The Smiley Smile Message Board

This song was, according to history, written and attempted as early as May 1966. There was supposedly even a 2:45 master take from May. Does anyone know what the structure of Heroes was around May-December 1966, before the post-January took place? The Humble Harv Demo explains quite a bit, since the song went like: Verse/Flutter Horn/Great Shape/Barnyard, but nothing after that, since Brian explained he was working on it. Did Cantina replace Great Shape later on? Anyways, if anyone knows or could speculate with substance what the structure of Heroes was in late '66, I'd like to read about it. Thanks.

According to Al Kooper, who heard the May '66 track, it incorporated a variation of "You Are My Sunshine".

Al Kooper; Backstage Passes & Backstabbing Bastards:

“…David Anderle had also been responsible for engineering a meeting between me and one of my idols, Brian Wilson of the Beach    Boys. David took me up to Brian’s house, a sprawling, Spanish-style mansion in ultra-posh Bel-Air, one evening about a week before Brian unleashed ‘Pet Sounds’ on the world. Brian played a test-pressing of the record, jumping up and stopping cuts in the middle and starting them over to emphasize his points. He was very proud of his accomplishment, maybe even a little show-offish, but I wasn’t about to argue.
Then Brian sat down at the piano in his living room (which featured a full-on soda fountain where the bar should’ve been) and gave us two uninterrupted hours of possible variations on ‘Trees’ - you know, the ‘I think that I shall never see a poem as lovely as a tree’ thing - which he hoped to have the Beach Boys record. I’d brought along a copy of ‘Music of Bulgaria’, my favorite album at the time, and he got blown out by that. Then he shattered me completely by playing a track he was working on and singing along to it live. The song was ‘Good Vibrations’ . ‘Nuff said. He also played me a rough tape of ‘Heroes and Villains’, which evolved, I believe, from a Wilson revamping of ‘You Are My Sunshine’.”


E-mail:

Me: Was the version of Brian Wilson's "Heroes and Villains" you heard at Brian's house in May '66 much different than the version that was released as a 45 and on Smiley Smile or the Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations" boxset?

Al: yes-it was interpolated with "you are my sunshine." go figure.....dont miss brians pet sounds summer show this year
Al Kooper 6/10/00

Later:

Al: IT WAS ACTUALLY JUST A BIZARRE ARRANGEMENT OF "SUNSHINE" HE MUST HAVE DECIDED LATER TO MAKE HIS OWN SONG OVER THE TRACK - THATS MY GUESS. ASK HIM - HE'S STILL ALIVE.
Al Kooper 9/21/00

Awesome. Thanks Cam. Would you recommend the book generally? It's cool that he responded to you.

It is very interesting. I think I wasn't even aware of the book when I first contacted him but had read it before that last response. I like how he was having enough fanboy and reminded me that I could ask Brian.

He has his email addy available on his website's landing page these days.

http://www.alkooper.com/ (http://www.alkooper.com/)

Brian wasn't living in Bel Air in spring 1966. The Laurel  Way  house is neither Spanish style, ultra posh nor a mansion. These are not small points.

Well, that's something.... So was Heroes supposedly: Verse/Old Master Painter/Sunshine/False Barnyard Fade at that time? That's quite something.

On November 4th, Great Shape and Barnyard were indeed part of Heroes judging by the Humble Harv demo, therefore the Heroes of 1966 was:

Verse/Great Shape/Barnyard/Old Master Painter/Sunshine/False Barnyard Fade?

And was Cantina/Children Were Raised/Three Score a '67 addition, musically and lyrically?

I suppose that means he was either conflating two memories, in which case it's unclear which memory contained "Heroes and Villains" or it's one memory but he mistakenly placed it before Pet Sounds came out (which would be very odd because he says he was hearing a test-pressing and I assume he knows a Pet Sounds song when he hears it), in which case the "Heroes and Villains" he heard is much later. Do you agree? Or do you have another interpretation?

eta: oh, and he also refers to "Good Vibrations" as an unreleased song, so my second supposition can't be right.

Of he couldn't recall much at all about the house in which they met, so he (inaccurately) researched it after the event purely for the sake of adding a little detail to the story?

We should email him and tell him he wasn't really  there after all.   ;)

I wrote this in response to the OP's query over on the TSS sub-board about the 'classic' structure of H&V:


And then this thought occurred:


Obviously this doesn't necessarily relate to the original May version, but is my best stab at the late '66 'three minute musical comedy' conception, using the info - and, critically, the period partial edit and 'demo' - we know about.

Good point. That would make sense as well.

It's a poser, as he very specifically dates it to a week before Pet Sounds was released - circa May 9th - and correctly notes "GV" as an unreleased song Brian was working on (there was a session on the 4th)... but gets the house entirely wrong. 10452 Bellagio Way was a sprawling, Spanish style mansion, several times bigger than 1440 Laurel Way... but Brian didn't move there until April 1967. My guess is also that there was some later embroidery.

I know you're joking, but if one dared one could write and ask for a clarification.

I can't find an "I'm a coward" emoji.

Cantina seems to have been - taped 27 Jan '67 (apparently both track and vox on the same day). As posted above, at least one of the DP acetate edits has IIGS preceding 'Children were raised/Three score and five' - ie. in the same slot as Cantina in the Feb 'single version' - so it could probably be conjectured that this new section was written ('when Van came back') in January to replace the original 'fresh clean air' part included in 'Humble Harv'.

Interestingly, we can't be sure about the original recordings of any of the verse vocals for H&V, except the new 'Children were raised' (without the 'often') taped on the same day as 'Cantina'. The TSS sessionography simply states that 'Vocals [were] probably recorded at Columbia Studio A', late 1966 or early 1967 (exact date unknown)' - and none of the actual session tapes for these seem to have survived.

From Humble Harv it can be surmised that, as of Nov 4, the first two verses as we know them were written and intended for the song. Hard to know about 'Three score and five', but it seems plausible - not least because the DP acetate places the backing track for this and the (earlier take of) 'Children were raised' directly after IIGS, presumably before this was extracted for the scrap heap or use in its own titular track. (I'd suggest this places that acetate as early/mid December 1966, prior to the composition of the 'Capitol memo' giving the twelve selections, but I might well be wrong.)

There was also apparently 'about a week of recording' on a lead vocal that had been more-or-less 'promised to Mike' (from Anderle) which Brian then ended up doing himself - it's been suggested (not, I think, without reason) that this was the lead to H&V. (Coincidence? Perhaps.) A co-lead Brian/Mike mix at least survives in the bonus 'Outtake Sections' track on the box.

EDIT: Taking all this into account, I think a possible timeline in which...

Nov '66: H&V includes 'IIGS' and 'Barnyard';
Dec '66-Jan '67: is then nominated to be the much-need single, causing the extraction of these comical interludes and their replacement with the 'Cantina' section and the repurposed, re-recorded OMP 'grand finale' as a fade (YAMS, after all, being long-connected to H&V);
Late Feb: then this version in turn reconsidered when it's decided a real chorus is necessary (and one thusly pinched from DYLW);
June: and finally the song is restructured/re-recorded almost entirely for the final single release.

... can be pretty plausibly put together. What this does leave as an almost complete mystery, however, is how 'Intro (Early Version)' was meant to fit into the puzzle. Not only was one version of this keyboard-driven piece taped in (probably) December '66, but the second (known best now as 'Fire Intro) appears to have been one of the last things (the last?) recorded for the track before the long hiatus between March and June '67. So it appears to have been of some structural importance for H&V right through the transition from album track to lead single in late '66-early '67.

And yet no known official mix - or even many fan versions - see fit to include it.

So an ideal '66 version would be Verse Edit Experiment (off SMiLE Sessions)/Flutter Horn/Great Shape/Children Were Raised (due to Durrie Parks acetates structure)/Three Score/Whistling Bridge/Explosion/Barnyard/False Barnyard Fade (Or OMP after Barnyard).

An ideal '67 version would be the Cantina edit, but with a chorus (Bicycle Rider with vox, which was recorded in June).

What would be the ideal Heroes Pt. 2?

It's in mine and always has been.  ;D

I'll have it online in the next day or two if you're interested in hearing it.

Depends what you mean by 'ideal', really. Meaning 'using the most/best parts contemporaneously recorded'? Or meaning 'the most likely to be historically accurate'?

If the latter, yep - the '66 version you have there looks pretty plausible (and similar to the one I posited above), except for the 'false Barnyard fade/OMP after Barnyard'. Its presence (though in crossed-out parentheses) on the Capitol tracklist means OMP is likely to be the edit actually assembled by BW in 1966 - OMP/YAMS/'Grand finale' fade - and considered (just) its own track, not a part of H&V. I'd use Barnyard as the fade, personally, but that might just be me. We enter the realm of conjecture pretty quickly here, as with the 'whistling bridge' and where exactly the tape explosion(s) would have occurred.

As for '67, I think there might be at least three pretty distinct conceptions - the 'modified '66 version', with Cantina and Barnshine instead of IIGS and Barnyard from January; the aborted 'with chorus' version from late Feb; and the final 'actual single release' version from June.

Indeed. I am going to upload my '66 mix on Vimeo based on your suggestions... Thanks!

Nice! And yes, I would be!

It's in mine, too (the 'Fire Intro' version, despite trying to hew as closely as possible to a possible '66 version). Not sure where you use it, but I have it following 'Cantina', right after 'You're under arrest!' Especially following the vocal siren part, I think it sounds pleasantly like the score to a bar-room dust-up; or possibly an escape from the cops.

Great - would be very keen to take a listen if you post the link when it's up! :)

I'd be interested in hearing yours too!

Here you guys go:

https://vimeo.com/151348758

Do as a second side of the H&V single?  Do you mean "ideal" as in personal listening pleasure or most historical justified?

Do you mean as a second side of the H&V single?  Do you mean "ideal" as in personal listening pleasure or most historical justified?

Historically justified.

Did SMiLE Session nail Pt. 2? I heard of a 6 minute Heroes (over two sides). Pt. 1 (Cantina edit) was in fact 3 minutes, so there was supposedly an edit of a Heroes and Villains Pt. 2 that should have roughly lasted around 3 minutes as well....

A member of this board once send me a mix where he had "False barnyard-FB" following tape explosion, but with Brian's lead vocal from "Barnyard" and regular FB back vocals!
Figure that??
It was quite astonishing to hear it fits very well I would say!
Great stuff this early H&V!

Of course, this was fan mix, not Brian's mix :)

My most recent mix of the 2 part single goes like this (maybe not historically accurate but it sounds good to me!)

HV pt 1: Cantina mix until tape explosion/Sunny Down Snuff/HV Chorus (bicyle rider) fade (3:08)

HV pt 2 (with HV variations from The Smile Sessions ''Heroes and Villains: Early Version Outtake Sessions''): Gee/HV variation 1/HV variation 2/HV variation 3/HV variation 4/Bridge to Indians+ Pickup to 3rd verse/Flutter horn/False barnyard remake w/ Carl vocal (3:51)

I personally didnt care for either the Part 1 or Part 2 on TSS. Id heard many bootlegs and fan edits do a lot better, and I think the song is better served by something like Verse/Cantina--WithSwedishFrogMixedIn/ChildrenWereRaised/ThreeScore/Lalala-StandAFour/IIGS(or some kind of mirror to Cantina, some other out of the box, semi-unrelated piece)/WesternMusicBridge/SlowVerse/Some kind of fade. There are many to choose from, and its easy to mix your own as well. My favorite is still the one I did in Aquarian by mixing two throwaway secions, I think bag of tricks and something else...maybe the early version of the intro or organ waltz together

Their part 2 is kinda what Id imagine the real part 2 to be--an assortment of outtakes sections and maybe some of those chants, all stitched together. I just think the order they went with and what specifically they used was off. It no longer feels like a song anymore and just drags on and on, section after section with no rhyme or reason. I think a dedicated fanmixer could do a lot better. I think for mine, I used the a-Heroes, a-Heroes chant cross-faded with the Veggies Fade, and then the doot doot doot-Heroes and Villains chant. I didnt use the Western bridge or slow verse in Part 1 of this mix (Aquarian) so I used them at this point, then the piano theme with Taxi Cabber overlaid, then the OMP Barnshine fade with He Gives Speeches vocals properly sped up over top of it. Im not really interested in H&V part 2 anymore since all my mixes since then have attempted to be accurate and used the original tracklist. So theres no room for H&V2 anymore for me, and frankly for myself this is one of the least interesting SMiLE questions. I mean, its totally cool and historically important to see how the song progressed. But to me, its kinda like debating what the elements would be. It was fun for awhile, but after seeing the same talking points rehashed a million times, and people ignoring the most glaring evidence to support their own idea logic be damned, I just think people are gonna do what they do. Id like to see someone try to do some cool things with a two sided heroes, but for me its just one of those things were Id prefer to just use the best 4 or perhaps 5 minutes of material and leave the rest where it probably wouldve ended up anyway--the cutting room floor.

I hate using the BR chorus in Heroes. That belongs in Worms, to me. I know some see it as a repeating musical motif, but I see it as desperate recycling to try to make an uncommercial song commercial when it was never going to happen and ended up killing the album. Same with using the Barnshine fade, I never use that when Im also using OMP in the mix. Its almost disrespectful to the original songs I feel, and it takes away precious time that could be used by all the amazing stuff we have to work with. Its not like there isnt 20 minutes or more of H&V material you can use instead, to greater and more creative effect.

FYI, HV pt1 was a vintage Brian Wilson mix and from what i understand "pt2" was taken from a reel with those sections in that order (but not spliced together...can someone confirm?)

Pretty sure there's a reference for that in the Priore book "Look Listen Vibrate SMiLE". The theory goes that a good portion of the Heroes and Villains (Sections) track from the 1990 twofer was what you describe. Linnet mixed based on what Brian was heard saying at the sessions and the order of the pieces on a "comp" reel - starting from the "Gee" section and finishing immediately before the "false" barnyard tag. I don't think I've ever come across a "firm" confirmation that this is right, but that's not saying it isn't or it hasn't been confirmed.

BTW - I recall from when I got that CD in 1990 that the CD player I had at the time displayed SUB-INDEX information, which in essence let you know where Linnet had spliced pieces together, or, in other words, letting you know when each "section" started. I'd love to know if there is any modern CD player or software that can extract this subindex information??? Anyone know?

In my opinion the historically justified two sided H&V single of January-March 1967 was two concurrent H&V masters. A master was started with it's own master number 57045 which was both identified as for "H&V Part 2" and as "H&V Side 2".   Tracks noted or slated as "Part 2" for master number 57020 where second parts of side 1 of the H&V single (as master 57020 is the master of side 1 of the H&V single).  Plans are subject to change etc., etc. but that in my opinion the historically justified H&V Part 2 of the Side 2 of the two sided H&V single is what was recorded for master 57045.

Something that kills me about all these sections is people are OK, and even often include in their own fan mixes of H&V, the individual sections for "Barnyard", IIGS, or both, and yet complain that those sections don't "make any sense" with the sections Brian eventually put them (in the individual SONGS for "Barnyard" and IIGS).  To me the Barnyard section makes worlds more sense paired with TOMP, etc, than it does in the middle of the various H&V stuff. And while IIGS doesn't make a whole lot of sense paired with IWBA and "Workshop", it sure doesn't make any LESS sense, and yet there are those who still fight against all proof that the 2004 arrangements (or those particular sections) date back to the original Smile eras.

Huh. Very interesting stuff. I honestly dont recall reading that (its been years since I read the TSS book.) Well, all I can say is, I understand why Brian didnt release it that way. I guess it wouldve been slightly better than the cut of H&V we got, and that Part2 is alright as a B-Side sampler of the kind of wacky off the wall ideas to expect in SMiLE. But its not a worthy sequel to GV, nor even a worthy contender to Strawberry Fields (and this is coming from someone who thinks the Beatles are overrated and Sgt Pepper isnt even that good). Brian really shouldve chosen a better song to be the single. Thats really what it all boils down to. I cant understand why he didnt choose a stripped down version of Surf's Up--or why someone didnt tell him to do that.

Is there any evidence out there that Surf's Up was going to be a single?  Maybe as a second single for the album (assuming SMiLE was released in January).  It makes sense to me that you'd have a single released sometime in late January/early February, then have a follow up around the time of the Inside Pop special.  I've never understood why they would choose Surf's Up to be aired on TV, but not released as a single, especially seeing how the album would have been out for a few months at that point.  I've never done any research on it, so maybe I'm way off base on something.

Wasnt that theory completely disproven in the other SMiLE thread?

Id like to see someone make a H&V mix completely by the CD track labels. Putting all the Part 1 and Part 2 and making sense of it all (does Part 2 go after Part 1 or Part One Tag?) Could sound awful but maybe not. I always assumed using the 12 song track list would sound awful, and used Dada, H&V2 and Look in place of things like IIGS, OMP and GV. It wasnt until I decided it'd be fun to "handicap" myself like that, that I learned those 12 tracks make a pretty sweet album. This could be a case similar to that.

I'm sure I was reading something recently - Crawdaddy! perhaps, but I don't think so - in which one of the 'Posse' recalled exhorting Brian to release 'Surf's Up' as the single, 'just as he recorded it that night' (the solo 'demo'). But no, I've never heard or read any evidence to support the idea SU was ever planned by Brian (or the band, or the label) to be a single. A couple of years later, at least, Brian specifically refers to the length of the song as precluding it from being selected as an A-side.

Indeed, the fact that there appears to have only been a single vocal recording session for the song, on Dec 15 (which is now lost and is almost certainly the session referred to by Siegel as having 'gone very badly') suggests it was not first on anyone's priorities list to complete; and possibly that there was little support for the number within the band to begin with. There was another, now lost, tracking session for 'PART ONE' at the end of January, so perhaps then?

Either way, there's no active evidence for any intention to give Surf's Up a 45 release, unless one makes a leap of logic or two and feels a standalone release is suggested by its inclusion in Inside Pop.

Not that I know of.

I think so. The "your smile mix" thread, a few pages back.

I didn't think there was, but it's a theory that makes sense to me.  Taking a non single and putting it on a TV show, a TV special at that just seems very odd.  But yeah, a lot of stuff posted about SMiLE requires at least a little leap in logic.  

I agree IIGS and Barnyard dont really fit. The narrative of IIGS has nothing to do with anything. Its a totally disconnected sequence amidst the other lyrics. So is Barnyard, especially since the narrator is in a city, not the open country. The lyrics in both sections kinda work together tho. I really feel a verse (GS)/chorus (Do A Lot)/verse (GS w/new lyrics)/chorus (Do A Lot)/Bridge (All Day?)/Fade (Barnyard) structure would be ideal for the IIGS track. It just sucks the pieces we have now dont really sound good together, but Brian couldve made it happen. And then it opens up the question of Veggies would have had a chorus or not--maybe intervals of the fight with Hal? Brian has them go thru three noticeably different stages of the fight, so that legit could be possible...

Im getting off topic. Anyway, I agree with you in theory, its just your insistence on Barnyard as part of OMP (which, again, makes no sense at all and ruins both tunes) that I have an issue with

Indeed. And yeah, as far as I know it wasnt an official idea. But c'mon...it just makes so much sense, wouldve been so easy to do and saved all those wasted months which couldve saved the album...

Not that I see. Where and by whom?

Okay, so i just relistened to mark linett and alan boyd's iconfetch interviews (pre and post smile sessions) and heres what they said:

- question asked by buddahat!! "was the sequence for HV pt 2 based on historical evidence meaning brians plans in 66/67?"

Alan:  "partially.. what we did was we took almost all sections that had been recorded in the first part of 1967. For instance, there was a section called prelude to fade..and a couple days later he went and recorded a new fade and so we went 'well, lets put the prelude to fade before the fade.' At the end of that, there was another section called tag to pt1 that just seemed to fit in there like a glove most beautifully.  And the other sections, you know, all the vocal parts were arranged in that order although not edited together on the original session master tape..and we did find pieces.. and you will hear some of this towards the end of CD 4 of edit attemps brian had made with some of those recordings in early 1967, so it's not as if brian had written a very specific blueprint for it, but based on the way he was titling these tracks and the order in which they were laid down.. the order in which they were recorded, it seemed the most intuitive method to arrange HV pt 2. I have to say Im not positive, you know, we're not positive that there actually was intended to be a HV side 2. We've heard reports from both sides on that."

Mark: "Well, Brian denies it. But 40 years on, thats his take on it.. that there was no two sided version of HV"

also, lets keep it positive towards sharing evidence, sources, theories, etc? We're all just trying to gain and share insight here.. its not like you can listen to SMiLE the wrong way:)

Page 9, and into 10

Mujan, youre totally losing me on the whole skits are supposed to be everywhere, brian wilsons edit choices arent that good, workshop is air, iigs has nothing to do with anything/is an outake, omp/barnyard are not related, etc..

i have a hard time knowing whether or not youre trolling.. i mean all the long posts trying discrediting sources and actual insightful information and theories with actual historical support... to posts like suggesting  a multi skit VT??

yes, there is a lot to SMiLE that is unknown, but where are you coming up with this stuff?

Nope, nothing contradicted the evidence for a #57045 H&V Part 2/Side 2 master. 

Honestly, thats just a plain rude thing to say, and the first post on this board in two years Ive taken legitimate offense to. I think its pretty telling that rather than try to meaningfully reply or refute my arguments you seem so opposed to point for point, the best you can do is accuse me of trolling. I realize I dont mince words when telling someone I think theyre wrong, but at least I offer them the respect that their ideas are being presented in good faith and would appreciate the same dignity. You've been hounding me with the same talking points for awhile now from Vosse--which I read in order to engage you and others who presented his and other articles as "must read" and while it was certainly informative, I dont see how your theory constitutes "insightful information" and Ive explained why at length twice now. If you wont defend why you feel your speculation gleamed from that sole source somehow negates the physical evidence Ive presented against it, then that is your business. But I'll thank you to NOT be obnoxious about it, first by bringing it up in an off topic message and now this namecalling out of the blue.

Are you really unaware of the Psychedelic Sounds bootleg? If so, I suggest you google it and give it at least a cursory listen. I provided you, and others the same time and respect by reading the articles you pushed so hard as irrefutable evidence and even writing legitimate, thoughtful dissertations on them. I also provided a very thorough explanation of what the PS skits were and why they are relevant to such discussions in my lengthy post responding to your elements theory you would not stop shoving down my throat. Had you actually bothered to read it, you wouldnt even need to listen.

The more I consider it, I seriously believe youre being intentionally malicious and spiteful. Why? Because youre deliberately misrepresenting what Ive said. And while I may not be the friendliest, cuddliest person on here sometimes when debating this stuff, thats something Ive NEVER done to anyone, and dont appreciate having done to me.

I never said Workshop is Air, or even an element. And you KNOW that, Ive stated as much multiple times in posts that were largely directed at you. There is no reason to even bring this up except to deliberately get a rise out of me, or again, youre just incessantly bothering me with your Elements theory without even reading anything I write in return, which I consider borderline-harassing behavior either way.

Youre taking me COMPLETELY out of context saying IIGS/Barnyard dont make sense. I was obviously speaking in terms of H&V, and even went out of my way to say they make sense together. This should be obvious to anyone with a basic reading comprehension.

I have legitimate reasons why I think OMP doesnt belong with Barnyard and I stated it in no uncertain terms, in at least 2 long, honest posts. Did you even bother to read them, or again, is this just your way of bullying me? Its telling that rather than disprove me, or argue your case more in depth, write some kind of point by point reply in good faith...you resort to this petty name calling and personal attack. It shouldnt be that hard to refute what I said about this or elements if you actually had anything of substance to contribute except just the same forced interpretations of one article. And either way, I dont understand why you keep annoying me about my own interpretation in both instances. Seriously, I presented my case for both as clearly as possible. Youre free to do the same or leave it alone. But this is the third thread youve brought these disagreements up in for no reason whatsoever. You seriously just wont let it go, and yet you have nothing constructive to say--again, something I consider hateful behavior.

Im allowed to think Brian's (really, Mark and Alan's interpretations of) H&V/2 on the boxset isnt the best. It's called having an opinion and just because I like SMiLE that doesnt mean everything recorded for it or every possible combination of the pieces is gold. Brian may be one of my heroes, but even the people you admire make what you consider to be mistakes sometimes, or release material thats not as good as others. And he himself must not have thought it was that good either since he didnt release it that way, wouldnt you think?

Funny how its only "historical information" when it suits your argument, and whenever anyone has a valid piece of evidence that calls it into question, like the PS skits, or else questions whether the evidence is being interpreted correctly or means what you think it means (like Vosse happening to mention WC after Elements, or hearing Brian play OMP a certain way one random night--thats flimsy "evidence" at best, totally reaching at worst) its "trolling." How immature are you, that anyone with a different take is trolling? I realize Im no doubt annoying to certain people here when I push my theories, but at least I respond to them at length and in good faith, not just putting words in their mouth and accusing them of trolling.

This post was low, man. Totally uncalled for. I'll thank you to kindly stop policing me for having different takes on this album than you. Personally, I think a lot of the theories put forth about SMiLE by people are totally misguided and I have no problem telling them so when it arises. But what I dont do is constantly bring it up thread to thread and make a big self important show of calling them out randomly when I wanna get my kicks. Ive stated my side on our major disagreements very thoroughly and clearly because I dont want to keep rehashing the same things over and over, and Id prefer to leave it at that. Because unless you can come up with something better than "well I think when Vosse says this it means that" than Im not interested, Im not convinced, and the whole thing is just a waste of time. Id like to be able to post without you trailing behind berating me thread to thread with the same solitary point and a smug attitude about it now. It was annoying before, but after this last post I consider it willfully hurtful.

A verse remake, intro and BR overdubs seem to be something youd expect in Side 1, not 2. Id personally love for your theory to be true, itd make things so much simpler, but I really dont think its that clear cut unfortunately

If there ever a stand-alone track called "Heroes And Villains, part 2" was planned, I don't think it was the second half of one whole song, but related to "Heroes And Villains" in the same way as "Shut Down, part 2" is related to "Shut Down". The A-side wouldn't have been "Heroes And Villains, part 1" but plain "Heroes And Villains" proper, the whole of it as it was supposed to be, and the B-side "Heroes And Villains, part 2" joyful fooling around with the intention to avoid using a track from Pet Sounds nor from SMiLE as a B-side. Brian is quoted with not wanting to use an album track, maybe just recording himself with a piano for the B-side, but not having decided yet.

None of us knows how it worked (except those who have, or have heard, the actual thing) but still it seems to me the facts are: witnesses said there was a version of the H&V single with 2 sides. Brian had concurrent masters for H&V from January to early March, one was #57020 which is the master for side 1 of the actual H&V single and a second master #57045 logged as H&V Part II and noted as "Side 2" on one of the master's tapes and all* #57045 sessions also sharing the same progressive session number of 14247, 14247-A, 14247-B, 14247-C, 14247-D*.

Regardless of our personal opinions, it still seems to me that pretty good evidence of what Brian recorded for the side 2 of the two-sided H&V single has been staring us in the face the whole time but maybe obscured or confused by the side 1 master #57020 having sections that were slated a "part 2" and "part 3" etc..

*all subject to correction by c-man's newer and better information. For instance, did the "verse remake" of March 3 for H&V Part II master #57045 also share the progressive session number of 14247-? with the rest of the #57045 sessions?

Were the two masters used for different sessions at the same time--serious question. Thats certainly pretty good evidence for your theory if so. Honestly, I do hope youre right but I recall some reasons to cast doubt on it brought up before. Does someone else have a more complete list of the sessions with master numbers to confirm or deny? Anyway, I dont think anyone's doubting there was a two sided Heroes at some point.

I agree. I dont believe in the idea of a sampler of the album using reworked pieces that would actually appear there (presumably) like Barnshine fade and things like that, but I think Side 2 would probably be some of the leftovers that didnt make the cut for Side 1. The different chants, (tagged as Parts 3 and 4 I believe) Gee, and maybe All Day with "a lot of talking in the quiet parts" so it would give an idea of what to expect for SMiLE, without giving away pieces which would actually appear on the album. The BR chorus and verses would solely be on Side A, I think. Side A had to be commercial and would be what people actually heard on the radio so it had to sound like a typical song.

I agree with the idea of side A being the single and self-contained.
As for pt 2, but the more I listen to the part 2 vocals variations, the more I hear this so-called ''sampler'' of the album.
Just listen to the music underneath the different sections:

Gee/HV variation 1- Im' In Great Shape 
HV var 2 - Cabin Essence (Who Ran The Iron Horse)
HV var 3 - Vega-Tables (Fade)
HV var 4 - Wind Chimes
Fade - The Old Master Painter

I may not be following you but I believe Brian settled on #57020 as the master number for the side 1 H&V on December 19 and it remained the master through the side 1 of the released single.  Brian started the H&V Part II/Side 2 master January 5 on through March 3. So yes he was recording for both separate masters in the same period.

All I remember and saw was personal opinions that this wouldn't be that or second guessing Brian, nothing that contradicted the evidence. Maybe I missed it, if you can find it.

I don't know Brian's plan of course, so no one can say that Brian planned Side 2 as an album sampler but what he recorded for the master #57045 that had been tagged as for "side 2" is at least a defacto sampler.  Brian did express some doubt about what would be on the side 2 in February but then recording resumed for the 2nd master of Side 2 later in February into March, presumably he made up his mind and ear witnesses heard the result

What I mean is, when Ive heard this sampler theory before, its been presented as if all the parts that were lifted out of other songs like the BR chorus, Barnshine Fade, etc were all done for the B side but would still be on the album, and these little snippets would be a sampler of what you would hear on SMiLE. Personally, I believe Side B would be something more like the various chants (a-Heroes/doot doot doot H&Vs!) a comedy/spoken word bit like All Day, which Brian said would have "a lot of talking in the quiet parts" and meaningful covers made new like Gee. So it would be all new material, but showing off the more off the wall ideas the album would contain. I think the aforementioned BR chorus and Barnshine fade were recyclings of other songs into the A side to make it more commercial sounding, and if H&V had been released with those sections, the songs they were lifted from like Worms and OMP would either be extensively reworked with new material to make up for it, or scrapped entirely and replaced by Dada or Tones or something.

Youre probably right. That picture made it seem as tho after a certain point the different master was used, but looking at every session may prove they were used simultaneously and that image was misleading. My apologies.

I'm not saying what was recorded for #57045 is all that might have been used, I'm not even saying it all was used, I'm just saying what is documented as being recorded for it is re-recorded samples of album tracks including H&V.  The way the verse remake just seems to shuffle on for what could be the length of an entire single side, I kind of wonder if the #57045 "verse remake"* was going to be a background or connector for whatever was used from the new re-recording for #57045 and anything else that may have been added like comedy bits, out-takes, Chicago cabbies, etc.

*was it actually labeled, noted, or slated as "verse remake" in documentation or tapebox?

No, not leftovers - stuff recorded intentionally for using it as the B-side. Maybe - probably - the chants.



var 3: DYLW, rather. The V-T fade was made later and IMHO wasn't planned at that time

 :)

On that note - I at one point I thought that maybe Brian just recorded under the title H&V, notwithstanding that he may have been working on other tracks, because he was being hounded for a single by Capitol. Don't know if that's likely or even possible, but it might provide one explanation for some of these sessions. I don't know enough about it to say.

And as I type this, it occurs to me that someone mentioned Whistle In - would those lyrics fit over the "All Day" track?

I quoted that. It was just wishful speculation... It could be possible, but it obviously works much better in DYLW because the lyrics and melody of Whistle In derive from that chant after the second Bicycle Rider chorus.

Re. the two sided H&V single: It is true that any given single required two masters, one for each side, isn't it?

All of those were recorded under the master number for Heroes Pt 1, not 2, so according to Cam's theory that would not be a possible side 2.

Another reason why his theory doesn't work.  But don't tell him that, he doesn't want to hear it.

Don't tell BR, but if they weren't recorded for the "H&V Part II"/"Side 2" master #57045, my "theory" is intact.

If shangijoe's theory is correct, it is incompatible with your theory, as these sections weren't recorded for "side 2" by master number, so wouldn't be on side 2.

And if the master numbers don't indicate what side Brian was planning to use the session on, your theory is invalid.

The theory I've always subscribed to--I think guitarfool posted it--was that Brain finished what he thought was "Heroes and Villains" as the Cantina version on 2/10/67.  He then went back into the studio to record new segments five days later: Prelude To fade, Piano Theme, the "HV Pt2 Variations" (Gee, Part 2 Revised, Sedish Frog, Part 3 and Part 4).  He then returned to the studio again 7 days later and cut a new Verse, a new Chorus (gutted from DYLW) a new Fade and even a new Intro, all as a new master number.

So the theory goes that all the things recorded in between Brian thinking Heroes and Villains was finished on 2/10 and thinking he should scrap it all and start from scratch on 2/27 was destined for the b-side of the single, Heroes and Villains Part 2 (using the same master number).  That would apparently be all the "HV Pt2 Variations", and possibly Prelude to Fade and Piano Ballad somehow worked in (or not). 

And as said before, there was a reel of those pieces collected together with Gee and Part 2 Revised edited together so that the diminished chord was extracted from the end of Gee and connected to a handclap from Part 2 Revised, and Swedish Frog totally gone.  Linette replicated that on the box (if it isn't literally Wilson's test edit) on d4t24 on TSS, from 2:07-4:02.  It's uncertain if all the diminished chords would have been extracted, but imo that 2-minute piece is the closest we have to what Brian may have intended H&V Part 2 as. 

But the" H&V Pt 2 variations" you refer to were not under the Pt. 2 master number, they are under the Pt. 1.  So either those were recorded as part of a reconfigured Pt. 1 and not for side 2 at all, or the master numbers don't indicate whether a piece was destined for Pt. 1 or Pt. 2.

To clarify, I believe the new master number was meant for when Brian scrapped everything and started the whole song from scratch, re-recording  the Verse/Chorus/Fade, NOT indicating a Side A/B.  So thus, yes, the H&V Variations--and by extension the theoretical Side B of the single--were recorded with the same master number. 

Much like how "Like A Rolling Stone" was split over two sides of the original 7" as Part 1 and Part 2, yet had the same master number. 

If it was recorded for the #57045 master it was for the "H&V Part II"/"Side 2" master (as the session number 14247 they share in common shows).

If it was recorded for the #57020 master (as the session number 14236 they share in common shows) it was for what is Side 1. If it was recorded for #57020 as "part two" it is still for the #57020 Side 1 master.

Just as if it was recorded for the #57020 master as "part 3" or "part 4" it doesn't mean it was recorded for the third and fourth side of a three or four sided single, it is still for the #57020 master which is Side 1.

It is pretty simple imo.

 

How about this, just by looking at the dates without thinking of the master numbers: maybe Brian started working on both pt 1 & 2 on the same master then, as soniclovenoize points out, he then changes his mind and restart the song from scratch from February 27 (now using ''the bicycle rider theme'' as chorus of the song) and works on this version until it becomes the official 45 version...

-By February 10th, we have the cantina mix with the OMP fade (overdubs made on the 10th)
-By February 15th and 16th (approximately), Brian records a ''prelude to fade'' and the bicycle rider theme on piano
-Then, on February 20th, we have all the various chants variations featuring many references to the album's songs.
 
By working out with both the ''early version'' mix acetate (d4t24 on TSS) and the original ''cantina'' mix, here's what I came up with what could have been released as a 2-parter single:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCzTHJqaipg&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCzTHJqaipg&feature=youtu.be)

It's almost 7 minutes long, not 6, but reports of a 6 minute version from Michael Vosse told that it was ''never completed, but at least I could see the form of it, was an A side B side version lasting about six minute."

This thread inspired me to try a hand at a mix again and so I gave myself a slapshod tutorial in the Audacity editing software. A couple of hours and several beers later I've produced a half-way decent H&V mix. Though, now after hearing your mix Old Master Painter, I kinda wish I'd used the H&V demo (Pt. 1) as the base track instead of the officially released version, but oh well. Here's my mix, hot off the frying pan..

http://www71.zippyshare.com/v/DWphoLkL/file.html

Yeah I understand what you are saying, going simply by the master numbers.  But what was actually recorded doesn't really make sense as a B-side, since it was literally remakes of material already tracked and finished (at the time).  Assuming your theory is correct, you'd have the Cantina mix on side A and then just simply an alternate version of the A side as it's B-side (that likely would have sounded like http://www48.zippyshare.com/v/GsEfh80Z/file.html).  What would be the point?  It's certainly possible (anything is possible) but it seems more probable that Master 57045 was an attempt to re-record the A-side from scratch rather than a completely different track that mirrored the A-side... imo

@soniclovenoize I can't help but crack up at the thought of you slapping together that mix to prove a point haha!  :lol
Sounds kinda cool though, would be interesting to hear vocals over that. Check out my mix above. It's pretty rough but not bad for my 2nd attempt at using Audacity.

I'd like to discuss this more but I'll have to wait until next week probable.

I made a much better, different version of H&V today and am quite proud of it. It contains just about every idea Brian Wilson had for Heroes & Villains (damn near). It's 9 and a half minutes.

Heroes & Villains Pts. 1 & 2
Fire Intro > Been In This Town So Long > Piano Theme > Peace In The Valley > Barnyard > Psychedelic Sounds: Moaning/Laughing > Cantina > H&V Organ Waltz (an intermizzo) > I'm In Great Shape > Children Were Raised (Often Wise) > Three Score and Five > Tape Explosion > Sunny Down Snuff > Piano Theme > Old Master Painter

All original recordings, of course, but I added one or two very minimal edits/sound effects for smoother segueing purposes.

Enjoy.

http://www60.zippyshare.com/v/aCCI5fXq/file.html

Righto, going to have a go here at synthesizing the information available to us into some kind of timeline for 'Heroes'. I'll note whenever my own guesses or supposition come into play. Please disregard if it's not OT - or at least not in line with how the thread has developed.

February '66: VDP and BW 'reconnect' at a lawn party at Terry Melcher's house. [source: Wikipedia, and apparently the BW ‘autobiography’. Corrections and/or further information welcomed.] Pet Sounds is now complete, although work on a song initially recorded during those sessions - GV - continues.

‘Early May’ '66: The collaboration between VDP and BW begins with 'Heroes and Villians', written in 'the sandbox' in Wilson's home. [Badman, 2004] Both credit the other for the title, VDP saying: "I think he made that up. I think it was a great title, and he suggested it. To me, 'Heroes And Villains' sounds like a ballad out of the Southwest. That’s what it was intended to be—as good as any of those—and, really, to be a ballad. This Spanish and Indian fascination is a big chapter in Californian history, and that’s what it’s supposed to be—historically reflective, to reflect this place. I think it did it." [Priore, 2005]

May 11 '66: The first tracking session for H&V is held at Gold Star Studio A, including four sax players and, notably, apparently no French or 'flutterhorn' player. The resultant master is assigned the number #55999, and is timed at 2:45. Since the events described in the entry above are dated as 'Early May' by Badman, this means a total possible interval of ten days between the initial songwriting collaboration by VDP and BW and its recording in studio.

Later May ‘66: Al Kooper: ‘He also played me a rough tape of ‘Heroes and Villains’, which evolved, I believe, from a Wilson revamping of ‘You Are My Sunshine’.” [Kooper; Backstage Passes & Backstabbing Bastards, 2008]

Further, as related by Cam Mott earlier in this thread, quoting from his own email correspondance with Kooper in 2000:

[Cam]: Was the version of Brian Wilson's "Heroes and Villains" you heard at Brian's house in May '66 much different than the version that was released as a 45 and on Smiley Smile or the Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations" boxset?

Al: yes-it was interpolated with "you are my sunshine." go figure…
Al Kooper 6/10/00

Al: IT WAS ACTUALLY JUST A BIZARRE ARRANGEMENT OF "SUNSHINE" HE MUST HAVE DECIDED LATER TO MAKE HIS OWN SONG OVER THE TRACK - THATS MY GUESS. ASK HIM - HE'S STILL ALIVE.
Al Kooper 9/21/00

Supposition: Is it possible, going from the above, that the VDP/BW collaboration began following this recording, perhaps as a result of it? Kooper certainly seems to suggest that this early version of ‘H&V’ didn’t so much feature a ‘YAMS’ section as was based upon a ‘bizarre arrangement’ of the traditional tune. If this is the case, it supports the idea - as do Parks’ recollections above - that BW’s first ‘assignment’ for VDP was providing new lyrics for a vague musical/thematic concept he had in mind; much like his prior work with Tony Asher - or, more specifically, an existing composition the lyrics/melody for which he had since grown dissatisfied (cf. ‘In My Childhood’/’You Still Believe in Me’.)

20 Oct ‘66: An afternoon’s tracking session occurs at Western Studio 3. Sections recorded are the ‘Verse’ and ‘Barnyard’.

27 Oct ‘66: ‘I’m in Great Shape’ tracked, under the title ‘Heroes and Villains: I’m in Great Shape’. [A vocal session under the title ‘I’m in Great Shape’ with all six Beach Boys appears to have been taped ten days earlier at Columbia Studio A, which C-man posits might have been the ‘Vega-Tables’ Cornucopia version - though this remains uncertain.]

4 Nov ‘66: Brian and VDP meet with DJ ‘Humble Harv’ Miller in the evening at Western Studio 3. A ‘demo’ piano-and-voice run through of H&V is taped, as well as some introductory chat, incorporating the first two verses of H&V (lyrics as released), Brian’s vocal imitation of a flutterhorn, ‘I’m in Great Shape’ - and ‘here’s another section, now’ - two attempts at Barnyard, the second apparently mainly so Brian can coax the right animal noises out of VDP.

Circa Nov/Dec ‘66: 'Brian sits in his bedroom playing the background track to "Heroes and Villains' for a reporter from New York. As the barnyard section comes over the speaker Brian leaps off of his bed. "I'VE GOT IT!" He laughs and jumps into the center of the room. "It's a color short. 16 mm. I'll shoot it. Next week. It's a chicken, and the chicken is wearing TENNIS SHOES. The chicken is wearing tennis shoes and he is bopping around the most beautiful pad. Paul Robbins' pad. Somebody get Robbins on the phone. We've got to shoot it next week!"' (from Teen Set, ‘67)

Supposition: If this extract is accurate, it implies an least partially sequenced ‘Heroes and Villians’ backing track which included ‘Barnyard’ existed at some point. Certainly the ‘demo’ as well as Siegel [in ‘Goodbye Surfing, Hello God!, 1967] confirm chickens played a key role in the lyric for this section: ‘Out in the farmyard the cook is chopping lumber; out in the barnyard the chickens do their number… [...] [C]ivilized chickens bobbed up and down in a tiny ballet of comic barnyard melody.’

13/14 Nov ‘66: ‘'It is a crisp, clear November night, and from Brian Wilson's living room, high atop Beverly Hills, the city glistens in patterns of light. Wilson sits at his piano. [...] Wilson turns to no one in particular and speaks. "'You Are My Sunshine' can happen another way. Listen." He plays a mournful series of chord patterns while singing a sad revision of the song "You were my sunshine, my only sunshine ..." The next night he is back at Goldstar and a studio full of cellos, strings, and percussion performing those same poignant chords.'
(Teen Set, '67)

‘Vosse: So one night we were over at his house and he started playing "You Are My Sunshine" by ... [...] Well, Brian started playing it slowly—almost like an R&B thing— just slowing down the tempo: really mournful. [...] and he started doing a "you were my sunshine" thing: he put the song in the past tune—and he was trying to find his bass rhythm for it: and in doing that he found this weird little riff that just sort of developed. And it hit him, man, right then that he wanted a barn yard—he wanted Old MacDonald's farm—he wanted all that stuff. So he immediately got Van Dyke over and they did a chart for "You were my sunshine," which ... It's so hard to remember exactly what he wound up doing because he changed things so much ... he wound up writing a clarinet part for it which is impossible to describe: a whole different sound that he found in the middle of all this ... and it developed into an instrumental thing with barnyard sounds—people sawing—he had people in the studio sawing on wood—and Van Dyke being a duck—and it was marvelous. It made you smile and at the same time touched you.’
[Fusion, 1969]

Nov 29, ‘66: ‘I Wanna Be Around/Workshop’ tracked - session logs give this recording the notation ‘(Great Shape)’.

'"Brian Wilson is cutting an album. He wants the sounds of a workshop for background on one of the tracks.’ [Teen Set]

Nov 30, ‘66: Dennis’ lead vocal for ‘You [Were] My Sunshine’ is taped, and the two parts (OMP/YAMS and the Part Two 'finale’/’Barnshine’ fade) edited together on this date. [TSS]

Supposition: Re: ‘You Are My Sunshine’ - there appear to be at least three separate SMiLE tracking sessions referenced in the above quotation from ‘Fusion’. ‘Heroes and Villians: Barnyard’ recorded (tracking and possibly backing vocals) at the second H&V session on 20 October; the past tense ‘You Were My Sunshine’ and preceding ‘Old Master Painter’ extract (‘he wound up writing a clarinet part for it which is impossible to describe’) recorded on 14 Nov; and 'IWBA/Workshop’ recorded on 29 Nov. It also appears to be the case that the traditional YAMS had indeed provided some of the impetus for H&V as far back as May.

So, one possible reading of this data: Mid-May ‘66, BW and VDP begin writing what is essentially a new song called ‘Heroes and Villians’, based on the music devised for the May 11 recording. 'Barnyard’ and ‘IIGS’ sections are written during the compositional process, and tracked as sections of H&V, as evidenced by the ‘demo’, the session logs, and the Teen Set excerpt. As part of this fresh start, YAMS is removed from the sequence, but it remains part of the fabric of the song for Brian, at least. Later, in November, Brian begins tooling around with the traditional tune again, finding a way to transform it into a minor key and past tense. Vosse recalls this ‘developed into [...] animal sounds’ - presumably the already recorded Heroes section ‘Barnyard’ - and, with greater, emphasis, the ‘Workshop’ recording. From this perspective, the apparent confusion over ‘what went with what’ is fairly understandable: if ‘Barnyard’ was a compositional surrogate for ‘YAMS’ in the second, BW/VDP version of H&V in mid ‘66, then it’s no surprise that Brian might connect the two later in ‘Nov in the circumstances Vosse describes. Further thoughts on ‘Workshop’ - and the sections later excised from H&V - in further supposition after the December diary entries.

Nov/Dec ‘66 [?]: One of the Durrie Parks acetates contains the following partial edit of 'Heroes and Villians', as described by ‘andy’ on these Boards:


One can’t be sure, as dates are not available, but since none of the released ‘67 mixes or recording sessions contain any sign of IIGS (and, indeed, the Feb ‘single version’ features the 'Cantina' section in what appears to be the same spot, and ends with a re-recording of the OMP/YAMS fade, one of the first ‘cannibalisations’ of one SMiLE track into another), I’d say a pre-’67 dating for this assembly seems to be a reasonable assumption.

Dec ‘66 [?]: ‘Heroes and Villians: Intro [Early Version]’ (also referred to as ‘intro to part 3’) tracked.

13 [?] Dec ‘66*: ‘The Beach Boys are back from Europe, Thanksgiving has just passed and an awesome recording schedule faces them. The new album "Smile" and the new single "Heroes and Villains" must be completed by Christmas. Day and night and long weekend sessions are planned. Mike Love, Carl Wilson and Al Jardine huddle around one of the big playback speakers at Columbia Records, studio A ... (Brian records all over town—Western, Goldstar, Columbia .) .. twelve takes on one small section of background voices for "Heroes and Villains" have just been completed. Mike is not quite satisfied with his singing on a few bars. They go back into the studio. Over and over they re-record the difficult and complex harmony pattern until it is perfect. Then Brian takes them to the piano and teaches them more background to be overdubbed. The creative process here is as spontaneous as in the earlier track sessions. Carl has an idea and goes to the microphone alone laying in a lovely and funny little riff behind the choral effect.’
[Teen Set, Jan ‘67 - presumably referring to either the verse backing or the acapella section that follows the first two verses on most edits - * courtesy Andrew G Doe, via the research of C-Man - this is the earliest known ‘H&V’ vocal session if one doesn’t count the lost ‘I’m in Great Shape’ recording of 17 Oct]

Mid Dec ‘66: The ‘Capitol memo’ giving the 'not in correct order' tracklisting is apparently composed, including ‘I’m in Great Shape’ as a separate listing. Also worthy of note: the inclusion of ‘The Old Master Painter’ in scribbled-out parentheses.

Late Dec ‘66:
'PAUL: When I was there in December, Brian was thinking of "Heroes & Villains" as the single.
DAVID: Right. He would think of "Heroes & Villains," and then he would call up two nights later and say it was going to be this, and it was going to be that, and it was going to be "Heroes & Villains" again, and then everyone said, No, Brian, it should be "Heroes & Villains," no Brian it should be this...’
[Crawdaddy! Pt II, May 1968]

Conclusion (guesswork on the basis of above):

There are three major 1966 iterations of ‘Heroes and Villians’. The first, an instrumental recording tracked in mid-May and apparently played to Al Kooper from an acetate later that month, is an experimental catalyst for the song as we know it, a thematic concept based around a ‘bizarre arrangement’ of ‘You Are My Sunshine’. What’s more, it appears to have been recorded in a single 2:45 take (the third take providing the master) - already a far cry in approach from the deliberately ‘modular’ assembly of different tracking sections apparently undertaken in October, and also from the similarly-fragmented song with this name eventually released in mid-’67.

The second iteration is written by Brian and Van Dyke Parks, beginning sometime in May (and possibly completed, in compositional terms, that same month). By October 1966, at the latest, it includes sections entitled ‘I’m in Great Shape’ and ‘Barnyard’. Combining the ‘Humble Harv’ demo of November 4th ('Miller is excited: “That is going to be the greatest record anybody's ever heard"' - Teen Set) and the the ‘Durrie Parks’ assembly of three sections of the song, we have a possible sequence for [some of] this version as follows:

[from 'Humble Harv':] Verse - I've been in this town so long/Verse - Once at night, Cotillion squared the fight/Flutter-horn transition/IIGS - Fresh Clean-Zen Air/[from DP acetate:] My children were born, they suddenly rise/Verse - At three score and five/[from 'Humble Harv', ‘here’s another section now’:] Barnyard.

Mid November, and on the evening of the 13th at his home, ‘a little high, I guess’, Brian returns to that initial May ‘66 fascination with ‘You Are My Sunshine’, only now putting it into a minor key and ‘the past tune’. He and Van Dyke put together some charts, and the number - including a new, major key pastoral coda (latterly known by fans as ‘Barnshine’, or ‘False Barnyard’) is tracked the following day. A subsequent ‘development’ from the YAMS experimenting, ‘IWBA/Workshop’, is recorded two weeks later, marked as ‘Great Shape’ on the logs.

December - pressure for a single mounts [Anderle/Vosse]. ‘Heroes’, by virtue of being ‘the closest thing to being finished, at that point’ [Anderle] is nominated. At the same time, the covers for the album need to be designed in preparation for a January release, and for the first time since the October session logs, the phrase ‘I’m in Great Shape’ appears in print. So does a track called ‘The Old Master Painter’ - though the parentheses included and then scratched out on the Capitol tracklist suggests the writer was unsure whether this two-part assembly would constitute its own track, or be a part of something else.

One possible interpretation of the above: Around mid-November, YAMS is recalled by Brian, re-enters ‘the mix’, and is possibly planned to conclude an expanded or revised ‘H&V’: indeed, possibly to provide an explicit ‘[grand] finale’ (as Part Two is described on the session tape). This is one possible explanation for the uncertainty on the memo as to whether the medley was in fact a standalone track.

As one result of this initiative, and/or the need for a more commercial/unified version of ‘Heroes’ for A-side release, the decision is also made to take IIGS, at least, and possibly ‘Barnyard’ too (as Vosse’s recollections could be seen to support the notion that the rural coda was at this time amended from the original ‘Barnyard’ tracking to the OMP ‘Part Two’ fade, also to be eventually added with high, wordless backing vocals by Brian) and build a new multi-section track around them. (An H&V ‘part two’, if you will.) ‘I Wanna Be Around (Great Shape)’ is conceived and taped in late November, quite possibly to provide some more meat on the bones of this new addition to the album's tracklisting.

That’s one interpretation of all of this stuff, anyway.

Which brings us to the end of 1966. I’ll head into Jan and Feb ‘67 in the next couple of days, if there’s any interest in me doing so. In the meantime, I’d be interested to hear any thoughts others have about the above. :)

The problem is that the My Children section wasn't recorded until 1/27/67.  So your above described configuration from the Durrie Parks acetate couldn't have existed in 1966. 

Going over the session chronology, I'd say the December 1966 H&V would just have been simply Verse -> IIGS -> Barnyard, with possibly Chimes as an intro. 

Quite correct, SNL. I hadn't remembered - until reading your post and checking the TSS book - that the 'Often' version was recorded as late as that, and I'm grateful to you for pointing it out. Which means, if the description of that particular acetate is correct, there might be a version of 'Heroes' as late as Feb '67 (or, I suppose, later) which includes IIGS. Which is pretty interesting in and of itself.

What now mystifies me about this - unless I'm forgetting something obvious, which is quite likely - is the quoted


I've just been listening to the '67 single, and it sounds largely acapella until the close of the verse, much like the 'often'-including version from the Feb mix. My ears (or laptop speakers) are probably faulty here - anyone able to add to this?

The TSS sessionography for Jan 27 lists only the vocalists, 'thigh slap' [Brian], 'Brillo pad percussion' [Dennis] and tack piano [Brian, apparently just the closing, very audible chords leading into 'Three score and five' on the Feb 'single version'l. If 'andy' did indeed hear a backing harpsichord in the DP acetate for this part - and that isn't, in fact, present on either version of this section which survive - then this might mean an earlier (or, I concede, later) version of 'Children Were Raised' that we're not otherwise aware of. Which would still allow for the possibility the acetate dates from '66, and one of the - probably several - 'Heroes' sessions for which no records or tapes currently exist.

Or I'm just not hearing/aware of a harpsichord in the June mix, which is quite possible too. Were the Parks still likely to be getting dubs of tracks as late as June and 'the single version'?

A further thought - as I largely agree with what you've posted above:

The idea of the 'three minute musical comedy' - and I wish I could identify where that phrase came from; I'm sure someone else here can - has always intrigued me. By my estimation, the backing track for verses 1 & 2 of H&V (sans the acapella follow-up), IIGS and Barnyard get to about 2 minutes altogether. So, going by the 'Humble Harv' structure, at least, this allows another minute's worth of material. 'Intro to Part 3' fills most of this time, if we assume it was going to be edited in at full length. But I can't help but feel that Brian Wilson - a master at pop structure - would have included at least one repetition of the song's titular musical theme.

So, if indeed (and I do concede, pending responses to my post above, there may not be an if in the first place) there is an unyet-heard-by-the-masses '66 recording of 'Children are Raised', this and 'Three Score and Five' (about forty seconds altogether, depending on 'whistling bridge' etc) might well have constituted the 'Part 3' indicated by the nomenclature of the keyboard-and-percussion 'Chimes' section we've both mentioned above.

True, but that goes only for the Cantina mix that survives. The lyric "My children.. 3 score&5 ...survive with the H&V" could have existed before, and just be sung over the verse track, as it's really a third verse lyrically/metrically/melodically.

I don't know how Brian was intending to use the tracks he recorded for Part II/Side 2, I only see what he intended to use it for. He recorded several master takes all under the same session number shown to be used toward the same #57045 master for H&V Part II/Side 2. What he didn't use, or added to it, or altered (pitchwise etc.) I couldn't say.  I believe the documentation shows it wasn't a reboot of Side 1, #57020 was begun before and was on-going while and in between and continued after the recordings for #57045. Also #57045 is specifically identified as Part II/Side 2 (not Side 1) as opposed to just the title of H&V for the #57020 sessions (which is Side 1).

I disagree with the opinion that the cantina version was still the final form of #57020 Side 1 during the February/March recordings for #57045 Part II/Side 2 as there were already several sessions and new master takes for H&V #57020 including new part 2s, part 3, part 4 (for the side 3 and 4 he intended to carve the #57020 master into  ;) ) etc. since the cantina version. But I agree there was a  post-cantina Side 1 #57020 in addition to the separate Side 2 #57045.

Regarding his visits along with Anderle: "We visited Brian at home one evening, and Van Dyke, on several occasions when he lived over a garage in the valley with his first wife.”  Al Kooper 5/18/99


Regarding meeting Al Kooper: “As for Spring '66: Yes, I remember David Anderle's bringing Al over. Al came in and announced "I'm the East Coast Van Dyke Parks!" That took me aback, and it took me some time to figure that Al was just trying to be nice. It surprised me that I'd been heard of in NYC, by other than a few folk musicians. It was also a jolt that Al related to me as a keyboard player, which was a relatively new career interest for me.

I didn't know there were several musical versions of Joyce Kilmer's poem. I went over to Brian's house one evening, being asked, and sang a short solo on such a song. I wasn't "hanging out" with Brian alot during that time, but I can say fairly, every time I've been with Brian, something came of it.” VDP 5/23/99

I was thinking about this before bed last night...  "Tag To Part 1" was the next thing recorded in January for H&V, and that sort of implies that the first "part" (not the A & B side argument "part"!) of H&V is the aforementioned Verse/IIGS/Barnyard, and that he set out in January to finish the first half (or 2/3rds) of the single he already had in the can. 

I think the notion of solving any SMiLE problems with "Well there are some tapes that we simply haven't heard" is dangerous logic, I'm not sure we should rely on it.  Due to TSS, bootlegs and session logs, we should know, by now, what does and does not exist.  Of course there may be things that slipped through the cracks, but we shouldn't rely on that fact as the basis of any theories, because we just don't know either way. 


This is my problem with that description of the Durie acetate...  The harpsichord was underneath the Smiley Smile recut of My Children, tracked in June.  Just exactly as you said above, why would the Parks have an acetate of June recordings?  Wasn't VDP gone by then?  And just as you said, was Brian really using IIGS in H&V in June? I suppose he could have, but is it probable? 

I think of that description of the acetates as urban legend, it's the SMiLE equivalent of Big Foot.  I'm not saying it's wrong, but it would make waaaaay more sense if that poster was just simply mistaken! 


Yeah, it could have been written, but I'm talking about what was recorded.  And as I said above, it's dangerous to write everything off as "Oh must be a tape we don't have". 


Yeah I understand what you are saying, but I suppose we are looking at it a bit differently, which is OK. 

I am not going to jump to the conclusion that Master 57045 was the mythical H&V Part 2 just because one of the pieces was slated as such (but not the other pieces).  Think about it: many people have said there was no Part 2, including Brian himself.  Linett said they could not find any evidence of a Part 2.  But if you are right, wouldn't those folks know of Master 57045?  "No there is no H&V Part 2, oh wait here's Master 57045, nevermind."  But that never happened. 

On the other hand, assuming the mythical H&V Part 2 was recorded under the same Master 57020 as one continuous piece that would eventually be split in half for the single (just like Bob Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone", as I already said), that would support the reports of a six-minute Heroes and Villains.  I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. 

What sections were recorded concurrently?  Perhaps I am misreading the data. 

We don't see any evidence that there was an H&V Part 2 even though all of the #57045 master takes are titled "Heroes and Villains - Part 2" unlike the other H&V master takes for the other "Heroes and Villains" masters including those for #57020 which are not titled as a "part 2"?  All of the #57045 sections' master takes share a session number which is for the "Part II" #57045 master including the one noted as both "Part II" and "Side 2".  Even without that "Side 2" note, #57045 is still master takes sharing a session number toward a single master for "Part II" of H&V, so if one is for the Side 2 master they all are.  

I don't think it would be jumping to conclusions. To me this has much more evidence for it than almost anything else that is considered settled history.

I'm not a Dylan expert, but wasn't LARS master recorded as a single master take?  Brian's masters were recorded in sections under a session number assigned to a master and compiled from several master takes under that session number for that master number. #57020 and #57045 where recorded and documented with single separate session numbers of their own for separate assigned masters of their own assigned for different sides. One is H&V #57020 and the other is H&V Part 2 #57045. I don't think Dylan applies to H&V #57020 and H&V Part 2 #57045.

I'm in agreement with Cam on this Pt 1 Pt 2 issue.
Some additional points which are obviously my opinion rather than hard fact.

Tag to part 1 - do we know what the designated part 1 was at this time - one of BW problems was where to go after the first two verses. Were these part 1 and did they end with the accapella verse (like Cantina version) or one of the vocal links ?
In terms of missing tapes we know that there are missing tapes - December 19th sessions (which was largely strings iirc) could be key to putting bits together.
On the other hand it might not. The transition to part 3 from December is highly problematic as is where to go after part 3. It's in a funny key isn't it ??
October 17th is still amystery, there is some suggestion it might have been Veg Cornucopia rather than Great Shape. Maybe it was Great Shape and the acetate version of My Children, we just don't know.
Didn't Alan or Mark say on this board that there are several Heroes tape boxes with no tape ? aarrgghh.
There are some tapes we simply haven't heard and that applies to the whole Smile period.
Re the Durrie acetate -according to the person who heard and described it,  it has a different Great Shape backing  we haven't heard. I don't see why the My Children were raised with a harpsichord backing is a problem - that could have been done at any number of sessions October to December and then Brian could have gone back to the idea for the single.
My Children appears in both the Cantina and final single, along with verse 1 and 2 it occurs in some shape or form in both versions. So does an accapella verse.
The Great Shape Heroes / 3 minute musical comedy could consist of Verse 1, 2, Great Shape, My Children, Accapella verse, Barnyard or verse 1 verse 2, accapella. great shape, my children, barnyard which could pan out at xlose to 3 minutes depending on the length of great shape and barnyard.
Regarding part 1 and part 2 - didn't Vosse say BW had recorded it but not edited it together ?
I have a British demonstration copy of Like A Rolling Stone by Dylan - same master number both sides. Agree with Cam that we can't use the Dylan single as a guide.
That January 3rd reel is highly problematic - 3 different versions of Ah = one ending on c sharp, one quicker ending on the A flat and one ending on a hummed F7. Was he gonna use that vocal riff 3 times in the same song ?
I could go on....
I would love it if Alan and Mark could post pictures of all the Heroes tape boxes / notations. Not sure it would help our quest but it would be something to drool over.
I wonder how hard the band looked through their personal archives and storage facilities for tape reels and acetates, didn't Durrie find the auctioned acetates after the box was issued? they were a second batch weren't they ? she did also say that she should have all the video tapes somewhere that were shot with the video camera given to Brian.
At the end of the day it's fun to speculate. I wish Brian and Van had recorded home demos (and kept them). I so badly want there to be an answer to all these Smile questions but after 30 years of listening to, playing with the recorded pieces and recording my own versions I fear we are in Magnificent Ambersons territory. Unless somewhere at Capitol or in The Beach Boys archive there are a pile of tapes in the wrong boxes or as yet unplayed but i think Alan said they'd now been through everything.
and remember , someone said BW had a finished Heroes, played it to someone who said it wasn't as good as Good Vibrations and BW then wiped it.
aarrgghhh.

 

If you have a look through that thread, 'andy' gives pretty solid evidence that he did in fact hear the acetates and the circumstances under which he heard them, despite some initial and understandable skepticism from other posters. So 'urban legend' - unless one's suggesting 'andy' was lying in a pretty major way, or I'm misunderstanding your use of the term - seems a bit over the top here.


Right, so in context of your points above, we seem to have the following three options:

A) 'Andy' never heard - or substantively misremembered, despite posting his descriptions (apparently) only a short time after listening to the acetates - an edit of H&V which included a harpsichord backing for 'Children Were Raised', following a version of IIGS
B) 'Andy' heard an edit of H&V that included the harpsichord backing from the single version of 'Children Were Raised', following a version of IIGS, which was provided to the Parks in June (or later) of 1967
C) 'Andy' heard an edit of H&V that included an otherwise unbooted/unreleased harpsichord backing, following a version of IIGS, similar to that in the single version of 'Children Were Raised', which was provided to the Parks in late 1966/early 1967

Of these, A strikes me - on re-reading the related thread - as the least likely. B is possible, but doesn't seem all that likely either, for the reasons I think we agreed on above. Going by the principle of Ockham's razor, this would seem (to me, natch) to leave C (the least obviously unlikely to be true) as the most sensible position to take - bearing in mind this might well change should new info come to light.

EDIT: Crud. The final acetate includes the backing of the Redwood version of 'Time to Get Alone', cut in October '67. So who knows? Maybe IIGS really was thrown back into the mix for a bit in June '67, and the Parks supplied with a dub of it. As you were.

Is this the quote you're referring to?

"[ S ]o at that point they decided to concentrate on the single, "Heroes and Villains" - of which there must have been a dozen versions. The best version I heard, which was never completed, but at least I could see the form of it, was an A side B side version lasting about six minutes. It was a beautifully structured work; and Van Dyke was still very involved.'
[Fusion, 1969]


Yep. The issued LARS is Take 4 (second day), though there were no less than 11 subsequent attempts, funnily enough. It was only released on two sides of a 45 as it was believed DJs were unlikely to play a six minute track on the air, though many in fact bodged the two halves together, and did.

Now, when you refer to Chimes, are you meaning the song Wind Chimes or is this some snippet from H&V that's titled something differently on box set?

I assumed the reference there was to Intro [Early Version] -- track six on disc two of the Smile Sessions box. Thirty-five seconds of the up-and-down scales a la Fire, with the main melody played on chimes.

Yeah that was my guess, I just hadn't heard anyone refer to it as Chimes. 'Tis what I use as my intro to H&V. It sounds more darkly psychedelic, which is a bit more, anecdotally speaking, the bag Brian seems to have been in at the time.

Yep, that's the one and crikey would I like to hear that ! I wonder if that was the one that Mike Love played for a journalist or whether there were 2 "long" versions.

Thanks, ash.  Maybe someone has pointed this out in the past and I don't remember it or missed it because it's always been smack dab simple and in plain sight, but I feel like I've cracked the code on a 50 year old mystery.

(Stuff guys say just before they are proven wrong)

I only just realized that in all my pontifications on Heroes etc, here and on various threads, I've never offered my thanks to Cam for identifying the fact of the respective early '67 master numbers, and putting together a very solid thesis regarding the 'A side/B side' version of Heroes on the basis of them. Part of this is simply because - in the light of contradictory data coming to light - I was quickly satisfied that the 'code' was indeed 'cracked' (this part of it, anyway) and didn't feel I had any further comment to make on the subject. But I do think it's an excellent insight, and sound piece of reasoning, that has shone some light on one of the big SMiLE mysteries. So thank you, Cam.

Further to my epic post above, and bearing in mind the ongoing discussion of 'Part 1/Part 2' master numbers, is this a plausible piece of conjecture:

Oct/Nov: H&V includes - Verses, IIGS, Barnyard (possibly 'Children Were Raised' and 'Three Score', possibly not), the backing being played to the reporter in New York and giving Brian the idea for a nascent 'music video' as inspired by the 'Barnyard' section [Teen Set]

Mid-Nov/Dec (after the 13/14 Nov 'OMP/YAMS/Barnshine' creation and development related by Vosse) - H&V includes (at least): Verses, OMP/YAMs, 'Barnshine' 'finale'. This then 'develops into' - ie. is followed by/related to - 'Barnyard' proper, IIGS and 'I Wanna Be Around/Workshop (Great Shape)', now grouped under the title 'I'm in Great Shape' as per the memo.

This could be seen as effectively a 'Heroes Part II'; certainly IIGS and Barnyard first appear in recorded history as part of that song. Regarding YAMS, this seems to have been a part of 'Heroes' - if not the underlying musical basis, as described by Al Kooper - in May '66, before re-emerging in the middle of November and appearing (with a certain level of uncertainty indicated by the scribbled-out parentheses) on the Capitol tracklisting in Dec.

'PAUL: When I was there in December, Brian was thinking of "Heroes & Villains" as the single.
DAVID: Right. He would think of "Heroes & Villains," and then he would call up two nights later and say it was going to be this, and it was going to be that, and it was going to be "Heroes & Villains" again, and then everyone said, No, Brian, it should be "Heroes & Villains," no Brian it should be this...’
[Crawdaddy! Pt II, May 1968]

VOSSE: ‘So, in the studio, things were going off and on: the album was moving very slowly, and it missed its Christmas release -- so at that point they decided to concentrate on the single, "Heroes and Villains" - of which there must have been a dozen versions. The best version I heard, which was never completed, but at least I could see the form of it, was an A side B side version lasting about six minutes. It was a beautifully structured work; and Van Dyke was still very involved.’
[Fusion, 1969]

Jan '67: Work continues/begins on a dedicated 'two part' Heroes. Now IIGS and Barnyard (appear to have been) have been siphoned off from the version described under 'Oct/Nov', and 'Workshop' possibly devised to supplement them, January sees logged sessions occur on the 3rd, 20th and 27th (under master number #57020) for what Cam persuasively argues may have been 'Heroes Pt I', the A-side of a projected two-sided single. These are mainly vocal sessions, with limited percussive and piano accompaniment. These recordings also produce relatively brief, musically stand-alone sections ('Do a Lot'/'Cantina') and transitions  ('Mission Pak'/'Bridge to Indians'). No further vocal or tracking work on the verses - the first two of these being the only common factor between all known full edits of the song - occurs. There is also a Jan 5 session for the 'Bicycle Rider' chorus vocals, logged as 'Heroes and Villians Part 2' - the first use of Master #57045, and the first time the 'Part 2' nomenclature appears in the logs for H&V. Interestingly, it's also the first recorded incidence we have of a section of one SMiLE song being re-recorded for apparent inclusion in another.

About this time, many of the 'Vosse Posse' - key collaborators and confidants during the late '66 period - are beginning to, or have made their departures.

Feb '67: Known sessions occur on the 15th, 20th, 27th and 28th; (according to logs, tapes missing) vocal sessions also took place on the 24th and 26th. Going by the master numbers, if we assume Cam's part 1/part 2 argument to be correct, most of the month (until that of the 27th) is spent producing/replacing further sections for the A-side of the single. First up is a remake of Part 2 of 'The Old Master Painter', complete with concluding flutterhorn, now entitled 'Prelude to Fade'. (VDP is present and apparently actively involved at this session.) The next thing recorded (exact date unknown) seems to be a tack piano version of 'Heroes and Villians: Piano Theme', including parts based on the DYLW chorus. These two sections, edited in this sequence could - and I emphasis, could - have been intended as the 'Prelude to' and 'Fade' respectively of the A-side as it then stood.

The 20th sees mainly vocal performances (with Brian's tack piano backing) of more short sections, such as 'Gee' and 'Part 3 (Animals)', all still under the same master number (#57020) as that used in January. The 'Bicycle Rider' section repurposed from DYLW is now seemingly a key part of 'Heroes', with multiple vocal variations on this theme attempted. The 'single version' first released on the 1990 'Smiley Smile/Wild Honey' twofer is apparently mixed around this time; apart from 'Cantina', 'Children Were Raised' (both tracked in Jan) and (sorta) the 'Prelude to Fade' (15 Feb) this edit apparently features comparatively little of the new material recorded in the post '66 sessions.

Work starts to slow down again: the 27th sees the final (as in used in the eventual single release) backing recorded for the 'Bicycle Rider'-derived chorus, now called 'Heroes and Villians: Part Two'. Interestingly, this also sees the use of the master number #57045. On the 28th, the 'Old Master Painter' coda is re-recorded again, called simply 'Fade', with Van Dyke Parks once again in the studio. ('Not that it matters,' to quote the seminal English comedian Peter Cook, 'but it is important.') At this point, the section is also recorded under Master #57045, possibly implying it's now meant to close off Part Two.

March 3: The verse is remade, and the 'Intro: Early Version' ('Chimes') section remade into what would later be known as the 'Fire Intro'. These are both under master #57045. Work is then effectively suspended on the number until June.

Cam - sorry for the turnabout, and especially if you've covered this elsewhere - but what's your position on why a verse remake would occur under a 'Part Two' master number? Do you think it's likely that Brian intended to use the original verse backing for the A-side, and a new, simplified form for the B?.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but going through the sessionography this aspect does confuse me a bit.

I feel like this is selective reasoning.  Why?  because there was already two different Part 2s recorded under Master Number 57020: Gee and Anvil.  Then there was a Part 3! And then, Part Two and a Side Two, etc for the new Master.  It feels like you are picking and choosing which was a part of Part 1 and which was actually a Part 2 based on a master number that coincidentally coincides with Brian restarting the whole song from scratch.  I admit it's convenient and sits well on paper, but the practicality does not.  Again, look at what was recorded rather than what the number is.  Book smarts vs street smarts... 

It's more probable that all of these designations of Part 2, Part 2 Revised, Part Two, Side 2, etc are all parts of one composition rather than two separate sides for a single.  That is already the precedent that Brian set, why is that logic discarded here?  That is probably why some doubt there was a Part 1 and Part 2 single to begin with--it's all one piece with two halves, the first part and the second part (hence Tag to Part 1).  Brian was able to construct a "part 1" of H&V (meaning the Verse/IIGS/Barnyard in Dec 66, or Verse/My Children in Jan 67, or Verse/A Capella in Feb 67, etc) but he could not figure out where to go next to the "part 2" (first Cantina/My Children/Three Score in Feb 67, then Part 2/Part 2 Revised/Part 3 a week later, and then the aped Bicycle Rider and decided "Forget it, this is not working, I need to start all over from the beginning with a new master number"). 

Thanks THB for the recognition and discussion. Maybe I misunderstood but the first recording for a master take of a section of the #57045 master was January 5th.

It is sort of a bang-your-forehead moment. We were looking for evidence of Brian's 2 part H&V single, and let's see he was recording for "H&V" under the same session number (14236 thru 14236-R) and same master # (#57020). He was also recording at the same time an "H&V-Part II" all under a different unique session number (14247 thru 14247-D) and master number (#57045) and one of those master takes is marked as "Side 2". Hhhhhhhmmmmmmm?.....Nope, We don't see it.

I think I might have even written an essay back in the day on the Smile Shop arguing there was no evidence for an H&V Part 2.  ;D

I don't know what he intended for the verse remake, but the Part 2/Side 2 recordings seem to have things in common imo. First thing I notice is that a few of the Part 2 #57045 master takes are noted as to intention: "insert", "intro", "Side 2". The #57045 remake of the OMP fade still sounds like a fade imo. They are sort of samples of songs from the 12 track list including H&V but with a difference from their recordings for the 12 track list version of the songs.  As I remember, Brian even says on the session for the #57045 "verse remake" that it is a different version or sound or some such.

My speculation is that a structure is hinted at. The sections recorded for "H&V Part 2" 57045, collectively, are an intentional or unintentional re-tuned sampler of the 12 track album. The "verse remake" seems to me to just drone on which makes me wonder if it wasn't some sort bed for something like out-takes or some of comedy bits.  Maybe in the end, if/when we hear the actual thing, only some or even none of his intentions at the time made it to the final master.  

There were Part 2s for H&V (#57020) and Part 3 and Part 4. We agree.

There were several parts for "H&V-Part II" (#57045) also but a second part of an "H&V" (57020) master is not the same thing as a "H&V-Part II" (57045) master.

One is a master take for a master and the other is a master made from many master takes.

If H&V Part II was a reboot of side one, what was Part I? Why "part II", why not just stay with H&V as the title with a different master number (as he had done before December 19) if it was just intended to be a single master or a single master divided in two ala LARS?

Maybe we aren't going to agree.

I'm not seeing where you are saying the Verse Remake was labeled "part 2".  The Chorus was (because it is a second part of the song) but I'm not seeing where the Vere is.  Listening to the oscillator sessions, I don't hear it slated at all.  Am I missing a piece of evidence here?  Also, which january recordings were under master 57045?  I thought they were all 57020?

That's fine.  I can agree to disagree.  As I said before, we seem to be looking at it differently.  And as I guess I implied above, I don't know if there ever was a unique H&V b-side.  But if there was, I am estimating it based on the recording chronology, test edits, segment structures and harmonic variance, NOT Master Number or segment slating. 

I will say your idea of an Album Sampler as a b-side is interesting. 

As I understand from TSS, it was recorded for "H&V-Part II" (57045, session number 14247-C, master take 4) but I don't know of any designation of the master take 4 as a "part 2" of master 57045.

January 5 for "Heroes & Villains - Part 2", master number 57045, session number 14247, TSS doesn't give a master take number for this day.

All subject to clarification or correction by better info from c-man.

Yep - I completely missed that. Will edit my post above accordingly. Jan 5 sees a session for the 'Bicycle Rider' chorus vocals, logged as 'Heroes and Villians Part 2' - the first time the 'Part 2' nomenclature appears in the logs for H&V. Interestingly, it's also the first recorded incidence we have of a section of one SMiLE song being re-recorded for apparent inclusion in another.

Here is a quote from Brian himself in February 18th, 1967:

“I’m doing the final mix on the A-side tonight, but I can’t decide what to do on the other side. The easiest thing would be to pull something off ‘Pet Sounds’, but I feel that that would be cheating the record-buyer. On the other hand, I want to keep as much of ‘Smile’ a surprise as possible. I may end up just recording me and a piano-I tried it last night in the studio. It would be an interesting contrast, anyway.”

I had totally forgotten about this quote! I'm ashamed to admit I no longer own a copy of LLVS - is anyone able to provide attribution (the publication etc) for this? The reason I ask is that though the quote above may be dated Feb 18, it's unlikely that the article was published the same day Brian was interviewed. (The Teen Set piece, for instance, covers events of Oct-Nov '66, but appears in the April '67 issue.) This said, if the quote comes from a story in a newspaper, say, it's likely to be a shorter gap between interview and publication than in a monthly magazine.

Likewise, can someone shed any further contextual light on this BW quote, apparently from Oct '66:

'The song (H&V) is going to be a three-minute musical comedy. I'm using some new production techniques that I think will surprise everyone. This LP will include 'Good Vibrations' and 'Heroes And Villains' and ten other tracks, I've written them all in collaboration Van Dyke Parks. The album will include lots of humour - some musical and some spoken. It won't be like a comedy LP - there won't be any spoken tracks as such - but someone might say something in between verses.'

As I remember Derek Taylor's byline was at one time something like "Hollywood Tuesday". Perhaps the interview date would be in the week preceding the Tuesday before publication (Feb. 7 - 14) or earlier.

The "three-minute musical" quote is from New Music Express, published November 18, 1966.

Many thanks, Cam.

EDIT: Hmmm - while trying to dig out a scan or the full text of the Nov 18 NME article online (presumably 'Meanwhile... What's Brian Doing Back at Base?' by Tracy Thomas), I did find this quote from the news column of Crawdaddy for their Jan '66 edition:

'BRIAN WILSON calls his next single, "Heroes and Villains", "a three-minute musical comedy, with some new production techniques that I think will surprise everyone." The next Beach Boys LP is now named 'SMiLE'; nearly all the songs were written by Brian in collaboration with Van Dyke Parks.'

Paul Williams notes this edition 'rolled off the presses' in the first week of December '66, so the interview material would date from around the same time as in NME, or slightly later. Is it likely that the NME piece (minus the follow up comments about humour, etc) was the basis for the Crawdaddy mention, or did Brian make an almost identical statement to two different reporters (from two different continents, no less)? Not that it matters hugely, I suppose, I just find it interesting.

Does anyone have a scan or the text of the NME piece? My online searches have come up empty.

This statement is important, isn't it? Of course we'll never know because SMiLE never came out, but Brian is basically laying out a/the blueprint. And, the December 1966 handwritten list to Capitol also lists twelve tracks.

I find the part about "someone might say something in between verses" significant, too. Verses = plural. Let's be honest, there are some, but not many mixes - including TSS - that uses a lot of humor and spoken parts between verses. "Heroes And Villains" comes to mind as maybe the most prominent example, but I wonder which other tracks Brian had in mind. Actually, BWPS uses some spoken parts, but they are not humorous.

I think Smiley Smile might have more of that style of humor than anything else, even The Smile Sessions as released. Take the beginning of Little Pad, or the middle part of Wonderful.

And honestly, I prefer the material without it.

Thank you, that's the quote I was thinking of but was too lazy to find and type. Was Feb 18 the date it was published or the day of the interview?

Yeah, it's a useful one. I asked the same question earlier, and Cam replied that:


Of course, Taylor was then doing his second (I believe) stint as the Beach Boys' publicist, so perhaps not an interview in the usual sense. Not that I doubt this is what Brian said, just that Taylor's circumstances in gathering this material was different to, say, Tracy Thomas' for the NME piece we were also discussing above.

very very interesting stuff folks

the problem for me with H&V - as always - is that the various brilliant sections don't connect together very well to make a complete and naturally flowing song:  it seems that a lot of the sections are variations of fade outs that just repeat, so for example its hard to get back out of barnyard (we presume it was supposed to be the fade but its not certain)

there probably IS an order which can be put together from the various backing tracks but there are chunks of lead vocals missing so you get an incomplete version

It's interesting, that 'humor element', in that Brian speaks about it in a couple of articles at the time, Vosse talks about musical humour re: the musical change into the chorus of 'Wind Chimes' and what's probably 'Workshop', and Barnyard is pretty consistently described as 'comic' - but very few actual edits or assemblies survive from the period which incorporate the 'talking between verses' or verbal humour aspect. In fact, I think it's just 'You're Under Arrest!' that could be classified as being along these lines.

Mujan made several arguments for the 'Psycodelic Sounds' recordings being early versions of ideas Brian was developing for the final album - mainly in terms of the Elements with the Nov 4 chants, but this could also include 'Brian Falls into a Microphone/Piano' and the similar 'George Fell Into His French Horn' session, etc - and they could probably have fit the 'laughs between the verses' bill, suitably edited. But the Beach Boys themselves (apart from Brian) don't seem to have ever actually recorded any such pieces, at least that made it into an actual edit. Even 'You're Under Arrest', in Cantina, was performed by Gene Gaddy, apparently 'on set' because he was dating Barbara Rovell at the time.

Then there's the separate 'humour album' concept about which Brian was apparently fitfully enthused at the time. Anderle and Vosse both speak about it; the former probably summing things up best (and being very much in line with wantsomecorn's comment quoted above) when he says:

‘DAVID: I think what Brian tried to do with Smiley Smile is he tried to salvage as much of Smile as he could and at the same time immediately go into his humor album. 'Cause it's so—I hear elements in that of our discussions about the humor album, just little pieces of it.’
 

Agree about the humor in Smiley Smile, but again, I wonder how Brian (at one point in time) intended to employ it in SMiLE. If you do a rundown of the tracks, or specifically the subject matter of the tracks, other than possibly "Vegetables", which other tracks could've Brian employed humor? I have to think that the songs=serious and the spoken word=humor, but I don't know how he would've pulled it off, and I seriously don't know if the ying and yang would've worked. Although, at that time I wouldn't put anything past Brian...

I agree that it's one of those things that we'd only know if the Brian of '66 had managed to do what the Brian of 1967 couldn't (unless, of course, he did, and the result was Smiley Smile...). In the quotes excerpted upthread (dating mainly from late '66) he certainly seems confident about interpolating humorous verbal material within the more 'serious' musical sections. Then again, we have a decent number of BW-directed rough assemblies, edits and full mixes from that time, and with the one exception ('Cantina') I mentioned above - it doesn't happen.

I think, actually, this gives a clue as to why the whole record eventually collapsed: according to the people that were there, Brian needed (needs?) to work on instinct, in the moment. Supported by his friends, family/band, and label, he can raise things to a high pitch. Without that, the conceptual framework deflates like a badly mixed soufflé.

As Anderle (I know I quote this too much, but it's a fantastic interview) says in '68:

'See, people should never be allowed to say "No" to Brian Wilson. Brian is a person that never should be said no to. 'Cause if you just get behind him, or next to him, and go with him, it's gonna come out okay. But he was forced into that. And maybe that's why what's happening now is happening. He probably hasn't recovered from that. It was a big shock for him. It's like taking a person, exposing him to something he's always wanted to be in, taking him right to the brink of it, and leaving. And saying, "Gee Brian, how come you haven't followed up with that whole thing? Why have you fallen down?" He zoomed right up there, alienated from a lot of things that had been his strengths in the past. Those strengths were ripped away, shown to be shallow and phony, taken away from him ... but no foundation put under him. And the foundation that we all had, that we were trying to supply him with, was us? And when we went, there was nothing left there. Just him, hanging ... and, urn, perhaps we never should have gone in in the first place.'

On the 'All Day' session from TSS, Brian very specifically talks about what will happen in the quiet spaces on the track:  "Now in those spots we're going to have a bunch of talking. We need all of us together."" So, there is at least that example that jives with his other statement about using spoken humor. I guess this could also go hand-in-hand with early descriptions of H&V as a musical comedy.

I've been digging deep in to lyrics for H&V for my next video and this line has me bugged:

"Once at night Catillian squared the fight"

Doing a Google search, I don't see any usage of or information about any words or names spelled C-a-t-i-l-l-i-a-n other than in reference to this song H&V. So it's either a misspelling (deliberately or accidentally) or it's just something that VDP made up. I thought for a long time it was "cotillion", a dance.  Never made any sense grammatically, the spelling is wrong, but I thought maybe "So a fight broke out at a dance resulting in a gunfight?". Oookay... Only thing is, the word Catillian is capitalized, so that's a problem. There's no need to capitalize the word cotillion. So could it be the name of the girl he fell in love with? That could make more sense grammatically, "squared the fight" meaning "Catillian acted as a sort of referee for the gunfight". "She" (Catillian?) is immediately referred back to in the next line "And she was right in the rain of the bullets that eventually brought her down." I always thought that the girl that was shot down was named Margarita, as I suppose most people do, but now I'm not certain. Or my other theory is that "Catillian" is a misspelling of 'Castilian' which is another word for 'Spanish', specifically a form of Spanish used in Spain. I'm not a language scholar, but as I read about it, my understanding is that with certain dialects of Castilian (particularly from Latin America), the 's' sound is pronounced as an 'h' so it would sound like Cah-tilian when spoken by a native of the region. With this in mind, it would make sense that, as Our Hero (or Villain) in the song recounts their life, they would misspell the name of the language as Catillian (no 's' sound). So if this theory is correct, then the line might mean 'Once at night the rules of the gunfight were spoken in Spanish'. Was VDP really that clever that he knew all of this stuff and that he spelled the name of a language the way it might be spelled by someone that was not entirely familiar with it? Right now I think I lean towards my second theory.

Your thoughts on this line of the song are appreciated. What do you think it means?

That's some rabbit hole you've found yourself in.  :-D
Albeit, a very interesting theory. "Once at night the rules of the gunfight were spoken in Spanish." I like that. Very spaghetti-western. And really, VDP lyrics are, especially rewarded after repeated analysis, some of the wittiest, intellectual poetry I've ever heard. So I'd vote yes, he could definitely be that clever.

Neither does "Over and over the thresher and hover the wheatfield" - VDP doesn't bother with grammatically correct streams of consciousness. So, no use ruminating about it IMHO.

Over and over the crow cries and HOVERS THE WHEATFIELD

Over and over the thresher UNCOVERS THE CORNFIELD.....

Makes more sense if you switch em around. Typical VDP wordplay!  :lol

Except it's "hover" and "uncover", not "hovers" and "uncovers"...

The bigger problem for me, beyond the order of the words, is that there is no such word (or name as far as I can tell) as C-a-t-i-l-l-i-a-n. I wonder why it is capitalized and what it's supposed to mean? It's cool that VDP doesn't supply us with answers, but I think there's value in looking deeply into his Smile lyrics for meaning. That's exactly why he doesn't supply answers.

I bothered to look it up, in both BWPS and TSS it says "cotillion" - not capitalized. You got a source who got it wrong methinks.

Thanks for the input. Not sure how far back that spelling (with the capital C) dates back or the exact origin. I have Word files going back to 2000 with that spelling and also with an alternate spelling of Catillion. I've been checking the internet with not much luck.

Well, surprise! The internet is wrong!   ;)

VDP says, in the only two places we have these lyrics printed in any kind of semi-official, sanctioned-by-him kind of way, that it's 'cotillion'. That'll do for me. Especially over years of people guessing at it and writing it on the internet!

Regarding the meaning; I feel like this was discussed many years ago, and so I don't think this is my theory so much as one I read many moons back on the original SMiLE Shop and am merely remembering in public now, but how's about this for an interpretation?

First, what does the line actually say? In the BWPS booklet (to which VDP had fairly close input), it's given as (note the commas, I'll come back to those):

'Once at night, cotillion squared, the fight, and she was right

[new line]

in the rain of the bullets that eventually brought her down'

With The SMiLE Sessions booklet, it's much less clear that VDP had direct input to that, as he was more estranged from that project, but what the hey, it's the OTHER place these lyrics are 'semi-officially' printed, so you have to go with what we've got. And in THAT booklet, the lines (still with commas, but fewer of them) are rendered thus:

'Once at night, cotillion squared the fight,

[new line]

and she was right

[new line]

in the rain of the bullets that eventually

[new line]

brought her down—'

VDP's lyrics are poetry of a kind, so try thinking poetically and looking askance at the structure. When you do that, it doesn't have to be read literally. The literal reading would be 'once upon a time, when it was night-time, some character named Cotillion squared off in a fight'. That is one interpretation, sure. But what if it's more like a snatched, short-form journalistic description to set the scene, like you find at the beginning of a movie script, like: 'OK, guys, picture this: it's back in the day, the Wild West, it's night, there's this cotillion forming a square [which of course is what a cotillion is, a French country dance in which four couples form a square] — and then there's a fight'.

Almost like:

Once; at night; cotillion squared; a fight

Or: "Scene: a dance, night-time. A cotillion squared. In the background, a fight going on"

It can almost be read like scene directions, with the different aspects to which we're supposed to be having our attention drawn sectioned off by commas. And then, in the next line, a 'she' is introduced. Who's 'she'? Well, we don't know her name yet, but every Wild West tale has to have a heroine, right? So this is her. And then we only learn her name much later... like in most films. (To take a current cinematic example, there's this stormtrooper guy on screen for several scenes and several minutes at the start of the film before he's asked his name by another character, and finally, we learn that his name is FN-2187... which isn't even the name that we come to know him by for the rest of the film)

It's poetry, so... think poetically. You see characters appear at the start of the 'film', you don't know who they are yet, but a couple of scenes later, if you're lucky someone will name them, and you'll find out. And in H&V, 'she' is not actually named at all until the next verse 'Dance, Margarita!'

It doesn't have to be so literal, you know, like: "Who's this Cotillion character that's squaring off in the first line? Oh, well, it must be the 'she' that crops up in the next line. Well, she must be called Cotillion then, I guess..."

PS I'm loving, loving *loving* the master numbers showdown stuff in this thread. I have no idea who, if anyone, is right, but there are some excellent ideas and arguments on both sides. And sheeez, it's just so nice to see THIS kind of stuff back on this board, rather than 'Brian is better than Mike, ner!' 'No! Mike is better than Brian, durr!' It's been like the friggin' stupid Mantis Shrimp fighting each other in Octonauts in here for far too long (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Muvd7l5mLSM if this means absolutely nothing to you)... whereas analyses of Capitol master numbers, 1967 H&V recording dates and the possible significance and position of commas in VDP's lyrics... THAT's the kind of stuff that brings me back here, time and again...!

I'd say that's pretty much official, not semi.

"cotillion squared" makes no sense to me, other than there's another dance called "square".

Over here you "square off" to fight. Often at a dance.

I don't know what VDP meant but to me it seems he might mean that one night a cotillion (a dance, maybe including square dancing) provided the opportunity and atmosphere for heroes and villains to "square off" in a gun fight in which she (innocent girl) was caught in the middle. "Cotillion" is the dance and "she" is the innocent girl.  Something like that? 

Not to go back and rehash everything, but the December structure of Heroes and Villains was almost certainly:

Verses/Great Shape/"my children were raised . . . Often wise"/3 score and five/a Capella/Barynard

Which others may have already proposed earlier.  And I would say that this was the structure even after the track list with Great Shape as a separate song was submitted to Capitol.

What do you mean this is "most certainly" the December structure?? How do you explain IIGS being a section within H&V AND it's own separate song?

I like it - can you briefly outline how you know this..?  cheers

Did Brian call the IIGS section of H&V IIGS? Or could it be that the track IIGS is something different from the H&V section we call IIGS?

Thank you for that lengthy and thoughtful response. This really helps to focus my thoughts on the lyric, and who am I to argue with VDP? "Once at night, cotillion squared, the fight" actually makes the most poetic sense to me. Although "Once at night, cotillion squared the fight" seems OK too, as long as you keep in mind that "squared" is an adjective for "cotillion", and not a verb, which is how I've always thought of it. I think that "squared" as an adjective is the key to it all that clears up my confusion.

But don't adjectives precede the noun in English? And even if it is meant to be an adjective, what is a squared cotillion?

"Squared" is the verb in this case I believe.

I can't explain the separate Great Shape listing except that perhaps the track list submitted was not as definitive as we have considered it.

There are two sources of evidence for this being the structure - first, the Inside Pop notes.  don't have them at hand but at the Dec 15 vocal session (Wonderful backing vocals, attempt at Surf's Up, Cabinessence backing vocals) Brian plays Heroes and Villains and the notes make clear it goes from the verses into great shape.  Presumably he's playing this on the piano much as he did for Humble Harv Miller.  I'd quote it but I don't have my notes with me, I can post it tomorrow but it would probably be more fun for people to search it out themselves.

The second source is the acetate auctioned by Durrie Parks of the Heroes mix that consists of (all instrumental) Heroes verse/Great Shape/my children . . . Often wise/3 score and five.  The Great Shape in this mix is an unreleased and missing from the tape archive rerecord of the Great Shape music which based on the instrumentation was recorded Dec 27 - I confirmed this with c-man, it is the only session that matches the instrumentation.  Assuming this acetate mix was put together on Dec 27 or Dec 28, as is most likely, that means Great Shape was still in the mix at that late date, despite the track list.  I've not heard this mix but I've conversed with some who have.

As for the a capella section - this is conjecture on my part but if we have the structure based on the acetate through the third verse (3 score and five), if there was to be an a capella section it seems this is the only place it could go, and it did end up there on the final single.  the two finished mixes we have, cantina and the single, both have a vocal only section so I feel pretty certain Brian intended that all along.

So where would Heroes Part 3.  (Chimes intro, recorded Dec 66 but no definitive date) go?  Depends on what we consider the end of Part 2.  Would that be at the end of Great Shape (but on Dec 27 the acetate mix doesn't include it, unless it was already rejected or not recorded yet)?  Or at the end of 3 score and five, as indicated in the acetate?  Or immediately before Part 4 (Barnyard)?

My take is it's a poetic way of  saying 'square dance'.

"Square" in the context of fight is slang for taking a stance facing your opponent(s) in preparation for fighting. Ie. To square up to or to square off with your opponent.

I understand that use of the word, but knowing that VDP put a a comma after "cotillion squared" for BWPS redefines that line's meaning to me.  No need for a comma if "squared" refers to "the fight". Matt's articualate post laid it out quite nicely.

I'm pretty sure that the rumor that the Beatles somehow heard some Smile tapes in January 1967 has been debunked. Regardless, I find it interesting that the Beatles started recording A Day in the Life on January 19th, 1967, which is shortly after Brian put together a version of H&V incorporating IIGS and a tape explosion. Compare this to A Day in the Life which includes an orchestra playing wildly somewhat mimicking a tape explosion, and especially note Paul's "woke up, got out of bed" section, which is awfully similar to "mornings tumble out of bed". The "woke up" section in A Day in the Life is also similar to IIGS in how it seems unrelated to the rest of the song (unlike the modular approach in "Good Vibrations" where the different sections are more clearly related). I think the most logical explanation for these similarities is "great minds think alike," but... :)

Or "squared" is an exponent...  as in "to the second power"? 

So he means it's a late night dance that has been multiplied times itself?  Do we know VDP placed that comma because that is not the way it is sung imo.

Is it literally a dance, or is he equating a gunfight to be dance-like? 

OK, but that is not the meaning I take from the words as sung.

That's fine, it's poetry.  ;)

The comma is in the BWPS booklet. VDP is credited as being responsible for the words for the project. That's the facts of the matter.

don't discount multiple meanings, there's not necessarily just one

I know, I'm suggesting it is a double meaning--as 1) a square dance and 2) a "dance" to the second power. 

For the record, I always thought Cotillion was a proper noun, the name of the character who was caught in the rain of bullets; I was unaware what a cotillion was!  (Although I could have sworn that Cotillion was a Shakespearean name, a minor character in Romeo and Juliette at least, but I must be mistaken).  Likewise, I always thought the comma in the BWPS was just a typo, I didn't think much of it.  But in reading these last few pages, I can see how it very well it could have been structured as a double meaning in the guise of a metaphor. 

Why is it not performed as punctuated is my first question if that is what was intended.

Because it would mess up the structure of the meter and melody.

It's sort of the ee cummings thing, I
presume.  You don't see it often, but off
the top of my head, one of

my favorite bands the pAper chAse also does this, where
the lyrics are sung, but as they are
printed with punctuation that is not sung but gives a clue to the literary meaning
of the lyrics, so that one needs
to not only hear the lyrics but read them
to understand. 

I thought VDP wrote each syllable to match each note of Brian's composition for H&V which would include meter and melody wouldn't it?  Something is off with holding the 1966 H&V accountable to a 2004 BWPS lyric sheet me thinks.

Are... are you being facetious?

No, I'm highly skeptical that VDP's intention in 1966 would not be conveyed by the meter and melody in the performance. Since the performance is long established I'm skeptical of the punctuation variant from the performance.  I get what you are saying but I have doubts.

This is not the quote I was looking for I don't think but...

"He did the melodies. The melody to "Heroes and Villains" -- every note has a sound syllable to it. It sounded like a Marty Robbins tune, like a ballad, so I thought it would be a good idea to have it: "I've been in this town so long that back in the city I've been taken for gone and unknown for a long time / Fell in love years ago with an innocent girl from the Spanish and Indian home of the heroes and villains." All those words. I was working like a son of a bitch. And then he would say, "That's good." And then he would say, "Let's call it `Heroes and Villains,' " and I would say, "That's grand. Let's do."  VDP

Well as I said, I honestly thought it was a typo and discounted it myself, but this conversation has given me pause. 

I guess, is there a precedent for VDP doing it elsewhere?
The music hall, a costly bow... 
Cabin essence, timely hello

Those are implied commas but not sung (for the former, in order to be "holocaustly")   I'll have to go back and listen to Song Cycle and other non-SMiLE stuff.  I can't remember what it's printed as and I have no clue where either of my lyric books are, I can't check.  :/

One bit of H&V revisionism from BWPS that can actually be heard is the line from 66-67 "In the cantina, margaritas keep the spirit high." For BWPS it was changed to "in the cantina, Margarita keeps the spirits high.", in print and in performance. Commas- tougher to prove.

Browsed in LLVS a bit yesterday, found that the "Catillian" capitalized has its origin there. So much for Priore's interpretations of things SMiLE!



When I landed in London in 2004 for the SMiLE concert there was someone waiting at the gate with a sign in his hands saying "Margarita" - obviously Margarita was on my plane! :-D

So, I guess that begs the question of what Priore used as his source for the printed lyrics, or did he just guess based on what it sounded like? Are there bootlegs of the period that have lyric sheets?

Anybody have the 1967 Sea of Tunes Pub. H&V sheet music?

That's what I think is most likely.

As a bit of a break from the - thoroughly fascinating, I should add - more academic side of the discussion on various 'Smile' threads at the moment, I've spent a bit of time the last two days putting together some 'theoretical mixes' for different stages of H&V.

Obviously these aren't 'historically accurate' - we only have one Smile-era mix surviving (Feb 10's 'Cantina', as originally released on the 1990 twofer), plus the suggestion in Teen Set that there was an edit of the H&V backing track, including 'Barnyard', which existed at some stage in '66. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that Brian actually did dub down December or January versions of the track. (There is at least an incomplete 'Verse Edit' test and the 'Outtake Sections' assembly from Jan-Feb, both included on TSS.) The point of these was just to use (almost) all the pieces recorded for H&V at different stages, and attempt to put them into a vaguely satisfying order to demonstrate what BW/VDP may have been thinking as the track developed. I probably haven't succeeded in this, but it was interesting to try.

A couple of other notes: 'Children Were Raised' appears in all of these edits, despite - as Soniclovenoise pointed out earlier in the thread - the earliest version we have ('Often Wise') not being recorded until 27 Jan '67. This is largely, and possibly spuriously, based on the Durrie Parks acetate which apparently features IIGS > Children Were Raised harpischord backing > 'Three Score' backing track to run out. If indeed 'IIGS' was removed from the number toward the end of '66 - and not later re-inserted - then this would suggest a lost, even earlier tracking of this section. Total supposition, of course.

There's a lot of guess work involved. There are some clumsy edits, due to both the material available and my sometimes shocking technical incompetence. (A few bits, on the other hand, I think work rather well.) The actual recordings/transitions are not always period-specific (ie. later vocal mixes appear on earlier-dated edits, when those versions best assist the basically structural exercise this was.) And the 'December Version' is a total stab in the dark, an attempt to see how 'OMP/YAMS' may have fitted into H&V, and possibly contributed to the decision to move 'I'm in Great Shape' and 'Barnyard' (and, likely, 'Workshop') into their own track. It also features, unfortunately, the messiest edit in all three. You'll hear it when it occurs.

Anyway, I hope there are a few points of interest to be found within these edits, if taken in the spirit in which they were intended. If anyone wants to give 'em a listen, the link is below.
 
1. 'October Edit' - Verses, IIGS, Barnyard - structure suggested by DP acetate and 'Humble Harv' demo. All musical tracks (except 'Children Were Raised, as for all mixes, see above) rec. Oct '66.
2. 'Late November/December Edit' - Verses (vocals tracked from Dec '66 onwards), 'Chimes/Intro to Part 3' (rec 12/66), 'The Old Master Painter'/YAMS/'Part Two' Fade (rec 14 Nov)
3. 'Mid-January Edit' - Verses, plus all sections recorded in early Jan under Master #57020, except 'Bridge to Indians'.

No 'Part Two' edits, as from the recording logs this doesn't seem to have become a major consideration (if you don't count whatever 'I'm in Great Shape' might have been in December) until February - and even then, of course, we don't entirely know.

I would also suggest listening to the 'Cantina Mix' ('single version' A-side on the box) right after these to get a sense of the 'next phase of development'. Not that any of the above are actual 'stages', of course...

https://www.sendspace.com/file/mozizz (https://www.sendspace.com/file/mozizz)

I love your methodology, I forgive the edits and appreciate your efforts. All of these H&Vs sound completely insane. Forgive the language, but they really are completely bonkers. I'm not saying you're wrong- but what if the various "finished" iterations really are the best? Smiley, BWPS and TSS included? I think all three offer something unique and complement the Smile aesthetic.

Cheers, Marcella.

They are absolutely nuts, yeah - and I have to take full credit for the insanity of the latter two as well! (The first one at least has some sequencing guidelines from Brian via Durrie's acetate and Humble Harv). Glad you appreciated the approach - it really was just a gonzo experiment; not for a moment do I think what was actually planned or mixed down 'in real life' would have sounded much - if anything - like any of these.

But I do think, my own incompetence aside, that it's genuinely hard to see, using the recorded pieces/info that survive, quite how an actual 'song' - let alone an A-side single - was going to take shape, right up till February really. (And 'Cantina' is pretty oddly structured as well; despite being properly tweaked and mixed by BW and Britz.)

I suggest the 90s Smiley "Cantina version" was the first "successful" attempt, hence its preservation and eventual release and influence on subsequent mixes.

HB,
great work on your mixes, especially love the way "Part3/chimes" nicely segues into "Old master painter", it really seems to fit that way!

some interesting segues but overall I think still the same old problem with edit attempts at this song i.e. its disjointed

I think the transition in the 3rd version from the a capella into 'Eat a lot...' works really well :)

I think a smoothly flowing version can be put together and I'm working on a few versions but it involves endless chiselling away to get something coherent, you can go nuts trying

here's 2 goes at the start of the song - the usual 2 opening verses would come before these sections

I'm doing about 10 variations of the opening, then I'll pick my favourites and do the middle section, then the end - it must flow naturally

https://soundcloud.com/spooky-music

'Heroes Edits'

Ohh my Good!
This in unbelievable!! Please give us more! ;D
Reminded me of JMZ's mix! For you who heard that mix, remember how that one?' He even got to do really smooth, flowing HVpt2, incorporating Barnyard and HV piano theme and chorus with Animals!
But meantime, Mike, give us more!

golly cheers Nile :)

I've got a strict 'no-pitch bending' policy + no adding anything - its got to be pure Brian

also I think I have better mixes of some of the sections like Barnyard so I'll substitute them as I go

please bear with me as its very slow going but I'll try to upload some more sections in the next couple of days

I have some fantastic stuff using the Iron Horse Cab section as the middle 8 but that's cheating

OMG! Man, I can't wait to hear your complete H&V. That cross fading is absolutely incredible.

cheers :)  the actual individual sections like barnyard have been done by other people but the transitions
between sections are by me - I think there's quite a lot of room for finessing

its got to flow - if the narrative can be structured to make sense even better

the first clip is the strongest of the 2 I think

From the first recording through March  1967, what has Brian meant when he labels, notes, or slates a recording as an "insert"?

Confusingly I think it means overdub in Brian's case.
Elsewhere I think it means a section to be inserted into an existing piece.
I'd get better minds to confirm or deny that.

I was thinking instead of "insert" he called those "overdubs" or something else......"fills".......or......"pick ups"?

"Intro" segueing into "Old Master Painter" is fucking (is it okay to say 'fucking' here?) brilliant. Loving the mixes, so many 'tape explosions', cheers!

I have a theory that the Cantina section wasn't just a replacement for I'm in Great Shape but was actually a rewriting of it, similar to how Cool, Cool Water was a rewriting of Love To Say Da Da. I layered the Great Shape vocals over the Cantina backing track and it's almost a perfect fit. (http://www51.zippyshare.com/v/Qq6lHCK9/file.html)

COMMENT:  Since after 174 posts on Heroes and Villains, no one has mentioned my Study-Video on this subject, I will.

For what it's worth, the engineer's two-cents is available for free by visiting my website and pushing to the H & V button.

http://swdstudyvideos.com

~swd

Mr. Desper, awesome video!  :o

Also, Heck, I can't believe this thread's alive again!

Micha, you genius! This is probably true! "My children..! part was probably at some point (maybe October/November '66) verse!
It fits perfectly, try singin' it over the verse instrumental!

I've heard that before! ;D

Seriously, I thought it's rather obvious.

The problem is that the My Children section wasn't recorded until 1/27/67.[/quote]

True, but that goes only for the Cantina mix that survives. The lyric "My children.. 3 score&5 ...survive with the H&V" could have existed before, and just be sung over the verse track, as it's really a third verse lyrically/metrically/melodically.
[/quote]

Micha, you genius! This is probably true! "My children..! part was probably at some point (maybe October/November '66) verse!
It fits perfectly, try singin' it over the verse instrumental!
[/quote]

The Durrie Parks acetate, presumably from December, has the "My children were raised . . . often wise" instrumental backing in it after the new Great Shape section.  Not a verse backing repeat.

Is there in the whole world of music so complex and fascinating a mystery as H & V? I don't think so.
I think H & V is in a "fractal" relationship with Smile: it's a part of Smile, but as complex as the whole.

True, but that goes only for the Cantina mix that survives. The lyric "My children.. 3 score&5 ...survive with the H&V" could have existed before, and just be sung over the verse track, as it's really a third verse lyrically/metrically/melodically.
[/quote]

Micha, you genius! This is probably true! "My children..! part was probably at some point (maybe October/November '66) verse!
It fits perfectly, try singin' it over the verse instrumental!
[/quote]

The Durrie Parks acetate, presumably from December, has the "My children were raised . . . often wise" instrumental backing in it after the new Great Shape section.  Not a verse backing repeat.
[/quote]

BR, you're right but what Micha and me were talking about was that at some point "..my children.." part was to be sung over verse instrumental, and from there to "..3 score..."
Wonderful stuff this H&V! :)

The point is, that lyric may likely have originally been a third verse, and at some point - lacking surviving mixes, impossible to know when exactly - Brian chose to use a different backing for that third verse lyric. Later on, he chose to ditch the second half of that lyric altogether.

Hace you actually heard the Durrie Parks acetate or just read about it?

 It's just a I-II-V riff with a descending diatonic melody. Not much more complex than Mary Had a Little Lamb.

The main melody is indeed very simple but its length and high-to-low-note ratio (tessitura) is quite unusual.

The arrangements of vox and backing tracks are very creative and intricate - I mean the various discarded sections as well as the 45 version.

The themes are very interesting too:  childhood, barnyard, love, life and death + the punning wordplay etc.  Its not a simple song lyrically.

A lot of Smile is chordally very simple but the arrangements are among Brian's best.

So is the chording of God Only Knows polychordal and Heroes and Villains relatively more basic?

I think GOK is polychordal..?  so yes would be much more sophisticated + is a more active chord structure anyway

I think Wonderful has key shifts but I don't think CE does - I think CE has normal chord changes

I'm not trained though so if any of this is wrong I'm happy to be corrected

Are the organ overdubs on the Smiley Smile H&V chorus on the TSS version?

They add a lot to the track, even though they were specifically recorded for the Smiley version. Seems to have been overlooked.

Yes, on the first disc version although it's only on the "Stand or Fall" section as I believe the multi to that is lost.

I've discussed it with someone who has heard it and has a digital copy of it.   I have not heard it although obviously I would love to.

Actually on the 2012 Stereo Smiley Smile Remaster the Baldwin is heard all over the song during the first verse, Second verse and the choruses. I think after the Smile Sessions were released Mark and Alan were still doing a search for proper Master Tapes. If you notice Vegetables on the Smiley Smile Stereo Remaster has the cool Electric Piano part on the ending, which was absent from the Stereo mix on Hawthorne CA.

So what backing is that? The "alternate version" has little to no backing on the first half Of the children verse. Or is it a harpsichord backing like on the released version?

Yes, there isn't much in the way of backing.  I'll ask my source and get back to you.  But apparently it was recognizably the fast "my children were raised" and not the verse backing, and there were no vocals.  Really this acetate needs to see a wider release as it is a key missing link in the song's development.

I don't think the fast 'my children' has any instruments at all until the piano comes in..?  I think its all created with backing vocals..?

According to my source, there's 8 bars of the great shape music, "then, harpsichord playing the my children were raised part, then back into the familiar H & V backing track."  I've asked him about the my children were raised part if there's silence before it (for the a Capella beginning of the section) or if there's harpsichord throughout.

Maybe one day the music on the acetates will find its way online...

and if I remember rightly:

'great shape' is a heavier arrangement we haven't heard yet

'my children' has the 'often wise' melody

i wonder if 'great shape' has a similar feel to the very early takes of 'false barnyard' before the ychanged the rhythm..?

We REALLY NEED to hear that acetate! In my books, it's as much of a big deal as the Cantina acetate is! How I would love to hear a December '66 mixdown of Heroes!

[/quote]

Mike, I think you might be right about that.  Sorry guys, but I believe that this is some kind of mix that includes early "false barnyard" with june '67 "my children.."

To support my claim if I'm not mistaken the guy who heard the acetate said there was bicycle rider part with kick drum that he never heard before and we all know about that part (SOT...), and DYDW with different voals whick have also been discussed on board here (Vigotone bootleg)....

But who knows, I would love to be proven wrong! :o

but the June 'my children' section doesn't have the 'often wise' melody


Mike, I think you might be right about that.  Sorry guys, but I believe that this is some kind of mix that includes early "false barnyard" with june '67 "my children.."

To support my claim if I'm not mistaken the guy who heard the acetate said there was bicycle rider part with kick drum that he never heard before and we all know about that part (SOT...), and DYDW with different voals whick have also been discussed on board here (Vigotone bootleg)....

But who knows, I would love to be proven wrong! :o

[/quote]

[/quote]

My thoughts exactly.

[/quote]

Not sure what you're suggesting . . . this is not a mix that includes false Barnyard or the june 67 "my children" - that would imply that this acetate mix was produced in June 67, would it not?

The alternate/remake "Great Shape" section was recorded Dec 19th, 1966.  Which is interesting in and of itself, as supposedly Great Shape had been split out to be its' track (the Dec 10th track list).  But apparently Brian hadn't yet decided to definitively do that as here he is recording "Shape" again AND doing a test edit/acetate into "my children . . . and often wise" and the Heroes verse track (probably "three score and five" as that's how it went in the cantina mix).  So when was this acetate produced?  Most likely right after the session or the day or two afterwards, to see how the new section fit into the song or if it did fit in as Brian thought it would.

Apparently it didn't turn out as he had hoped, because Jan 5th there is a Heroes session for a new "Part 2" which is the vocal and fuzz bass overdubs of the "Bicycle Rider" chorus of Worms, obvously replacing Great Shape.  That doesn't turn out as planned and Brian and Van Dyke write and record yet another "Part 2" - the cantina section, on Jan 27th.  So this acetate is likely made Dec 19th or 20th or certainly between Dec 19th and Jan 5th.

Again, imo, the January 5 recordings were towards a master take for the master of the "side 2" track titled "Heroes and Villains Part II" and not recordings toward a master take of a second part ("part 2") for the master of the side 1 track titled "Heroes and Villians".  Two separate masters for two separate sides of a proposed two sided H&V single. Carry on. 

In your opinion.  Others (Alan Boyd among them) think otherwise.

Does Alan disagree?  I've never read or heard him comment on it.

[/quote]

I suggested that  'Andy' who heard this acetate maybe isn't familiar with whole Smile music, like when he said about the "new" BR part with kick drum and DYDW with alternate hawaiian vocal, which are known to general public for about 10 years through bootlegs!
But nobody would be more thrilled than me that this acetate is something we haven't heard till now!
 :rock

Alan on Heroes Part 1 and 2:

"As far as "Heroes and Villains" PART Two is concerned, the tape box containing the "Bicycle Rider" theme with Brian's lead vocal, is labeled "HEROES PART TWO."  Judging from some fragmentary mix outtakes for the song's opening verses - which seem to go into a snippet of that harpsichord-based "Bicycle Rider" theme - I'm guessing that "Part Two" in that case refers to sections within an alternate complete edit of the song, rather than an actual separate side two."

I posted this elsewhere....Alan on Heroes Part 1 and 2:

From mark linett and alan boyd's iconfetch interviews (around the time of the smile sessions release):

- question asked by buddahat!! "was the sequence for HV pt 2 based on historical evidence meaning brians plans in 66/67?"

Alan:  "partially.. what we did was we took almost all sections that had been recorded in the first part of 1967. For instance, there was a section called prelude to fade..and a couple days later he went and recorded a new fade and so we went 'well, lets put the prelude to fade before the fade.' At the end of that, there was another section called tag to pt1 that just seemed to fit in there like a glove most beautifully.  And the other sections, you know, all the vocal parts were arranged in that order although not edited together on the original session master tape..and we did find pieces.. and you will hear some of this towards the end of CD 4 of edit attemps brian had made with some of those recordings in early 1967, so it's not as if brian had written a very specific blueprint for it, but based on the way he was titling these tracks and the order in which they were laid down.. the order in which they were recorded, it seemed the most intuitive method to arrange HV pt 2. I have to say Im not positive, you know, we're not positive that there actually was intended to be a HV side 2. We've heard reports from both sides on that."

Mark: "Well, Brian denies it. But 40 years on, thats his take on it.. that there was no two sided version of HV"

The first clue to me is the "Side 2" tapebox notation on takes toward a master take for a separate master separately titled Heroes and Villians - Part II. 

That title to me is the second clue; correct me if I'm wrong but it was not Brian's practice to create a new master and session number and new title including the part number (ie. Heroes and Villains - Part 2/II, master #57020 session #s 14236 through 14236D) for the second part, or third part, fourth part, of a separate master and title (ie. Heroes and Villains, master #57045, session #s 14247 through 14247R).

Confusing, I know.

The Bicyclerider theme was Heroes Part Two, then cantina was recorded as Heroes Part Two, replacing the temporary Bicyclerider idea.  It's pretty simple and not that confusing.  I realize you are hung up on the different master number - but I believe there were some separate master numbers for Good Vibrations sections, were there not?  So it's not unprecedented for Brian to do that.  You have to look logically at the development of the song rather than a pre-ordained scheme based on numbers that doesn't appear to tally with where Brian was at the time.  There was no talk of a two sided single in January, Brian was trying to finish a one sided single, he wouldn't start a side two when side one was so incomplete.  After cantina was done he had side one and was quoted as saying he didn't know what was going on side two - why would he say that if he had already recorded material for side two in January?  And knew he was going to do a Part Two on that side?

In fact Brian has never been quoted as saying there was going to be a two sided single and he denied that was ever the plan in the quote above.  I suspect there may have been a very short time period when Brian considered doing variations on some Heroes and Villains chants as a side two, but that rapidly evolved into remaking side one after rejecting the cantina version.

Cabin Essence - masters #56647, #56716 and #57044
Wonderful - masters #56550 and #57046
Surf's Up - masters #56842, (crossed out and written) #56850, and then #56841

And also With Me Tonight is logged as master # #57450, so it must be a part of Vege-Tables?  And Barnyard has a master #56727 and I'm in Great Shape as #56738 so they must not be a part of Heroes and Villains? 

You are free to believe what you want to believe but the master numbers are a red herring. 

I assume there never was a H&V planned to be streched over both sides of a single... yet there may have been plans for a track called "Heroes And Villains part 2", as there has been a precedent to that: "Shut Down part 2". There is no "Shut Down part 1" - there's only "Shut Down" proper and that instrumental piece which is not supposed to be a continuation of "Shut Down". So I could imagine a single that has the whole and complete H&V on side A... and some goofing around called "Heroes And Villains part 2" as the B-side, and only on that B-side, not to be included on the SMiLE album.



Well, actually... there's this little piece on the Hawthorne CD that has the original Vega-Tables bass line with "With me tonight" sung over it, so indeed, yes, at one moment in time With Me Tonight was intended to be a section of Vega-Tables.

Or was the arrangement ideas of the Veges bridge just recycled into With Me Tonight?  (just like the DYLW/Bicycle Rider piano bit *and* the vocal arrangement of the Vege-Tables Fade was recycled into an interlude for Wonderful)

That's another possibility. Doesn't explain the master number, though. Still possible.

I am proposing a theory: Pre-December Heroes and Villains was actually part of an album suite, tentatively titled 'The Barnyard Suite.' To me, this suite was composed of four modular songs that somehow linked together, that all shared an underlying theme of Americana.
I'm in Great Shape, and Barnyard are commonly associated as being a part of this suite. The Old Master Painter was linked to Barnyard in the Smile Sessions set. The Old Master Painter also has a fade that was later reused as a fade for Heroes and Villains. ALL of these 'Barnyard Suite' songs are drawn from rough ideas for Heroes and Villains.
We all know GS and Barnyard where sections of Heroes and Villains.
DYLW's Bicycle Rider bit was an alleged chorus for Heroes and Villains post-December.
Heroes and Villains' Bridge to The Indians connects to Worms.
Workshop was also even a part of GS according to a tape box labelling. (Which leads me to believe the construction noises of Workshop symbolized building a Barnyard of some sort).

So, going by the December track list, these tracks would logically have to be in this order-

1. Heroes and Villains
2. Do You Like Worms?
3. I'm In Great Shape (including Workshop in between)
4. The Old Master Painter (w/ Sunshine Fade)

Either that, or Brian scrapped the suite in favour of an album single (*cough *cough* Cantina mix of HV*)

Interesting.

So in this scenario, is H&V proper only about 1 minute long? 

Well, Heroes could be the first part of the suite, a suite made out of four MODULAR songs, so I highly doubt Heroes would just be the first verse.

We have Smile era reports of both a five and a six minute version of Heroes . . . was Brian just adding on to cantina, or completely junking cantina and rejiggering the parts already recorded with the new parts he was adding in February and March . . . the latter was ultimately what he did for the new single version, I suspect that was what was going on when he rerecorded the verse and the fade.  If only some of these alternate longer versions could be found it would answer most of our questions about what Brian was up to in February and March.

I haven't had time to do any homework but, yes, master numbers could change and be back dated and abandoned for new numbers but that isn't really what is going on with "H&V" #57020 beginning December 19 or "H&V-Part II" "Side 2" #57045 beginning January 5.  H&V Part II/Side 2 #57045 is a title of a track made up of sections recorded as master takes including an "intro" and what also might be something like a chorus and verse. Not a part 2/second part in the way cantina or any of the side 1 part twos for #57020 were sections. 

Anyways there is still more evidence for a two sided H&V single, even if Brian never mentioned it in an interview, than there is for many things SMiLE.  Vosse and Britz were both aware of it even if it wasn't published.

So, does anybody believe my theory has any credibility? To be honest, I don't know a speck of valid information compared to the Smile-enthusiasts on this board, so I'd love to hear their thoughts on this proposed theory, and whether it is likely Brian envision HV to be a part of some sort of 'Barnyard Suite.'

Not precisely.

It's true that the Bicycle Rider Chorus from 1/5/67 was master #57045 (the first use of it, which it was assigned this number upon receiving overdubs...), logged as Heroes and Villains Part 2 and slated as "Side 2".  But that's the only reference to Side 2... at all.  Ever.  Then we both know that master #57045 was used again on 2/27/67 for the Chorus (also logged as Part Two).  But the following three recordings from March '67 for the master #57045 (Fade Remake, Verse Remake, Organ Waltz) weren't logged as Part 2 or Part Two or Part II, just as Heroes and Villains, proper. 

So what that amounts to for all five individual sections of Master #57045, only two were connected to a "Part 2/Part Two/Part II" and only one connected to "Side 2".  Is that proof enough to connect all those dots and say Master 57045 = Side 2?  I'm sure you'll say 'yes' but statistically speaking there's only 1/5 probability that it's Side 2, and only 2/5 probability it's a Part 2.  The odds are not good.   

To me it all points to not only 'no' but that there was no "H&V Part II" that would exist as a flip-side to the Heroes and Villains single.  Only a second "part" of Heroes and Villains (if the verse and a capella sections are "Part 1") that Brian couldn't decide on: at first was I'm in Great Shape, then Bicycle Rider, then Cantina, then Gee and it's variations (which were also Parts 3 and 4), then finally a Chorus.  The Master numbers came, went, mislogged and reassigned; they are convenient, but not defining.  Any reference to "part" at all refers to sections of a song, rather than the A and B-side of a single. 

I think we're chasing our tails here. 

It's possible, but not sure how probable. 

The H&V Part II/Side 2 #57045 was a sort of suite of bits of DYLW, The Elements, H&V #57020 (side 1), and TOMP  at least as the known tracks and documentation seem to indicate.  A suite of album track bits also makes sense of his February comment about trying to decide about what to put on H&V side 2 and maybe giving to much of the album away.

I'm not sure I'm following you but my understanding is the very late February and very early March sessions are all titled "H&V Part II" and for the #57045 master and they also share the master's session number (14247 through 14247D) for the H&V Part II master.  I presume if the master is marked as "Side 2" the sessions for that master would be for "Side 2", the same way the sessions and master takes for master #57020 were for side 1. At least it shows the intention at the time of the recording, Brian apparently changed his mind from his previous intentions occasionally ie. Barnyard, IIGS, cantina, and various numbered sections recorded for the side 1 master #57020.  "Part 2" in the title must not mean a second section of the titled track's master because one of the master takes with that "H&V - Part II" master title is also noted as an "intro".  

I don't think it is chasing our tail at all, it seems pretty clearly laid out, identified, and organized at the time to me.  We don't know how the two sided single ended up but Vosse said something like he pretty much knew what it was going to be, nearly finished, when he left in March and didn't Britz say they had a two sided H&V single actually finished?  The H&V side 2 isn't some fan-tasy pulled out of thin air by grasping for evidence, it had witnesses and is documented.  I'm kind of confused by the resistance to the evidence I guess.

Anyways, all subject to C-man's superior data of course.  

They are not listed as Part 2 in the sessionogrophy in the Smile Sessions book.  The only things listed as Part 2 (or similar) are:
Heroes and Villains Part 2 (Bicycle Rider overdubs) - 1/5/67 (57045)
Heroes and Villains: Part 2 (Cantina track) - 1/27/67 (57020)
Heroes and Villains: Part 2 (Gee) - 2/20/67 (57020)
Heroes and Villains: Part 2 Revised - 2/20/67 (57020)
Heroes and Villains: Part 3 (Animals) - 2/20/67 (57020)
Heroes and Villains: Part 4 - 2/20/67 (57020)
Heroes and Villains Part Two (chorus) - 2/28/67 (57045)
Heroes and Villains: Part II Insert - 3/2/67 (57045) [The mastertapes were lost]

That's it.  Only those 8 segments.  The Verse and Fade remakes and Organ Waltz were logged as Heroes and Villains, while still under master # 57045.   

1) Unless I am mistaken, there are no mentions of "side 1" anytime of master #57020 on the sessionogrophy or the call-out slates on the sessions themselves.  This would be an assumption.
2) Only one singular piece of master #57045 is called out as "Side 2", not the whole master. 

According to the Sessionography, Barnyard had a master #56727 and I'm in Great Shape #56738.  Neither were apart of #57020.  And this was in October, when presumably they were a part of Heroes and Villains!  Also note that the first use of master #57045 was for the Bicycle Rider Chorus...  It was master #56729 (a part of Do You Like Worms) but was reassigned to 57045 for this purpose once it had vocals.  Then NO other work was done to it for nearly two months.  What does this tell us?  That master numbers were only temporary until the song was finished and parts were shifted.   

Do You Like Worms was logged as having 4 parts; My Only Sunshine having 2; Vege-Tables having a Part 4; I Love To Say Dada having two parts.  Why are we using selective logic to say the second parts of H&V were not pieces of a singular song and just a flipside of a single?  Where is the 4-sided Do You Like Worms single?

We are chasing our tails because I've already laid out why this scenario is not probable.  I've even assembled a test edit of master 57045 and all it sounds like is a complete reboot of Heroes and Villains -- just as Brian had done with the original version of H&V (which Al Kooper claimed to use elements of My Only Sunshine), taped 5/11/67 as master # 55999, and just as Brian had done with Wonderful (the harpsichord version as master 56550 and Rock With me Henry as master 57046).  We knew he was striving to find the song, and it seems obvious that after the 2/15/67 final Cantina version failed to make the cut, he rebooted the song with a new master number -- retroactively using the same master number as a section he set aside nearly two months later.  Of that master, it contained both Parts 1 (Intro and Verse) and Parts 2 (Chorus).  That was scrapped again and revived in June for Smiley Smile, as a new master #56727.  That amounts to four versions of H&V, each with their own master number (55999, 57020, 57045 and 56727). 

And as for Vosse, well, if I was friends with Brian and he played me a session work tape with the 2/10/67 Cantina version followed by the Brian's 2/20/67 Gee & Variations test edit I'd think it was a 6-minute/two-sided single too!  ;)

Also while it has been reported Britz said in an interview that there was a finished side 1 and 2 , does anyone have this interview in print or on line?  Because I've never seen it and since it seems to be used to support the two sided single theory unless someone can produce the quote I think it needs to be discounted as evidence - second hand " Britz said to someone at sometime" without a check able reference is not evidence that meets any kind of reliability test.

I can't find my copy but my memory is it was a quote in the Preiss book(could have been Lockert).

That's a coincidence because my copy has been missing for several years, it must be someplace but I've looked and can't find it.  Perhaps some board member with a copy could check?  My memory is that Britz was never quoted directly in the book . . .

Maybe our copies eloped.

My memory was a quote by Britz (or maybe Lockert) discussing how they had a finished cool two sided single which Brian remodeled into the released single. Aren't there quotes sort of isolated in boxes throughout that book? It seems like it was one of those.  It will be interesting to see how far off my memory is if someone has a copy that hasn't run off.

 

I think Craig was trying to give some background with those notes, I believe this is the way they are actually logged by “Session No.” under “TITLE OF TUNES” by “Master No.” on the AFMs:

“Heroes and Villains - Part 2”: (“Side 2”): 1/5/67 (57045/Session # 14247)

“Heroes and Villains”: 1/27/67 (57020)
“Heroes and Villains”:  2/20/67 (57020)
“Heroes and Villains”: 2/20/67 (57020)
“Heroes and Villains”:  2/20/67 (57020)
“Heroes and Villains”: 2/20/67 (57020)

“Heroes and Villains - Part II”: 2/27/67 (57045/Session # 14247A)
“Heroes and Villains - Part II Insert”: 2/28/67 (57045/Session # 14247B)
“Heroes and Villains - Part II”: 3/1/67 (57045/Session # 14247C)
“Heroes and Villains, Part II (Insert)”: 3/2/67 (57045/Session # 14247D)

I think there is confusion between what is a title of a entire master and what is a numeric order note of a single section of a master.



I believe it is a fact that #57020 was from December 19 through to the released single and still is the master of the side 1 of the H&V single even without a single note about it being for the master for side 1, which makes it even more significant that the #57045 H&V Part 2 master is identified as “Side 2”. 
I believe that one note identifies the H&V Part 2 title, the #57045 master number, and the session number sequence 14247 through 14247D as “Side 2”.

   

As I’ve said the master numbers for H&V became consistent and consecutive beginning December 19 even as two separate concurrent masters from January 5 though March 2. The reason doesn't matter but I assume he worked on each master as he was able or inspired when he could, touring and studio availability were issues and there seems to be some consideration about how much of SMiLE to give away on side 2 of the H&V single.  Would that be more of a concern if you were going to give away a single song from the album or if you were giving away some sort of suite or sampler of modified tracks from several songs from the album?



I’m don’t feel like I’m chasing my tail (that could change), I disagree with your scenario.  It’s pretty simple and straightforward to me.


“So, in the studio, things were going off and on: the album was moving very slowly, and it missed its Christmas release - so at that point they decided to concentrate on the single, "Heroes and Villains" – of which there must have been a dozen versions. The best version I heard, which was never completed, but at least I could see the form of it, was an A side B side version lasting about six minutes. It was a beautifully structured work; and Van Dyke was still very involved.”  Michael Vosse

Whatever he heard it must have included some or all of the master takes recorded for the “H&V – Part 2” “side 2” #57045 master for the H&V single. 

Someone could ask Van Dyke if he remembers anything about a two sided H&V single.

I tried to follow the lore about H & V, but had to throw the sponge. Too complex, too many variables. I think H & V is a fractal enigma, like Smile itself. The complexity of any part equals the complexity of the whole.
For me, the "definitive" H & V was the one-two punch in tracks 19 and 20 of Disc 2 in the 1993 GV boxset. Before, I had never known that such a thing as Smile might have existed, let alone a thousand alternate versions of H & V.
Tracks 19 and 20, a new musical world opened to me. I wasn't simply believing what was pouring out of the headphones, and it's still my most exhilarating experience as a music listener. And, of course, H & V has two parts: track 19 and track 20. Not only for me, as that structure was reproduced in the H & V "single" vinyl in 2011.

Do you have a source for this? 


But the 57045 piece labeled Part 2/Side 2 was used with the 57020 verses that you assume are Side 1 as one edit.  How does that work? 


I'm sorry I'm going to have to disagree with this assessment.  He wasn't doing two masters at the same time.  He would start one and then drop it, using a new master when starting over.  Just like other songs of the project.  They were not concurrent, they were consecutive. 


If I was friends with Brian and he played me a session work tape with the 2/10/67 Cantina version followed by the Brian's 2/20/67 Gee & Variations test edit I'd think it was a 6-minute/two-sided single too!

The AFM Recording Contracts from the sessions.

It was used after the fact in June in the master for the released single, which wouldn't change its intention or status as for the #57045 "Side 2" master in January and/or late February and early March.  It was for side 2 when side 2 was being created but used a different way when the 2 sided single was dropped is how I assume it worked.

I disagree, not really like other songs and they were concurrent.  The #57020 master was recorded from December 19 through June 14, and the #57045 master was recorded from January 5 through March 2.

Luckily for us, it was Vosse who heard it and knew it was actually the two sides of an H&V single.   :)

Can no one reading this thread find their copy of the Preiss book?  Anyone volunteer to ask VDP about a two sided H&V single?

Where can we see the contracts?  Do you have them in front of you or is this "what you believe"?

Fair enough.

I disagree.  They are not concurrent when Brian stopped working on one entirely and shifted attention, then dropped that entirely again for something else.  That is consecutive.

Read the quote again.  He is offering his opinion.  There is not fact stated.  It was "clear to him" from listening to six minutes of.... something.  And, as I said, I would come to the same conclusion if I heard the 3 min Cantina mix and another 2 or 3 minutes of Brian's edits of the Gee Variations. 

Some are around, some are in Badman's book, and the Smile box, etc, as are tapebox labels and so forth.  I was given a stack of copies of the contracts (a few are transcriptions of contracts), Capitol sheets, long ago and there are more than I have now it seems.

Fair enough.

OK, we will disagree.  He couldn't record two different recordings at the same time for different masters but #57020 was on-going before, during, and after the #57045 sessions, so they were concurrent.

He is stating as fact that there "was an A side B side version lasting about six minutes".

The ones we are discussing right now.  I would like to see them, as they would present documentation contrary to what is stated in the Smile book (as the sessions are not noted as for H&V Part 2), and all other documentation I've seen. 

Fair enough.

57020 was ongoing?  It appears the final session under that master was 2/20/67 with Part 4.  Am I wrong?  What were the other parts after that under 57020?

"The best version I heard, which was never completed, but at least I could see the form of it, was an A side B side version lasting about six minutes"
He could see the form of it, as in, this is his interpretation of what he had heard.  Wouldn't he have stated "Brain said it should be two sides of a single" if it had happened?  No, he's phrasing it "I could see the form of it" because it's his interpretation, not fact.  Is he right or wrong?  We don't know, but it's important not to misconstrue opinion as fact. 

I'm beginning to doubt my memory that there is a published Britz quote, hopefully someone can check; it may be something that Britz allegedly told to both Paley and Priore separately.

Craig did an outstanding job of packing as much info into the booklet as was possible (not trying to quote contract titles at this granular level). If I'm mistaken I'm sure someone will soon correct me but sorry, I'm too busy/lazy to comply with your request.  Others can though.

Fair enough.

There were at least continuing sessions for the #57020 master on June 12, 13, and 14, 1967 (it is in TSS too).

I think we are just going to disagree. Vosse "could see the form of it" and the form "was an A side B side version lasting about six minutes" = straightforward witness.

Cam- for what it's worth, you're not a lone wolf on this.  While I differ from you on some other things, I think you have some sound arguments on H&V 2.  It's a bit nostalgic to see this still being argued, 20 years or so after people were wrangling over this on the Smile Shop.

Sonic- I've been meaning to ask you: What are  your thoughts on the use of Bruiteur's Great Shape and Barnyard, with the demo piano removed?  I believe that you used versions with the piano in.  Was that because you believe that those bits sound better that way, or was it just not something you were focused on?  I'm not sure that I've ever heard Bruiteur's Great Shape and Barnyard, but I'm curious as to whether they are improvements.

Honestly, I did my own edit because I knew I could do it!  I don't know which of ours is better because I haven't heard his.  But I think my edit sounds fine and the piano embedded in the vocal track has never distracted me from the song itself. 

With that said--and note I haven't heard what Bruiteur did and I don't know what method he used--I am not a fan of EQ filtering the vocal tracks.  The reason is that the human voice covers a large chunk of the frequency spectrum, and if you try to EQ out the piano you will surely also lose a crucial band of the vocal.  I would rather have a piano bleed than missing frequencies in the vocal, you know?  I also very much dislike digital remnants of some frequency extraction VSTs.  The official stereo "Good Vibrations" sounds pretty great but I've heard other fan-made things that sounded bad. 

Thanks Sonic.  I agree that the piano actually sounds fine.  And while I'm no audio engineer, it makes sense that something significant in the vocals would be lost along with the removal of bits of piano.

I recently discovered something that probably shows Capitol had an expectation of a early to mid-January release of a version of H&V.  The following new Capitol singles were all shown in Billboard's issue from January 21 1967 on page 14 under "Spotlight Singles" and they all bracketed the Capitol number 5626 assigned to the H&V single. I also included the earliest radio chart dates I could find where I could find it.

#5815 Norma Lee - Please World

#5816 The Classics IV - Little Darlin'  (HB on WJOT Jan. 16 1967)

#5818 Brothers And Sisters - The Ali Shuffle – supposedly released Jan 2 1967

#5819 Four Preps - Love Of The Common People (#31 on WTAC Jan 19 1967)

#5820 Matthew Moore - Come On (David Marks on guitar)

#5821 Willie Harvey - Hitchhike Back To Georgia

#5822 Jean Shepard - My Momma Didn't Raise No Fools (charted KFRM Jan 29 1967)

#5823 Matt Monro - The Lady Smiles

#5824 Lou Rawls - Trouble Down Here Below (#54 on WMCA January 19 1967)

#5825 Al Martino - Daddy's Little Girl  (#49 on WMCA January 19 1967)

#5826 Capitol's assigned number for the H&V single

#5828 Stan Kenton - Spanish Eyes

#5829 The Hearts And Flowers - Road To Nowhere

RE. H&V A & B side single, I’m thinking there isn’t a direct quote by Chuck Britz, yet anyway.  I think I was probably confabulating these two quotes by Britz and Lockert:


"It was done like 'Good Vibrations'; it was just one hell of a song. It was a great song. Then, I understand, they went up to his home, and they did a lot of things. They cut it and inserted an organ down at the bottom of pool to get the pool quality. They did all kinds of things, but I think basically it could have been as good a classic as 'Good Vibrations' or better. Our (version) ran about five or six minutes; it was just a further step from 'Good Vibrations'. It had some great melodic lines. The arrangement was so full, and it was just something that I was very disappointed in when I heard the final product."
 
Chuck Britz  (p. 114, Leaf)


"We had the complete song, but they just wanted to use part of it. Brian wanted to change what had been done on the rest of it. I think he wanted instrumentally and vocally to make it more complex. I think he wanted to finish the song, it was a challenge to him. We went and re-recorded (from where we started off the old tape) the rest of the song at the studio in the house. We did the parts and the music tracks and most of the guys played their own instruments. It was done in pieces and the vocals were done to complete the song."
 
Jim Lockert  (p. ?, Preiss)


I also understand that supposedly:  “Andy Paley asked Chuck in the late 80's whether there was such a track. Dominic Priore wanted to know if there was a H&V Part 2 and had Andy ask Chuck. At the time, Brad's article had not been changed, so it was still in the theory stages. Chuck said that he DID remember there being a two-part H&V and that the song was one of the longer songs that he remembered doing with Brian. Now, in the early 90's, Dominic met Chuck himself and had the chance to ask him that question again (just to see if he still held the same thoughts) and a few more questions. So, he asked Chuck again about a two-part H&V and Chuck said the same thing about it. Plus, Dominic and Chuck got into a little rant about how so many R&B artists had already cut two-part songs way before that.”

I contacted Andy about it through his website but haven’t heard anything yet.  Anyone else have more direct contact with Andy?

So nothing solid from Britz yet, but plenty of other solid evidence even without it.