I don't think you or anyone else can say it was intended to go after Fire, especially since the session sheet identifies it as part of Great Shape.

I am very much looking forward to the release of Sessions because I think it will bring thousands of people  only vaguely familiar to Brian`s innovative work from back in 1966-67 to more acquaintance with it. I think it will also help many who don`t know the progressive side of The Beach Boys to become more familiar with their more adventurous work. I honestly think Brian was using digital types of recording methods 20 years before their time. Not to mention that so much of the Smile music is "pictures in sound."

I think he meant how can he rip the audio from the site.

That's your opinion, not mine. I don't need to stop making those statements that you quote which are my opinion, nothing more, nothing less. And they're NOT ridiculous. In my opinion, you are biased and too much in love with dreaming up an album that never came to existence. I'll state it again: As a composition, BWPS is SMiLE as history made it. There just IS NO 1967 Beach Boys album called SMiLE. There's a bunch of unfinished recordings which, however, individually sound way better than the BWPS album offering.


What do you mean by excluding? I'll enjoy listening to the forthcoming box a lot. But it's still unfinished stuff that - in terms of composition - BWPS is the final word on. So there!  >:D

Very interesting, arranged well. Don't like some of the "new" lyrics. The voices just don't have the character of The Beach Boys circa 1966. Sadly that goes double for Brian. Still I like it but listen to the more finished Beach Boys takes much more often.

I agree with your first point about BWPS being the final word, but surely BWPS is Smile as history made it in terms of being the only finished version that we have?

Couldn't agree more. To repeat an analogy: had Rembrandt painted something in his '20s, put it aside because he could not finish it, and 40 years later put the final touches on it, we would accept it as the real and finalized thing. Although, yes, the original group is absent, and circumstances are different, the true auteur of SMiLE decided in 2003/2004 that, based on his own blueprint, and planning to work with his original collaborator, to finish what he once had started.

Therefore I conclude, with conviction, that BWPS is the last word on SMiLE.

It may be Brian's last "word" on it but what does he know? He didn't run a thing about it by me first.

He was indeed working with those methods in analog, at a time when taking a razor blade to the tape was the only way to edit. The way certain parts of Good Vibrations, Smile, and especially Smiley Smile were constructed is as close to a model for digital sequencing and cut-and-paste editing as you'll probably find. Not that Brian was the only one doing this kind of thing, but the results speak for themselves on a record like Good Vibrations and the way Smiley Smile was constructed.

I've been getting into old Ernie Kovacs videos recently, and someone had a comment about Ernie's use of videotape, editing, and staging his skits that read something like: "he was doing this stuff 20 years before it was invented" and I think the same applies to Brian's approach to making records in 1966-67, after Pet Sounds took the Wall Of Sound as far as he wanted it to go.

 :lol

It was great to see live, twice. The first US tour for it was also the first time I ever saw Brian live. Best 16th birthday present ever!

As far as SMiLE reaching across the generations, consider this: when BWPS came out, the favorite track of both my daughters (younger than 10 at the time) was "Mrs. O'Leary's Cow". I find that fascinating.

(If I had heard that song when I was a kid in the 60s, it would have terrified me!)

Said older daughter also wore a fire helmet to the Disney Concert Hall show...

Oops!  Wrong NCH program.  I meant to post this link...

http://www.nch.com.au/soundtap/index.html

My humblest apologies.   :shrug

I will never get over the sight of Brian frickin' Wilson singing "Surf's Up" on the Sydney Opera House stage and just beaming.

There's three solid decades in which that would have been just impossible to even try to picture.

The finished album is a thing of beauty, the live performances were like seeing the Mona Lisa get up and dance, the new release is going to be the most gorgeous unfinished jigsaw puzzle imaginable.  None takes anything away from the others.

And as someone who was around for all the carping about artificial keyboards and whether Darian sang the odd "doo-you" too loudly, I'm delighted to see so many people here being able to take a step back and say, yeah, this album's pretty damn wonderful, isn't it?

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I really love BWPS and always have. Okay, yes, I would have preferred it with Brian's young voice and the BBs' voices. But the question of whether it's authentic is really a non-issue for me. Brian and VDP worked on it and gave their approval. That's enough for me. (Lucky for us we got the original creators working on it and not some random guy in 50 years.)  Plus, even if it didn't have the backstory and the mythology around it, it would be an amazing piece of music. If some unknown released these songs with these arrangements, he/she would be hailed as a genius. I can see bands and vocalists performing this in 100 years. The live aspect is just too good to pass up. 

Speaking of which, I prefer the Carnegie performance to the CD as well. I'm sure it's been cleaned up, but it's just perfect and beautiful, with tons of character. I'm not techie enough to rip a live stream, but if anyone manages to do it and wants to send... I'd love that.

BWPS is a great listen, but those first RFH shows are terrific. lots more energy than the studio version or the Carnegie Hall shows.

Me too! The "sunny down snuff" section...awesome vocal riff on that.

The Carnegie show was not sweetened at all, as far as I can tell.  They did, however, choose the best performances from the two nights for broadcast.

Really? I'll readily admit that it is extremely contagious, but as for the rest...  ::)

I really shouldn't type standing on my head.

 :lol

HA! You weren't the only one AGD!
I went with a handful of adult, male friends and we were all weeping tears of joy.

Now that some years have passed and I can reflect clearly, I believe this BW album is best heard as a live performance.
The album itself has some flaws that drive me crazy- vocal blend with too much Foskett in spots, pro-tooled to death, the way "You're Under Arrest" is spoken in an non-humorous way, the call & response between Brian and Taylor- specifically Taylor Mills, the megaphoned 'pirate' lyrics, there's some brutal high-end eq'ing on one of the tracks that made my ears bleed. There are a few more things, but I'd have to listen again and I don't wish to as it just kinda frustrates me.
It was great at the time, I've scrutinized it, and I don't like it as much now.

Other points.
I'm glad Brian did it as it probably freed him of some deep-rooted demons. The clips of them starting rehearsals at Brian's house with him completely withdrawn, pale, sweating are incredible. You can see him cringing at the thought of having to relive a terribly painful time in his life. He ultimately faced and conquered them. Incredible.
I like some of the transitions that Brian & Van Dyke came up with as well as Darian's assemblage of Wonderful/Child/Song For Children.
I also find it ironic that Darian is against bootlegs considering that he learned what he knows about the original SMiLE... from bootlegs.

I do love BWPS, but i don't find myself listening to it as much as I used to, even on vinyl. My favourite part is still that second movement, which flows so well together you could have sworn thats what Brian planned in 66... But it might get relegated to a curio if i get my hands on TSS.

I have to question using the phrase "pro-tooled to death" as a critique of BWPS/Smile. Since this is the accepted method of recording 99% of what you hear on radio, movies, and television today, and since analog tape is still in a niche market but slowly coming back only in certain genres of music, what other method of recording should have been used on Smile?

If Smile was an over-use of ProTools technology, than what music made in the last 10 years on ProTools or any similar digital recording program would be an example of a good use of ProTools? Is anyone questioning someone like Kanye or Lady Gaga for overusing ProTools when that's literally all they use to record their music?

There are aspects of the backing vocals on some tracks that I dislike.  I don't know whose voice it is that annoys me, but I wish he'd stood further away from the mic.  Not a big fan of the "You're under arrest!" either.

Aside from minor quibbles like those, I love BWPS.

I guess you're right. I myself don't pay any attention to whether and where PT is in effect on BWPS. I didn't notice it in the first listening sessions, and I don't bother. So I simply don't hear it at all. But that's me in general: not analyzing things to death.

I think the fact that BWPS was for the most part tracked with the band playing live together in the studio already sets it far apart from the stereotypical 'ProTools' records.

I don't bother either because ProTools is nothing more than a recording program which just happens to be one of the more widely used programs in professional and semi-pro studios. I don't hear many people saying anything similar about Cubase or Logic or Ableton Live or whatever else someone used to record an album. It seems like a non-issue unless the brand of tape machine used to record a certain album decades ago becomes a factor in an opinion of that album, whether it was recorded on a Studer or an MCI or a Sony.

The first song I remember hearing that kind of criticism of was "Fly Away" by Lenny Kravitz, where a reviewer wrote something like "the ProTools was too obvious", where maybe he meant the digital editing itself was too obvious, never mind what program was used to do that editing. In any case I never noticed that on BWPS, but everyone has a different opinion!

People are not talking about Pro Tools.

As already stated here, Pro Tools is simply a digital recording program, and its results can sound as natural or artificial as you like. Bob Dylan's "Love and Theft" and "Modern Times" were both recorded with Pro Tools rigs, and no one would say they sound glossy or unnatural.

What people on these boards tend to mean by "Pro Tools" is digital pitch correction. In the last couple of years, people have come to know it as Autotune. That's a software plug-in for programs like Pro Tools that allows for fixes to bum notes. In extremis, it leads to the ultra-roboty vocals of a lot of recent pop records (the first big one was "Believe" by Cher).

The confusion stems from the fact that Brian's "Imagination," released in 98, was touted for its use of Pro Tools -- and people confused the obvious pitch correction on Brian's vocals on that record with Pro Tools itself. Not the same thing at all.

The comment was seen here in regards to BWPS, and I remember several posters at the time BWPS was released saying that they could "hear" ProTools or that ProTools was used in a heavy-handed way. I thought it might be a misinterpretation of ProTools as a recording format that shouldn't enter into a critique of the album, any more than saying the brand of tape machine used for Sunflower would affect an opinion of that album.

What changed my mind about the ProTools commentary in general was finding out that Matthew Sweet's "Girlfriend" album used a very early version of ProTools, and here I was going around singing that album's praises as an example of the glories of Revolver-inspired pure analog record-making. Silly me. :)

Exactly. There's a weird luddite stand to the commentary about this all -- as somehow the fact that people record to computers now makes music "worse" in some tangible way. Of course it doesn't.

Yes, technology has allowed people to make some bad musical decisions that they previously couldn't (the whole loudness wars of CDs, for example), but that's not intrinsic to the technology. It's just up to the people recording to show a modicum of taste.

I agree with most said about pro-tools above.
I could go on a very long diatribe about the applications of recording digitally, but for the most part, people don't use it as an actual tool, as intended, but rather a crutch to repair and correct things that the producer/engineer/artist believe need it. Digital recording has come a long way, but I believe it still has a way to go, much like digital photography did in its infancy. Looks much better now that it did, but still not as good as it should be.

Digital recording still sounds flat to me. There's no life to it. No presence. It doesn't breathe like analog recordings do.
And yes, my biggest beef with digital recording is all the 'futzing' that done with autotune and other corrective means within other software. I don't pay much attention to what's popular on radio unless it's within ear shot and I have to hear it. I recently heard some Katy Perry tune and I was dumbfounded by how robotic everything sounded. Nothing sounded like it was produced or played by a human. When you start tinkering with instrumentation to smooth things out, that's when instruments can sound completely hallow. As a musician, I like to hear the nuances of music- errors, sour notes, microphone bleeding, and for the most part in modern music, that's long gone. Brian's last few albums take on this asthetic. Digital tinkering sucks the life out of a recording and my ear hears it. I'd much rather hear albums like 'Orange Crate Art' and 'Imagination' prior to autotune and other vocal smoothing techniques. It sounds more natural and pleasing.

I have a friend that is a die hard rockabilly artist. He's made a name for himself and is a very popular touring and recording artist. I was discussing some of his material with him and asked about a specific record. I told him I liked the way it sounded and he said, "Recorded with pro-tools! Can you believe it?!" I was absolutely floored and he shared the notion of disbelief. But it goes to show that if used correctly as a means to capture sound and not completely manipulate it, things can actually sound fresh and organic. Trust me I could go on and on, but there's my kodger rant.  :old

Yeah, that Luddite thing--I guess everybody forgot how much beeyotching there was back in the Seventies about 24- and 48-track, and how that was ruining the recording process. If you can't do it live, it's cheating! (Which is kinda like saying if you can't perform a movie live as a play, it's cheating. Different animal entirely, dammit!)

Same thing with synthesizers.

What it truly comes down to, regarding tools, technology, talent, brainpower: IT'S HOW YOU USE IT.

You can make something that sounds human or machine tooled, or somewhere in between. You can kill a song or bring it to life.

Or you can even use your tool deliberately as an effect (which I sometimes do with special guests, right in my very boudoir...). Once again: Cher. (No, she wasn't one of the special guests. Yet.)

i remember i appreciated BWPS much more after i heard the purple chick smile. 

but i love the added stuff.  in blue hawaii is just great, the middle suite is obviously ridiculously good.  and the end to heroes and villain is one of my favorite things ever.  if someone tagged that completed section to a beach boys recording i'd be in heaven (the old one is incomplete). 

Dude! You get it!  :rock
It's a shame more people don't.

Brian used to capture the magic on 4 tracks! Roughly 12 instruments and 2 sets of 5 voices!!
Then in 1979/80, Keepin The Summer Alive was recorded on 48 tracks! Two 24 track decks in synch. WHAT HAPPENED?!
Wasn't the Imagination album recorded on 96 tracks? 96 tracks!!! WHAT THE f***?!?!

It's more than that--it plays into culture as a whole, unfortunately people only read bottom-lines. A good example is when people say someone was "photoshopped" out of a picture. No, they weren't. They were cropped out of the picture.

It's good to see a consensus of sorts about using the term "ProTools" as a verb. I remember as reviews for the BWPS album were being posted at various boards back in the day, some of the criticism was being able to "hear" AutoTune, or digital editing/trickery at times, and I have to admit I never heard this outright use of anything like that on the album, or if I did I never paid attention to it because the music was really good.

And even if there was audible stuff like that in some peoples' opinions, can that be used as a critique of the album itself? And could someone using that logic then go on to praise artists and/or albums which rely solely on that kind of digital technology to create the signature sound of the genre itself, i.e. Kanye West, Black Eyed Peas, or most of hip-hop music on the charts? Or dare I say Lady Gaga?

One can do some really creative and catchy music with that technology, but if the criticism is over-use of said technology then let's apply it across the board and say if a Brian Wilson vocal which was tuned digitally is a negative point, than so should entire AutoTuned vocals on a given album or song be a negative. The same standard should be applied, but in my mind if the song is good that's what I'm concerned with. And that is purely subjective.

Absolutely. When you tamper with the integrity of the music itself and manipulate it into something that it wasn't to start with, then it's not the music you like... it's the production and what the original recorded music was turned into. It reflects the production, not the music itself. You're no longer liking the music, you're liking the production. The people turning the knobs and not the performers. The producers become the performers. Come on Craig, you're a musician, you should know this stuff.

I've also spent time in the past involved with mixing projects for various performers, and I will say I think producers and engineers in some cases are performers as well (and possibly have to be in many cases), and I point to the way someone like Phil Spector would deliberately do certain things during a session in order to get what he wanted from the musicians which they may not have done if left to their own devices. Going a step further, how important to a recording is the mix, and then the mastering of that mix? You can change one frequency on a vocal track and transform it from dull to sparkling, and most of that comes after the band and the performers have finished their job in the process and with many performers they don't even know what's being done technically to make their song sound different. Every live album is also mixed and certain things are added and applied to make it sound more pleasing and less raw, down to any live remote feed of a concert, so even those live remotes are not a 100% pure representation of what's being performed if they're being digitally EQ'd and compressed coming out of the board.

Would Elvis' Sun recordings sound the same if you take Sam Phillips and his tape delays out of the picture and have it solely be a pure recording of the band on the studio floor minus Sam's electronic manipulations? 

In the case of BWPS, I'll concede everyone hears something different and that's what makes music what it is, but are there any overt cases of AutoTune or digital manipulation on that album which a listener might hear and object to stylistically? If they had put a maxed-out T-Pain autotune effect on Brian's vocals then I'd say definitely it's not a good choice for that style and it probably would sound out of place.

One more point to consider - if there is any song which you may have liked and heard on modern rock radio, or modern country radio, or any other commercial genre in the past 8 years or so, the chances are very good that those drum sounds are either triggered samples, manipulated or replaced by programs like Drum-A-Gog, or copied-pasted then looped and time-stretched to create a better sound and groove than what originally went down on tape.

I like a lot of commercial modern rock, and I play it and listen all the time, but I'd easily say the majority of the drum tracks are nothing like what was heard in the studio by the time we hear it on the radio. If you replace snare hits with crisper snare samples from Drum-A-Gog, if you trigger better kick drum beats digitally than you originally captured on mic, if you time-stretch or edit a few bars to create a more fluid groove on a track, if you duck a bass track to hit better with that kick drum, then you're presenting something other than what it was to start with. It's so accepted, at this point in time, that it doesn't seem as much of a point to criticize beyond what you might feel about the song itself. It's ubiquitous to the point where apart from some exceptions, that's the current accepted way of making records for commercial airplay.