The Smiley Smile Message Board

Smiley Smile Stuff => General On Topic Discussions => Topic started by: The Old Master Painter on January 18, 2016, 11:15:45 AM



Title: Was there any evidence "Wind Chimes" was Air?
Post by: The Old Master Painter on January 18, 2016, 11:15:45 AM
- Fire was Mrs. O' Leary's Fire (duh)

- Water (in 1966, at least) was water sounds that the Vosse Posse recorded on their Nagra reels

- Earth (pre-December 1966) was Vega-Tables. This is due to the revealing Van Dyke Parks quotations, and Frank Holmes drawings.

- Air was a piano cut(?)

I think many have raised the issue about a similiar Wind Chimes piano cut that was never fully realised by Brian. If so, could this be the mythical Air piece everyone is searching for? I don't think so at all.... Couldn't it have been much easier for Brian (and all of us) to say that "Wind Chimes" was "Air" in 1978 and get it over with? Why the vague "piano cut" description? But then again, maybe in August 1966, Brian and Van Dyke dreamed of a SMiLE with Wind Chimes fulfilling the "Air" piece, but moved on from that idea due to it's single potential.... Similarly with Veggies. Who knows? 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 18, 2016, 11:22:12 AM
None whatsoever.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Matt Bielewicz on January 18, 2016, 12:38:37 PM

- Water (in 1966, at least) was water sounds that the Vosse Posse recorded on their Nagra reels

Weeeeeeellll... we don't know that, either. With the other Elements, you've got something, however sketchy. Fire, obviously. Air... well, there's not much, but at least Brian said it was an unfinished piano cut over ten years later, which isn't much, but at least it's from the creator's mouth, it's *something* at least. You've got also the 'My Vega-Tables: The Elements' caption in the booklet, and Van Dyke's recollection that the only 'Element' he worked on was Vega-Tables (which has to be the cornucopia version, from the recording dates, right?). That suggests we know something about Earth, maybe, although that in itself is a leap.

But we don't know ANYTHING at all about Water. It's all guesswork and just lots of wishfully thinking SMiLE-O-Philes through the decades (myself included from time to time) going 'this might have been that' and 'I feel Brian would most likely have used this in this way'... and no hard evidence at all that I know of.

We know Vosse gathered water recordings. But we don't know what they were for. We can conject that they might have been for the water part of the Elements, but we don't know. And we certainly don't know whether the recordings would have been used with anything else, or if they, alone, were all there was.

I mean, there was the underwater chants, the 'fishy swim swim' things... were they going to be part of it too? We don't know. Were the Vosse water recordings going to be used with the chants in some way?? We don't know. Were the chants just tryouts, and a more formulated version was going to be done later, with the Beach Boys? We don't know.

Aha! You could say that's what the Water chant was — the PROPER recording of the 'fishy underwater' chant tryouts, done with the Beach Boys. And later on, it ended up in the track Cool Cool Water (and indeed in a very 'Elementy' position on BWPS, if that counts for anything, which it may well not). So surely, there's your answer... the WATER CHANT is water!!! But... no. It turns out that's not a SMiLE-era recording at all, it's much later (Wild Honey-era? I can't get to my notes) so it can't have been water itself, although it's possible that the later recording might be based on an idea that Brian was GOING to use during SMiLE for Water. But that, too, is just conjecture.

Later, cut in May 67, you've got I Love To Say Dada, which was even (1967-70) later recut various times as different versions of what ended up as Cool Cool Water on Sunflower. But that, of course, doesn't mean that ILTSDD *WAS* Water when it was cut. That's teleological thinking, right there. 'It became Water-related later, so it must have been water-related then'. We've all said that - I know I have - and things like 'well, the opening percussion sounds kind of watery...' but try as we might, it doesn't make it necessarily right. One of the Dada versions has squeaky bird chirps in, too. Does that make it Air? The track also has woodwind in it — a WIND instrument — so perhaps it IS Air... And of course, Marilyn suggested that ILTSDD was, in fact, about babies (as indeed the 'baby-speak' title suggests), with Brian sucking on a baby's bottle full of milk while he wrote the track at the piano. And one of the Dada sessions has the band going into a Child Is The Father Of The Man section that immediately breaks down (more baby/father/son stuff there, not watery at all). So, far from being able to say with any conviction that ILTSDD is Water, I think, actually, there's quite a lot of evidence of it being all sorts of other things. Other than a need to pin a label on a track and call it water, and the fact that the music of ILTSDD was later most certainly used in a track with a lot of watery connections.

But that... well, it STILL doesn't make ILTSDD water back in 1966-7. It just doesn't... Water is all up for grabs, and there's no proof either (or indeed any) way. I'd say Water is actually the Element we know least about. That may even be because even *Brian freaking Wilson* never got as far as thinking that one out either before scrapping the whole Elements idea!

...maybe.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Phoenix on January 18, 2016, 12:59:01 PM
Since I got no response in the other thread, I'm hoping it was just lost in the discussion and I'll have better luck here so I'll ask again. Regarding "Wind Chimes", do we know of any vintage, Brian approved edits beyond the ones on the two box sets?  The main one on TSS was made to resemble the BWPS version. Am I correct that no such edit existed in the 60's? Did any others?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: krabklaw on January 18, 2016, 01:18:30 PM
Kind of obvious I know, but I think that since Wind Chimes is listed as a separate track from The Elements on the submitted track list and back cover, that is evidence that Wind Chimes is not Air.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The Old Master Painter on January 18, 2016, 01:37:12 PM
Kind of obvious I know, but I think that since Wind Chimes is listed as a separate track from The Elements on the submitted track list and back cover, that is evidence that Wind Chimes is not Air.

Though I agree, on the contrary Veggies was not listed as a part of The Elements...


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 18, 2016, 02:48:48 PM
Since I got no response in the other thread, I'm hoping it was just lost in the discussion and I'll have better luck here so I'll ask again. Regarding "Wind Chimes", do we know of any vintage, Brian approved edits beyond the ones on the two box sets?  The main one on TSS was made to resemble the BWPS version. Am I correct that no such edit existed in the 60's? Did any others?

Not an "edit", but the structure of the first version of Wind Chimes, not recorded in sections but in one go from beginning to end, was exactly as they did it for BWPS. Only that first version didn't have marimbas for the verses but harpsichord instead.

The 1993 version is based on a tape which has those three sections on it but not properly edited together. Maybe Brian didn't get around to add the following sections to that tape. Maybe he decided to shorten the song to those three sections, junking the following ones.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: puni puni on January 18, 2016, 10:13:05 PM
It's possible that Brian called Wind Chimes a piano piece because of its tag. Which is all pianos. Makes sense to me.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Matt Bielewicz on January 18, 2016, 10:33:50 PM
Well, firstly, Brian did not 'call Wind Chimes a piano piece because of its tag', as you put it. In the context of Air, he didn't mention Wind Chimes at *all*. He was asked about Air for the Byron Preiss book, and said there was a piano piece which wasn't finished. Any connection between that quote and Wind Chimes has been forged in our wishfully thinking minds — it wasn't actually part of what Brian said to Byron Preiss.

Now, as a separate issue: *could* he have meant the Wind Chimes tag, when he referred to the unfinished piano piece, which is, I guess, what you're saying?

Answer: well, yeah, sure, it's *possible*... but on the other hand, it's really not like the Wind Chimes tag is the only thing on SMiLE that could conceivably be described as a piano piece, is it?   ;)

There are other candidates for piano-only pieces that we know of that were part of the SMiLE music and recordings. And if you're prepared to accept a slightly looser definition of 'piano piece' — as in one that prominently features piano, rather than being entirely composed solely of pianos — then actually BW's description of Air as 'a piano piece' could refer to many, many possible sections of what was recorded from Spring 1966 to Summer 1967...

But I see what you're getting at. We (myself included at various times) have a tendency to seize on the idea that he must have meant the Wind Chimes tag, because then we can tell ourselves that we might be able to figure out what another one of the Elements was...

Hell, it might not be something that was recorded at all. It could have been a piano piece that BW bashed out one morning in November 1966 at Laurel Way, thought 'ooh, that's good; that'll do for Air'... and then never recorded before the Elements as a concept was scrapped. His description of the unfinished Air as 'a cut, a piano piece, an instrumental' possibly suggests that something was recorded ('cut')... but then BW in this period often seemed to use 'cut' interchangeably to mean track, song, feel or piece; perhaps it wasn't even necessarily captured on tape.

Generally speaking, I think it's a mistake to assume that all the recordings we have are all there ever was of SMiLE... and that therefore, if Brian says Air was a piano piece, it must be one of the piano-based recordings that is on the SMiLE Sessions box somewhere. Some SMiLE material was never completely conceived, and other parts only came together in the recording studio while the tape was running, changing radically from the forms in which Brian might have conceived them at home at his piano (consider how the Old-West-like tag of 'You Were My Sunshine' evolves on the SOT discs from a jumpy, staccato, pizzicato phrase played on fiddles to the widescreen, harmonica-driven tag we all know and love). Still other parts of SMiLE, we think, *were* conceived and recorded… but have now been lost and forgotten by all the major players involved (see: the maybe-there-were, maybe-there-weren't strings for the second part of Surf's Up!).

So some parts were created, made it to tape in 1966-7, the tape of them survives to this day, and they're out on TSS, so we know about them. Some parts were created and made it to tape, but the tape (or mix from it featuring them) is lost, so we *don't* have them on TSS and we don't know about them for sure. And with yet other parts, they were maybe created or conceived, Brian or others talked about them and mention of them made it into contemporary articles or onto tape in other sessions, and we know about them that way... but it could be that the ideas themselves never made it to tape at all, because Brian had a change of plan after talking about them, but before they could be captured in the studio. Into that category falls, for example, most of the spoken interludes or comedy he was apparently planning to put into tracks, for example the bar fight for H&V or the bunch of talking he was planning to put into the pauses in 'All Day'. As was mentioned above, just about the only completed example of that idea which survived long enough to make it out onto the TSS release is Gene Gaddy's 'You're Under Arrest!'

So to say: "Brian says Air was a piano piece, so what have we got on TSS that is a piano piece… it must be one of those... ah yes, the Wind Chimes tag!!!" is too simplistic, I think. I've said several times over the past couple of decades that trying to 'solve' SMiLE by mapping all the descriptions of music we have to the recordings that have survived is like trying to do a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle where not only do you NOT have the picture on the lid to show you how it all goes together... but actually, you don't know if all the pieces were even manufactured in the first place...!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 19, 2016, 12:07:38 AM
Think "Country Air".  ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Phoenix on January 19, 2016, 12:17:55 AM
Since I got no response in the other thread, I'm hoping it was just lost in the discussion and I'll have better luck here so I'll ask again. Regarding "Wind Chimes", do we know of any vintage, Brian approved edits beyond the ones on the two box sets?  The main one on TSS was made to resemble the BWPS version. Am I correct that no such edit existed in the 60's? Did any others?

Not an "edit", but the structure of the first version of Wind Chimes, not recorded in sections but in one go from beginning to end, was exactly as they did it for BWPS. Only that first version didn't have marimbas for the verses but harpsichord instead.

The 1993 version is based on a tape which has those three sections on it but not properly edited together. Maybe Brian didn't get around to add the following sections to that tape. Maybe he decided to shorten the song to those three sections, junking the following ones.

Thanks so much!  I really appreciate it.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Matt Bielewicz on January 19, 2016, 12:42:05 AM
Think "Country Air".  ;)

Well, exactly, Andrew. The 'unfinished piano piece' could have been the music that eventually made up the track 'Country Air' on Wild Honey... It could be that it was conceived by BW as Air for SMiLE in 1966, but never got as far as being recorded (at least, not as far as we know) during the SMiLE sessions.

Sure, there's no proof of that...

...but of course, there's no proof for ANY of this stuff...!!!

It's a theory that fits known facts, and is therefore attractive, but could be *complete* nonsense nonetheless. And that's the danger with this kind of conjecture. You say, 'well, there's no proof, but the music in Dada became Cool Cool Water later... so surely Dada must have been Water'. Or 'well, there's no proof, but eventually a track was released with the name Air in its title, and it's a piano instrumental... so that must have been the piano instrumental that Brian talked about writing for Air in SMiLE'.

As I said above in this thread... it's teleological thinking, where you work backwards from what ended up happening and assume that you therefore know what happened at the start to create the end state. It's very seductive, but it isn't necessarily right. Life is often messier and less together than that, especially during a creative process.

So if the Wind Chimes tag was NOT Air, what are the other possibilities? Well, this is the problem. There are lots of those scenarios, all of which make Air unattractively impossible to reconstitute: maybe 'Air' was conceived by Brian, and written at the piano, but never recorded at all. And now he's forgotten what it was. If that's the case, then to all intents and purposes, there IS no Air. There was, but it's no longer accessible without a time machine.

Maybe a piano piece meant for Air was conceived by Brian, and recorded: but if so, we know that we don't have that recording stored under that name or a session recording for it that was logged as being for that title. Maybe it became something else which we do still have. Or maybe it didn't. Maybe it was recorded, and the tape with the recording has been misfiled, stolen, or lost in the many years between then and now... which also makes it completely 'unknowable'.

You see where I'm going. There are so many possibilities under which Air is now unknowable or inaccessible, and only a few in which it is still accessible, such as: it became something else for which we still have the tape. I think that's why 'Air is the Wind Chimes tag' is such a popular idea, despite the lack of evidence for it: because if you adhere to that idea, it means there IS an 'Air', something concrete for that idea that you can use in your SMiLE mix, say, as opposed to there being an annoying space in the jigsaw where it could have been, or would have been if someone hadn't erased or nicked the tape, or would have been if Brian had only managed to get more of the Elements recorded before he had a change of mind about the concept...

But wishing it were so ie. that a) there definitely was an Air track, and b) that it was recorded and we now know what it was — in order that we can feel that SMiLE was more complete than perhaps it actually was — does not mean that it WAS so, no matter how much we back it up with 'well, it's obvious to ME that it was probably like THIS...' or 'Well, I feel Brian would probably have done it like THAT'. Without better evidence — which may now never come — we may never know one way or the other.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 19, 2016, 02:05:52 AM
As far as 'The Elements' go, period data is pretty thin on the ground. It's pretty hard to argue against 'Mrs O'Leary's Cow', or 'Fire', being part of the 'suite' or 'opera' [Anderle] as the tape box (and other paperwork) record it as 'Elements: Fire', "The Elements: Part One" or a close variant. Plus all participants interviewed then or since describe it as 'an Element'. So there's one.

The next closest thing we have - in terms of actual data - is still pretty far away from that level of surety. The '66 Webster/Holmes booklet consistently features lyrics in italics and track titles in plain font. Under the only full page cartoon, we have '"My Vega-Tables" The Elements', implying the former clause is a lyric from the latter. And Van Dyke recalled, in 2003/4, that "the only piece of "The Elements" I worked on was "Vege-Tables". When the Holmes illustrations were made and the physical booklets produced, the only version of 'Vega-Tables' that existed on record was the 90-second 'Cornucopia' version. So it seems plausible, if not definite, that 'Vega-Tables' was indeed planned as a short-ish section of 'The Elements' in October 1966, if not later.

EDIT: (Another note here: as I've mentioned before, and I'd like to be clear I don't have any particular stance on it, Holmes has been quoted as saying there was 'more than one element' in his 'Veggies' illustration. There are taps pouring water onto crops, of course. But there is also a wall of Surf, which is Up. Not that this necessarily means anything. On yet another sideline: my suspicion has long been that the 'Cornucopia' recording was not, as it is usually dubbed, a 'demo', but a full recording of a section meant to provide to some light relief in context of a suite that also included 'Fire'. We know that Holmes was provided lyric sheets (not tapes) by Van Dyke to work from for the cartoons. The fact that his 'My Vega-Tables' cartoon prominently includes a stamp/postcard showing a pit in a field ['roll all around/dig a hole in the ground' - a line not included in any other surviving version of the song] suggests to me that a) these lyrics were at one time considered 'final'; b) Van Dyke wrote and/or endorsed them and c) all of this gives credence to the contention above that the caption to the illustration credibly posits 'My Vega-Tables' as the lyric and 'The Elements' as the title.]

It's 'Air' and 'Water' where we have almost nothing. As Matt points out above, nothing in Vosse's 1969 recollection of the 'water sessions' ('Bob Gordon's Real Trip') actually connect those recordings to 'The Elements'. Not that he would necessarily have made a connection explicit, but in context of an article in which 'The Elements', and 'Fire' in particular, are discussed at some length, that does seem like an odd omission if he knew Brian's 'water notes' track was indeed what was intended for that part of the track. Then again, this is just my reading - we can't of course be sure.

'Love to Say Da Da' is often used to fill the spot - in BWPS, most famously, following the late '67 'Water Chant' - and due to the use of a variation of its melodic theme in 'Cool Cool Water' some time later. But what we actually have on record - as opposed to a basically subjective hearing of a watery 'feel' to the track - fails to support that thesis. It first appears as 'Da Da', recorded on 22 Dec '66, and then reappears as a section of 'Heroes', now called 'All Day' on 27 Jan '67. Marilyn Wilson-Rutherford recalls 'Love to Say Dada' as being connected to child- or babyhood. The May sessions for the resurrected section include prominent flutes and - in one abandoned experiment - bird noises. So I feel this can be pretty safely discounted - or at least not actively promoted - as 'Water' on the basis of the actual evidence.

All we have of 'Air', really, is that cursory 'unfinished piano piece' comment from the Preiss book. Since Vosse's recounting of the grand/baby piano 'music box' session in Teen Set chimes (no pun intended) almost detail to detail with his recollection of Brian's work on the 'Wind Chimes' tag in Fusion - and knowing that a version of this section, probably without [all of?] the echo effects - was indeed edited into one '66 assembly of WC, it's hard to argue it was either 'unfinished' (except in the sense that almost all Smile* tracks were) or a discrete musical 'piece' in its own right. Put more simply, this section seems to have always been just the 'tag to Wind Chimes' (logs, Fusion, period edits) and to suggest it was ever intended to be broken off and become 'Air' is pure conjecture. (Which of course, OMP, is just what you end up saying in your original post.  :) )

One last quote from Anderle, who was there for most of that heady '66 'development' period:

'We were aware, he made us aware, of what fire was going to be, and what water was going to be; we had some idea of air. That was where it stopped.'

Which leaves Veggies rather out of the loop, but there we are. It implies there was some kind of a plan for 'Air' and 'Water' in '66, which Brian was able to articulate to some extent. It also suggests Anderle (and therefore, presumably, Vosse) never actually heard them recorded.

* That limited capitalization was for you, AGD.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Matt Bielewicz on January 19, 2016, 02:43:53 AM
Beautifully summarised, Mr Bee!

Not for the first time, after reminding myself of the final David Anderle quote at the end of your post there, I find myself wishing that we could have somehow got Mr Anderle under the microscope for detailed interviews back in the day before he passed away, too. It seems that although Anderle almost certainly 'inhaled', he was one of the people really close-up to Brian and the creation of SMiLE during that crucial Summer to Christmas 1966 period that retained all of his marbles in his latter years — and was pretty together to begin with anyway, as well as being a thoroughly nice, approachable guy (or so the record would seem to have it). Compare such comments as we do have on record from him to the pretty crazy latterday ramblings of, say, Lorren Daro...

It's sort of frustrating to know that when I first got into SMiLE and began finding out about it from 1995 onwards, so many of those key players (Chuck Britz, there's another!!!) were still around and completely compos mentis. That's a stark contrast to today. I wish I'd had more time to look into this stuff back then. I remember I even chatted to Jonathan Anderle over email at one point in 1995 for a while, but then pressure of work and other stuff meant I never followed any of it up...!

Oh well — another reason to keep hoping against hope that someone, somewhere, really IS working on a Hot Tub Time Machine...   ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 19, 2016, 02:58:44 AM
Quote
Beautifully summarised, Mr Bee!

Many thanks, Matt. If I can return a cross-thread compliment, I really appreciated your explication of VDP's elliptical 'Heroes' lyrics in the relevant thread. Genuinely fascinating stuff.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 19, 2016, 03:16:08 AM
My two cents, and doubtless worth exactly that, if not considerably less:

Air - "Country Air", on very shaky ground - "Air" in title, piano driven track. I once edited out all the choruses just to see what it sounded like. Try it... Despite what has been said in the past by people who should really know better, NOT "Good Vibrations".

Earth - may well have been "Vega-Tables" - once, in fall 1966... but on even shakier ground, I'd point hesitantly in the general direction of "Fall Breaks... And Back To Winter" as being a direct descendant. At least it's thematically linked to the one, undoubted section of "The Elements".

Water - not a clue.  ;D

As an aside, I'd not take Vosse's Teen Set article as holy writ as there are some glaring inaccuracies in it (unless he knew stuff that no-one else has ever mentioned). Notably, his claim that Brian brought his own personal 8-track to Western for the "music box" session, and the strong implication that his own grand piano was also installed in the studio. As far as anyone knows, most studios didn't have an 8-track at the time (just Columbia), let alone an individual (and you don't just plug such a bit of kit into the board and roll tapes...)... and for a grand to be installed in Western Three, you'd have to either:

take it apart, ship it through reception and reassemble it: can't see that doing the tuning any favours...

or knock down an outside wall of the studio, push it in, and rebuild the wall. Then reverse the process to take it home.

May well have  been a grand in the studio, but that it was Brian's is hugely doubtful.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 19, 2016, 03:20:09 AM
Quote
As an aside, I'd not take Vosse's Teen Set article as holy writ as there are some glaring inaccuracies in it (unless he knew stuff that no-one else has ever mentioned). Notably, his claim that Brian brought his own personal 8-track to Western for the "music box" session, and the strong implication that his own grand piano was also installed in the studio

Duly noted. :)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 19, 2016, 03:42:28 AM
Anderle's quote is interesting because he claims "we" were made aware of what fire and water were going to be.  OK we know fire, but why didn't Anderle share with us what water was going to be?

I don't think anyone has mentioned how Dada got linked to water in the first place - before anyone had heard it and realized the musical similarity with the later Cool Cool Water.   When Carl was collating the Smile tapes for release as a 2fer with Holland, he announced Smile was being released to the press in 1972 and named some tracks.  One track was "I Love to Say Dada (incorporating Cool Cool Water)."  Then in the Preiss book in 1979, where after interviewing Brian and the other Beach Boys, he discussed The Elements and identified ILTSDD as the water element (but in describing the track it becomes clear Preiss is actually describing the Water chant, not ILTSDD).  This is also where we get the unfinished piano piece comment on Air.

Why Country Air, even as an instrumental piano piece, couldn't be The Elements Air:  Brian said "we never finished that" - and they DID finish Country Air.  Surely he would have mentioned that in 1979.  Or "oh and that became Country Air."  

So the nice summaries above are correct, we have Fire, we have a fall 66 earth, for water we have "I Love to Say . . . Nada" and we have no tape evidence of what this unfinished piano piece for Air could be.  Plenty of theories and conjecture.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 19, 2016, 03:52:36 AM
I'm irresistibly reminded of an incident from the thirties (I think): the leading astronomer of the era received a cable one day, out of the blue, from a leading Hearst newspaper: "1000 words subject life on mars by return". Now, in those days, if you knew what was good for you, when a Hearst newspaper told you to jump, you asked "how high ?" on the way up. They got their 1000 words, by return: "nobody knows" repeated 500 times.

Smile isn't quiet that bad these days, but there are still areas where "nobody knows".


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 19, 2016, 03:56:11 AM
Why Country Air, even as an instrumental piano piece, couldn't be The Elements Air:  Brian said "we never finished that" - and they DID finish Country Air.  Surely he would have mentioned that in 1979.  Or "oh and that became Country Air."

Need I remind anyone here that Brian also stated, for decades, that he burned the "Fire" tapes... or that for several months he flatly denied there was going to be any 50th anniversary reunion ? Like Alan said, in another context, "Brian's different".  :lol


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 19, 2016, 04:15:52 AM
Quote
When Carl was collating the Smile tapes for release as a 2fer with Holland, he announced Smile was being released to the press in 1972 and named some tracks.  One track was "I Love to Say Dada (incorporating Cool Cool Water)."  

Excellent observation. A July 1976 article (don't have the title or author to hand, but I think part two of 'Child is Father of the Band' by Timothy White), with extensive interview material from all the then-current Beach Boys, as well as VDP and others, delineates the respective parts of 'The Elements' as: '"Mrs O'Leary's Cow (from the Fire)", "Vega-Tables (from the Earth)", "Good Vibrations (from the Air)" and "I Love to Say Dada (from the Water)".'

This is not to say this listing is actually representative of BW's '66/'67 intentions - Anderle, for instance, is adamant that GV's inclusion on the record was mandated by Capitol, and it sure ain't an 'unfinished piano piece' either - but the breakdown is specific enough to have presumably come from somewhere (or someone) reasonably credible. My best guess, based on this and your quote from Carl in '72, is that it came largely from Carl - who seems to have been most involved of the Beach Boys in trying to compile a '72 Smile. I'd further posit, then, that Carl's belief that 'DaDa' was water was largely informed by the fact the melody was later re-used for 'Cool Cool Water', and not the other way 'round.

Of course, Carl was Brian's brother and bandmate, so maybe BW actually did 'let him in' on a few Smile sequencing secrets. That's absolutely possible. But since post-'68/pre '00s Brian seems to have not been typically forthcoming - or even particularly coherent - on the subject of the Smile tracks, outside of his reasons to not release them, it seems (to me) more likely that Carl, like all of us here now, was trying to piece together an album from the bits of information/recordings he had available. The fact that the melody of one Smile-era recording was later re-used in a song based around water (and, incidentally, for the track apparently crucial to getting 'Sunflower' released in the first place) seems a good enough basis for Carl, in those circumstances, to make the assumption that 'Water' was 'Dada'.

As I outlined above, however, all data from '66-'early '67 would seem to refute that. Then again, as Andrew says - 'nobody knows'.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 19, 2016, 04:40:08 AM
Well not all data (or should I say dada . . . ).  In LLVS an article is reprinted from April 67 quoting Brian as saying all 12 tracks of Smile were finished (clearly untrue, as Andrew points out much of what Brian says has to be looked at skeptically) except The Elements, which he was still working on . . . And then he goes into the studio after this substantial break (apparently due to a nervous breakdown) and works on Dada.  The article and studio dates are suggestive but of course could be coincidence.

One thing about Brian's interviews - he has a reputation for at times brutal honesty when talking about his life - remember when he talked to Rolling Stone about abstaining from sex, or asking reporters for drugs - it seems like he has no filter and if he knows an answer he will tell you.  If he doesn't know, it seems like in an effort to please interviewers he will make up something to satisfy them, whatever comes into his head.  This may be the determining factor in the "unfinished piano instrumental" response.  Other times when Brian is uncomfortable answering a question he will downright lie to move on to something else - the "I burned all the Smile tapes" sh*t.  It's rare - someone more OCD than myself might want to research this - has Brian ever, in any interview, responded to a question with "I don't know?"


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Matt Bielewicz on January 19, 2016, 05:24:29 AM
For what it's worth (Dada AND Nada...), I think the 72 SMiLE listing was Carl just guessing as well (I mean... Good Vibrations as Air? That's a bit... desperate, isn't it?). Because Sunflower was out by then and what started as ILTSDD had become CCW for the band on that album, it must have seemed irrestistibly obvious that Dada was always going to have been Water for SMiLE. But the recording/compositional history doesn't seem to back that up... if anything, it refutes it.

Anderle's quote is interesting because he claims "we" were made aware of what fire and water were going to be.  OK we know fire, but why didn't Anderle share with us what water was going to be?

Oh... if only. That's what I meant above about wishing someone had been able to talk to Anderle at length again back in the day, in Paul Williams' laid-back and conversational style, but with a more forensic SMiLE focus.

Why Country Air, even as an instrumental piano piece, couldn't be The Elements Air:  Brian said "we never finished that" - and they DID finish Country Air.  Surely he would have mentioned that in 1979.  Or "oh and that became Country Air."

Now, here's a thing. I have a crackly, distorted, black and white memory, from oh, about 10-15 years ago, of someone knowledgeable on this board saying a few things about Country Air, and a few other post SMiLE tracks, about how they were just partially finished ideas that a burnt-out Brian couldn't wrap up, and which Carl had to finish or just put out in desperation for usable album material. I sort of want to say it might have been Peter Reum, but given his history, it doesn't seem likely, and I think I'm probably mis-remembering. I'm pretty sure I'm not misattributing nonsense from 'Bellagio Insider', though, if anyone here remembers back that far. I think it seemed legit.

Anyway, whoever it was, I think they said that actually, post-SMiLE there were a lot of Brian tracks which he started and just couldn't finish, and Carl had to polish up. I mean, I know that happened a lot later, increasingly throughout the 70s in fact, until you get Sail On Sailor and Love You and Carl effectively 're-producing' Brian's half-finished ideas or productions to get them done, and getting the 'Mixdown Producer' credit on Love You that actually hides what was probably a whole lot of hard production work. But what was surprising to me when I read this post that I can't properly remember, damn it, was that it was claimed that a lot of the Smiley Smile and Wild Honey tracks were like that too. All I can remember now is that it was suggested that Little Pad and Country Air, which I've always regarded as beautifully creative tracks, were actually unfinished semi-instrumentals that the band had to put on the record like that because Brian wouldn't — or couldn't — do anything else to complete them at that stage. Hence the humming and only very 'partial' vocals on Little Pad, and, similarly, the humming and chorus vocals only on Country Air.

I have some partial board archives from that time, which might contain the post in question. I'll see if I can find it.

If true, though, that might mean that Brian actually thought Country Air was unfinished... even though it was released!

Sorry to Peter, by the way, if you're reading and that's completely putting words in your mouth inappropriately. I really do feel as though I've reached the age where I've forgotten more about SMiLE than... er... I ever knew in the first place! Oh hang on... that doesn't make any sense either...  :lol


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on January 19, 2016, 05:55:55 AM
Not for the first time, after reminding myself of the final David Anderle quote at the end of your post there, I find myself wishing that we could have somehow got Mr Anderle under the microscope for detailed interviews back in the day before he passed away, too. It seems that although Anderle almost certainly 'inhaled', he was one of the people really close-up to Brian and the creation of SMiLE during that crucial Summer to Christmas 1966 period that retained all of his marbles in his latter years — and was pretty together to begin with anyway, as well as being a thoroughly nice, approachable guy (or so the record would seem to have it). Compare such comments as we do have on record from him to the pretty crazy latterday ramblings of, say, Lorren Daro...

It's sort of frustrating to know that when I first got into SMiLE and began finding out about it from 1995 onwards, so many of those key players (Chuck Britz, there's another!!!) were still around and completely compos mentis. That's a stark contrast to today. I wish I'd had more time to look into this stuff back then. I remember I even chatted to Jonathan Anderle over email at one point in 1995 for a while, but then pressure of work and other stuff meant I never followed any of it up...!

Oh well — another reason to keep hoping against hope that someone, somewhere, really IS working on a Hot Tub Time Machine...   ;)

Yes, sadly Britz, Anderle, Vosse, Carl Wilson and other SMiLE "observers" are gone. But Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks are not. I know I keep bringing this up, and because I have a tendency to beat a dead horse, will probably continue to do so. So, with the recent passings of Lemmy, Bowie, and Frey, I'll mention it again.

Depending on what anniversary date you use, we are either at SMiLE's 50th anniversary, or will be fast approaching it. I think this would be the perfect opportunity to arrange a meeting reuniting Brian and Van Dyke, with Darian Sahanaja serving as expert host/facilitator, maybe hold the reunion at Brian's house (complete with lap top, tape recorder and piano!) over a day or two or three, and discuss IN DEPTH each SMiLE track. Obviously Darian serves a very important role. We need that person to get things "out" of Brian.

I don't know how to get something like this off the ground, but I'd like to see somebody with "pull" explore it. Before anybody scoffs at this idea, did YOU believe BWPS would ever come to fruition, or a 75 date reunion tour in 2012 complete with new studio album? We have lost too many key people, and every day I turn on my computer, more people from that era are passing away. SMiLE is THAT important, and deserves something like I am proposing, dontcha think?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 19, 2016, 06:06:26 AM
- Fire was Mrs. O' Leary's Fire (duh)

- Water (in 1966, at least) was water sounds that the Vosse Posse recorded on their Nagra reels

- Earth (pre-December 1966) was Vega-Tables. This is due to the revealing Van Dyke Parks quotations, and Frank Holmes drawings.

- Air was a piano cut(?)

I think many have raised the issue about a similiar Wind Chimes piano cut that was never fully realised by Brian. If so, could this be the mythical Air piece everyone is searching for? I don't think so at all.... Couldn't it have been much easier for Brian (and all of us) to say that "Wind Chimes" was "Air" in 1978 and get it over with? Why the vague "piano cut" description? But then again, maybe in August 1966, Brian and Van Dyke dreamed of a SMiLE with Wind Chimes fulfilling the "Air" piece, but moved on from that idea due to it's single potential.... Similarly with Veggies. Who knows? 
Good question - and maybe it is, in some regard... I remember from something I read or heard that it was an outgrowth of Marilyn and Brian out buying some real wind chimes...and Marilyn saying that Brian was just "like that" and could just create or compose in that on-the-spot mode. 

It is one of those songs that just stays with you for life. (for me) I have never seen wind chimes that the song is not connected but I am thinking that it is the "effect" that the wind (or the "air") "exerts on the wind chimes" in making them move, in the same way the wind "exerts its' natural force" on the "leaf on a windy day" - from Til I Die. It is the exertion of the force of nature on an otherwise inanimate object, giving it life or movement.   

And, I'm also thinking that Brian was still in the "Smile mode" when he used it on Smiley.   ;) 

But, Country Air on WH - that is da bomb.   :lol - I think it should have been a single.       


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 19, 2016, 07:01:13 AM
As an aside, I'd not take Vosse's Teen Set article as holy writ as there are some glaring inaccuracies in it (unless he knew stuff that no-one else has ever mentioned). Notably, his claim that Brian brought his own personal 8-track to Western for the "music box" session, and the strong implication that his own grand piano was also installed in the studio. As far as anyone knows, most studios didn't have an 8-track at the time (just Columbia), let alone an individual (and you don't just plug such a bit of kit into the board and roll tapes...)... and for a grand to be installed in Western Three, you'd have to either:

take it apart, ship it through reception and reassemble it: can't see that doing the tuning any favours...

or knock down an outside wall of the studio, push it in, and rebuild the wall. Then reverse the process to take it home.

May well have  been a grand in the studio, but that it was Brian's is hugely doubtful.

I'll address the 8-track in a moment, but on the issue of the piano: Something being highly unlikely in retrospect doesn't equal something not happening, right? For one, this is the same Brian Wilson who in August 1967 had his white Baldwin organ moved from his house, crated up, shipped to Hawaii for two concerts, then shipped back. Logic would say he would have rented one for the shows in Hawaii, but he wanted the sound of his Baldwin on stage for those shows which were to be recorded (and how that was done is another story full of illogical setups that seemed crazy but actually happened according to the engineering staff from Heider's who did it), and illogically and at great cost made it happen.

We just don't know enough to definitively write it off. Even if we did, if the standard applied where such a comment would therefore discredit the legitimacy of the entire piece and dismiss the other evidence presented in that article, let's go through any number of Beach Boys interviews and throw out the baby with the bathwater based on something inaccurate that was said in the interview. There was a recent one late in 2015 where some incorrect info was given on TV about Gary Usher's car as recorded on the street for 409...minor stuff, as minor as the piano comments from Vosse, but using that standard maybe we should dismiss everything else said in that interview and others?

Now, the 8-track.

Without rehashing the entire story, go to this link to see how all of that first started playing out:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10570.0.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10570.0.html)

Then go to this link for the follow up that shattered a few beliefs and myths about 8-tracks at studios other than Columbia in the 60's:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,13763.0.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,13763.0.html)

Recall there is a piece of silent film shot by Dennis at Western, along with still photos, that show Brian, Chuck, and an assistant running a mix at Western using a Scully 8-track tape machine. Considering they (including Van Dyke Parks) are also wearing the same plastic toy firehats as seen in the GV promo, and in the Fire studio sessions afterward, it most likely dates from the specific time in fall '66 when the Beach Boys were home between tours, when the promo was filmed and before Fire was recorded in the studio with the same firehats that were in Brian's car which he asked his assistant to bring in to help set the mood for that session. The timeline adds up.

As does seeing Carl Wilson in the film reading a German magazine with Ringo Starr on the cover, "Bravo" magazine with a cover date of September 24, 1966...

So there was an 8-track at Western in Fall 1966 if we combine all the evidence, not the least of which is a shot like this:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/brianfilm1.jpg)



It's not quite as easy to dismiss Vosse's article so quickly and out of hand.

This new standard of throwing away the full contents of someone's piece based on one comment in question (nay, not even proven wrong but just in doubt...), I don't understand what the goal is beyond discrediting that person who wrote it. But it doesn't make sense.

And in the case of Vosse, who actually got it right unless we put the microscope on his grand piano comments, he got it right. Check the links on those 8-tracks at Western for the real deal on that issue. Whether Brian rented those specific machines or not, he had an 8-track with Chuck at Western in Fall 1966 when Van Dyke was there wearing his plastic firehat.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 19, 2016, 07:07:33 AM
The 72 Smile was more than Carl just speculating -   He was actually going through the Smile tape archive and transferring tapes and making decisions as to what to include and what needed finishing.  That doesn't mean that his decision to make Dada part of Water was based on any original Brian intentions, just that he was trying to put together a coherent Smile album with the material at hand, and the Dada/Water connection worked for him, or seemed to.  

Now let's start speculation on the famous unreleased Carl 1972 Smile album and what would be included and what the elements would be and what Heroes sections would be used!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 19, 2016, 07:19:12 AM
Decades ago the grand piano claim was dismissed as being too large to have been brought into the studio.  I still wonder though if that is actually true? That it couldn't have, I mean.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 19, 2016, 07:27:33 AM
The layout of Western Three would make it pretty much impossible to do on a whim. There were no cargo doors.
Also, the article stated that shortly thereafter said instrument was back in the Laurel Way house.

As for the eight track, my point was about it being Brian's personal property. My premise is that the article shouldn't be treated as unquestionably accurate, not that it be dismissed out of hand. Parts are undoubtedly accurate: others are questionable.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 19, 2016, 07:30:15 AM
As does seeing Carl Wilson in the film reading a German magazine with Ringo Starr on the cover, "Bravo" magazine with a cover date of September 24, 1966...

I can't remember seeing that - do you have a still of that at hand?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 19, 2016, 07:35:29 AM
As does seeing Carl Wilson in the film reading a German magazine with Ringo Starr on the cover, "Bravo" magazine with a cover date of September 24, 1966...

I can't remember seeing that - do you have a still of that at hand?


(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/brianfilm4.jpg)


(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/73/99/1b/73991b9011841cda096a5ca43ac47c2d.jpg)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 19, 2016, 07:47:44 AM
The layout of Western Three would make it pretty much impossible to do on a whim. There were no cargo doors.
Also, the article stated that shortly thereafter said instrument was back in the Laurel Way house.

As for the eight track, my point was about it being Brian's personal property. My premise is that the article shouldn't be treated as unquestionably accurate, not that it be dismissed out of hand. Parts are undoubtedly accurate: others are questionable.

I'm not saavy about moving pianos but could not a professional piano mover remove legs etc. and hand carry or roller cart the main body through a standard 28 or 32" x 80" door?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 19, 2016, 07:57:55 AM
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/brianfilm4.jpg)

Thank you! :) He's probably looking for the Dr. Sommer section. :-D


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: zosobird on January 19, 2016, 08:01:34 AM
Take it for what it's worth, but the 1967 Surf's Up was found on a reel containing "Country Air"

Mark Linett: "In fact, on this set, we were transferring reels for the Wild Honey album late last year and completely unmarked on the session reel for a song called “Country Air” discovered Brian doing four or five takes of “Surf’s  Up” – just him at the piano from late ’67.  So, we included that on the box.  No explanation for why he did that and it was never taken any farther.  Although I don’t think the intention was to take it any farther because it’s just him singing live and playing piano."



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 19, 2016, 08:29:31 AM
On moving a grand piano:

https://youtu.be/9TNjTN4Tvlk (https://youtu.be/9TNjTN4Tvlk)



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Radfahrer on January 19, 2016, 08:46:42 AM
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/brianfilm4.jpg)

Thank you! :) He's probably looking for the Dr. Sommer section. :-D

I'd love to know the magazine made it into the Smile Sessions in the first place. Who knows, Micha, maybe that's the point when the whole project lost its innocence.  :lol


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 19, 2016, 09:13:55 AM
The layout of Western Three would make it pretty much impossible to do on a whim. There were no cargo doors.
Also, the article stated that shortly thereafter said instrument was back in the Laurel Way house.

As for the eight track, my point was about it being Brian's personal property. My premise is that the article shouldn't be treated as unquestionably accurate, not that it be dismissed out of hand. Parts are undoubtedly accurate: others are questionable.

I'm not saavy about moving pianos but could not a professional piano mover remove legs etc. and hand carry or roller cart the main body through a standard 28 or 32" x 80" door?

Surely it would be no more difficult than bringing a horse into the studio?   :)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 19, 2016, 09:20:24 AM
The layout of Western Three would make it pretty much impossible to do on a whim. There were no cargo doors.
Also, the article stated that shortly thereafter said instrument was back in the Laurel Way house.

As for the eight track, my point was about it being Brian's personal property. My premise is that the article shouldn't be treated as unquestionably accurate, not that it be dismissed out of hand. Parts are undoubtedly accurate: others are questionable.

I'm not saavy about moving pianos but could not a professional piano mover remove legs etc. and hand carry or roller cart the main body through a standard 28 or 32" x 80" door?

Surely it would be no more difficult than bringing a horse into the studio?   :)

Well, you don't have to clean up after the piano. :)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 19, 2016, 09:29:58 AM
The layout of Western Three would make it pretty much impossible to do on a whim. There were no cargo doors.
Also, the article stated that shortly thereafter said instrument was back in the Laurel Way house.

As for the eight track, my point was about it being Brian's personal property. My premise is that the article shouldn't be treated as unquestionably accurate, not that it be dismissed out of hand. Parts are undoubtedly accurate: others are questionable.

I'm not saavy about moving pianos but could not a professional piano mover remove legs etc. and hand carry or roller cart the main body through a standard 28 or 32" x 80" door?

Surely it would be no more difficult than bringing a horse into the studio?   :)

I don't know how big Brian's piano was but that video link I posted makes it looks like it was very possible without any fuss.  Anybody have any info on Brian's piano and the dimensions of the brand and model and a schematic of 1966 Western's floor paln for the whole studio?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: MarcellaHasDirtyFeet on January 19, 2016, 11:11:52 AM
Take it for what it's worth, but the 1967 Surf's Up was found on a reel containing "Country Air"

Mark Linett: "In fact, on this set, we were transferring reels for the Wild Honey album late last year and completely unmarked on the session reel for a song called “Country Air” discovered Brian doing four or five takes of “Surf’s  Up” – just him at the piano from late ’67.  So, we included that on the box.  No explanation for why he did that and it was never taken any farther.  Although I don’t think the intention was to take it any farther because it’s just him singing live and playing piano."



Love this quote-- it gives me shivers to think about what other undocumented goodies could be waiting to be discovered at the end of reels. I mean, c'mon a Wild Honey Surf's Up magically appeared! Who the hell would've guessed THAT would have happened? And it was done with that crazy detuned piano, and the modulation right before the tag... it was different enough that it really made the discovery that much more special.

There could be more out there, right? Stuff Mark and Alan and Jon and AGD don't even know about? A Beach Boy, a piano and an engineer at 2 a.m., laying down one last crazy rendition just to enliven the mood...


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 19, 2016, 11:21:38 AM
The layout of Western Three would make it pretty much impossible to do on a whim. There were no cargo doors.
Also, the article stated that shortly thereafter said instrument was back in the Laurel Way house.

As for the eight track, my point was about it being Brian's personal property. My premise is that the article shouldn't be treated as unquestionably accurate, not that it be dismissed out of hand. Parts are undoubtedly accurate: others are questionable.

I'm not saavy about moving pianos but could not a professional piano mover remove legs etc. and hand carry or roller cart the main body through a standard 28 or 32" x 80" door?

Surely it would be no more difficult than bringing a horse into the studio?   :)

I don't know how big Brian's piano was but that video link I posted makes it looks like it was very possible without any fuss.  Anybody have any info on Brian's piano and the dimensions of the brand and model and a schematic of 1966 Western's floor paln for the whole studio?

Cam, you don't even need a floor plan or exact details about Brian's piano to have it be a possibility that Brian's piano could have been moved in there for a time to record sessions. Western/United as any pro studio would do already had pianos available for sessions, in several models and designs including grands, uprights, and even "tack" pianos. The staff would get their orders for upcoming session setups, and simply roll 'em in to whichever studio was going to be recording with one. As that video you posted showed, it's not rocket science to move a grand piano, nor does it take breaking down walls or door frames to get one into a room.

It's not enough to suggest it did not happen when this is the same Brian Wilson who crated up and shipped a Baldwin organ to Hawaii for two shows, and as anyone who has been around Hammond organs or any organs in general, those are in some ways more difficult to move than a grand piano which has removable legs and can be moved on a cart just like the video shows.

Simple as that. No need to find blueprints or specs for Brian's piano, it could be a possibility and can't be written off so definitely.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 19, 2016, 12:16:01 PM
The layout of Western Three would make it pretty much impossible to do on a whim. There were no cargo doors.
Also, the article stated that shortly thereafter said instrument was back in the Laurel Way house.

As for the eight track, my point was about it being Brian's personal property. My premise is that the article shouldn't be treated as unquestionably accurate, not that it be dismissed out of hand. Parts are undoubtedly accurate: others are questionable.

I'm not saavy about moving pianos but could not a professional piano mover remove legs etc. and hand carry or roller cart the main body through a standard 28 or 32" x 80" door?

Surely it would be no more difficult than bringing a horse into the studio?   :)

I don't know how big Brian's piano was but that video link I posted makes it looks like it was very possible without any fuss.  Anybody have any info on Brian's piano and the dimensions of the brand and model and a schematic of 1966 Western's floor paln for the whole studio?

Cam, you don't even need a floor plan or exact details about Brian's piano to have it be a possibility that Brian's piano could have been moved in there for a time to record sessions. Western/United as any pro studio would do already had pianos available for sessions, in several models and designs including grands, uprights, and even "tack" pianos. The staff would get their orders for upcoming session setups, and simply roll 'em in to whichever studio was going to be recording with one. As that video you posted showed, it's not rocket science to move a grand piano, nor does it take breaking down walls or door frames to get one into a room.

It's not enough to suggest it did not happen when this is the same Brian Wilson who crated up and shipped a Baldwin organ to Hawaii for two shows, and as anyone who has been around Hammond organs or any organs in general, those are in some ways more difficult to move than a grand piano which has removable legs and can be moved on a cart just like the video shows.

Simple as that. No need to find blueprints or specs for Brian's piano, it could be a possibility and can't be written off so definitely.

Right, but isn't the claim such in the article that it has been taken as Brian's personal grand piano?  And the counter claim was Brian's piano couldn't have been gotten into that studio.  So I'm just curious if there was something about the hallways or doors or that would prevent bring in an outside piano?  It seems as unlikely as the related old counter claim that it couldn't have been Brian's 8-track recorder was because it seems a studio wouldn't exist long if it couldn't load in a grand piano or 8-track recorder.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 19, 2016, 12:22:12 PM
The layout of Western Three would make it pretty much impossible to do on a whim. There were no cargo doors.
Also, the article stated that shortly thereafter said instrument was back in the Laurel Way house.

As for the eight track, my point was about it being Brian's personal property. My premise is that the article shouldn't be treated as unquestionably accurate, not that it be dismissed out of hand. Parts are undoubtedly accurate: others are questionable.

I'm not saavy about moving pianos but could not a professional piano mover remove legs etc. and hand carry or roller cart the main body through a standard 28 or 32" x 80" door?

Surely it would be no more difficult than bringing a horse into the studio?   :)

I don't know how big Brian's piano was but that video link I posted makes it looks like it was very possible without any fuss.  Anybody have any info on Brian's piano and the dimensions of the brand and model and a schematic of 1966 Western's floor paln for the whole studio?

Cam, you don't even need a floor plan or exact details about Brian's piano to have it be a possibility that Brian's piano could have been moved in there for a time to record sessions. Western/United as any pro studio would do already had pianos available for sessions, in several models and designs including grands, uprights, and even "tack" pianos. The staff would get their orders for upcoming session setups, and simply roll 'em in to whichever studio was going to be recording with one. As that video you posted showed, it's not rocket science to move a grand piano, nor does it take breaking down walls or door frames to get one into a room.

It's not enough to suggest it did not happen when this is the same Brian Wilson who crated up and shipped a Baldwin organ to Hawaii for two shows, and as anyone who has been around Hammond organs or any organs in general, those are in some ways more difficult to move than a grand piano which has removable legs and can be moved on a cart just like the video shows.

Simple as that. No need to find blueprints or specs for Brian's piano, it could be a possibility and can't be written off so definitely.

Right, but isn't the claim such in the article that it has been taken as Brian's personal grand piano?  And the counter claim was Brian's piano couldn't have been gotten into that studio.  So I'm just curious if there was something about the hallways or doors or that would prevent bring in an outside piano?  It seems as unlikely as the related old counter claim that it couldn't have been Brian's 8-track recorder was because it seems a studio wouldn't exist long if it couldn't load in a grand piano or 8-track recorder.

Piano movers every day deliver grand pianos to homes through regular front doors or back doors, with no problem. If a pro studio like Western couldn't take delivery of a grand piano, no less move it to any of their studio rooms for a session, there would be some major problems...least of which being the only way to get a grand piano into the room would be to build the room around the piano!  :)

As far as 8-tracks, Wally Heider made his money when he went independent by buying the latest 8-track machines and renting them to studios around LA (and elsewhere) for exorbitant fees. His crew or the movers he hired didn't have a problem moving them. And SIR made a living renting, moving, and delivering equipment...it wasn't an issue.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 19, 2016, 12:26:30 PM
That's what I've been saying too, I even linked a video as proof.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 19, 2016, 12:29:06 PM
That's what I've been saying too, I even linked a video as proof.

That's right, I don't think the ability or inability to move a grand piano is enough to rule out the possibility entirely.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 19, 2016, 02:57:14 PM
Quote
In LLVS an article is reprinted from April 67 quoting Brian as saying all 12 tracks of Smile were finished (clearly untrue, as Andrew points out much of what Brian says has to be looked at skeptically) except The Elements, which he was still working on . .

Only vaguely remember this quote - is anyone able to post a scan, or even the text of the full quote?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 19, 2016, 03:49:05 PM
Quote
In LLVS an article is reprinted from April 67 quoting Brian as saying all 12 tracks of Smile were finished (clearly untrue, as Andrew points out much of what Brian says has to be looked at skeptically) except The Elements, which he was still working on . .

Only vaguely remember this quote - is anyone able to post a scan, or even the text of the full quote?


Not sure if this is the one?

“Brian Wilson is worried about one track in their new ‘Smile’ album titled ‘The Elements’. It has sections on Earth, Air, Fire and Water.” (LLVS 132)

I don't know the original source or a publication date.

“The group’s new LP, “Smile”, includes an album-size, 12-page book of colour photos and a dozen songs by Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks. Among the titles: ‘Wonderful, “Do You Like Worms!’, ‘Vega-tables’, ‘Surf’s Up,’ ‘Cabin Essence’, ‘Wind Chimes’, and a suite called ‘The Elements’. The LP also features ‘Heroes and Villains’."  (D&ME 3/25/67 p.4)

“Tracks from the next Beach Boys lp include, ‘The Elements’ (a composition in four movements), ‘Heroes and Villains’ (their next single, weighing in at over four minutes), ‘Child Is Father Of the Man’ and something about going out in the yard to eat worms. Lyrics are mostly by Van Dyke Parks, and it is possible that the lp will be finished one of these days. Smile. ”  (May ‘67, Crawdaddy! #9, on newstands mid April?)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 19, 2016, 04:13:10 PM
Thanks again, Cam.

Bicycle Rider, is this

Quote
"Brian Wilson is worried about one track in their new ‘Smile’ album titled ‘The Elements’. It has sections on Earth, Air, Fire and Water.” (LLVS 132)

the same piece you referred to before, which also states that the 11 other tracks were complete? And you can date it to April? I ask mainly because I'd love to add this to the reference thread if someone can provide a full transcription/scan of the relevant page and/or attribution.

Looking at what was being recorded in March/April '67, if Brian was indeed quoted as 'working' on the suite (in the studio, at least) at that time, it'd really have to be 'Vega-Tables' he was talking about - - or, 'Wonderful', I suppose. (Waittaminute... the title's begins with a 'W', and it's got an 'er' in it, just like 'Water'...  But then again, the lyrics do mention a forest... A forest made of trees. Growing out of the ground... Nailed it! Earth = Wonderful Version 3. You're all welcome!)

For an article published in mid-April (in the absence of a date of publication), say, we're probably looking at the interview being conducted in the first two weeks of that month (again, just an estimation). The '67 'I Love to Say Dada' sessions don't occur until mid-May.

Of course, Brian may have been thinking about using 'Dada' as part of the Elements (presumably for air or water or - who knows? - both) back in March/April, but the recording dates don't particularly suggest - to me, at least - that this is what he would have been referring to in the interview you mentioned.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 19, 2016, 04:20:36 PM
Thanks again, Cam.

Bicycle Rider, is this

Quote
"Brian Wilson is worried about one track in their new ‘Smile’ album titled ‘The Elements’. It has sections on Earth, Air, Fire and Water.” (LLVS 132)

the same piece you referred to before, which also states that the 11 other tracks were complete? And you can date it to April? I ask mainly because I'd love to add this to the reference thread if someone can provide a full transcription/scan of the relevant page and/or attribution.

Looking at what was being recorded in March/April '67, if Brian was indeed quoted as 'working' on the suite (in the studio, at least) at that time, it'd really have to be 'Vega-Tables' he was talking about - - or, 'Wonderful', I suppose. (Waittaminute... the title's got a 'W' in it, and an 'er', just like 'Water'...  But then again, the lyrics do mention a forest... A forest made of trees. Growing out of the ground... Nailed it! Earth = Wonderful Version 3.)

Let's say that for an article published in mid-April (in the absence of actual attribution for the piece) we're probably looking at the interview being conducted in the previous first two weeks of April (again, just an estimation). The '67 'I Love to Say Dada' sessions don't occur until mid-May.

Of course, Brian may have been thinking about using 'Dada' as part of the Elements (presumably for air or water or - who knows? - both) back in March/April, but the recording dates don't particularly suggest - to me, at least - that this is what he would have been referring to in the interview you mentioned.

Don't these late reports claim it is a suite as a single track though?  Or maybe I'm missing your point.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 19, 2016, 05:53:12 PM
Quote
In LLVS an article is reprinted from April 67 quoting Brian as saying all 12 tracks of Smile were finished (clearly untrue, as Andrew points out much of what Brian says has to be looked at skeptically) except The Elements, which he was still working on . .

Only vaguely remember this quote - is anyone able to post a scan, or even the text of the full quote?


Not sure if this is the one?

“Brian Wilson is worried about one track in their new ‘Smile’ album titled ‘The Elements’. It has sections on Earth, Air, Fire and Water.” (LLVS 132)

I don't know the original source or a publication date.

“The group’s new LP, “Smile”, includes an album-size, 12-page book of colour photos and a dozen songs by Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks. Among the titles: ‘Wonderful, “Do You Like Worms!’, ‘Vega-tables’, ‘Surf’s Up,’ ‘Cabin Essence’, ‘Wind Chimes’, and a suite called ‘The Elements’. The LP also features ‘Heroes and Villains’."  (D&ME 3/25/67 p.4)

“Tracks from the next Beach Boys lp include, ‘The Elements’ (a composition in four movements), ‘Heroes and Villains’ (their next single, weighing in at over four minutes), ‘Child Is Father Of the Man’ and something about going out in the yard to eat worms. Lyrics are mostly by Van Dyke Parks, and it is possible that the lp will be finished one of these days. Smile. ”  (May ‘67, Crawdaddy! #9, on newstands mid April?)


That may be the one, I'll have to look tomorrow.  Brian says in effect all the 12 tracks for Smile are finished except for one he's having trouble with, The elements.  Based on where it appears in LLVS it appears to date to April, when he was working on Vegetables or shortly thereafter.  So if he was worried about Elements, and needed to work on it, and the next session is Dada, it's kind of suggestive but certainly not proof of anything.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 19, 2016, 06:05:19 PM
Hi Cam, I wrote a full reply to you earlier, but enragingly my laptop decided to have a major hissy fit just as I was about to click 'Post'!

You're absolutely right, of course, about 'The Elements' suite being identified as a standalone track in these articles. My main objective in the post above was to make a case that if indeed Brian said he was 'working' on 'The Elements' in March/April (and I don't know that he did - I'm relying on Bicycle Rider's paraphrasing of that statement) then he was unlikely to be referring to the 'Love to Say Dada' remake, as that track didn't have work resumed on it until mid-May. (Of course, there may be lost tapes/logs, or he may been writing as opposed to recording, but I'm operating on the data we do have.)

The only titles (apart from a couple of 'Heroes' sessions right at the beginning of March) under which work seems to have been done over those eight weeks were 'Vegetables' and 'Wonderful', plus the brief 'Child of the Man' keys-and-verse section logged, I believe, as 'Nothing #1' and located in a 'Tune X' tape box. Where I may have stretched (or lost!) my original point is the contention that if Brian did consider himself to be 'working on The Elements' - at least in the studio - during this period, then of these three known titles, it seems most likely he's referring to (some of?) the various 'Vegetables' sections recorded in April.

Perhaps tracked under this title - as there seems to be grounds to believe Veggies was a part of the 'suite' six months earlier - there was also some material Brian was considering for a stand-alone 'Elements' track? I have no particular grounds for this suggestion, just throwing it out there as a possibility.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 19, 2016, 06:10:57 PM
Quote
That may be the one, I'll have to look tomorrow.  Brian says in effect all the 12 tracks for Smile are finished except for one he's having trouble with, The elements.  Based on where it appears in LLVS it appears to date to April, when he was working on Vegetables or shortly thereafter.  So if he was worried about Elements, and needed to work on it, and the next session is Dada, it's kind of suggestive but certainly not proof of anything.

Thanks, BR. And yeah, I don't deny it's possible - my argument depends largely on just when the article/interview date from. If Brian made that comment in late April, it's not too much of a stretch to think he might have 'Dada' in mind when talking about ongoing work on 'The Elements'. If late March/early April, though, my view is that it'd be less likely for Brian to be referring to a remake attempt on a previous 'Heroes' section still six weeks away. Hopefully there're a few contextual clues in the article itself.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 19, 2016, 07:47:20 PM
That's what I've been saying too, I even linked a video as proof.

That's right, I don't think the ability or inability to move a grand piano is enough to rule out the possibility entirely.

It has been pointed out to me that Western 3 is the specific room.  Because Western could get grands into the building and other rooms doesn't mean they could be gotten into Western 3.  It has been suggested that it is a distinct possibility that one couldn't from someone who has been in the studio decades ago. Maybe the floorplan did prevent it.  Anyway, it may not be a definite slam dunk for 3. Maybe we do need a 1966 measured floor plan and some piano dimensions.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 19, 2016, 07:57:57 PM
Well I don't know how different it is today but:

http://www.eastweststudios.com/studio3/#floorplan (http://www.eastweststudios.com/studio3/#floorplan)

One of the site photos shows a grand piano in Studio 3.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 20, 2016, 06:37:36 AM
(http://www.eastweststudio.com/assets/img/studios/center_studio3_live-1.jpg)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 20, 2016, 07:14:32 AM
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/bwwestern_zpspgqmevfr.jpg)


(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/briantommymorganjay_zpsd99d10ea.jpg)



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 20, 2016, 07:22:25 AM
Well I don't know how different it is today but:

http://www.eastweststudios.com/studio3/#floorplan (http://www.eastweststudios.com/studio3/#floorplan)

One of the site photos shows a grand piano in Studio 3.
Thanks Cam for that link.  Just watched the well-done historic background video contained within.

And to GF for the stills.   ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 20, 2016, 07:27:56 AM
Cam, I would say photos of a grand piano in the current Western #3 and a photo of Brian sitting at one in Studio 3 during a GV session in 1966 are more than enough evidence at this point...surely more than enough to say the ability or inability to move (and have) a grand piano in Western 3 is not enough to dismiss the possibility entirely.

The photos tell the real story. Who was suggesting there was no way a grand piano would fit into Western 3?



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 20, 2016, 07:45:13 AM
Cam, I would say photos of a grand piano in the current Western #3 and a photo of Brian sitting at one in Studio 3 during a GV session in 1966 are more than enough evidence at this point...surely more than enough to say the ability or inability to move (and have) a grand piano in Western 3 is not enough to dismiss the possibility entirely.

The photos tell the real story. Who was suggesting there was no way a grand piano would fit into Western 3?



There we go.

Brad Elliott.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The Old Master Painter on January 20, 2016, 02:11:10 PM
Was Country Air the Air section then? It's more likely than Wind Chimes though!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: zosobird on January 20, 2016, 02:38:29 PM
Was Country Air the Air section then? It's more likely than Wind Chimes though!

My thought is that if Country Air was/or related to "Air" it probably would've at least shown up on the working list of SMiLE contenders in 2003. That said, there is "The Elements" on there. Anyone confirm whether or not the list is legitimate?

Do You Like Worms
Prayer
Time To Get Alone
Bicycle Rider
Diamond Head
Holidays
Song For The Children
Fall Breaks And Back To Winter
I Wanna Be Around/Friday Night
Wind Chimes
Heroes And Villians
Surf's Up
Good Vibrations
Cabin Essence
Wonderful
I'm In Great Shape
Child Is Father Of The Man
The Elements
Vega-Tables
The Old Master Painter

Taken from this thread: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,6748.msg108239.html#msg108239 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,6748.msg108239.html#msg108239)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: The Shift on January 20, 2016, 03:26:05 PM
I believe this list to have been genuine but also that it was simply a list drawn up by Darian (or A N Other) of Smile tracks and tracks of suspected Smile origins/associations, that was to be out to Brian so that he could give a quick "yes" or "no" to each to indicate their validity as Smile inclusions - hence the inclusion of Fall Breaks…, Diamond Head, and Time to Get Alone.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 20, 2016, 07:52:50 PM
Cam, I would say photos of a grand piano in the current Western #3 and a photo of Brian sitting at one in Studio 3 during a GV session in 1966 are more than enough evidence at this point...surely more than enough to say the ability or inability to move (and have) a grand piano in Western 3 is not enough to dismiss the possibility entirely.

The photos tell the real story. Who was suggesting there was no way a grand piano would fit into Western 3?



There we go.

Brad Elliott.

Turns out I am wrong about it being Brad Elliott. 

I will have to go back in time and search the Wheeler board and Annie board and Jon & John board and Usenet and PSML for the culprit. I'll be back to the future if I find it.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 20, 2016, 07:55:14 PM
Quote
That may be the one, I'll have to look tomorrow.  Brian says in effect all the 12 tracks for Smile are finished except for one he's having trouble with, The elements.  Based on where it appears in LLVS it appears to date to April, when he was working on Vegetables or shortly thereafter.  So if he was worried about Elements, and needed to work on it, and the next session is Dada, it's kind of suggestive but certainly not proof of anything.

Thanks, BR. And yeah, I don't deny it's possible - my argument depends largely on just when the article/interview date from. If Brian made that comment in late April, it's not too much of a stretch to think he might have 'Dada' in mind when talking about ongoing work on 'The Elements'. If late March/early April, though, my view is that it'd be less likely for Brian to be referring to a remake attempt on a previous 'Heroes' section still six weeks away. Hopefully there're a few contextual clues in the article itself.

I'm at home looking through LLVS and having trouble finding the quote.  LLVS is pretty maddening, quotes from articles from Feb, March, April and July 67 all on the same page, many short news items have no date at all . . . I think I remember it's the quote where Brian talks about doing a candle instead of fire?  where the hell is that quote?  There's one from March that talks about the fires and Brian having trouble with The Elements because of that, but it doesn't say the other tracks are finished.  Oh well, I'll find it eventually.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 20, 2016, 08:13:00 PM
Quote
That may be the one, I'll have to look tomorrow.  Brian says in effect all the 12 tracks for Smile are finished except for one he's having trouble with, The elements.  Based on where it appears in LLVS it appears to date to April, when he was working on Vegetables or shortly thereafter.  So if he was worried about Elements, and needed to work on it, and the next session is Dada, it's kind of suggestive but certainly not proof of anything.

Thanks, BR. And yeah, I don't deny it's possible - my argument depends largely on just when the article/interview date from. If Brian made that comment in late April, it's not too much of a stretch to think he might have 'Dada' in mind when talking about ongoing work on 'The Elements'. If late March/early April, though, my view is that it'd be less likely for Brian to be referring to a remake attempt on a previous 'Heroes' section still six weeks away. Hopefully there're a few contextual clues in the article itself.

I'm at home looking through LLVS and having trouble finding the quote.  LLVS is pretty maddening, quotes from articles from Feb, March, April and July 67 all on the same page, many short news items have no date at all . . . I think I remember it's the quote where Brian talks about doing a candle instead of fire?  where the hell is that quote?  There's one from March that talks about the fires and Brian having trouble with The Elements because of that, but it doesn't say the other tracks are finished.  Oh well, I'll find it eventually.

There's the Siegel article:

“A few days after the record was finished , a building across the street from the studio burned down and, according to Brian, there was also an unusually large number of fires in Los Angeles. Afraid that his music might in fact turn out to be magic fire music, Wilson destroyed the master.
“I don’t have to do a big scary fire like that. I can do a candle and it’s still a fire. That would have been a really bad vibration to let out on the world, that Chicago fire. The next one is going to be a candle.” ….One with psychiatric inclinations would hear all this stuff about someone who actually believed music could cause fires and start using words like neurosis and maybe psychosis. A true student of spoken hip, however, would say hang-up, which covers all of the above.
As far as Brian’s pretentions toward hipness are concerned, no label could do him more harm,,, In case, whatever his talent, Brian Wilson’s attempt to win a hip following and reputation foundered for many months in an obsessive cycle of creation and destruction that threatened not only his career and his future but also his marriage, his friendships, his relationship with the Beach Boys and, some of his closet friends worried, his mind.“


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: yonderhillside on January 20, 2016, 09:29:42 PM
Take it for what it's worth, but the 1967 Surf's Up was found on a reel containing "Country Air"

Mark Linett: "In fact, on this set, we were transferring reels for the Wild Honey album late last year and completely unmarked on the session reel for a song called “Country Air” discovered Brian doing four or five takes of “Surf’s  Up” – just him at the piano from late ’67.  So, we included that on the box.  No explanation for why he did that and it was never taken any farther.  Although I don’t think the intention was to take it any farther because it’s just him singing live and playing piano."


Is any of this available anywhere? By box does he mean box set?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 20, 2016, 11:18:55 PM
Quote
Mark Linett: "In fact, on this set, we were transferring reels for the Wild Honey album late last year and completely unmarked on the session reel for a song called “Country Air” discovered Brian doing four or five takes of “Surf’s  Up” – just him at the piano from late ’67.  So, we included that on the box.  No explanation for why he did that and it was never taken any farther.  Although I don’t think the intention was to take it any farther because it’s just him singing live and playing piano."

Yep, on TSS. The track itself appears to be a composite made up from a couple (at least) different takes, according to some expert ears here who say they can hear edit points. Which isn't me being sarcastic - my ears are far short of expert, and I believe I can hear 'em too. Linnet's quote above about putting 'that' (meaning the 'four or five takes' described immediately prior) on the box set would seem to suggest this too.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Ron on January 20, 2016, 11:51:07 PM
- Fire was Mrs. O' Leary's Fire (duh)

- Water (in 1966, at least) was water sounds that the Vosse Posse recorded on their Nagra reels

- Earth (pre-December 1966) was Vega-Tables. This is due to the revealing Van Dyke Parks quotations, and Frank Holmes drawings.

- Air was a piano cut(?)

I think many have raised the issue about a similiar Wind Chimes piano cut that was never fully realised by Brian. If so, could this be the mythical Air piece everyone is searching for? I don't think so at all.... Couldn't it have been much easier for Brian (and all of us) to say that "Wind Chimes" was "Air" in 1978 and get it over with? Why the vague "piano cut" description? But then again, maybe in August 1966, Brian and Van Dyke dreamed of a SMiLE with Wind Chimes fulfilling the "Air" piece, but moved on from that idea due to it's single potential.... Similarly with Veggies. Who knows? 

I wish I could find it, but years ago Brian had a Q&A on his webpage, and I asked him what was Earth, Fire, Water, and Air, and he answered it, but it was just a kind of off the top of his head B.S. answer.  It was still really cool for him to stipulate something, though... there's probably a copy of it here on the forum somewhere because I mentioned it before, but he basically mentioned 1 song for each element and I can't remember which was which but one didn't even make any sense.  i'm sure he was just saying whatever, but it was still fascinating to me...


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 21, 2016, 12:12:52 AM
Feel I should point out that in my original post in this thread, I didn't state that there could be no grand, nor an eight track in the studio, rather that it was hugely unlikely that they were Brian's own as reported.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Nile on January 21, 2016, 03:13:30 AM
[
I wish I could find it, but years ago Brian had a Q&A on his webpage, and I asked him what was Earth, Fire, Water, and Air, and he answered it, but it was just a kind of off the top of his head B.S. answer.  It was still really cool for him to stipulate something, though... there's probably a copy of it here on the forum somewhere because I mentioned it before, but he basically mentioned 1 song for each element and I can't remember which was which but one didn't even make any sense.  i'm sure he was just saying whatever, but it was still fascinating to me...
[/quote]

I can't find the source, but I'm sure this can be found on this board somewhere, anyway it was:
MOCW - Fire
Prayer - Air
HV - Earth
Surf's up - Water!
This is very good..each song really represents one elemnent! Will try that in a mix!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 21, 2016, 05:35:59 AM
Quote
That may be the one, I'll have to look tomorrow.  Brian says in effect all the 12 tracks for Smile are finished except for one he's having trouble with, The elements.  Based on where it appears in LLVS it appears to date to April, when he was working on Vegetables or shortly thereafter.  So if he was worried about Elements, and needed to work on it, and the next session is Dada, it's kind of suggestive but certainly not proof of anything.

Thanks, BR. And yeah, I don't deny it's possible - my argument depends largely on just when the article/interview date from. If Brian made that comment in late April, it's not too much of a stretch to think he might have 'Dada' in mind when talking about ongoing work on 'The Elements'. If late March/early April, though, my view is that it'd be less likely for Brian to be referring to a remake attempt on a previous 'Heroes' section still six weeks away. Hopefully there're a few contextual clues in the article itself.

I'm at home looking through LLVS and having trouble finding the quote.  LLVS is pretty maddening, quotes from articles from Feb, March, April and July 67 all on the same page, many short news items have no date at all . . . I think I remember it's the quote where Brian talks about doing a candle instead of fire?  where the hell is that quote?  There's one from March that talks about the fires and Brian having trouble with The Elements because of that, but it doesn't say the other tracks are finished.  Oh well, I'll find it eventually.

There's the Siegel article:

“A few days after the record was finished , a building across the street from the studio burned down and, according to Brian, there was also an unusually large number of fires in Los Angeles. Afraid that his music might in fact turn out to be magic fire music, Wilson destroyed the master.
“I don’t have to do a big scary fire like that. I can do a candle and it’s still a fire. That would have been a really bad vibration to let out on the world, that Chicago fire. The next one is going to be a candle.” ….One with psychiatric inclinations would hear all this stuff about someone who actually believed music could cause fires and start using words like neurosis and maybe psychosis. A true student of spoken hip, however, would say hang-up, which covers all of the above.
As far as Brian’s pretentions toward hipness are concerned, no label could do him more harm,,, In case, whatever his talent, Brian Wilson’s attempt to win a hip following and reputation foundered for many months in an obsessive cycle of creation and destruction that threatened not only his career and his future but also his marriage, his friendships, his relationship with the Beach Boys and, some of his closet friends worried, his mind.“

Yeah, that's not the quote I'm thinking of . . . I will find it, I will find it, I WILL FIND IT . . . .


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The Old Master Painter on January 21, 2016, 02:00:45 PM
[
I wish I could find it, but years ago Brian had a Q&A on his webpage, and I asked him what was Earth, Fire, Water, and Air, and he answered it, but it was just a kind of off the top of his head B.S. answer.  It was still really cool for him to stipulate something, though... there's probably a copy of it here on the forum somewhere because I mentioned it before, but he basically mentioned 1 song for each element and I can't remember which was which but one didn't even make any sense.  i'm sure he was just saying whatever, but it was still fascinating to me...

I can't find the source, but I'm sure this can be found on this board somewhere, anyway it was:
MOCW - Fire
Prayer - Air
HV - Earth
Surf's up - Water!
This is very good..each song really represents one elemnent! Will try that in a mix!
[/quote]

Well.... that's intriguing.... Makes a lot more sense than half complete or nonexistent piano excerpts though....


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 21, 2016, 02:21:29 PM
I admire and appreciate your dedication to tracking this down, Bicycle Rider!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Ron on January 22, 2016, 11:17:23 AM
[
I wish I could find it, but years ago Brian had a Q&A on his webpage, and I asked him what was Earth, Fire, Water, and Air, and he answered it, but it was just a kind of off the top of his head B.S. answer.  It was still really cool for him to stipulate something, though... there's probably a copy of it here on the forum somewhere because I mentioned it before, but he basically mentioned 1 song for each element and I can't remember which was which but one didn't even make any sense.  i'm sure he was just saying whatever, but it was still fascinating to me...

I can't find the source, but I'm sure this can be found on this board somewhere, anyway it was:
MOCW - Fire
Prayer - Air
HV - Earth
Surf's up - Water!
This is very good..each song really represents one elemnent! Will try that in a mix!
[/quote]


Thank you, I  tried to find it the other day and couldn't track it down.  That's really interesting, huh?  Of course I immediately think that's just Brian running something off the top of his head, but.... what if it isn't? 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: krabklaw on January 22, 2016, 11:42:51 AM
Quote
That may be the one, I'll have to look tomorrow.  Brian says in effect all the 12 tracks for Smile are finished except for one he's having trouble with, The elements.  Based on where it appears in LLVS it appears to date to April, when he was working on Vegetables or shortly thereafter.  So if he was worried about Elements, and needed to work on it, and the next session is Dada, it's kind of suggestive but certainly not proof of anything.

Thanks, BR. And yeah, I don't deny it's possible - my argument depends largely on just when the article/interview date from. If Brian made that comment in late April, it's not too much of a stretch to think he might have 'Dada' in mind when talking about ongoing work on 'The Elements'. If late March/early April, though, my view is that it'd be less likely for Brian to be referring to a remake attempt on a previous 'Heroes' section still six weeks away. Hopefully there're a few contextual clues in the article itself.

I'm at home looking through LLVS and having trouble finding the quote.  LLVS is pretty maddening, quotes from articles from Feb, March, April and July 67 all on the same page, many short news items have no date at all . . . I think I remember it's the quote where Brian talks about doing a candle instead of fire?  where the hell is that quote?  There's one from March that talks about the fires and Brian having trouble with The Elements because of that, but it doesn't say the other tracks are finished.  Oh well, I'll find it eventually.

There's the Siegel article:

“A few days after the record was finished , a building across the street from the studio burned down and, according to Brian, there was also an unusually large number of fires in Los Angeles. Afraid that his music might in fact turn out to be magic fire music, Wilson destroyed the master.
“I don’t have to do a big scary fire like that. I can do a candle and it’s still a fire. That would have been a really bad vibration to let out on the world, that Chicago fire. The next one is going to be a candle.” ….One with psychiatric inclinations would hear all this stuff about someone who actually believed music could cause fires and start using words like neurosis and maybe psychosis. A true student of spoken hip, however, would say hang-up, which covers all of the above.
As far as Brian’s pretentions toward hipness are concerned, no label could do him more harm,,, In case, whatever his talent, Brian Wilson’s attempt to win a hip following and reputation foundered for many months in an obsessive cycle of creation and destruction that threatened not only his career and his future but also his marriage, his friendships, his relationship with the Beach Boys and, some of his closet friends worried, his mind.“

The story of Smile as foretold on Pet Sounds: "I went through all kinds of changes, took a look at myself and said "That's not me".


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: yonderhillside on January 22, 2016, 06:18:46 PM

The story of Smile as foretold on Pet Sounds: "I went through all kinds of changes, took a look at myself and said "That's not me".

A+


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: rasmus skotte on January 23, 2016, 07:24:26 AM
Or to quote D Cunningham:

>Yon "AIR"... Brian! OY!<


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Mitchell on January 24, 2016, 09:46:03 AM
[
I wish I could find it, but years ago Brian had a Q&A on his webpage, and I asked him what was Earth, Fire, Water, and Air, and he answered it, but it was just a kind of off the top of his head B.S. answer.  It was still really cool for him to stipulate something, though... there's probably a copy of it here on the forum somewhere because I mentioned it before, but he basically mentioned 1 song for each element and I can't remember which was which but one didn't even make any sense.  i'm sure he was just saying whatever, but it was still fascinating to me...

I can't find the source, but I'm sure this can be found on this board somewhere, anyway it was:
MOCW - Fire
Prayer - Air
HV - Earth
Surf's up - Water!
This is very good..each song really represents one elemnent! Will try that in a mix!


Thank you, I  tried to find it the other day and couldn't track it down.  That's really interesting, huh?  Of course I immediately think that's just Brian running something off the top of his head, but.... what if it isn't?  


I'm glad you brought this up. I think it may be worth further thought. If you subscribe to this then you can dispense with the notion that there was an unfinished mythical "Elements Suite" out there.  The important thing is that the Elemental themes came through... And since Fire was the only one tracked as such then that's what made the hand-written track list.

Anyway, I'm rambling a bit but this old post from Brian definitely came to mind as I was reading through the thread.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 24, 2016, 10:55:05 AM
IMO, these late interviews describing The Elements as a track that is itself a suite or four parts (along with Fire being logged as a "part 1") at the time Brian was also reportedly trying to finish the track while listing the track separately along side the usual suspect individual tracks also listed separately argues pretty convincingly against The Elements ultimately being a multi-track concept back in the day of its creation.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 24, 2016, 12:52:08 PM
The Elements was a theme that reoccurred throughout the album, "nature" more than just the four elements really, just like the other three major themes,  childhood/innocence, spirituality, and Americana/history.  So that theme is still represented even with the Elements suite remaining unfinished.  But as Cam points out Brian makes it clear in the spring 67 interviews that the suite was to be composed of four parts and it was unfinished, not that he had decided to restrict it to one element and let other tracks do the job of the other three parts.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 24, 2016, 02:21:37 PM
IMO, these late interviews describing The Elements as a track that is itself a suite or four parts (along with Fire being logged as a "part 1") at the time Brian was also reportedly trying to finish the track while listing the track separately along side the usual suspect individual tracks also listed separately argues pretty convincingly against The Elements ultimately being a multi-track concept back in the day of its creation.

Not to mention what VDP told me back in the early years of this Millennium. I put the then current Smile-as-double-album notion to him, and, to redact his lapidary response to plain English, he said no, the gameplan he was working to was a single album of 10-12 tracks, individually banded with no crossfades or segues at all except internally in one track, which he named as "The Elements". So. There you have it.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Mitchell on January 24, 2016, 02:29:24 PM
I'm not disputing that (and I've not read all the evidence in a long time) but its more that, like many ideas (and Smile itself), perhaps what started as one thing ended up as another.

On that note, and going in a different direction, I feel that Fall Breaks, as one track, could almost be The Elements suite (has Fire, Earth and Air sounds in it). My opinion is not important but it's all interesting to think about.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 24, 2016, 02:36:46 PM
Keep in mind a recent discussion about Peter Brown who reported in the early 80's (before most of the speculation and bootlegs and internet chats and whatnot) that when Paul McCartney visited the US in April 1967 and dropped in on Brian working in the studio, the title Brown gave as what Brian had been working on was "The Four Elements Suite". And we know the day Paul dropped in, Brian had Al cutting a vocal for Vegetables, that was it.

Suite is the key word.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 24, 2016, 02:42:58 PM
I'm not disputing that (and I've not read all the evidence in a long time) but its more that, like many ideas (and Smile itself), perhaps what started as one thing ended up as another.

On that note, and going in a different direction, I feel that Fall Breaks, as one track, could almost be The Elements suite (has Fire, Earth and Air sounds in it). My opinion is not important but it's all interesting to think about.

The joy of Smile: that which began as part of this track could easily become a different part of that track, or possibly become a track on its own.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 24, 2016, 02:51:54 PM
November 1966 Brian had his friends in the studio chanting about vegetables, trying to create underwater sounds, and recording variations based on breathing sounds, aka "air" sounds. Three out of four elements themes in November 1966 getting put onto tape somehow ain't nothing to sneeze at. To me, just as valid as a snapshot of what could have been on the table at that given time as other 'evidence' that may or may not have been anything more than what existed that week as a possibility.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 24, 2016, 02:52:31 PM
Keep in mind a recent discussion about Peter Brown who reported in the early 80's (before most of the speculation and bootlegs and internet chats and whatnot) that when Paul McCartney visited the US in April 1967 and dropped in on Brian working in the studio, the title Brown gave as what Brian had been working on was "The Four Elements Suite". And we know the day Paul dropped in, Brian had Al cutting a vocal for Vegetables, that was it.

Suite is the key word.

On 4/10/67, vocals were also recorded for "Wonderful ['version 3']" and "Child Is Father To The Man ['version 3']", at Sound Recorders. Brian had been working on the vocals for"Vega-Tables" at Sound Recorders (and Columbia) for four straight days before the Macca session (April 4th-7th) and would continue to do so for the next five days. Obsessive much ?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 24, 2016, 03:02:29 PM
The exact day Paul was there was a Vegetables session with Al, so if he went back (or if Paul's traveling companion Mal Evans) and told Brown he saw Brian working on "The Four Elements Suite" and it was Vegetables, it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence that Paul or Mal had been told what they were dropping in on and watching that day. If it were just Vegetables as a standalone song or even a single, Brown would have said "Vegetables" I'd think. Brown was very specific in that title.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 24, 2016, 03:19:44 PM
The exact day Paul was there was a Vegetables session with Al, so if he went back (or if Paul's traveling companion Mal Evans) and told Brown he saw Brian working on "The Four Elements Suite" and it was Vegetables, it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence that Paul or Mal had been told what they were dropping in on and watching that day. If it were just Vegetables as a standalone song or even a single, Brown would have said "Vegetables" I'd think. Brown was very specific in that title.


Again, vocals for two other tracks were also recorded at that session, so Brown could have been referring any one of three songs. Or all three. Or, given the passage of some fifteen odd years, none of them if Brown was misremembering. My point, laboured as it might be, is that the session Paul dropped in at wasn't exclusively for "Vega-Tables".


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 24, 2016, 03:31:23 PM
Al says he was in the vocal booth waiting to do takes as Brian and Paul were talking, forgetting about both the time and apparently that Al was in the booth to cut a vocal. We know Al took the lead vocal on Vegetables which explains why he was the only one at the mic as Paul and Brian hung out, his contributions to the others vocally were much, much less.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 24, 2016, 03:37:20 PM
Can't help you, Sundance...


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 24, 2016, 03:41:48 PM
The fact that Al was in the vocal booth recording vocals for Vegetables when McCartney dropped in is and has been confirmed for years, Al was the only one recording when McCartney showed up. McCartney also left, and later hooked up with Brian and John Phillips to hang out and jam.

Was Al not right in what he said about that session? Or McCartney for that matter? No mention, ever, of Paul meeting with other band members that day. He was in and out as Al was in the vocal booth, then he and Brian hung out later. No mention of other band members.

EDIT: Crossed out the bad info. The rest stands.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 24, 2016, 03:53:27 PM
My bad...here is the interview, Al does say Carl and Dennis were there too...listening to McCartney's new song while Al was in the booth waiting to record Vegetables.

Excerpt:

JM: Going back to Smile, when you were recording “Vegetables”, I understand that Paul McCartney showed up. So Paul McCartney and Brian Wilson are sitting there. What was going through your mind when you have two of the greatest songwriters ever listening to you sing?

AJ: Well, actually Paul took over the production on that particular song. It was pretty late, and I was really anxious to get home because we had to go out and tour the next morning. So my memory of it is exasperation that Brian and Paul couldn’t seem to get on with the song, so I said a couple of probably nasty words. [In annoyed voice] “Can we get this thing over with, please? We have to get up and go to work tomorrow.” Like that [laughs]. Oh, I remember what I did Mary Ann – I’m talking to my wife. I whistled really loud into the microphone. And I can really whistle, ask anybody. I can bring the dogs in from the hill. And both of them just stopped and jerked and looked up at me. They were just… you can only imagine the two of them talking about music. And they’re not going on tour. They’re both hanging out in L.A., and the rest of us have to do a 25, 30 day tour. So anyway, oh man, I got their attention [laughs], then Paul took over.

Then he played us a song at the piano, which I missed because I was listening to the play back. You know, I wanted to make sure I got my lead right. So he and Brian are out at the piano with Carl and Dennis. It was “A Day in the Life”. So I came out and I said, “Hey, can you play it again?” And by that time Paul was gone. I must’ve been wonderful to hear, but I had my “Vegetables” song. And that was not the one they did on Smile. That was a post-Smile production. Or maybe that was a single, I don’t know. Maybe that was the flip-side of “Heroes and Villains”. I’ll have to go check the single. By the way, I played the water bottles on that, or soft drink bottles. I filled them up at different levels to get a perfect triad. [Sings] Da-da-da.


Link to full interview with Al, 2014:
http://music-illuminati.com/interview-al-jardine/ (http://music-illuminati.com/interview-al-jardine/)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 24, 2016, 03:58:43 PM
I'll go with what Al said.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 24, 2016, 04:16:28 PM
What tour did Al leave for the next morning?

Also Al put the end of SMiLE pre-April Veg.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 24, 2016, 04:19:31 PM
What tour did Al leave for the next morning?

http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs67.html (http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs67.html)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 24, 2016, 04:44:03 PM
What tour did Al leave for the next morning?

http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs67.html (http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs67.html)

Ah, I see they left on the 11th for the date on the 14th with no vocals sessions between.

If it were a post-SMiLE session wouldn't that argue against it being a SMiLE session toward The Elements?  Or did I misunderstand again?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: zosobird on January 24, 2016, 08:47:43 PM
What tour did Al leave for the next morning?

Also Al put the end of SMiLE pre-April Veg.

This really, really stands out to me.

Think about the RE-recording of Vega-tables AND Wonderful AND Child is Father of the Man...VT with it's significantly simplified instrumentation compared to the rest of the SMiLE tracks, it was also just the BB's on those sessions (sans the tag), right? It was that simplified production technique that led towards Smiley Smile. 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 24, 2016, 11:45:13 PM
Ah, I see they left on the 11th for the date on the 14th with no vocals sessions between.

Ummm... Cam ?

11 - Smile session: Tones (Part #3) [Western] (x)
11 - Smile session: Vega-Tables ['chorus 1' and '2nd chorus' vocals - Sound Recorders]

12 - Smile session: Vega-Tables ['insert part 4' (SR) and 'fade part 4' GS): 2 sessions - Gold Star & Sound Recorders]

13 - Smile session: Vega-Tables [vocals - Sound Recorders] [BW]
13 - Smile session: Vega-Tables [cancelled] [Western]
13 - Mississippi State University, Starkville MS

Note that the vocal session on the 13th is for Brian alone (of course) indicating that the 11th date was most likely a band session (they would have flown out on the 12th).

By the end of April, there were reports in the UK music press that "Vegetables" would be the new single, not "H&V", which would explain both the frenzied work on said song, and the LA Farmer's Market  photoshoot. I feel the evidence listed here against the 4/10 session being for "The Elements" is much stronger than a 15-year-old second hand recollection. This is, of course, merely my notion and not to be taken - or presented - as irrefutable.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: The Shift on January 25, 2016, 12:01:31 AM
So Al was a little confused as to when they were departing for the tour? He blew Macca out because he got his diary dates a little muddled?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 25, 2016, 12:10:11 AM
There are also people who recall the song that Macca played was "She's Leaving Home", which would make more sense than "ADITL", being both a song of his, and somewhat easier to preview on a piano. Again, pick your source.  :)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on January 25, 2016, 12:22:44 AM
There are also people who recall the song that Macca played was "She's Leaving Home", which would make more sense than "ADITL", being both a song of his, and somewhat easier to preview on a piano. Again, pick your source.  :)

That would also make sense why Brian became so fond of SLH, fond enough to nearly record a duplicate of it when he recorded "Where is She?" not long thereafter.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on January 25, 2016, 12:29:43 AM
The fact that Al was in the vocal booth recording vocals for Vegetables when McCartney dropped in is and has been confirmed for years, Al was the only one recording when McCartney showed up. McCartney also left, and later hooked up with Brian and John Phillips to hang out and jam.

Was Al not right in what he said about that session? Or McCartney for that matter? No mention, ever, of Paul meeting with other band members that day. He was in and out as Al was in the vocal booth, then he and Brian hung out later. No mention of other band members.

EDIT: Crossed out the bad info. The rest stands.

If Mike had been there too, perhaps he and Paul could've gotten to talking, which could have inspired Paul in writing yet another Beatles song, a fact which Mike then could also subsequently remind everybody in every single interview from that point on  ;D


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 25, 2016, 05:22:07 AM
Ah, I see they left on the 11th for the date on the 14th with no vocals sessions between.

Ummm... Cam ?

11 - Smile session: Tones (Part #3) [Western] (x)
11 - Smile session: Vega-Tables ['chorus 1' and '2nd chorus' vocals - Sound Recorders]

12 - Smile session: Vega-Tables ['insert part 4' (SR) and 'fade part 4' GS): 2 sessions - Gold Star & Sound Recorders]

13 - Smile session: Vega-Tables [vocals - Sound Recorders] [BW]
13 - Smile session: Vega-Tables [cancelled] [Western]
13 - Mississippi State University, Starkville MS

Note that the vocal session on the 13th is for Brian alone (of course) indicating that the 11th date was most likely a band session (they would have flown out on the 12th).

By the end of April, there were reports in the UK music press that "Vegetables" would be the new single, not "H&V", which would explain both the frenzied work on said song, and the LA Farmer's Market  photoshoot. I feel the evidence listed here against the 4/10 session being for "The Elements" is much stronger than a 15-year-old second hand recollection. This is, of course, merely my notion and not to be taken - or presented - as irrefutable.

TSS shows Al as a vocalist at the April 12 sessions if I'm reading it right.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 25, 2016, 06:45:59 AM
What tour did Al leave for the next morning?

Also Al put the end of SMiLE pre-April Veg.

This really, really stands out to me.

Think about the RE-recording of Vega-tables AND Wonderful AND Child is Father of the Man...VT with it's significantly simplified instrumentation compared to the rest of the SMiLE tracks, it was also just the BB's on those sessions (sans the tag), right? It was that simplified production technique that led towards Smiley Smile. 

Al has the big picture points right but maybe confused some fine detail.

Decades ago there was a brilliant younger man from Kansas, I forget his name, who pointed out evidence that SMiLE was cancelled long before the May announcement, before the April Veg sessions, and even before the 3rd week in March when the Wilson's took a contract on the Bellagio house.  It's nice (for him, whoever he was, I mean) to see further confirmation.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 25, 2016, 07:35:16 AM
What tour did Al leave for the next morning?

Also Al put the end of SMiLE pre-April Veg.

This really, really stands out to me.

Think about the RE-recording of Vega-tables AND Wonderful AND Child is Father of the Man...VT with it's significantly simplified instrumentation compared to the rest of the SMiLE tracks, it was also just the BB's on those sessions (sans the tag), right? It was that simplified production technique that led towards Smiley Smile. 

Al has the big picture points right but maybe confused some fine detail.

Decades ago there was a brilliant younger man from Kansas, I forget his name, who pointed out evidence that SMiLE was cancelled long before the May announcement, before the April Veg sessions, and even before the 3rd week in March when the Wilson's took a contract on the Bellagio house.  It's nice (for him, whoever he was, I mean) to see further confirmation.
Al would be a good source, I think.  And there may be many versions of when this project was cancelled.  Smiley remains a "subset" of the project, for me, with the various tracks that came out.  If the main tracks as we have become familiar with were released, I cannot imagine them fitting on one LP, even purely for counting the minutes. 

It would likely mean leaving off longer tracks such as GV, which was an anchor.  One single track? It might have been a new model...but if you are dividing "elements" concepts, it seems difficult to do.  Aren't medleys (entirely different songs) sort of blended in that manner?  Someone with the sound engineering background might be able to answer that question which might be a dumb one.

The double LP concept was one that was a very new in 1967. LPs were often used for classical music and Broadway shows or soundtracks for movies for the capacity to offer a more complete work. And it sure beat flipping over a bunch of 45s.  But,  what seemed lacking was "confidence" in the project to make a go of it, and not that it lacked quality.  It would have been bold.  ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 07:54:31 AM
Al is a good source because he was actually there when McCartney showed up. The part that gets left out sometimes is from the accounts I've seen, McCartney didn't spend all day at that studio, as Al said he was there as Al was doing the vocal at the mic, they were playing back the track for Al, McCartney was talking with Brian and showing the Wilson brothers some of the tracks he was working on with the Beatles, and by the time he came out of the vocal booth McCartney was gone. He reconnected with Brian later for the jam session.

Isn't it possible McCartney showed them several songs that could have included both She's Leaving Home and A Day In The Life? It's all guessing and speculation, so it's not out of the question. Maybe Paul played the section he wrote, "woke up, fell out of bed..." from Day In The Life. We just don't know.

Both Mal Evans and Paul shot home movies during this trip to the US. Some of Mal's has survived. Paul's, unfortunately, I believe was stolen or lost and has never been seen. Imagine if they shot film of either this session or the jam session with the Phillip's...


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 25, 2016, 08:24:20 AM
What is Brown's quote?  He would be secondhand at best it seems. Is there a quote from Evans or Paul?

Al's story doesn't make a connection with The Elements and Vegetables is post-SMiLE if anything according to him. Al seems to refute Brown. Or did I miss something? 

Even if Brown was right, which seems very doubtful imo, he doesn't identiify which song of three he was led to believe was for The Elements.  Did Al not sing on the other two songs recorded that day?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 08:36:46 AM
Why is what Brown said "doubtful"? Al says he was recording Vegetables as McCartney showed up. That seemed to be in doubt earlier in the discussion, but it's pretty clear fact at this point that Al was recording a vocal to Vegetables. The fact that he was recording in the vocal booth and listening to playbacks so he got his lead vocal right also prevented him from knowing exactly what Brian and Paul were discussing, unless one of them got on the talkback mic. As soon as Al was finished, McCartney had left. Everything else, from which songs Paul mentioned or played, to whatever Brian told Paul or Mal or whatever they heard, is at this point speculation unless it was recorded. And 99.99999999% chance it was not. Filmed, perhaps...not recorded.

Al admits he didn't know or didn't recall what version it was, but check the available recordings we have and line them up with whatever incarnation Vegetables was in as of April 10th 1967, listen if possible, and it's as simple as that. If a particular version did not exist until June or whenever, then we know it wasn't that one. Al has said before, about other sessions, that some of them to him did not have a context beyond what he was in the studio that day to record. He had a part, he'd record it, and it was done as far as his contribution, and Brian would put it together. It was just like any number of the session players have said, they'd do their parts and be done, and often the first time they heard what the played in context was on the radio or on an album. They were adding parts...it could have been the album version, the single version, or something that wasn't even used.

It's not rocket science.

And what Brown said specifically is in the book "The Love You Make".


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 08:52:16 AM
If the news reports of the day are any help in piecing this stuff together, a few years ago I collected a timeline of these and posted the clippings with the dates they were published. This is the link to the full set:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10389.0.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10389.0.html)

And specific to Vegetables being a single, and other factors, here are a few selections:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/april211967.jpg)

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/april281967.jpg)

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/august41967.jpg)


For those wondering about why something wasn't released as a placeholder or a stop-gap release between the GV single and Smiley Smile (or a possible Smile release), these news reports clearly say the lawsuit put everything on hold as far as Beach Boys releases.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 25, 2016, 08:56:54 AM
If the news reports of the day are any help in piecing this stuff together, a few years ago I collected a timeline of these and posted the clippings with the dates they were published. This is the link to the full set:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10389.0.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10389.0.html)

And specific to Vegetables being a single, and other factors, here are a few selections:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/april211967.jpg)

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/april281967.jpg)

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/august41967.jpg)


For those wondering about why something wasn't released as a placeholder or a stop-gap release between the GV single and Smiley Smile (or a possible Smile release), these news reports clearly say the lawsuit put everything on hold as far as Beach Boys releases.
First clip, I think is wrong.  They went to the UK around May 1st of 1967.  

And the third one leaves the reader thinking that the establishment of Brother was Capitol's idea.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 09:11:32 AM
As I've written here many times, the formation of Brother Records under the control of the Beach Boys but still under the Capitol umbrella was part of the agreement that settled the lawsuit. That's why the contract was reworked. Brother was being organized, planned, and formed since late 1966, credit to those doing the work that they were able to audit Capitol's books and find out the band was being ripped off. The settlement of the suit allowed the band to formally set up "Brother Records" as their own entity within the Capitol contracts.

The lawsuit held up new releases from the time it was filed to the time it was settled, which explains why the band didn't release anything new between GV and Heroes/Smiley in summer '67. They couldn't.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 25, 2016, 09:12:36 AM
Why is what Brown said "doubtful"? Al says he was recording Vegetables as McCartney showed up. That seemed to be in doubt earlier in the discussion, but it's pretty clear fact at this point that Al was recording a vocal to Vegetables. The fact that he was recording in the vocal booth and listening to playbacks so he got his lead vocal right also prevented him from knowing exactly what Brian and Paul were discussing, unless one of them got on the talkback mic. As soon as Al was finished, McCartney had left. Everything else, from which songs Paul mentioned or played, to whatever Brian told Paul or Mal or whatever they heard, is at this point speculation unless it was recorded. And 99.99999999% chance it was not. Filmed, perhaps...not recorded.

Al admits he didn't know or didn't recall what version it was, but check the available recordings we have and line them up with whatever incarnation Vegetables was in as of April 10th 1967, listen if possible, and it's as simple as that. If a particular version did not exist until June or whenever, then we know it wasn't that one. Al has said before, about other sessions, that some of them to him did not have a context beyond what he was in the studio that day to record. He had a part, he'd record it, and it was done as far as his contribution, and Brian would put it together. It was just like any number of the session players have said, they'd do their parts and be done, and often the first time they heard what the played in context was on the radio or on an album. They were adding parts...it could have been the album version, the single version, or something that wasn't even used.

It's not rocket science.

And what Brown said specifically is in the book "The Love You Make".

Brown is a secondhand witness is why in my opinion.

Al isn't sure if it was for the post-SMiLE album or the post-SMiLE single, which either way is post-SMiLE.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 25, 2016, 09:19:48 AM
Taking Alan as a reliable source... did he say he was working on "The Elements" ? Has Macca ever stated he dropped into a session for "The Elements" ? No, and no. Both clearly state it was "Vegetables". None of the press at the timemention "The Elements". Sometimes it's what's not said that's significant. The only elemental reference is a second hand one some fifteen years later. If I had to, I'd say Brown was misremembering.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 25, 2016, 09:21:16 AM
As I've written here many times, the formation of Brother Records under the control of the Beach Boys but still under the Capitol umbrella was part of the agreement that settled the lawsuit. That's why the contract was reworked. Brother was being organized, planned, and formed since late 1966, credit to those doing the work that they were able to audit Capitol's books and find out the band was being ripped off. The settlement of the suit allowed the band to formally set up "Brother Records" as their own entity within the Capitol contracts.

The lawsuit held up new releases from the time it was filed to the time it was settled, which explains why the band didn't release anything new between GV and Heroes/Smiley in summer '67. They couldn't.
GF -  I get what you are saying but these articles are not accurate. They are sloppy.  And people should not rely on them especially for research.  


The last one suggests a reformation of the contract with some modifications.   Not sure "Vegetable" (as was written in the second article) had the voltage to be a hit single.  "Stop-gap" is a very good term.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 09:40:55 AM
The issues with the lawsuit as detailed in those columns above pretty much slam the door shut on the notion that the band could or should have released something/anything during this time, as well as silence the criticism (implied or stated outright) leveled at various people involved as to why didn't the band release anything. The whole ball of wax between the band and Capitol got engulfed by the lawsuit and by the legalities involved in settling it. There simply could not be a "new" release during these months in '67 even if everyone wanted one, because of the lawsuit. As soon as that got settled, Brother Records became official, both sides agreed on the settlement, and the existing contracts were revised and updated. Then, mid summer 1967, the next new Beach Boys single appeared on Brother Records. It's really not that complicated.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 25, 2016, 10:17:25 AM
The issues with the lawsuit as detailed in those columns above pretty much slam the door shut on the notion that the band could or should have released something/anything during this time, as well as silence the criticism (implied or stated outright) leveled at various people involved as to why didn't the band release anything. The whole ball of wax between the band and Capitol got engulfed by the lawsuit and by the legalities involved in settling it. There simply could not be a "new" release during these months in '67 even if everyone wanted one, because of the lawsuit. As soon as that got settled, Brother Records became official, both sides agreed on the settlement, and the existing contracts were revised and updated. Then, mid summer 1967, the next new Beach Boys single appeared on Brother Records. It's really not that complicated.
GF - Here is the problem with this week between April 21 and 28th of 1967 - or dates of two of the clips.  Their "news" was eclipsed by a couple of "biggies" - IMDB has Inside Pop, airing on April 25, 1967.  Carl was arrested on April 26, 1967, and released that week.  It was not a "slow news week" for The Beach Boys.  It was on national news.

Of course, the Pet Sounds nonsense in the Spring/Summer of 1966, sent them to the drawing board for meetings for "getting creative" for creative control.  

But the way it reads, from a radio station personality is that it was fed to them (the music stations) as a press release (probably from Capitol) and from there it was woven into something the radio station had as news for the listeners.  It is slanted to represent the BRI was Capitol's brain child.  It looks like a weekly publication from the dates a week apart but they had the European concert schedule all wrong.  It seemed they were touring in the States and doing sessions at that time.  I was paying particular attention that week. (probably not to math)   It was the first time I had seen them.   :lol


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 10:24:38 AM
The main point is that for all the questions and critiques, the band could not release anything new as a single or an album or even a placeholder until the lawsuit was settled. As soon as it was, they did.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 25, 2016, 10:37:57 AM
The main point is that for all the questions and critiques, the band could not release anything new as a single or an album or even a placeholder until the lawsuit was settled. As soon as it was, they did.
GF - notwithstanding that their "hands were tied," during the pendency of the suit, for me, as discussed earlier, was, that any singles (LP's) were not appropriately promoted with TV coverage that was done at the corporate level. And that was pre and post BRI incorporation, spanning from late 1965 to early 1968.  

Given that the band was established 1961-2, three years of anemic promotion was close to half their career by that point in time.  

The dates of the sessions and the concert schedule are not unimportant for those who follow how this Smile project unfolded.  It impeaches the credibility of the information flow.  

There should have been smart fans writing in op-eds calling them out on their sloppiness with regard the tour schedule. Or, calling in to the radio station who was responsible.  The fans were not illiterate.  You can bet if it were The Beatles it would have happened.  Just sayin'.  ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 25, 2016, 10:44:24 AM
I'm guessing the Elements reference has more to do with the book's author Gaines than Brown or anyone else.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 11:31:25 AM
As one of those who has been following and researching the history of the Smile project for the better part of 25+ years, I can definitively say that leaving the "s" off of "Vegetables" and reporting something about tour dates is not grounds to dismiss everything factual written in those articles. The info about the lawsuit is accurate, that is what happened and that is what held up a lot of the band's activities during this time, and also had implications beyond just a new release. It answers several questions related to this specific time that start with "why didn't they...". Ultimately the band won that case and got Brother Records along with the back payments as settled.

I can also say that if such typos and errors were used to dismiss entirely the contents of any given article, report, interview quote, or similar source, there would be absolutely nothing left to research or consider as a primary source or eyewitness account regarding this band, Smile, or much else up to the present day. We could look at interviews as current as 2016 so far, find something in there that doesn't jive with the facts or dates or even accepted truth, and say "we must throw it all away, that one point was wrong."

What (or who) then would be left as a credible source?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 25, 2016, 12:01:12 PM
As one of those who has been following and researching the history of the Smile project for the better part of 25+ years, I can definitively say that leaving the "s" off of "Vegetables" and reporting something about tour dates is not grounds to dismiss everything factual written in those articles. The info about the lawsuit is accurate, that is what happened and that is what held up a lot of the band's activities during this time, and also had implications beyond just a new release. It answers several questions related to this specific time that start with "why didn't they...". Ultimately the band won that case and got Brother Records along with the back payments as settled.

I can also say that if such typos and errors were used to dismiss entirely the contents of any given article, report, interview quote, or similar source, there would be absolutely nothing left to research or consider as a primary source or eyewitness account regarding this band, Smile, or much else up to the present day. We could look at interviews as current as 2016 so far, find something in there that doesn't jive with the facts or dates or even accepted truth, and say "we must throw it all away, that one point was wrong."

What (or who) then would be left as a credible source?
GF - of course the "s" missing is of little consequence.  But, if, up to that time, in the Spring of 1967, there was hardly a more historic and newsworthy week for this band;  Inside Pop, Carl's arrest and release.  It is conspicuous by it's absence.  These two events were nationally televised.  The Beach Boys were notoriously under-covered or under-reported by the media.  Just because there is little available should not mean every word should be taken as meritorious.  I would have believed it at the time, but not today.   

They reported non-news.  Within a week's time, there is material being held up from release (April 21) and next week (April 28) it is "Vegetable" - followed in August (4th) by the sanitized version of the settlement.  But it talks about Heroes being released in Britain and not the US. 

There could have been some promo in those articles about Inside Pop. There was certainly lead time.  The arrest of Carl in NY, maybe not as no one knew when that might happen. 

There are many ways to keep media things alive without a new record and that would be TV appearances during the Fall/Winter of 1966-7 in the US, featuring under promoted WIBN and GOK with a finale of GV.  Those recordings were out and apparently not in contention.   Just sayin'.  ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 12:40:41 PM
I didn't copy and clip every week's issue of this publication. But I've seen them and have them available. In subsequent issues, dated going into May, the same column reported on "Then I Kissed Her" going in as the "new" Beach Boys single to coincide with their UK tour at that time. It also mentioned "Vegetables", as they got the "s" on it this time, possibly not being the next single. It was information being sorted out and reported as it came in. The same column also reported on Paul and Mal's trip to the US in early April, again in an issue not listed above.

Lo and behold, in one of the May issues the same column reported Carl's surrendering to the FBI in New York and his issues with the draft. The same column below has speculations about Bob Dylan's disappearance, and goes on to report what fans years later would know as "The Basement Tapes", but when that story was new and rumors were flying, the thought was Dylan had not yet recovered from his accident and was "in seclusion" in a rural farmhouse near Woodstock, New York. Later, we found out exactly what he was doing there and who he was with.

So these kinds of columns and reports were pretty good in reporting what they were hearing on the streets. They didn't have the benefit of instant media reporting via TV or internet, obviously, so the information could be delayed several weeks between the event and having it published in these articles.

But they did report on Carl and the draft, and followed up on Vegetables' status as a possible single. That status seemed to only last a brief period.

Inside Pop was CBS News, if a particular station were outside the CBS network, they would be less likely to promote it. As Johnny Carson used to say "on another network...", because NBC wouldn't want their hosts promoting the competition.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 25, 2016, 01:06:46 PM
I didn't copy and clip every week's issue of this publication. But I've seen them and have them available. In subsequent issues, dated going into May, the same column reported on "Then I Kissed Her" going in as the "new" Beach Boys single to coincide with their UK tour at that time. It also mentioned "Vegetables", as they got the "s" on it this time, possibly not being the next single. It was information being sorted out and reported as it came in. The same column also reported on Paul and Mal's trip to the US in early April, again in an issue not listed above.

Lo and behold, in one of the May issues the same column reported Carl's surrendering to the FBI in New York and his issues with the draft. The same column below has speculations about Bob Dylan's disappearance, and goes on to report what fans years later would know as "The Basement Tapes", but when that story was new and rumors were flying, the thought was Dylan had not yet recovered from his accident and was "in seclusion" in a rural farmhouse near Woodstock, New York. Later, we found out exactly what he was doing there and who he was with.

So these kinds of columns and reports were pretty good in reporting what they were hearing on the streets. They didn't have the benefit of instant media reporting via TV or internet, obviously, so the information could be delayed several weeks between the event and having it published in these articles.

But they did report on Carl and the draft, and followed up on Vegetables' status as a possible single. That status seemed to only last a brief period.

Inside Pop was CBS News, if a particular station were outside the CBS network, they would be less likely to promote it. As Johnny Carson used to say "on another network...", because NBC wouldn't want their hosts promoting the competition.
GF - No one expect a clipping of everything.  Certainly not me.  But this arises out of pure frustration as to why there was this void.  Bernstein (or whomever) was very clever calling the program, Inside Pop instead of Inside Rock.  They softened the title, maybe to disarm the concept for parents.  And, the huge take-away was all those others who tuned in to see the other musicians such as Janis Ian, and,  who were not Brian Wilson, and who thought the Beach Boys were dorks, got a glimpse of the genius at the helm. 

CBS was huge.  And there was no internet to democratize on Youtube what happened on that program.  But, for that time, it was amazing. Everyone who loved music watched it because someone they liked was going to be featured. Ed Sullivan open the door to these musicians, and Bernstein walked right through it.

But there was a vacuum which if filled at the time, with TV appearances would have kept the momentum which the band had worked so hard to build, growing.  That is the tragedy.  It would have taken little to stop the spiral and made all the difference. I bet it would have made a difference to Brian Wilson to see his music performed on TV.

And, GF -  I appreciate your research.  But have had a long time to think about that dead "media" void, that was absolutely unnecessary and what might have changed it to promote the Pet Sounds' singles, reversing the non-action of Capitol as well as GV, which had been hugely successful.  ;)     


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 25, 2016, 02:04:07 PM
Also Al put the end of SMiLE pre-April Veg.

But is he right about that? He isn't really sure even what version ov V-T they were working on.

"CIFOTM version 3"... I think it is very likely that that recording was to be a section of either V-T or Wonderful rather than a song of its own as previously planned. IMHO that's Brian's first attempt to salvage that chant before finally using it as a tag to Surf's Up.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 25, 2016, 04:06:07 PM
Also Al put the end of SMiLE pre-April Veg.

But is he right about that? He isn't really sure even what version ov V-T they were working on.


Yes. Yes he is.   ;)

He knew either way that that Veg was post-SMiLE. And we've learned that Al is totally reliable in this interview.  And that isn't the only thing that points to that Veg being post-SMiLE.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 25, 2016, 04:44:29 PM
" And that was not the one they did on Smile. That was a post-Smile production."

So what is the "one they did on Smile?"  He is talking about the one on the Smile sessions box?  And this one in April he was working on was after that, and before the one on Smiley?  Because that's not supported by the tape and session data.

If he's saying this April version was post-Smile, i.e. the Smile project had already been abandoned, the album they were working on was still being referred to as Smile in press reports as late as June and July - he may mean the April version was the start of the Smiley sessions yet the Vegetables tag doesn't really fit in with the homebrewed aesthetic of Smiley.  And if this is the first Smiley version of Vegetables, what was the the one they did on Smile?  Cornucopia?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 25, 2016, 05:56:54 PM
" And that was not the one they did on Smile. That was a post-Smile production."

So what is the "one they did on Smile?"  He is talking about the one on the Smile sessions box?  And this one in April he was working on was after that, and before the one on Smiley?  Because that's not supported by the tape and session data.

If he's saying this April version was post-Smile, i.e. the Smile project had already been abandoned, the album they were working on was still being referred to as Smile in press reports as late as June and July - he may mean the April version was the start of the Smiley sessions yet the Vegetables tag doesn't really fit in with the homebrewed aesthetic of Smiley.  And if this is the first Smiley version of Vegetables, what was the the one they did on Smile?  Cornucopia?

I'm guessing it was for the Vegetables single being touted in the press around the time, as that is sort of reflected in Al's uncertain memory of its post-SMiLE use. The April version may have never been intended for an album, anybody have the Capitol Popular Session Worksheets on those and is the "album" or "single" box checked?

The "cornicopia" Vega-Tables would be SMiLE according to the TSS dating and the later Vegetables is Smiley.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 06:00:31 PM
I didn't copy and clip every week's issue of this publication. But I've seen them and have them available. In subsequent issues, dated going into May, the same column reported on "Then I Kissed Her" going in as the "new" Beach Boys single to coincide with their UK tour at that time. It also mentioned "Vegetables", as they got the "s" on it this time, possibly not being the next single. It was information being sorted out and reported as it came in. The same column also reported on Paul and Mal's trip to the US in early April, again in an issue not listed above.

Lo and behold, in one of the May issues the same column reported Carl's surrendering to the FBI in New York and his issues with the draft. The same column below has speculations about Bob Dylan's disappearance, and goes on to report what fans years later would know as "The Basement Tapes", but when that story was new and rumors were flying, the thought was Dylan had not yet recovered from his accident and was "in seclusion" in a rural farmhouse near Woodstock, New York. Later, we found out exactly what he was doing there and who he was with.

So these kinds of columns and reports were pretty good in reporting what they were hearing on the streets. They didn't have the benefit of instant media reporting via TV or internet, obviously, so the information could be delayed several weeks between the event and having it published in these articles.

But they did report on Carl and the draft, and followed up on Vegetables' status as a possible single. That status seemed to only last a brief period.

Inside Pop was CBS News, if a particular station were outside the CBS network, they would be less likely to promote it. As Johnny Carson used to say "on another network...", because NBC wouldn't want their hosts promoting the competition.
GF - No one expect a clipping of everything.  Certainly not me.  But this arises out of pure frustration as to why there was this void.  Bernstein (or whomever) was very clever calling the program, Inside Pop instead of Inside Rock.  They softened the title, maybe to disarm the concept for parents.  And, the huge take-away was all those others who tuned in to see the other musicians such as Janis Ian, and,  who were not Brian Wilson, and who thought the Beach Boys were dorks, got a glimpse of the genius at the helm. 

CBS was huge.  And there was no internet to democratize on Youtube what happened on that program.  But, for that time, it was amazing. Everyone who loved music watched it because someone they liked was going to be featured. Ed Sullivan open the door to these musicians, and Bernstein walked right through it.

But there was a vacuum which if filled at the time, with TV appearances would have kept the momentum which the band had worked so hard to build, growing.  That is the tragedy.  It would have taken little to stop the spiral and made all the difference. I bet it would have made a difference to Brian Wilson to see his music performed on TV.

And, GF -  I appreciate your research.  But have had a long time to think about that dead "media" void, that was absolutely unnecessary and what might have changed it to promote the Pet Sounds' singles, reversing the non-action of Capitol as well as GV, which had been hugely successful.  ;)     

You commented on this publication not reporting on Carl's issues with the draft, and I came back and said they did, and would be happy to post that specific article.

The frustration for me is you're continually moving the goalposts. How can not reporting on Inside Pop in a music news column serve to discredit anything that column reported? Logic says it can't and it does not. Much like spelling errors, in the long term no one cares. So let's hypothetically throw these articles away too, discredit them because they didn't report on Inside Pop. They reported Carl's CO and draft issues, but for the sake of this thread let's hypothetically declare them sloppy and junk them.

What or who, then, is left as a credible source for information on this specific era? What or who has the credibility to have their word taken above everyone else?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 06:01:33 PM
Also Al put the end of SMiLE pre-April Veg.

But is he right about that? He isn't really sure even what version ov V-T they were working on.


Yes. Yes he is.   ;)

He knew either way that that Veg was post-SMiLE. And we've learned that Al is totally reliable in this interview.  And that isn't the only thing that points to that Veg being post-SMiLE.

Use your ears, Cam, and line up the tracks we have with the session dates of those tracks. It's not rocket science.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 25, 2016, 06:22:14 PM
Also Al put the end of SMiLE pre-April Veg.

But is he right about that? He isn't really sure even what version ov V-T they were working on.


Yes. Yes he is.   ;)

He knew either way that that Veg was post-SMiLE. And we've learned that Al is totally reliable in this interview.  And that isn't the only thing that points to that Veg being post-SMiLE.

Use your ears, Cam, and line up the tracks we have with the session dates of those tracks. It's not rocket science.

That's what I'm doing.  What are your ears telling you?   Are we questioning Al's witness?  What isn't rocket science.......I'm not sure what you mean?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 06:25:32 PM
To simplify it:

"Cornucopia" Vega-Tables was late October 1966, the Vegetables chants and the "argument" session with Blaine and Vosse followed a few weeks later in November 1966.

The more fully orchestrated Vegetables was recorded April 1967. This was the version closest to Heroes in that Brian recorded numerous separate sections of the song and even experimented with test edits of how to put the pieces together in a working sequence.

The Smiley Smile version was recorded in June 1967 and features the jug pouring, bottles being blown into, etc. It borrowed one of the April 1967 version's more fully orchestrated sections to use in the coda. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

Again, just listen to all of these versions, you can easily pick out which ones are which. The only sections perhaps not as readily available are the test edits.

It's not rocket science. April 1967 was not Smiley Smile's version, you can hear the difference easily.

If Al thought what he did in April was what was done in June, he and the band were on a long tour of the US and then Europe immediately after he cut those vocals in April. It's not grounds to throw everything he said out the window or discredit his words entirely.





Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 25, 2016, 06:42:38 PM
EDIT: Sorry, Guitarfool! Connection problems meant this ended up getting online moments after your very similar breakdown of recording!

Very interesting discussion. Have been away for a few days, but did Bicycle Rider ever locate the quote (from circa April '67) about Brian being 'working on The Elements' at that time? Have taken a quick read of the intervening pages but couldn't spot it if so. If that quote does exist, it would surely constitute a 'primary source' back-up to Brown's later recollections about BW working on 'The Elements Suite' when McCartney visited the studio - and was present as Al worked on Vegetables.

My gut tells me that Cam is onto something with the notion that the 'Smile' Veggies is Cornucopia (taped, possibly, in October), presumably the same version recalled in Teen Set by Vosse as follows: 'a funky, silly, joyous little ode to VEGA-TABLES. A young pop artist is commissioned to do a vega-table painting for the album, and the Wilson creative process continues.'

If Al is correct (and implied by the clipping posted by Guitarfool above) then the April version is a 'post-Smile' single version intended to replace 'Heroes and Villians' as a 45 release, when Brian 'decided [he was] unhappy with [H&V's] overall sound and... dumped it'.

Which would make 'Vegetables', as released on Smiley Smile, the third distinct version of the song to be attempted, and the only one to be completed to the band's satisfaction.

Then again, my gut tells me a diet consisting exclusively of red wine and spaghetti is a good idea, so I'm not sure it should entirely be trusted. How this all relates to whatever 'Elements' material Brian may have been recording in April 1967 rather depends on locating the clipping from LLVS in which he apparently discusses it.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 25, 2016, 06:56:08 PM
To simplify it:

"Cornucopia" Vega-Tables was late October 1966, the Vegetables chants and the "argument" session with Blaine and Vosse followed a few weeks later in November 1966.

The more fully orchestrated Vegetables was recorded April 1967. This was the version closest to Heroes in that Brian recorded numerous separate sections of the song and even experimented with test edits of how to put the pieces together in a working sequence.

The Smiley Smile version was recorded in June 1967 and features the jug pouring, bottles being blown into, etc. It borrowed one of the April 1967 version's more fully orchestrated sections to use in the coda. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

Again, just listen to all of these versions, you can easily pick out which ones are which. The only sections perhaps not as readily available are the test edits.

It's not rocket science. April 1967 was not Smiley Smile's version, you can hear the difference easily.

If Al thought what he did in April was what was done in June, he and the band were on a long tour of the US and then Europe immediately after he cut those vocals in April. It's not grounds to throw everything he said out the window or discredit his words entirely.





With all due respect to our ears, I don't think they are going to be definitive in this case.  By that criteria my ears would probably tell me the October version was the Smiley version.

I didn't say The April version was the Smiley version, I said the June Smiley version was the Smiley version.  I said the October version would be the SMiLE version.  

I'm agreeing with Al that what he/they did in April was post-SMiLE and also probably for a single, the new " ‘Vege-tables’ (the spelling may be wrong) a light and lyrical day-to-day green-grocer song on which AL JARDINE sings a most vigorous lead" single Disc & Music Echo revealed in their April 22 issue (which info probably came from sometime between April 18 and 11 or earlier).


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 25, 2016, 07:19:02 PM
Quote
With all due respect to our ears, I don't think they are going to be definitive in this case.  By that criteria my ears would probably tell me the October version was the Smiley version.

I didn't say The April version was the Smiley version, I said the June Smiley version was the Smiley version.  I said the October version would be the SMiLE version.  

I'm agreeing with Al that what he/they did in April was post-SMiLE and also probably for a single, the new " ‘Vege-tables’ (the spelling may be wrong) a light and lyrical day-to-day green-grocer song on which AL JARDINE sings a most vigorous lead" single Disc & Music Echo revealed in their April 22 issue (which info probably came from sometime between April 18 and 11 or earlier).

Again, for what it's worth (and I concede that's probably very little) I'm leaning toward what Cam suggests here. Interestingly, on the subject of what 'our ears hear', here's Vosse in '69:

'Vegetables" is another one that could have been, but wasn't quite, but almost was. On Smiley Smile, though, it's really pretty close to the way it was meant to be done...'

Now, to my ears at least - much as Cam suggests above - the 'Cornucopia' and 'Smiley Smile' versions of the song (laidback, limited musical backing, short'n'simple) are much closer to each other than the intervening GV/H&V-style 'modular' version they seem to have been working toward in April. So Vosse's comments support the idea of 'Cornucopia' as the ur-Veggies, the general approach to which was returned to in late '67 for Smiley, with the April version the anomaly. The years of bootlegged and official 'Vegetables' mixes, since 1993, which concentrate on the more complex April material well may have warped our views on what should constitute a 'legitimate' 'Smile-era' Veggies.




Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 07:21:25 PM
Consider what I've already said about the "Vegetables" possibility as a single. If the articles are read in sequence (including ones I didn't clip and post), the span of time where Vegetables was thought to be a single was very short, a few weeks if that. This is backed up as the articles state Vegetables would replace H&V, then not more than a few weeks later they reported that would not be the case. In LLVS there are several clippings where Brian and maybe even Mike if I'm remembering dismiss the claim that Vegetables would be the next single. Then further articles/clippings returned to H&V being the next single.

Once again, it looks like so much else to be a case of a snapshot of a moment in time where plans that were on the table were mentioned, reported (or put down on paper), and very soon after the plans changed. This is exactly what looks like happened with Vegetables. When Al did that vocal, he may have assumed it was for a single, or like Heroes that Brian was going to take all of the parts (and there were quite a few) and edit them into something as he did GV. Or maybe some parts would be something else.

One article says McCartney heard what would be the flip side of a new single demo'ed in the studio via band members humming the theme. Who knows what that could have been...pure speculation at this point.

But in April 1967 Vegetables seems to have been many things that would have been assembled in theory as the band was on tour, or at least something would have had a place for that song they had recorded multiple sections for in April. Obviously, whatever plans for a single of Vegetables were changed in a short period of time and then those plans were refuted by band members via interviews.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 07:35:17 PM
I guess the point could be taken as this: Look at the confusion around all this. Look at how pieces of Vegetables were recorded, re-recorded, then ended up not only in Vegetables but in later songs too (thinking something like Do A Lot which had multiple variations). If Al Jardine looks back at this session, he might have very vivid and accurate memories about the time McCartney showed up. He might recall exact details, and he did in several interviews.

If we have so much data and info available in retrospect, and are having a hard time trying to piece it together, look at it from where Al was in April 1967. He's in the studio cutting a lead vocal for a song Vegetables. There already was a Vegetables from the fall of '66 and other vegetables related things going on. Now it's April, immediately after the sessions he and the band are gone on a rather long tour of both the US and Europe. They're not present to see what was going on in LA regarding these sessions. Then - word of Vegetables as a single gets reported in various press outlets - and a few weeks later is basically retracted. Heroes is back on tap as the single.

Now they're back in June 67, another Vegetables session. Then not long after that, different Vegetables sessions. Different tracks, same song. Then Brian edits in one of the April Vegetables tracks into this "new" session.

Let me suggest again, if Al's description of Vegetables' various versions would be suggested as grounds to refute other info that he provided in the conversation, it's not grounds enough to do so considering what we can look back and see was a pretty tangled web of a song's history. To Al, Vegetables was the song he worked on in April and picked up on again after the tour ended and they reconvened in June. At some point, the exact days and whatnot don't stand out as much as specific memories like the session with McCartney. That's more than understandable, and again not grounds enough to refute the man's memories based on us not seeing these Vegetables versions line up with our various timelines and session notes.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 25, 2016, 07:35:41 PM
Quote
If the articles are read in sequence (including ones I didn't clip and post), the span of time where Vegetables was thought to be a single was very short, a few weeks if that.

Sure, but isn't this in line with the actual recording history too? The 'Vega-Tables' sessions in April only last for 'a few weeks if that' (actually, only nine days, 4-12 April) and these intersect both with the dates given by Al Jardine in the relevant interview, and the articles which suggest this was to be the next single. So I can't see how these clippings contradict the notion that the 'April sessions' were for an aborted, 'post-Smile' single version of Veggies, presumably to replace H&V as a 45 release. I agree that plans obviously changed - as seems to have been pretty common in early '67 - but again, I can't see how what you've posted above discounts a brief attempt at Veggies as a 'post-Smile' A-side, before the focus shifted toward something else/back to H&V.

Of course, I may well be misunderstanding your argument completely, in which case I apologise.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 07:37:35 PM
Quote
If the articles are read in sequence (including ones I didn't clip and post), the span of time where Vegetables was thought to be a single was very short, a few weeks if that.

Sure, but isn't this in line with the actual recording history too? The 'Vega-Tables' sessions in April only last for 'a few weeks if that' (actually, only nine days, 4-12 April) and these intersect both with the dates given by Al Jardine in the relevant interview, and the articles which suggest this was to be the next single. So I can't see how these clippings contradict the notion that the 'April sessions' were for an aborted, 'post-Smile' single version of Veggies, presumably to replace H&V as a 45 release. I agree that plans obviously changed - as seems to have been pretty common in early '67 - but again, I can't see how what you've posted above discounts a brief attempt at Veggies as a 'post-Smile' A-side, before the focus shifted toward something else/back to H&V.

Of course, I may well be misunderstanding your argument completely, in which case I apologise.

When did Derek Taylor's announcement that Smile had been scrapped appear in the press, and in what publication? That for many - existing as an actual public report that the project had been scrapped - might be the point where it was said beyond speculation that Smile was not going to be coming out.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 25, 2016, 07:39:54 PM
Quote
When did Derek Taylor's announcement that Smile had been scrapped appear in the press, and in what publication? That for many - existing as an actual public report that the project had been scrapped - might be the point where it was said beyond speculation that Smile was not going to be coming out.

May 6, Music and Disc Echo.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 25, 2016, 07:41:03 PM
Consider what I've already said about the "Vegetables" possibility as a single. If the articles are read in sequence (including ones I didn't clip and post), the span of time where Vegetables was thought to be a single was very short, a few weeks if that. This is backed up as the articles state Vegetables would replace H&V, then not more than a few weeks later they reported that would not be the case. In LLVS there are several clippings where Brian and maybe even Mike if I'm remembering dismiss the claim that Vegetables would be the next single. Then further articles/clippings returned to H&V being the next single.

Once again, it looks like so much else to be a case of a snapshot of a moment in time where plans that were on the table were mentioned, reported (or put down on paper), and very soon after the plans changed. This is exactly what looks like happened with Vegetables. When Al did that vocal, he may have assumed it was for a single, or like Heroes that Brian was going to take all of the parts (and there were quite a few) and edit them into something as he did GV. Or maybe some parts would be something else.

One article says McCartney heard what would be the flip side of a new single demo'ed in the studio via band members humming the theme. Who knows what that could have been...pure speculation at this point.

But in April 1967 Vegetables seems to have been many things that would have been assembled in theory as the band was on tour, or at least something would have had a place for that song they had recorded multiple sections for in April. Obviously, whatever plans for a single of Vegetables were changed in a short period of time and then those plans were refuted by band members via interviews.

So just as Al says, when Al recorded his April vocals for Vegetables it was for a single reported in D&ME at the same time (the same week) and it was a post-SMiLE recording. Later plans changed and were still post-SMiLE. Not rocket science.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 07:41:13 PM
I'll answer that. Taylor's statements were the second week of May 1967, May 10th or so. April 29th Brian Wilson said the twelve tracks were finished and ready to be released.

See the contradiction? Like vegetables being a single, these words were very fleeting sometimes and changed often. Snapshots in time. So if Brian says it;s coming out, and just over a week later Taylor says Brian scrapped it...was Taylor right?

May 6, OK. Even closer (Edit)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 07:53:13 PM
Let's add it up.

April 26 1967 - Brian is on Inside Pop playing Surf's Up on CBS TV.

April 29 1967 Brian is reported by Keith Altham in the UK press to have said the album is ready to go, 12 tracks, and mentions a "rush schedule" around the release.

May 6 1967 Derek Taylor reports the album was "scrapped".

May 15-18 1967 Brian holds Love To Say DaDa sessions at Gold Star.

First week of June 1967 Band returns from Europe, sessions for Vegetables, With Me Tonight, and Cool Cool Water are held at Sound Recorders and Western, not the home studio.

Just more to add to the discussion.

Who told Derek Taylor that Smile was "scrapped"?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 25, 2016, 07:55:32 PM
Quote
I'll answer that. Taylor's statements were the second week of May 1967, May 10th or so. April 29th Brian Wilson said the twelve tracks were finished and ready to be released.

See the contradiction? Like vegetables being a single, these words were very fleeting sometimes and changed often. Snapshots in time. So if Brian says it;s coming out, and just over a week later Taylor says Brian scrapped it...was Taylor right?

I don't think anyone's disagreeing that plans were quickly changing around this time. In fact, that's a key premise of the 'April-Veggies-as-post-Smile-single' argument, for me at least. Can someone provide the full quote from April 29 about Brian saying the 'twelve tracks were finished' (sorry if I've missed it above)? Any idea of the delay between quotation and publication? This seems to be a critical factor here.

Re: Taylor's announcement in 'Echo': Even if we go with the date of publication being the same as the date of writing (which it almost certainly wasn't, for obvious reasons), we're talking three weeks after the last Veggies session that this gets published.

I find it hard to believe there wasn't some extended period of thought/discussion 'within the camp' about whether or not to abandon the album taking place for some time. And, even after it was more-or-less decided, at least some real pause for thought before their PR man publically announced that the long-awaited 'Smile' LP was 'SCRAPPED'.

If Al recalls the April 'Veggies' sessions as being 'post-Smile' - and the rest of his recollections in that interview seem to check out - then all the above considered, I'm inclined to believe him.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 25, 2016, 07:58:37 PM
Quote
April 29 1967 Brian is reported by Keith Altham in the UK press to have said the album is ready to go, 12 tracks, and mentions a "rush schedule" around the release.

Ah, cheers. Was this in a monthly/weekly/daily publication, do you know?

Quote
Who told Derek Taylor that Smile was "scrapped"?

I thought this was published during Taylor's second stint as PR rep for the BBs, which means the statement must have been known of by Brian, if not actively approved/suggested by him. I may well be wrong though.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 25, 2016, 08:02:47 PM
Derek Taylor didn't seem to share that certainty in the April 29 iss of Disc and Music Echo:

"“Now the Byrds and the Beach Boys and Eric Burdon for instance are a different story because they furnish the scene with turbulence and arouse violently disparate views… The Beach Boys?…Yet by the erratic pattern of their single releases and their dramatic changes in their albums they are a constant stimulant to conversation. Where are they at?  Who is Brian Wilson? What is going on with ‘Heroes and Villains’? What is ‘Vegetables’ the next single? When is the album ready?
PASSION
It is not deliberate that there is a an unending dilemma with the Beach Boys (if that were so, we would all be bored). It is just that they are blessed with the twin-assets of spontaneous combustion and sporadic engine failure. You know that ultimately they will produce another mind-messing and uniquely-their-own piece of music.” p14


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 25, 2016, 08:08:16 PM
Lou, are you sure that Elements quote you are looking for isn't on page 132 in the bottom left hand corner (in my copy)?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 08:13:13 PM
Quote
April 29 1967 Brian is reported by Keith Altham in the UK press to have said the album is ready to go, 12 tracks, and mentions a "rush schedule" around the release.

Ah, cheers. Was this in a monthly/weekly/daily publication, do you know?

Quote
Who told Derek Taylor that Smile was "scrapped"?

I thought this was published during Taylor's second stint as PR rep for the BBs, which means the statement must have been known of by Brian, if not actively approved/suggested by him. I may well be wrong though.

Brian talking to Keith Altham was in NME, April 29, 1967.

Derek Taylor's comments were in Disc And Music Echo, May 6, 1967.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 08:21:41 PM
Altham in NME was reporting what he heard from Brian Wilson, that the 12 tracks were ready to go.

Taylor in Disc & Music Echo issue dated roughly 7 days after the Altham article was reporting the album was scrapped.

Where did Taylor get his information?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 25, 2016, 08:22:50 PM
Word is...Taylor's info didn't come from Brian.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Alan Smith on January 25, 2016, 09:14:19 PM
Where did it come from then?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 25, 2016, 10:30:12 PM
Quote
Altham in NME was reporting what he heard from Brian Wilson, that the 12 tracks were ready to go.

Well, NME was a weekly publication, so even considering its publication being based on another continent, this indicates a pretty narrow window between 'twelve tracks are ready to go' and 'the album is scrapped'. Add in GF's inference that it wasn't Brian who called 'scrapped' on the record, and I'm more deeply intrigued by the events of late-April than I ever thought I might be.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Phoenix on January 26, 2016, 01:01:03 AM
If the main tracks as we have become familiar with were released, I cannot imagine them fitting on one LP, even purely for counting the minutes. 

It would likely mean leaving off longer tracks such as GV, which was an anchor.  One single track? It might have been a new model...but if you are dividing "elements" concepts, it seems difficult to do.  Aren't medleys (entirely different songs) sort of blended in that manner?  Someone with the sound engineering background might be able to answer that question which might be a dumb one.

The double LP concept was one that was a very new in 1967. LPs were often used for classical music and Broadway shows or soundtracks for movies for the capacity to offer a more complete work. And it sure beat flipping over a bunch of 45s.  But,  what seemed lacking was "confidence" in the project to make a go of it, and not that it lacked quality.  It would have been bold.  ;)

How many hours of material did Brian record for "Good Vibrations"? Yet that single didn't even run two sides. Brian would have made Smile fit on two sides of a mid-60's vinyl lp, period. The kitchen sink mixes are a fun take and some fans have made some really entertaining ones but that's all they are: Fan mixes.

Brian knew Smile was 12 songs (give or take), he even knew which songs. He knew the puzzle, he knew the size of the puzzle. His only problem with Smile, the reason it took several decades to finish, is he wasn't able to narrow which pieces belonged in the puzzle and which ones didn't.

My personal Smile runs about 45 minutes and is quite similar than BWPS, excluding just "Look" and "Holidays". It would fit on a single album, with room to spare. My version of "The Elements" is one, four part song, that runs almost a minute less than my "Heroes And Villains. No second disc necessary.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 26, 2016, 04:30:15 AM
In the April 22 issue of D&ME, Taylor was describing the Veg session with Paul and explaining how "Vege-tables" was the next single. He also was explaining that there were problems and delays with forthcoming BB product as a result of Brian's re-evaluation of the music. Looking at what happened and who had the best prior info it would seem to be Taylor to me as he was explaining delays and changes while others were claiming finished and imminent.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 26, 2016, 04:43:49 AM
Also Al put the end of SMiLE pre-April Veg.

But is he right about that? He isn't really sure even what version ov V-T they were working on.


Yes. Yes he is.   ;)

He knew either way that that Veg was post-SMiLE. And we've learned that Al is totally reliable in this interview.  And that isn't the only thing that points to that Veg being post-SMiLE.

Well, he's certainly mixing up the "single version" with the Smiley version, as he's claiming he played water bottles on that version recorded when McC visited. Al's a great guy , but human memory is not like written in stone, it's been 50 years ago, and he's not a researcher and hairsplitter like us.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 26, 2016, 04:49:37 AM
he even knew which songs.

Well... personally I doubt that. The crossed out parentheses on the December list indicate he wasn't that certain about it.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: zosobird on January 26, 2016, 05:09:10 AM
Derek Taylor was the PR rep.. is it plausible Derek was hyping the album by saying it was scrapped, then Brian saw that as an opportunity to exit?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: puni puni on January 26, 2016, 05:14:34 AM
So to say: "Brian says Air was a piano piece, so what have we got on TSS that is a piano piece… it must be one of those... ah yes, the Wind Chimes tag!!!" is too simplistic, I think.

Jesus, man. This is Brian Wilson, not Franz Kafka.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 26, 2016, 05:43:31 AM
If the main tracks as we have become familiar with were released, I cannot imagine them fitting on one LP, even purely for counting the minutes. 

It would likely mean leaving off longer tracks such as GV, which was an anchor.  One single track? It might have been a new model...but if you are dividing "elements" concepts, it seems difficult to do.  Aren't medleys (entirely different songs) sort of blended in that manner?  Someone with the sound engineering background might be able to answer that question which might be a dumb one.

The double LP concept was one that was a very new in 1967. LPs were often used for classical music and Broadway shows or soundtracks for movies for the capacity to offer a more complete work. And it sure beat flipping over a bunch of 45s.  But,  what seemed lacking was "confidence" in the project to make a go of it, and not that it lacked quality.  It would have been bold.  ;)

How many hours of material did Brian record for "Good Vibrations"? Yet that single didn't even run two sides. Brian would have made Smile fit on two sides of a mid-60's vinyl lp, period. The kitchen sink mixes are a fun take and some fans have made some really entertaining ones but that's all they are: Fan mixes.

Brian knew Smile was 12 songs (give or take), he even knew which songs. He knew the puzzle, he knew the size of the puzzle. His only problem with Smile, the reason it took several decades to finish, is he wasn't able to narrow which pieces belonged in the puzzle and which ones didn't.

My personal Smile runs about 45 minutes and is quite similar than BWPS, excluding just "Look" and "Holidays". It would fit on a single album, with room to spare. My version of "The Elements" is one, four part song, that runs almost a minute less than my "Heroes And Villains. No second disc necessary.
puni puni - what little I know about the length of LPs has or had to do with the number of minutes during the 60ish era has to do, as best I understand it, is the diminution of quality as the length of grooves cut increases.  I read where Arthur Fiedler put an enormous amount of time on an LP, both sides. 

But, if you  have a bad stylus/bad record needle, or, a some scratches on it,  that would diminish the sound quality.  So, whether that became an industry standard is better discussed by someone knowledgeable than I.  But, if you have 45 minutes and the rough standard is around 15 minutes per side, what do you do with the extra side?   Do you produce an album with an extra "blank" side or do you more fully "tell the story" with the extra sound/story details that add fullness to the work?  A double BB album of new work, would have knocked it out of the park and made the world take notice.  And that is JMHO.   ;)   

Since some the extra tracks leaked out on other LPs - the listener can create his or her own response to the work.  We knew there was more.  It might not have "fit" an original plan, but maybe it made is more comprehensive.   


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 26, 2016, 05:53:07 AM
I didn't copy and clip every week's issue of this publication. But I've seen them and have them available. In subsequent issues, dated going into May, the same column reported on "Then I Kissed Her" going in as the "new" Beach Boys single to coincide with their UK tour at that time. It also mentioned "Vegetables", as they got the "s" on it this time, possibly not being the next single. It was information being sorted out and reported as it came in. The same column also reported on Paul and Mal's trip to the US in early April, again in an issue not listed above.

Lo and behold, in one of the May issues the same column reported Carl's surrendering to the FBI in New York and his issues with the draft. The same column below has speculations about Bob Dylan's disappearance, and goes on to report what fans years later would know as "The Basement Tapes", but when that story was new and rumors were flying, the thought was Dylan had not yet recovered from his accident and was "in seclusion" in a rural farmhouse near Woodstock, New York. Later, we found out exactly what he was doing there and who he was with.

So these kinds of columns and reports were pretty good in reporting what they were hearing on the streets. They didn't have the benefit of instant media reporting via TV or internet, obviously, so the information could be delayed several weeks between the event and having it published in these articles.

But they did report on Carl and the draft, and followed up on Vegetables' status as a possible single. That status seemed to only last a brief period.

Inside Pop was CBS News, if a particular station were outside the CBS network, they would be less likely to promote it. As Johnny Carson used to say "on another network...", because NBC wouldn't want their hosts promoting the competition.
GF - No one expect a clipping of everything.  Certainly not me.  But this arises out of pure frustration as to why there was this void.  Bernstein (or whomever) was very clever calling the program, Inside Pop instead of Inside Rock.  They softened the title, maybe to disarm the concept for parents.  And, the huge take-away was all those others who tuned in to see the other musicians such as Janis Ian, and,  who were not Brian Wilson, and who thought the Beach Boys were dorks, got a glimpse of the genius at the helm. 

CBS was huge.  And there was no internet to democratize on Youtube what happened on that program.  But, for that time, it was amazing. Everyone who loved music watched it because someone they liked was going to be featured. Ed Sullivan open the door to these musicians, and Bernstein walked right through it.

But there was a vacuum which if filled at the time, with TV appearances would have kept the momentum which the band had worked so hard to build, growing.  That is the tragedy.  It would have taken little to stop the spiral and made all the difference. I bet it would have made a difference to Brian Wilson to see his music performed on TV.

And, GF -  I appreciate your research.  But have had a long time to think about that dead "media" void, that was absolutely unnecessary and what might have changed it to promote the Pet Sounds' singles, reversing the non-action of Capitol as well as GV, which had been hugely successful.  ;)     

You commented on this publication not reporting on Carl's issues with the draft, and I came back and said they did, and would be happy to post that specific article.

The frustration for me is you're continually moving the goalposts. How can not reporting on Inside Pop in a music news column serve to discredit anything that column reported? Logic says it can't and it does not. Much like spelling errors, in the long term no one cares. So let's hypothetically throw these articles away too, discredit them because they didn't report on Inside Pop. They reported Carl's CO and draft issues, but for the sake of this thread let's hypothetically declare them sloppy and junk them.

What or who, then, is left as a credible source for information on this specific era? What or who has the credibility to have their word taken above everyone else?
GF - yes, maybe moving the goal posts and not getting comfortable in an information comfort zone is not a bad thing.  Not reporting Inside Pop is sacrilege for that era.  Bernstein drew the relationship as between classical styles and demonized rock music. Quelle surprise for a generation of parents who did not understand..  And you bet it matters. 

The political aspect matters because of the furor and inequity of the draft, which excused a person from service if he was enrolled in a "basket weaving" major (no offense to artful  basket weavers) to avoid the draft.  Had any e-college been available, Carl would have been excused from service by taking online courses. (which I strongly support as an educational model, having been involved since the 90's with that learning model.)   

And, I am not giving the industry a pass for not appropriately promoting my music.  My instincts told me that something was "rotten in Denmark" with this amazing music that was not broadcast on television.  And the objectifying of a woman musician who played on those sessions in a man's world.   ;) 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 26, 2016, 06:12:04 AM
Also Al put the end of SMiLE pre-April Veg.

But is he right about that? He isn't really sure even what version ov V-T they were working on.


Yes. Yes he is.   ;)

He knew either way that that Veg was post-SMiLE. And we've learned that Al is totally reliable in this interview.  And that isn't the only thing that points to that Veg being post-SMiLE.

Well, he's certainly mixing up the "single version" with the Smiley version, as he's claiming he played water bottles on that version recorded when McC visited. Al's a great guy , but human memory is not like written in stone, it's been 50 years ago, and he's not a researcher and hairsplitter like us.

He may be, unless he did also play bottles in April. Did some of the April sessions end up in the Smiley version?

Still he would be putting both the April and June sessions as post-SMiLE, which I believe is true.  As I said, Taylor, reporting on these very sessions published April 22 (and in the following week's April 29 column), is warning that the album is not complete, there are delays because Brian has re-evaluated the music, and things have changed over the music.

Also, Marilyn has been quoted as saying regarding the purchase of the Bellagio house: "“I think the move may have had something to do with what happened to Smile. You know, new house, new things.”  Brian and Marilyn signed a Joint Tenancy Deed for the purchase of the Bellagio home on March 28, 1967 and the April 8 issue of New Music Express reported that "Brian Wilson transferred his crew from a rather small, newly built house to a 1937-built, two-storey Spanish mansion.” which probably would be info from April 4 to March 28 or earlier) . All of which I take as another evidence that SMiLE was in the past even as early as March 28 (or even earlier).

Also the SMiLE track was titled "Vega-Tables" with the probable master number of 56728. The April single and June Smiley versions have the non-SMiLE ("post-SMiLE") title of "Vegetables" beginning April 4 and have a different master number of 57450.



 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on January 26, 2016, 06:14:29 AM
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this up yet but I feel it's relevant to re-post this snippet from a Beach Boys gathering back in 2003. It seems as if Al, great as he is, does not quite know what constitutes a Smile song and what doesn't here.

Quote
UAM: OK, part 2. Um, were you aware that he’s planning on touring Smile next year? And what were your thoughts on that?

AJ: I heard about it, I think it’s crazy. [laughter]

Susan Lang: Well, good crazy or bad crazy, Al?

AJ: Well, not for good, I mean, why, [incredulously] how? I mean, I guess you could play snippets of it. Because it was never assembled, so, I mean, it’s an interesting idea but I think people are pushing Brian too hard. I mean, why in the world would he want to go back and do that, you know? Why not do something a little more progressive? I mean, if he wanted to do that he’d need the band to create… But his handlers, the people that make those decisions, they’ve forgotten origins I think of from whence that stuff came, you know? And it would require a great deal of imagination, I think, to call it a quote “SMiLE Tour” – I mean, that’s ridiculous, and who would relate to that? I mean, in this generation? What does that mean? I don’t know. I guess we would enjoy seeing it, but-

Dan Lega: I think there’s a lot of young people who do know about the SMiLE myth and are waiting to see it.

SD: He’s playing on the myth, though.

Alan Boyd: The legend looms large.

AJ: Does it really?

Peter Beyer (aka Catbirdman): I think a lot of people consider it Brian Wilson’s finest music – legitimately. Not for the myth, but for the music.

AJ: Well, yeah, but it’s not there.

DL: Well, there’s more there than we thought there was for so many years.

SD: No, there’s not. [laughter] There really isn’t – you mean to make up a whole concert? No.

SL: I don’t think he intended to make it the whole concert.

UAM: Probably about 30 minutes.

AB: No, I think it would be, my guess is it would be a segment within a larger show.

PB: Just like Pet Sounds.

UAM: It would be Vega-Tables and Wonderful and Cabin Essence…

AJ: Well, there you go.

AB: Probably like a half hour set within the show.

SD: It’s a clever name because it brings in the customers.

DL: They’re selling out like crazy over in the UK.

AJ: Uh, is Vegetables part of that album?

UAMs: Yeah, oh yeah. Mm-hm.

PB: Vega-Tables, Wonderful, Cabin Essence, Surf’s Up, Heroes & Villains.

AJ: Well, we re-recorded that stuff, and re-recorded it so much that [Al laughs] in a sense, you know, so many different projects, I suppose it could be assimilated into one CD, even. That might be something Capitol ought to do. And then he could go out and tour on that I guess. I guess you’re right. I keep thinking of all the stuff we didn’t finish but I guess you’re right. There is a lot of stuff there. I like Vegetables. I think Brian did a version of Vegetables which I prefer, the one with the tack piano and some of the more cutting edge stuff that we had been working on, as opposed to our version on Smiley Smile. And, for some reason, it just - You know, Steve, we had a great little medium, a little opportunity there to record, but it wasn’t edgy enough for me. I mean, we didn’t have that tack piano, and the Baldwin just seemed to, I don’t know, it just fills up too much space. Takes up too much space on tape, I think.

See: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10295.msg186226.html#msg186226


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Matt Bielewicz on January 26, 2016, 06:56:03 AM
So to say: "Brian says Air was a piano piece, so what have we got on TSS that is a piano piece… it must be one of those... ah yes, the Wind Chimes tag!!!" is too simplistic, I think.

Jesus, man. This is Brian Wilson, not Franz Kafka.

Well, I don't know if you really read what I said. I'm not saying it's Kafka, and I'm not trying to over-complicate things. I'm just saying, there's *loads* of SMiLE-era stuff we know about which fits the one description Brian EVER gave of Air as 'a piano piece, an instrumental, no vocals'. Just because the Wind Chimes tag happens to fit that description, really doesn't mean that must be Air. Lots of other stuff fits his description too. And that's before you even start to wonder whether

a) said piano piece was recorded, but was erased or subsequently lost, meaning most people have never heard it, or

b) said piano piece never even made it as far as tape in the first place, having been just an idea that Brian never got as far as recording.

Furthermore, there IS loads of evidence that, far from suggesting that the Wind Chimes tag was Air, in fact suggests that the Wind Chimes tag was, erm, well... the tag to Wind Chimes.

That's why I think saying 'Wind Chimes tag is piano - Brian says Air is a piano piece - therefore Wind Chimes tag is Air' is too simple.

Does that make any more sense...?

Es muss ja auch nicht ein Prozess werden...

PS For anyone round here who's still into Doctor Who, the reasoning reminds me of the Doctor talking to Davros at the end of Destiny of the Daleks: "All elephants are pink... Nellie is an elephant, therefore Nellie is pink"

If I remember rightly, that's not original Doctor Who dialogue, it's just lifted from a common way of exposing the poor reasoning of apparently logical thinking... which just happens to be complete gibberish, because it's based on a wonky first premise...


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on January 26, 2016, 07:33:08 AM
PS For anyone round here who's still into Doctor Who, the reasoning reminds me of the Doctor talking to Davros at the end of Destiny of the Daleks: "All elephants are pink... Nellie is an elephant, therefore Nellie is pink"

If I remember rightly, that's not original Doctor Who dialogue, it's just lifted from a common way of exposing the poor reasoning of apparently logical thinking... which just happens to be complete gibberish, because it's based on a wonky first premise...

Is that example worded correctly because the response that Nellie is pink makes perfect logical sense. What wouldn't make sense is the following: All elephants are pink, Nellie is pink, therefore Nellie is an elephant.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Phoenix on January 26, 2016, 07:59:40 AM
puni puni - what little I know about the length of LPs has or had to do with the number of minutes during the 60ish era has to do, as best I understand it, is the diminution of quality as the length of grooves cut increases.  I read where Arthur Fiedler put an enormous amount of time on an LP, both sides.  

But, if you  have a bad stylus/bad record needle, or, a some scratches on it,  that would diminish the sound quality.  So, whether that became an industry standard is better discussed by someone knowledgeable than I.  But, if you have 45 minutes and the rough standard is around 15 minutes per side, what do you do with the extra side?

Nothing. Sgt. Pepper's... runs 39 minutes and change and there's neither a third side, nor a noticeable loss in quality. If the fabs could pull that off, I'm positive Brian could too. And If that extra two and a half minutes per side is too much for you to swallow, then I don't know what to tell you. Either Brian could have figured out something or, who knows? Maybe those four, pesky minutes were to blame the whole time. :)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: AndrewHickey on January 26, 2016, 08:04:53 AM
PS For anyone round here who's still into Doctor Who, the reasoning reminds me of the Doctor talking to Davros at the end of Destiny of the Daleks: "All elephants are pink... Nellie is an elephant, therefore Nellie is pink"

If I remember rightly, that's not original Doctor Who dialogue, it's just lifted from a common way of exposing the poor reasoning of apparently logical thinking... which just happens to be complete gibberish, because it's based on a wonky first premise...

Is that example worded correctly because the response that Nellie is pink makes perfect logical sense. What wouldn't make sense is the following: All elephants are pink, Nellie is pink, therefore Nellie is an elephant.

Matt's quoting the episode correctly. As he says, it's complete gibberish, because the first premise is wrong. *NOT* all elephants are pink.


Doctor: All elephants are pink, Nellie is an elephant, therefore Nellie is pink. Logical?
Davros: Perfectly.
Doctor: You know what a human would say to that?
Davros: What?
Tyssan: Elephants aren't pink.
Davros: Humans do not understand logic.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Matt Bielewicz on January 26, 2016, 08:05:46 AM
It's like Godwin's Law... once you start getting deeply into SMiLE, talk of pink elephants can't be far away!!!!

The Doctor Who quote is accurate (EDIT: Thanks Andrew, for the full transcript... mine's from memory)... but yes, I could have probably chosen a better analogy to Wind Chimes! It IS perfect logic... what it demonstrates is that logic doesn't tell you everything, because if your first premise is complete bobbins ('all elephants are pink') then no matter how watertight your logic, you still end up with a load of rubbish.

Chocolate Shake Man's version is indeed closer to the mistake that's being made here. ("Air is a piano piece. The Wind Chimes tag is a piano piece, therefore the Wind Chimes tag is Air")

On the other hand, you can recast the Doctor Who dialogue like this, which I think DOES then display the mistake that's being made here:

Brian Wilson wrote, conceived and recorded lots of music for an album that was going to be called SMiLE. The recordings he made were eventually released on a boxed set called The SMiLE Sessions. Therefore everything Brian planned is on that boxed set.

We KNOW that's rubbish because, as already noted, we know he had lots of plans for things that were either never recorded or (possibly) he did record and they were then erased or lost before The SMiLE Sessions was assembled. See, by way of just a couple of examples from a potentially VERY long list: the H&V bar fight, the talking in the pauses that was going to happen in 'All Day', the verse lyrics in Do You Like Worms, the strings in Part 2 of Surf's Up... and a proper assembled mix/edit of H&V that includes Barnyard and I'm In Great Shape (well... that example MAY have existed at some point, but if so, it didn't survive long enough to find its way out as a release on TSS).


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 26, 2016, 08:44:43 AM
Removed my snarky comment in the spirit of the cooperation in this thread.  Shame on me.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: puni puni on January 26, 2016, 09:09:36 AM
there's *loads* of SMiLE-era stuff we know about which fits the one description Brian EVER gave of Air as 'a piano piece, an instrumental, no vocals'. Just because the Wind Chimes tag happens to fit that description, really doesn't mean that must be Air.

Off the top of my head, the instrumental piano pieces on Smile amount to the endings of "Do You Like Worms", "Holidays", and "Wind Chimes". Is Brian referring to something that was never recorded? He could be. Meanwhile, we have a song called "Wind Chimes" just laying around. How likely do you think it is that -- if and when Brian ever finishes Smile -- he'll use it for "Air"? I guess we'll never know for sure. Personally, on my Smile fan mix that I've been meticulously crafting for the last 35 years, I have "Air" set as "Little Deuce Coupe".


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: leggo of my ego on January 26, 2016, 10:12:19 AM
Used to think there was some kind of Grand Design to Smile, like all the bits should fit to make this majestic Whole.

Gave that up and now just enjoy the bits as they are.

Smile in that respect does not disappoint.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on January 26, 2016, 10:14:44 AM
AJ: Well, not for good, I mean, why, [incredulously] how? I mean, I guess you could play snippets of it. Because it was never assembled, so, I mean, it’s an interesting idea but I think people are pushing Brian too hard. I mean, why in the world would he want to go back and do that, you know? Why not do something a little more progressive? I mean, if he wanted to do that he’d need the band to create… But his handlers, the people that make those decisions, they’ve forgotten origins I think of from whence that stuff came, you know? And it would require a great deal of imagination, I think, to call it a quote “SMiLE Tour” – I mean, that’s ridiculous, and who would relate to that? I mean, in this generation? What does that mean? I don’t know. I guess we would enjoy seeing it, but-

Hey, Al, you got any names for those handlers? Huh?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: The Shift on January 26, 2016, 10:42:51 AM
Also Al put the end of SMiLE pre-April Veg.

But is he right about that? He isn't really sure even what version ov V-T they were working on.


Yes. Yes he is.   ;)

He knew either way that that Veg was post-SMiLE. And we've learned that Al is totally reliable in this interview.  And that isn't the only thing that points to that Veg being post-SMiLE.

Well, he's certainly mixing up the "single version" with the Smiley version, as he's claiming he played water bottles on that version recorded when McC visited. Al's a great guy , but human memory is not like written in stone, it's been 50 years ago, and he's not a researcher and hairsplitter like us.

Agree… we're talking about a smashing guy but one who still misremembers the order of the lines in Wouldn't it Be Nice, after 50 years of singing it regularly!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on January 26, 2016, 11:17:48 AM
The Doctor Who quote is accurate (EDIT: Thanks Andrew, for the full transcript... mine's from memory)... but yes, I could have probably chosen a better analogy to Wind Chimes! It IS perfect logic... what it demonstrates is that logic doesn't tell you everything, because if your first premise is complete bobbins ('all elephants are pink') then no matter how watertight your logic, you still end up with a load of rubbish.

Gah - that's what I get for not paying close enough attention. Thanks for clearing that up for me!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: Cam Mott on January 26, 2016, 12:29:21 PM
Also Al put the end of SMiLE pre-April Veg.

But is he right about that? He isn't really sure even what version ov V-T they were working on.


Yes. Yes he is.   ;)

He knew either way that that Veg was post-SMiLE. And we've learned that Al is totally reliable in this interview.  And that isn't the only thing that points to that Veg being post-SMiLE.

Well, he's certainly mixing up the "single version" with the Smiley version, as he's claiming he played water bottles on that version recorded when McC visited. Al's a great guy , but human memory is not like written in stone, it's been 50 years ago, and he's not a researcher and hairsplitter like us.

Agree… we're talking about a smashing guy but one who still misremembers the order of the lines in Wouldn't it Be Nice, after 50 years of singing it regularly!

Right, but also a guy who has other evidence on his side on this one.  :)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 26, 2016, 05:30:02 PM
Also Al put the end of SMiLE pre-April Veg.

But is he right about that? He isn't really sure even what version ov V-T they were working on.


Yes. Yes he is.   ;)

He knew either way that that Veg was post-SMiLE. And we've learned that Al is totally reliable in this interview.  And that isn't the only thing that points to that Veg being post-SMiLE.

Well, he's certainly mixing up the "single version" with the Smiley version, as he's claiming he played water bottles on that version recorded when McC visited. Al's a great guy , but human memory is not like written in stone, it's been 50 years ago, and he's not a researcher and hairsplitter like us.

He may be, unless he did also play bottles in April. Did some of the April sessions end up in the Smiley version?

Still he would be putting both the April and June sessions as post-SMiLE, which I believe is true.  As I said, Taylor, reporting on these very sessions published April 22 (and in the following week's April 29 column), is warning that the album is not complete, there are delays because Brian has re-evaluated the music, and things have changed over the music.

Also, Marilyn has been quoted as saying regarding the purchase of the Bellagio house: "“I think the move may have had something to do with what happened to Smile. You know, new house, new things.”  Brian and Marilyn signed a Joint Tenancy Deed for the purchase of the Bellagio home on March 28, 1967 and the April 8 issue of New Music Express reported that "Brian Wilson transferred his crew from a rather small, newly built house to a 1937-built, two-storey Spanish mansion.” which probably would be info from April 4 to March 28 or earlier) . All of which I take as another evidence that SMiLE was in the past even as early as March 28 (or even earlier).

Also the SMiLE track was titled "Vega-Tables" with the probable master number of 56728. The April single and June Smiley versions have the non-SMiLE ("post-SMiLE") title of "Vegetables" beginning April 4 and have a different master number of 57450.



 

Taylor is reporting that the album is still not complete and there are delays.  No kidding.  Nothing in what he said confirms that the Vegetable sessions are post Smile.  If anything it implies that Veggies is part of trying to complete the album.

New House, new things - yeah, after they moved into the new house, eventually Brian moved the recording studio into his house and Smile mutated into Smiley.  That in no way somehow suggests that on the actual move date, Smile was finished and now we were into post-Smile or Smiley.  That's a logical leap without any basis whatsoever.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 26, 2016, 06:22:48 PM
Also Al put the end of SMiLE pre-April Veg.

But is he right about that? He isn't really sure even what version ov V-T they were working on.


Yes. Yes he is.   ;)

He knew either way that that Veg was post-SMiLE. And we've learned that Al is totally reliable in this interview.  And that isn't the only thing that points to that Veg being post-SMiLE.

Well, he's certainly mixing up the "single version" with the Smiley version, as he's claiming he played water bottles on that version recorded when McC visited. Al's a great guy , but human memory is not like written in stone, it's been 50 years ago, and he's not a researcher and hairsplitter like us.

He may be, unless he did also play bottles in April. Did some of the April sessions end up in the Smiley version?

Still he would be putting both the April and June sessions as post-SMiLE, which I believe is true.  As I said, Taylor, reporting on these very sessions published April 22 (and in the following week's April 29 column), is warning that the album is not complete, there are delays because Brian has re-evaluated the music, and things have changed over the music.

Also, Marilyn has been quoted as saying regarding the purchase of the Bellagio house: "“I think the move may have had something to do with what happened to Smile. You know, new house, new things.”  Brian and Marilyn signed a Joint Tenancy Deed for the purchase of the Bellagio home on March 28, 1967 and the April 8 issue of New Music Express reported that "Brian Wilson transferred his crew from a rather small, newly built house to a 1937-built, two-storey Spanish mansion.” which probably would be info from April 4 to March 28 or earlier) . All of which I take as another evidence that SMiLE was in the past even as early as March 28 (or even earlier).

Also the SMiLE track was titled "Vega-Tables" with the probable master number of 56728. The April single and June Smiley versions have the non-SMiLE ("post-SMiLE") title of "Vegetables" beginning April 4 and have a different master number of 57450.



 

Taylor is reporting that the album is still not complete and there are delays.  No kidding.  Nothing in what he said confirms that the Vegetable sessions are post Smile.  If anything it implies that Veggies is part of trying to complete the album.

New House, new things - yeah, after they moved into the new house, eventually Brian moved the recording studio into his house and Smile mutated into Smiley.  That in no way somehow suggests that on the actual move date, Smile was finished and now we were into post-Smile or Smiley.  That's a logical leap without any basis whatsoever.

Yeah, no kidding. It all together forms a context.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 27, 2016, 07:54:00 AM
If the main tracks as we have become familiar with were released, I cannot imagine them fitting on one LP, even purely for counting the minutes. 

It would likely mean leaving off longer tracks such as GV, which was an anchor.  One single track? It might have been a new model...but if you are dividing "elements" concepts, it seems difficult to do.  Aren't medleys (entirely different songs) sort of blended in that manner?  Someone with the sound engineering background might be able to answer that question which might be a dumb one.

The double LP concept was one that was a very new in 1967. LPs were often used for classical music and Broadway shows or soundtracks for movies for the capacity to offer a more complete work. And it sure beat flipping over a bunch of 45s.  But,  what seemed lacking was "confidence" in the project to make a go of it, and not that it lacked quality.  It would have been bold.  ;)

How many hours of material did Brian record for "Good Vibrations"? Yet that single didn't even run two sides. Brian would have made Smile fit on two sides of a mid-60's vinyl lp, period. The kitchen sink mixes are a fun take and some fans have made some really entertaining ones but that's all they are: Fan mixes.

Brian knew Smile was 12 songs (give or take), he even knew which songs. He knew the puzzle, he knew the size of the puzzle. His only problem with Smile, the reason it took several decades to finish, is he wasn't able to narrow which pieces belonged in the puzzle and which ones didn't.

My personal Smile runs about 45 minutes and is quite similar than BWPS, excluding just "Look" and "Holidays". It would fit on a single album, with room to spare. My version of "The Elements" is one, four part song, that runs almost a minute less than my "Heroes And Villains. No second disc necessary.

GV was prepped and edited down for a 45 rpm single (which could have gone on Pet Sounds, and is on the Pet Sounds Sessions Box set.)  That has nothing to do with a Smile double LP, which might have been dynamite with the 'kitchen sink' left for the listener to interpret rather than the creators providing the interpretation. 

A double LP had the sheer "heft" that might have been a big draw for those between 12 and 18 or so, which would have been the purchaser's demographic in 1967, which is the benchmark I am using.  And by today's standard CD  of 75 minutes of play, an hour on 2 LP's might have gone over very nicely.  Bragging rights included. 

They did some "out there" things like Stack o' Tracks which was just backing tracks and sheet music about a year later.  It was primitive karaoke. 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 27, 2016, 07:54:49 AM
Re. Post SMiLE: Aren't we kind of ignoring the 600 lb. gorilla in the room? There are multiple documentations of the SMiLE track "Vega-tables" (and one demo recording) and no documentations of "Vegetables" for SMiLE.  There are multiple documentations and recordings for the Smiley Smile track "Vegetables" and none of a "Vega-tables" Smiley track. "Vega-tables" is on the SMiLE album track list and "Vegetables" is not.  "Vegetables" is on the Smiley Smile track list and "Vega-tables" is not.

Recordings for "Vegetables" began on April 4 1967, well before the announcement published on May 6 1967.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 27, 2016, 08:01:08 AM
Re. Post SMiLE: Aren't we kind of ignoring the 600 lb. gorilla in the room? There are multiple documentations of the SMiLE track "Vega-tables" (and one demo recording) and no documentations "Vegetables" for SMiLE.  There are multiple documentations and recordings for the Smiley Smile track "Vegetables" and none of a "Vega-tables" Smiley track. "Vega-tables" is on the SMiLE album track list and "Vegetables" is not.  "Vegetables" is on the Smiley Smile track list and "Vega-tables" is not.

Recordings for "Vegetables" began on April 4 1967 well before the announcement of May 6 1967.

Cam - that May, 1967 is in the beginning of the European tour where they are marketed as a surf band.  I wonder how much was "exasperation" with that "surprise" - one full year post Pet Sounds?

And, I am unconvinced of firm "time lines" with this project.  When people are in a creative "zone" it is not turned on and off like a light switch.  Just sayin.'  It could have been a case of "overload" all the way around, with Carl's arrest, and other factors.   


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 27, 2016, 08:13:41 AM
Re. Post SMiLE: Aren't we kind of ignoring the 600 lb. gorilla in the room? There are multiple documentations of the SMiLE track "Vega-tables" (and one demo recording) and no documentations "Vegetables" for SMiLE.  There are multiple documentations and recordings for the Smiley Smile track "Vegetables" and none of a "Vega-tables" Smiley track. "Vega-tables" is on the SMiLE album track list and "Vegetables" is not.  "Vegetables" is on the Smiley Smile track list and "Vega-tables" is not.

Recordings for "Vegetables" began on April 4 1967 well before the announcement of May 6 1967.



That 600 lb. gorilla might be getting obscured by the 6 ton elephant standing in the same room. His name is "Logic".


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 27, 2016, 08:27:28 AM
Altham in NME was reporting what he heard from Brian Wilson, that the 12 tracks were ready to go.

Taylor in Disc & Music Echo issue dated roughly 7 days after the Altham article was reporting the album was scrapped.

Where did Taylor get his information?

Word is...Taylor's info didn't come from Brian.

Where did it come from then?

Well, NME was a weekly publication, so even considering its publication being based on another continent, this indicates a pretty narrow window between 'twelve tracks are ready to go' and 'the album is scrapped'. Add in GF's inference that it wasn't Brian who called 'scrapped' on the record, and I'm more deeply intrigued by the events of late-April than I ever thought I might be.



Where or who did it come from?

Apparently Mike Love said it to Derek Taylor. The band was in England as part of their European tour, first week of May '67 that included the NME Poll Winners concert that was getting good coverage in the UK music press, front page actually in a few cases. Taylor was involved in the PR for that trip and got the info from Mike then published it. It was premature considering Brian had just told Altham the album's 12-tracks would be ready for a rush release.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 27, 2016, 08:58:42 AM
Altham in NME was reporting what he heard from Brian Wilson, that the 12 tracks were ready to go.

Taylor in Disc & Music Echo issue dated roughly 7 days after the Altham article was reporting the album was scrapped.

Where did Taylor get his information?

Word is...Taylor's info didn't come from Brian.

Where did it come from then?

Well, NME was a weekly publication, so even considering its publication being based on another continent, this indicates a pretty narrow window between 'twelve tracks are ready to go' and 'the album is scrapped'. Add in GF's inference that it wasn't Brian who called 'scrapped' on the record, and I'm more deeply intrigued by the events of late-April than I ever thought I might be.

Where or who did it come from?

Apparently Mike Love said it to Derek Taylor. The band was in England as part of their European tour, first week of May '67 that included the NME Poll Winners concert that was getting good coverage in the UK music press, front page actually in a few cases. Taylor was involved in the PR for that trip and got the info from Mike then published it. It was premature considering Brian had just told Altham the album's 12-tracks would be ready for a rush release.
GF - I am trying to think this through logically. 

Since there was a BRI board at that time, which was established for more creative control, in existence for around a year, with voting members, wouldn't something as important as a new release have to be approached democratically, say, with advice, discussion, and a vote? 

Just sayin'.    ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 27, 2016, 09:15:00 AM
Altham in NME was reporting what he heard from Brian Wilson, that the 12 tracks were ready to go.

Taylor in Disc & Music Echo issue dated roughly 7 days after the Altham article was reporting the album was scrapped.

Where did Taylor get his information?

Word is...Taylor's info didn't come from Brian.

Where did it come from then?

Well, NME was a weekly publication, so even considering its publication being based on another continent, this indicates a pretty narrow window between 'twelve tracks are ready to go' and 'the album is scrapped'. Add in GF's inference that it wasn't Brian who called 'scrapped' on the record, and I'm more deeply intrigued by the events of late-April than I ever thought I might be.

Where or who did it come from?

Apparently Mike Love said it to Derek Taylor. The band was in England as part of their European tour, first week of May '67 that included the NME Poll Winners concert that was getting good coverage in the UK music press, front page actually in a few cases. Taylor was involved in the PR for that trip and got the info from Mike then published it. It was premature considering Brian had just told Altham the album's 12-tracks would be ready for a rush release.
GF - I am trying to think this through logically. 

Since there was a BRI board at that time, which was established for more creative control, in existence for around a year, with voting members, wouldn't something as important as a new release have to be approached democratically, say, with advice, discussion, and a vote? 

Just sayin'.    ;)

That should have been the case, you'd think. In this case of Mike telling the UK music journalist Derek Taylor (who also happened to be working publicity for the band's tour of the UK) that the group's forthcoming album which had been reported the previous week was ready to go for rush promotion had instead been "scrapped", he spoke before any of that advice/discussion/vote happened, apparently.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: AndrewHickey on January 27, 2016, 09:21:05 AM
Since there was a BRI board at that time, which was established for more creative control, in existence for around a year, with voting members, wouldn't something as important as a new release have to be approached democratically, say, with advice, discussion, and a vote? 

This seems to be making a few unfounded assumptions, at least to me. The existence of a BRI board (which of course at that time would have consisted only of Mike and the Wilson brothers, not the other two band members) doesn't necessarily imply decisions have to be made democratically. It's perfectly plausible that band members were given areas of responsibility where they didn't have to consult the other members -- Brian might have been given total control over recordings, Carl over setlists, and so on. Without access to BRI's corporate decision-making process in 1967, we can't assume that things would be subject to democratic vote.

(Indeed, do we know that BRI owned the Beach Boys' name yet at that point, or did it get transferred later?)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 27, 2016, 09:35:52 AM
Since there was a BRI board at that time, which was established for more creative control, in existence for around a year, with voting members, wouldn't something as important as a new release have to be approached democratically, say, with advice, discussion, and a vote? 

This seems to be making a few unfounded assumptions, at least to me. The existence of a BRI board (which of course at that time would have consisted only of Mike and the Wilson brothers, not the other two band members) doesn't necessarily imply decisions have to be made democratically. It's perfectly plausible that band members were given areas of responsibility where they didn't have to consult the other members -- Brian might have been given total control over recordings, Carl over setlists, and so on. Without access to BRI's corporate decision-making process in 1967, we can't assume that things would be subject to democratic vote.

(Indeed, do we know that BRI owned the Beach Boys' name yet at that point, or did it get transferred later?)
Andrew H. - Not really - if the prime reason for the incorporation was "artistic control decision-making," it would seem to make little sense that any major decisions concerning releases, would have been done in a vacuum or without consensus. 

It is doubtful to me that in that high profile 2-week eventful time window of Carl's arrest, release, and travel to the UK, Inside Pop Brian (taped) appearance, that there were no overseas calls between and among corporate band members. I am making no assumptions but looking at the events as reported. 

That one band member says it is a "go," and one says it is a "no," is just not credible to me. 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 27, 2016, 10:00:55 AM
That's exactly what happened. That's how in the span of a week, it was reported that the album was being readied for rush promotion, 12 tracks ready. Then Mike tells Derek Taylor in the UK something different, and it's now "scrapped".


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 27, 2016, 10:32:44 AM
Altham in NME was reporting what he heard from Brian Wilson, that the 12 tracks were ready to go.

Taylor in Disc & Music Echo issue dated roughly 7 days after the Altham article was reporting the album was scrapped.

Where did Taylor get his information?

Word is...Taylor's info didn't come from Brian.

Where did it come from then?

Well, NME was a weekly publication, so even considering its publication being based on another continent, this indicates a pretty narrow window between 'twelve tracks are ready to go' and 'the album is scrapped'. Add in GF's inference that it wasn't Brian who called 'scrapped' on the record, and I'm more deeply intrigued by the events of late-April than I ever thought I might be.

Where or who did it come from?

Apparently Mike Love said it to Derek Taylor. The band was in England as part of their European tour, first week of May '67 that included the NME Poll Winners concert that was getting good coverage in the UK music press, front page actually in a few cases. Taylor was involved in the PR for that trip and got the info from Mike then published it. It was premature considering Brian had just told Altham the album's 12-tracks would be ready for a rush release.
GF - I am trying to think this through logically. 

Since there was a BRI board at that time, which was established for more creative control, in existence for around a year, with voting members, wouldn't something as important as a new release have to be approached democratically, say, with advice, discussion, and a vote? 

Just sayin'.    ;)

That should have been the case, you'd think. In this case of Mike telling the UK music journalist Derek Taylor (who also happened to be working publicity for the band's tour of the UK) that the group's forthcoming album which had been reported the previous week was ready to go for rush promotion had instead been "scrapped", he spoke before any of that advice/discussion/vote happened, apparently.

What is the source of this info?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 27, 2016, 10:34:59 AM
That's exactly what happened. That's how in the span of a week, it was reported that the album was being readied for rush promotion, 12 tracks ready. Then Mike tells Derek Taylor in the UK something different, and it's now "scrapped".
But - GF that conflicts with the video interview, done in the mid-70's with Brian who says that "he" (chucked it) for a while since he got so "next to it."

Was Derek accompanying them in the UK?  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 27, 2016, 10:57:46 AM
The timeline doesn't hold up. The first mention of any cancellation was the May 2nd edition of Disc & Music Echo. Also... Mike "apparently" said ? Won't fly, Orville: either he did or he didn't.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 27, 2016, 11:09:28 AM
The timeline doesn't hold up for the exact time Derek Taylor was working as the band's publicist and promoting the Beach Boys shows/tour in the UK that May? Go through the interviews and articles from that exact time, who was being quoted making the press rounds and who was the point man working with Taylor among the touring band members? It wasn't Carl, he had his hands full with the federal government on the draft issue, and he missed appearances on that UK tour due to that until he flew in late to the UK to join them.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 27, 2016, 11:16:20 AM
That's exactly what happened. That's how in the span of a week, it was reported that the album was being readied for rush promotion, 12 tracks ready. Then Mike tells Derek Taylor in the UK something different, and it's now "scrapped".

Except we now know the album wasn't anything like ready, and that twelve tracks were most definitely not completed by then. So, inaccurate info... and now it's not "apparently": Mike did tell Taylor. Source for this ?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 27, 2016, 11:17:44 AM
The Disc and Music Echo issue was May 6, 1967.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 27, 2016, 11:30:57 AM
Currently away from my research library, will check when I get back tomorrow... but May 2nd has long been associated with the Taylor statement. Of course, I could be wrong. Have been before.  ;D


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 27, 2016, 12:02:44 PM
The timeline doesn't hold up for the exact time Derek Taylor was working as the band's publicist and promoting the Beach Boys shows/tour in the UK that May? Go through the interviews and articles from that exact time, who was being quoted making the press rounds and who was the point man working with Taylor among the touring band members? It wasn't Carl, he had his hands full with the federal government on the draft issue, and he missed appearances on that UK tour due to that until he flew in late to the UK to join them.

It seems to me that Taylor has said he had a limited length contract, 3 to 6 months maybe, beginning with promotion of Pet Sounds. Also he has said something like that he made a 1967 New Years' resolution to let contracts lapse or quit or otherwise get out of that business and his clients. Which I think he later made an exception to maybe.  All from memory, don't trust it, I'll try to find it.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on January 27, 2016, 12:21:19 PM
The timeline doesn't hold up for the exact time Derek Taylor was working as the band's publicist and promoting the Beach Boys shows/tour in the UK that May? Go through the interviews and articles from that exact time, who was being quoted making the press rounds and who was the point man working with Taylor among the touring band members? It wasn't Carl, he had his hands full with the federal government on the draft issue, and he missed appearances on that UK tour due to that until he flew in late to the UK to join them.

It seems to me that Taylor has said he had a limited length contract, 3 to 6 months maybe, beginning with promotion of Pet Sounds. Also he has said something like that he made a 1967 New Years' resolution to let contracts lapse or quit or otherwise get out of that business and his clients. Which I think he later made an exception to maybe.  All from memory, don't trust it, I'll try to find it.
I don't know what his contract with the Beach Boys was, but he stayed and worked in LA as a publicist until 1968 when he accepted the job of Press Officer for Apple Corps.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 27, 2016, 02:18:49 PM
Currently away from my research library, will check when I get back tomorrow... but May 2nd has long been associated with the Taylor statement. Of course, I could be wrong. Have been before.  ;D

The announcement hit the streets the 6th but probably Taylor was told by........whomever .......by the 2nd or the 25th of April to make publication on the 6th. The actual decision could have been made and acted on much earlier, like sayyyyyyyy by April 4th for instance when Brian actually recorded a track of Smiley provenance. All else could be some degree of suing-our-label subterfuge or wishful thinking from Capitol or republishing what was last known.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Jeff on January 27, 2016, 03:34:22 PM
I know that Keith Badman's book has been shown to be wrong in many cases, but this is the timeline according to him:

4/29: "From his desk in Los Angeles, Derek Taylor announces in Disc that 'Vegetables' will be the next single.  He writes: 'All the 12 songs for the new Beach Boys album are now completed and with every indication that the group's dispute with Capitol Records is over, there are plans to release the album on a rush schedule at any moment.  A rough draft of the cover depicts a nursery-like drawing of a smile shop, where people can go in and buy their smiles and grins to size.'  ...  A press release from Taylor dated today and appearing in both Record Mirror and New Musical Express reveals that 'Heroes and Villains' has been held up 'due to technical difficulties.  There is a new single in the wind.  ...  The title of the new Beach Boys single, 'Vegetables', is a light and lyrical, day to day, green grocery song on which Al Jardine sings a most vigorous lead.  The other side is 'Wonderful', which I only heard improvised at the piano with the boys humming the theme for Paul [McCartney]'."

5/6: "Today's Disc & Music Echo reports Taylor saying: 'In truth, every beautifully designed, finely wrought inspirationally-welded piece of music ... has been SCRAPPED'."

5/11: "Gold Star studio (A), Los Angeles, CA.  Back in California, unaffected (and possibly invigorated by) Taylor's statement of the 6th, Brian returns to the studio and 'sweetens' his March 2nd mixdown of 'Heroes and Villains'."

5/16, 5/17, 5/18: ILTSDD sessions.

5/19: ILTSDD session (cancelled).

6/3: Recording of Smiley Smile begins.
 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Alan Smith on January 27, 2016, 03:40:23 PM
That's exactly what happened. That's how in the span of a week, it was reported that the album was being readied for rush promotion, 12 tracks ready. Then Mike tells Derek Taylor in the UK something different, and it's now "scrapped".
While its a logical assumption Mike broke the news, surely Derek Taylor would have confirmed with the mothership before dropping a bomb like that, no matter who told him x.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 27, 2016, 05:10:03 PM
I know that Keith Badman's book has been shown to be wrong in many cases, but this is the timeline according to him:

4/29: "From his desk in Los Angeles, Derek Taylor announces in Disc that 'Vegetables' will be the next single.  He writes: 'All the 12 songs for the new Beach Boys album are now completed and with every indication that the group's dispute with Capitol Records is over, there are plans to release the album on a rush schedule at any moment.  A rough draft of the cover depicts a nursery-like drawing of a smile shop, where people can go in and buy their smiles and grins to size.'  ...  A press release from Taylor dated today and appearing in both Record Mirror and New Musical Express reveals that 'Heroes and Villains' has been held up 'due to technical difficulties.  There is a new single in the wind.  ...  The title of the new Beach Boys single, 'Vegetables', is a light and lyrical, day to day, green grocery song on which Al Jardine sings a most vigorous lead.  The other side is 'Wonderful', which I only heard improvised at the piano with the boys humming the theme for Paul [McCartney]'."

5/6: "Today's Disc & Music Echo reports Taylor saying: 'In truth, every beautifully designed, finely wrought inspirationally-welded piece of music ... has been SCRAPPED'."

5/11: "Gold Star studio (A), Los Angeles, CA.  Back in California, unaffected (and possibly invigorated by) Taylor's statement of the 6th, Brian returns to the studio and 'sweetens' his March 2nd mixdown of 'Heroes and Villains'."

5/16, 5/17, 5/18: ILTSDD sessions.

5/19: ILTSDD session (cancelled).

6/3: Recording of Smiley Smile begins.

Thanks Jeff. Good to have fuller quotes in some context.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Phoenix on January 27, 2016, 06:32:41 PM
GV was prepped and edited down for a 45 rpm single (which could have gone on Pet Sounds, and is on the Pet Sounds Sessions Box set.)  That has nothing to do with a Smile double LP, which might have been dynamite with the 'kitchen sink' left for the listener to interpret rather than the creators providing the interpretation. 

The point is Brian recorded 90 HOURS of material for "Good Vibrations" and from those sessions, assembled a three and a half minute single, discarding far more from the sessions than he kept. He recorded Smile in the same, modular fashion, with the same "standard length" end game in mind. The volume of Smile recordings in no way points to the record being a double album because he never planned to use everything he recorded


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 27, 2016, 07:35:38 PM
Quote
The point is Brian recorded 90 HOURS of material for "Good Vibrations" and from those sessions, assembled a three and a half minute single, discarding far more from the sessions than he kept. He recorded Smile in the same, modular fashion, with the same "standard length" end game in mind. The volume of Smile recordings in no way points to the record being a double album because he never planned to use everything he recorded

Well, here's the thing. It may well be an entrenched position on my part (which I wrote about at length on a different thread several years ago), but I'm not convinced that the individual tracks for Smile - in '66, at least - were being approached in a similar style to GV. Modular recording (ie. one completed backing track for a verse, copied as many times as the song required, then dubbed with vocals), sure. But the evidence of the surviving edits, assemblies and recording logs suggest a far more concrete and considered approach to song structure.

One example: Cabin Essence, whatever the compositional origins of the three discrete musical sections, was entirely tracked in one day. I believe on the Durrie Parks acetates there is an alternate sequencing, but we also have a rough assembly done by Brian at that time which has the sections ordered in the same sequence as would eventually be heard on 20/20. Wind Chimes had a full assembly. 'Child' has a vintage edit. 'Wonderful'. 'Fire'. 'Cornucopia' Veggies. 'Worms'. Surf's Up has the solo recording, giving the structure (repeated, with added coda vocals, in 1972). There's an increasing likelihood even H&V (inc. IIGS and Barnyard) had a full sequence planned in October/November, at least.

The GV extended recording period, and 'mix'n'match' approach to sequencing the various sections, doesn't actually seem to have provided much of a precedent for Smile, at least according to the tape evidence we have. Go through the Dec '66 tracklisting, and the great majority of those listed were actually given pre-vocal edits/assemblies by Brian, which remained fairly consistent where there are multiple edits to compare. GV was a Frankenstein, going through at least two distinct lyrical iterations, the first provided by a (very talented) writer-for-hire and the second by a member of the band, at least one key part of which - according to that person - was actually conceived 'on the fly' in a car on the way to the studio. GV seems to have been as much a musical/textural/structural experiment as a formally-organised 'pop song' as they were typically composed in the sixties (or, indeed, now).

The SMiLE songs, or the great majority of them at least, appear to have been written by BW and VDP in a way GV simply wasn't. Sure, 'the verse of one might [have] become the bridge of another', but by the time Brian got them into studio, the data suggests he knew what went with where, and in what order. When I did my '66 Smile' mix (36 minutes all up), I was surprised to see just how little tracking material from that year proved extraneous - the 'Child' bridge, 'Da Da' recording, the first 'Wind Chimes', 'Heroes and Villians Intro - Early Version', 'Look' and 'Holidays', if I recall correctly. (Oh, and 'Speeches', but I actually used that as a bridge in 'Wonderful' - because it may have been recorded the same day, and I'm naughty.) Not including the re-recorded WC, and the abandoned bridge for 'Child' (not used in Brian's '66 assembly), less than 10 minutes all up.

Which brings me, really, to my fundamental belief about what happened to Smile, regardless of the potential causes for it (the band's possible disapproval; the legal wrangling with Capitol; Murray; drugs; growing tension between Brian and Van Dyke; Vietnam, I suppose): There was a more-or-less 'fully conceived' [Vosse] and roughly sequenced album, with fully structured and largely tracked songs, in the works in late '66, and this was derailed in December of that year. I think history and the recorded evidence suggests this more than it does the alternative.

The pressure for a single release that might meet or exceed the unexpected and enormous success of GV, and perhaps also to make it appear to Capitol that the band were attempting to meet the label's expectations in some measure, appears to have led to the H&V mania of Jan and Feb (Anderle/Williams; Vosse; the sessiongraphy). Then, after essentially a month's recording break - to drift closer to topic - a similar concentration in April on 'Vegetables', explicitly mentioned in at least one press clipping as a replacement for the now 'dumped' (by Brian) 'Heroes and Villians' single release.

The work on other album tracks during early '67 is pretty cursory - a 'Child' chorus here, a new take on 'Wonderful' (for the B-side of 'Veggies', according to Badman above) there - so surely one can either read this as meaning a) Brian was satisfied he had most of the tracks in the can from the '66 sessions (going from the Altham clipping of April 29) or b) the album was functionally dead in the new year, even if no one was quite willing to admit that yet (eventually confirmed by Taylor, May 6), and the majority of work was on potential A-side/B-side releases for the much-needed new single. Or both.

But none of it, I suggest, leads to the conclusion that there was enough material for a double album - or even a particularly long one - actually conceived and (instrumentally) tracked for the Smile album intended to see a Christmas '66 release date ('The Elements', probably, and 'I'm in Great Shape', possibly, aside). This we agree on. I just think GV is a red herring either way when considering Brian and Van Dyke's 'operational principles' in writing and recording Smile, according to all the data we do have.

As Van Dyke put it in the 'Beautiful Dreamer' doco, when describing the primary productive period: 'It was a very athletic situation.'


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 27, 2016, 09:20:19 PM
Re. Derek Taylor in May: in the same issue of D&ME for May 6 1967 is an article about the Boys' tour and it reports the Boys had already crossed the pond and would be flying to London but Taylor is in America (as is Brian) reporting about Carl's Los Angeles lawyer being confident about his draft case. Seems Brian may have done the reveal to Taylor.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 12:21:48 AM
The double album nonsense: Van Dyke told me explicitly that it was always a single album. Not double, not an EP, not a 5CD 2LP 2 singles box set. A single album.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2016, 01:30:27 AM
That's exactly what happened. That's how in the span of a week, it was reported that the album was being readied for rush promotion, 12 tracks ready. Then Mike tells Derek Taylor in the UK something different, and it's now "scrapped".
While its a logical assumption Mike broke the news,

Why is that a logical assumption? Could have been any of the boys, including Brian himself. And press statements always have to be taken with a grain of salt, like "laryngitis", you know?

Alan, I hope your feet didn't get wet!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Alan Smith on January 28, 2016, 04:12:03 AM
That's exactly what happened. That's how in the span of a week, it was reported that the album was being readied for rush promotion, 12 tracks ready. Then Mike tells Derek Taylor in the UK something different, and it's now "scrapped".
While its a logical assumption Mike broke the news,

Why is that a logical assumption? Could have been any of the boys, including Brian himself. And press statements always have to be taken with a grain of salt, like "laryngitis", you know?

Alan, I hope your feet didn't get wet!

 :lol Micha, I'm keeping them feet well above the high-tide line.  We live in an elevated position which makes things easier.

Based on the press evidence GuitarFool has put forward, one could logically assume Mike is the most likely candidate to be providing the initial feed, BUT, that's an assumption not a hard fact.

And as I assume, I'm sure Derek Taylor wouldn't have gone to press on the here-say of anyone in the group without verifying facts with the group/team/management/Brian.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 04:18:35 AM
I want to see proof for Craig's claim that Mike told Taylor. First it was an assumption, then it was a fact. Source, please.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Alan Smith on January 28, 2016, 04:38:58 AM
I want to see proof for Craig's claim that Mike told Taylor. First it was an assumption, then it was a fact. Source, please.
+ 1


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 28, 2016, 04:41:09 AM
"Often put down in their early years, now vastly and widely appreciated in so many, many ways, the Beach Boys and I met in 1966 and worked together for two years. They paid me $750 a month for publicity and all sorts of help and they loaned me five thou when I had a crisis. Such generosity, but Christ, they were hard work. The basis of the band was the three Wilson brothers, Brian, Dennis and Carl, and their cousin Mike Love; but there was a fifth, Al Jardine, at that time not a full-sharing financial partner; and there was a sixth, Bruce Johnston, stand-in for Brian during stage performances, not yet certain of his role (he left in 1972). And they were anxious to bring everything much more together and win a wider following among the cognoscenti. They were on the threshold of releasing "Pet Sounds" and the next single was to be 'Good Vibrations'. “ Derek Taylor - As Time Goes By

"A man called Alan Pariser attended the Monterey Jazz Festival, which was quite an established event, and while smoking a marijuana cigarette, he considered the possibility of thousands and thousands of pop fans pouring out on the grounds, instead of these rather stuffy jazzophiles in corduroy trousers.
"He went to people with money, and raised I think $50,000 'seed money' to put on a pop festival at the Monterey Fairgrounds in Northern California, to be held sometime during the summer of l967, now known as the Summer of Love.
"In January of that mild winter, he asked me if I would publicize it. Well, I had just decided to drop out of being a Hollywood press agent, which is the lowest form of life, and go home to England. It was a time for dropping out."  Derek Taylor

My memory is 50% I guess.  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 28, 2016, 04:44:06 AM
Is there evidence that Derek was with the Beach Boys on that tour?



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2016, 05:09:52 AM
Word is...Taylor's info didn't come from Brian.

Whose word?


:lol Micha, I'm keeping them feet well above the high-tide line.  We live in an elevated position which makes things easier.

No intentions to move to lower Geelong? :wink


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 28, 2016, 05:43:27 AM
Re. Derek Taylor in May: in the same issue of D&ME for May 6 1967 is an article about the Boys' tour and it reports the Boys had already crossed the pond and would be flying to London but Taylor is in America (as is Brian) reporting about Carl's Los Angeles lawyer being confident about his draft case. Seems Brian may have done the reveal to Taylor.
Cam - They did go to the UK - amidst Carl going back to face a judge on the draft evasion charges, (I think in California on the 1st of May.) and then turn around to go to Ireland, where the band had already played a show or part of one without him.  IIRC

I don't have either Badman or Rusten handy right now.  Carl was arrested in NY.  I think around the 26th of April.  Right after Inside Pop aired. IMDB says April 25th it aired.

They played Boston on April 28 on a Friday, Carl had been released.

April has 30 days.  The weekend is the 29th and 30th.    If this "from his desk in LA, Derek Taylor" announcement is on a Saturday.  (the 29th)  - how much "lead time" would be needed from submission (deadline) to print release of these press announcements?

And (courtesy of "Jeff" - from Badman) - session "ILTSDD" - on 5/16-18.  (I Love to say Da Da) - sounds like Mike.  

If there are Smile sessions when they come back, it does not make sense.    Just sayin.'  ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 05:48:31 AM
Carl missed the first show in Ireland. Check out 10452.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 28, 2016, 06:01:32 AM
Carl missed the first show in Ireland. Check out 10452.
Andrew - I thought so, and should've checked 10452 - it is easier to "carry around" than either Rusten or Badman! :lol



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Theydon Bois on January 28, 2016, 06:02:57 AM
That's exactly what happened. That's how in the span of a week, it was reported that the album was being readied for rush promotion, 12 tracks ready. Then Mike tells Derek Taylor in the UK something different, and it's now "scrapped".
While its a logical assumption Mike broke the news, surely Derek Taylor would have confirmed with the mothership before dropping a bomb like that, no matter who told him x.

The idea that Brian was not consulted on, or even aware of, the "SCRAPPED" announcement is not a new one though.  It was certainly floated in Carlin's book.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 06:10:12 AM
That's exactly what happened. That's how in the span of a week, it was reported that the album was being readied for rush promotion, 12 tracks ready. Then Mike tells Derek Taylor in the UK something different, and it's now "scrapped".

Except it's not exactly what happened, because  Taylor wasn't in the UK.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 06:21:13 AM
On phone so no quotes but can't be Mike on "Da Da" May sessions as he was still in Europe.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on January 28, 2016, 06:28:14 AM
"Often put down in their early years, now vastly and widely appreciated in so many, many ways, the Beach Boys and I met in 1966 and worked together for two years. They paid me $750 a month for publicity and all sorts of help and they loaned me five thou when I had a crisis. Such generosity, but Christ, they were hard work. The basis of the band was the three Wilson brothers, Brian, Dennis and Carl, and their cousin Mike Love; but there was a fifth, Al Jardine, at that time not a full-sharing financial partner; and there was a sixth, Bruce Johnston, stand-in for Brian during stage performances, not yet certain of his role (he left in 1972). And they were anxious to bring everything much more together and win a wider following among the cognoscenti. They were on the threshold of releasing "Pet Sounds" and the next single was to be 'Good Vibrations'. “ Derek Taylor - As Time Goes By

"A man called Alan Pariser attended the Monterey Jazz Festival, which was quite an established event, and while smoking a marijuana cigarette, he considered the possibility of thousands and thousands of pop fans pouring out on the grounds, instead of these rather stuffy jazzophiles in corduroy trousers.
"He went to people with money, and raised I think $50,000 'seed money' to put on a pop festival at the Monterey Fairgrounds in Northern California, to be held sometime during the summer of l967, now known as the Summer of Love.
"In January of that mild winter, he asked me if I would publicize it. Well, I had just decided to drop out of being a Hollywood press agent, which is the lowest form of life, and go home to England. It was a time for dropping out."  Derek Taylor

My memory is 50% I guess.  
It sounds like his memory is 50% as the two quotes are contradictory (the two years from 66 would indicate 68) and another source (which I'll find when I'm at my computer) indicates that he didn't move back to England until fall 67 at the earliest. I suppose if he was deciding to leave in mid-winter 66-67 he may not have actually made the move until late 67, though.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 28, 2016, 06:35:41 AM
Re. Derek Taylor in May: in the same issue of D&ME for May 6 1967 is an article about the Boys' tour and it reports the Boys had already crossed the pond and would be flying to London but Taylor is in America (as is Brian) reporting about Carl's Los Angeles lawyer being confident about his draft case. Seems Brian may have done the reveal to Taylor.
Cam - They did go to the UK - amidst Carl going back to face a judge on the draft evasion charges, (I think in California on the 1st of May.) and then turn around to go to Ireland, where the band had already played a show or part of one without him.  IIRC

I don't have either Badman or Rusten handy right now.  Carl was arrested in NY.  I think around the 26th of April.  Right after Inside Pop aired. IMDB says April 25th it aired.

They played Boston on April 28 on a Friday, Carl had been released.

April has 30 days.  The weekend is the 29th and 30th.    If this "from his desk in LA, Derek Taylor" announcement is on a Saturday.  (the 29th)  - how much "lead time" would be needed from submission (deadline) to print release of these press announcements?

And (courtesy of "Jeff" - from Badman) - session "ILTSDD" - on 5/16-18.  (I Love to say Da Da) - sounds like Mike.  

If there are Smile sessions when they come back, it does not make sense.    Just sayin.'  ;)

Not sure but Taylor's column was titled:

OUR MAN IN AMERICA
DEREK TAYLOR
HOLLYWOOD TUESDAY

The article was in the May 6 1967 issue.

Maybe there are some photos or reports that show whether Taylor was in US or Europe/GB.  I'm guessing he was in the US planning Monterey Pop but that's because I haven't seen any evidence he was in GB as of yet.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 06:56:28 AM
Where was it said Taylor was in England? It would be foolish to say that (if it was said) since his column *actually* was headlined: BEACH BOYS fly in for a hot tour - and this is why there's no single to launch it..."

And the sub-heading reads as follows: "DEREK TAYLOR reporting from Hollywood as the Big Tour hits Britain"

Direct from the page in Disc & Music Echo May 6, 1967 issue where the Taylor article appeared.

Cam, I have no idea what you saw or where you're looking at to post that wording, but the actual page reads exactly as posted above.

And that is also why no mention was made that Taylor was with the band in the UK, when the actual page reads as it does.

Cam - Who ever said he was in England touring with the BB's? He was working in LA as a freelance music publicist and also working (alongside Michael Vosse, btw) in organizing Monterey Pop. He was work for hire.

Cam - Both NME and Disc & Music Echo were weekly UK music newspapers. If something happened in the music world, it would be reported in the next week's issue. Simple as that. There was no delay (for the big stuff...) beyond a week's time, like other weekly papers or mags.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2016, 07:02:26 AM
And (courtesy of "Jeff" - from Badman) - session "ILTSDD" - on 5/16-18.  (I Love to say Da Da) - sounds like Mike.

I don't get this. What sounds like Mike?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 07:03:57 AM
Craig, you said "Mike tells Taylor in the UK". That's  Cam, and I, got it from.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2016, 07:07:09 AM
Where was it said Taylor was in England?

I read this as such:

Then Mike tells Derek Taylor in the UK something different, and it's now "scrapped".

The way you worded it sounds like implying they were both there. I still don't get why you insist Mike told Taylor the album was scrapped. How can you be sure of that?

Oh, AGD beat me to it. Still posting it because AGD couldn't provide the quote.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 07:08:19 AM
That's exactly what happened. That's how in the span of a week, it was reported that the album was being readied for rush promotion, 12 tracks ready. Then Mike tells Derek Taylor in the UK something different, and it's now "scrapped".
While its a logical assumption Mike broke the news, surely Derek Taylor would have confirmed with the mothership before dropping a bomb like that, no matter who told him x.

The idea that Brian was not consulted on, or even aware of, the "SCRAPPED" announcement is not a new one though.  It was certainly floated in Carlin's book.

Exactly. How you managed to see this while everyone else seems to have missed it over the past decade...that's their bag, I suppose.

Carlin's book...and other sources that have said this for over a decade. For all the researchers out there, everyone asking what is *my* source, perhaps dig a little deeper, search a little more, and it will turn up, whatever got put into print.

Carlin didn't name Mike at all as the source for Taylor's article, but as was said above, the "logical assumption" angle kicks in when you put it all together.

And re: the source thing. Can anyone disprove that Mike was the one working closest to Derek Taylor at this specific time, or was Derek getting his scoop from the UK and elsewhere from another Beach Boy who was on the road? At this time, it wasn't Carl...yet Derek had someone giving him the reports from the tour which he used for his column. It wasn't Brian - The word from him was that the album was going to be ready to go for rush promotion.

Then, basically a week later, Taylor's column which is written to report on and promote (and do old fashioned hype for) the Beach Boys UK tour (and does, with specific info about the jet they flew in having a sign reading "The Beach Boys and Igor") says that same album is scrapped?

Add it up and see what figures everyone else can come up with.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 07:12:15 AM
Talk about parsing words. How about "while Mike was in the UK"...or any variation...does that make it better? It never was said here that Taylor was in the UK with the band, so that can't be used to refute anything moving forward. Never said, never written.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 07:19:05 AM
I'm not parsing anything, just repeating exactly what you said, and the only logical reading is that both were in the UK at the time, unless you're backpedaling. More to the point... your source for Mike being the source, please ?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2016, 07:19:33 AM
Can anyone disprove that Mike was the one working closest to Derek Taylor at this specific time

Where's the proof it wasn't Brian who Taylor worked closest with? I think it's more likely Taylor got the info from Brian, as they were in the same city, Taylor saying Brian "sealed it in a can".

What are you trying to prove anyway? That SMiLE was junked because Mike told Talor it was scrapped, while in fact Brian was still working on it?

It's pretty arrogant of you to say WE should "dig deeper" for something you might as well have made up.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 28, 2016, 07:25:56 AM
This makes no sense.  Brian and Derek are in L.A.  Mike is in the UK, POSSIBLY giving tour reports to Derek Taylor.  He tells Derek Smile is scrapped maybe.  Derek wouldn't call up Brian to confirm that?  He would go with what Mike says, with no additional confirmation?  Does Capitol understand it's scrapped?

The next illogicality is, why would Mike say it was scrapped?  Whether Mike wanted it scrapped or not, how does making a public statement that it's scrapped help the Beach Boys PR or help the bottom dollar, his primary concern?

None of it adds up.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 07:29:58 AM
Talk about arrogant...now the implication is it's me who made this up out of thin air in 2016 despite it being out there in numerous places for over a decade? Not my fault no one remembers it or can't find it whatever the case.

What's the issue anyway if Mike was Taylor's source to trigger such a reaction? In this same thread we had Cam Mott suggesting Smile was dead in the water relative to Brian moving into the new house, and even Andrew's Bellagio timeline lists "Smile Session" entries for April and May after that move, perhaps getting those basic facts sorted out would be on the to-do list as well.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 07:36:37 AM
This makes no sense.  Brian and Derek are in L.A.  Mike is in the UK, POSSIBLY giving tour reports to Derek Taylor.  He tells Derek Smile is scrapped maybe.  Derek wouldn't call up Brian to confirm that?  He would go with what Mike says, with no additional confirmation?  Does Capitol understand it's scrapped?

The next illogicality is, why would Mike say it was scrapped?  Whether Mike wanted it scrapped or not, how does making a public statement that it's scrapped help the Beach Boys PR or help the bottom dollar, his primary concern?

None of it adds up.

That's the point, right? It doesn't add up, it doesn't make sense. What didn't make sense from a few pages ago was the timing of the two UK weekly articles publishing columns basically within a week of each other where Brian tells the NME writer the new album - 12 tracks - is being readied for rush promotion. Then Taylor reports the album was scrapped.

Big disconnect, right?

Logically, what could have happened to cause such a contradiction between what Brian told NME and what Taylor wrote? And beyond that, if Taylor's info was accurate, what was Brian doing recording "DaDa" with the Wrecking Crew while the Beach Boys were playing in Germany, just over a week after Taylor's column declared the project dead?

That's the heart of this, how did all of the contradictions happen as they played out, not only in the UK music press but in Brian's own schedule of recording as well.

And again, consider who in the touring band would have been most likely to be Taylor's point man for the publicity of this European tour? carl had his hands full and missed shows because of it. Two BRI voting members left - Dennis or Mike. Worth considering.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 28, 2016, 07:40:58 AM
Wasn't May when Brian had a nervous breakdown and was hospitalized?  I think Peter Reum has put that out there.  Could Brian have been in the hospital when this "scrapped" business came up, and Mike assumed it was scrapped because Brian had a breakdown (a big logical leap which I don't think he would make, but maybe . . . ).  Derek couldn't reach Brian because he was in the hospital?  Still strange he wouldn't get confirmation from someone else in the Beach Boys camp before going public with such a statement.

As for the sudden reversal from one week to the next - all 12 tracks are complete, then the album is scrapped, then possibly for ILTSDD it's back on . . . isn't that typical Brian?  record a track for a section of a song, listen to it, scrap it, then later record something to replace it?  The album's almost finished, no, i'm scrapping it, no, maybe I can do this . . .  sounds like classic Brian.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 07:43:16 AM
One - if it's out there and has been for decades, why not cut the drama and just tell us where to look.

Two - the session dates on Bellagio are taken from verified sources such as AFM contract, or given to me by c-man.

Three - an assumption is just that, until supported by documentation.

Four - logic and The Beach Boys have never enjoyed any lasting relationship.   ;D


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 07:48:35 AM
Wasn't May when Brian had a nervous breakdown and was hospitalized?  I think Peter Reum has put that out there.  Could Brian have been in the hospital when this "scrapped" business came up, and Mike assumed it was scrapped because Brian had a breakdown (a big logical leap which I don't think he would make, but maybe . . . ).  Derek couldn't reach Brian because he was in the hospital?  Still strange he wouldn't get confirmation from someone else in the Beach Boys camp before going public with such a statement.

As for the sudden reversal from one week to the next - all 12 tracks are complete, then the album is scrapped, then possibly for ILTSDD it's back on . . . isn't that typical Brian?  record a track for a section of a song, listen to it, scrap it, then later record something to replace it?  The album's almost finished, no, i'm scrapping it, no, maybe I can do this . . .  sounds like classic Brian.

You've see photos of Brian at the sessions for DaDa and heard his voice running the DaDa sessions...two weeks after those sessions he was back at Sound Recorders then at Western working on Vegetables, With Me Tonight, and Cool Cool Water.

If there is a gap in the timeline regarding Brian and where he was at this time, it would be mid-April to mid-May 67. Point is, though, he was back at it working like he had been on Smile (pro studios, Wrecking Crew, etc), he had told NME the album would be ready for rush promotion, and Taylor's statement completely contradicted both the subsequent actions and the words from Brian at this same time.

Taylor was a pro - would he make something up out of thin air, or would it be more logical to assume he reported what he got from his source (or point man) within the band he was being paid to promote?

It makes no sense, right?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 08:07:30 AM
One - if it's out there and has been for decades, why not cut the drama and just tell us where to look.

Two - the session dates on Bellagio are taken from verified sources such as AFM contract, or given to me by c-man.

Three - an assumption is just that, until supported by documentation.

Four - logic and The Beach Boys have never enjoyed any lasting relationship.   ;D

1. The fact that it has been out there for at least a decade in multiple sources yet seems to have been either ignored or completely overlooked is what puzzles me, considering this is an environment where the legitimacy of a "source" is often challenged on things as trivial as spelling errors or typos, or other even more nonsensical standards. It's also kind of fun to see sources being demanded in this case, when the world of BB's history exists in an atmosphere that trades weekly in citing "unnamed sources" or "those who would know" as fact without revealing said sources. Most times when a source is in fact revealed, it becomes an issue of trying to find ways to discredit the source (as noted above)  rather than the information itself.

2. Right, so when Cam Mott in this discussion says Smile was already scrapped before the April sessions, and the timelines list them all up to June 1967 as a "Smile Session" on the timeline, why not put a challenge to Cam since his theory is directly contradicted by the info on the Bellagio site?

3. Does this include asking someone a question or asking for a clarification, i.e. "did this really happen?", that person answers the question, but it stays off the record and unpublished yet is mentioned in a discussion as confirmation? A lot of these situations have happened through the years and posted on message boards or blogs, but are technically unpublished and thus "unsupported by documentation", so do they factor in as well?

4. Yes indeed!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2016, 08:17:28 AM
What didn't make sense from a few pages ago was the timing of the two UK weekly articles publishing columns basically within a week of each other where Brian tells the NME writer the new album - 12 tracks - is being readied for rush promotion. Then Taylor reports the album was scrapped.

Big disconnect, right?

Logically, what could have happened to cause such a contradiction between what Brian told NME and what Taylor wrote? And beyond that, if Taylor's info was accurate, what was Brian doing recording "DaDa" with the Wrecking Crew while the Beach Boys were playing in Germany, just over a week after Taylor's column declared the project dead?

Considering Brian's mental state as reported by Jules Siegel you have to expect illogical behavior from Brian at the time. Saying it's finished, two weeks later say it's scrapped, then start recording again. To me this looks like just like another try in the old "blame Mike for everything" game. Something at fault? MIKE LOVE!!!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2016, 08:26:05 AM
when Cam Mott in this discussion says Smile was already scrapped before the April sessions, and the timelines list them all up to June 1967 as a "Smile Session" on the timeline, why not put a challenge to Cam

Actually I did, a few pages ago, and I did so because he based his claim solely on Al Jardine's memory, and human memories always prove to be faulty. His claim is to me no more plausible than yours. At least we know Cam's source, the Al interview. I don't think a lot of people agree with Cam on this matter.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 08:31:18 AM
What didn't make sense from a few pages ago was the timing of the two UK weekly articles publishing columns basically within a week of each other where Brian tells the NME writer the new album - 12 tracks - is being readied for rush promotion. Then Taylor reports the album was scrapped.

Big disconnect, right?

Logically, what could have happened to cause such a contradiction between what Brian told NME and what Taylor wrote? And beyond that, if Taylor's info was accurate, what was Brian doing recording "DaDa" with the Wrecking Crew while the Beach Boys were playing in Germany, just over a week after Taylor's column declared the project dead?

Considering Brian's mental state as reported by Jules Siegel you have to expect illogical behavior from Brian at the time. Saying it's finished, two weeks later say it's scrapped, then start recording again. To me this looks like just like another try in the old "blame Mike for everything" game. Something at fault? MIKE LOVE!!!

In another recent Smile related discussion here, it was suggested that Jules Siegel's article was biased with hints of or even outright sexism because of his description of Carole Kaye at a session and other factors, therefore it shouldn't be considered as legitimate in terms of a source or historical record of the events he reported. Should we go down that path and also strike Jules' article and info from the record moving forward?

Whatever bias you bring to the discussion is your issue to deal with in terms of looking at the information that exists or finding ways to dismiss or discredit it.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2016, 08:38:49 AM
What didn't make sense from a few pages ago was the timing of the two UK weekly articles publishing columns basically within a week of each other where Brian tells the NME writer the new album - 12 tracks - is being readied for rush promotion. Then Taylor reports the album was scrapped.

Big disconnect, right?

Logically, what could have happened to cause such a contradiction between what Brian told NME and what Taylor wrote? And beyond that, if Taylor's info was accurate, what was Brian doing recording "DaDa" with the Wrecking Crew while the Beach Boys were playing in Germany, just over a week after Taylor's column declared the project dead?

Considering Brian's mental state as reported by Jules Siegel you have to expect illogical behavior from Brian at the time. Saying it's finished, two weeks later say it's scrapped, then start recording again. To me this looks like just like another try in the old "blame Mike for everything" game. Something at fault? MIKE LOVE!!!

In another recent Smile related discussion here, it was suggested that Jules Siegel's article was biased with hints of or even outright sexism because of his description of Carole Kaye at a session and other factors, therefore it shouldn't be considered as legitimate in terms of a source or historical record of the events he reported.

Well, that was not an opinion I agree with. But I see there's no use arguing with neither you or Cam. I don't believe your claim if you won't back it up, and I see you won't and rather display an air of superiority.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 08:43:39 AM
What didn't make sense from a few pages ago was the timing of the two UK weekly articles publishing columns basically within a week of each other where Brian tells the NME writer the new album - 12 tracks - is being readied for rush promotion. Then Taylor reports the album was scrapped.

Big disconnect, right?

Logically, what could have happened to cause such a contradiction between what Brian told NME and what Taylor wrote? And beyond that, if Taylor's info was accurate, what was Brian doing recording "DaDa" with the Wrecking Crew while the Beach Boys were playing in Germany, just over a week after Taylor's column declared the project dead?

Considering Brian's mental state as reported by Jules Siegel you have to expect illogical behavior from Brian at the time. Saying it's finished, two weeks later say it's scrapped, then start recording again. To me this looks like just like another try in the old "blame Mike for everything" game. Something at fault? MIKE LOVE!!!

In another recent Smile related discussion here, it was suggested that Jules Siegel's article was biased with hints of or even outright sexism because of his description of Carole Kaye at a session and other factors, therefore it shouldn't be considered as legitimate in terms of a source or historical record of the events he reported.

Well, that was not an opinion I agree with. But I see there's no use arguing with neither you or Cam. I don't believe your claim if you won't back it up, and I see you won't and rather display an air of superiority.

It wasn't my claim a decade ago.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2016, 08:57:04 AM
So give me a source, I'll look it up and think about it.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on January 28, 2016, 08:57:35 AM
What didn't make sense from a few pages ago was the timing of the two UK weekly articles publishing columns basically within a week of each other where Brian tells the NME writer the new album - 12 tracks - is being readied for rush promotion. Then Taylor reports the album was scrapped.

Big disconnect, right?

Logically, what could have happened to cause such a contradiction between what Brian told NME and what Taylor wrote? And beyond that, if Taylor's info was accurate, what was Brian doing recording "DaDa" with the Wrecking Crew while the Beach Boys were playing in Germany, just over a week after Taylor's column declared the project dead?

Considering Brian's mental state as reported by Jules Siegel you have to expect illogical behavior from Brian at the time. Saying it's finished, two weeks later say it's scrapped, then start recording again. To me this looks like just like another try in the old "blame Mike for everything" game. Something at fault? MIKE LOVE!!!
I don't have any information outside of this thread, but while I don't think it's established in this thread that it was Mike Love, I think it's pretty unlikely that the sole source of such extreme contradiction twice and so close together was Brian Wilson. Maybe it was, but it just seems like it was more confusion than just in his head.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2016, 09:08:07 AM
I don't have any information outside of this thread, but while I don't think it's established in this thread that it was Mike Love, I think it's pretty unlikely that the sole source of such extreme contradiction twice and so close together was Brian Wilson. Maybe it was, but it just seems like it was more confusion than just in his head.

We may never know. There's obviously people who think they know, but I don't.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 09:11:39 AM
Ah, it's smoke & mirrors time again.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 28, 2016, 09:21:17 AM
What didn't make sense from a few pages ago was the timing of the two UK weekly articles publishing columns basically within a week of each other where Brian tells the NME writer the new album - 12 tracks - is being readied for rush promotion. Then Taylor reports the album was scrapped.

Big disconnect, right?

Logically, what could have happened to cause such a contradiction between what Brian told NME and what Taylor wrote? And beyond that, if Taylor's info was accurate, what was Brian doing recording "DaDa" with the Wrecking Crew while the Beach Boys were playing in Germany, just over a week after Taylor's column declared the project dead?

Considering Brian's mental state as reported by Jules Siegel you have to expect illogical behavior from Brian at the time. Saying it's finished, two weeks later say it's scrapped, then start recording again. To me this looks like just like another try in the old "blame Mike for everything" game. Something at fault? MIKE LOVE!!!

In another recent Smile related discussion here, it was suggested that Jules Siegel's article was biased with hints of or even outright sexism because of his description of Carole Kaye at a session and other factors, therefore it shouldn't be considered as legitimate in terms of a source or historical record of the events he reported. Should we go down that path and also strike Jules' article and info from the record moving forward?

Whatever bias you bring to the discussion is your issue to deal with in terms of looking at the information that exists or finding ways to dismiss or discredit it.
GF - I was discussing that sexism that maybe was not picked up on by others, and will gladly own it.  Jules was supposedly "embedded" with the band at that time, purportedly enjoying enormous access.  First, my issue was inaccuracy as to what Carole's role was, (which was a big boo-boo,)  and second, was an obvious bias with his characterization of Carole Kaye.  

Is it a legit source?  Now, I don't know.  He was an observer/bystander, and not a participant as were the band members.  Photos or other accounts could jog their memories.

And for who was where?  There are the session sheets, concert dates,  but there could also be travel logs or other kinds of itineraries.  

But could Taylor have taken it upon himself to declare the project "scrapped" based on some off-hand remark?  

Could Taylor  just have "run with it" and gone off to whatever his next project was and not looked back?  So,  I guess that is where the disconnect is.   ;)



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 28, 2016, 09:25:04 AM
Was there any evidence that Wind Chimes was air?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 28, 2016, 09:25:50 AM
Smile may have been scrapped in reality from January or even December, based on what Brian was doing in the studio, and not doing . . . my complaint with Cam's logic is his evidence that Vegetables was not a Smile session is totally unconvincing, as the sessions - particularly the tag session - and the ILTSDD session - are exactly in the mode of Smile recordings as they were conducted since August 66, they are logged with the Smile project number, use the same studio musicians, etc.  The very idea of a line demarcating Smile and Smiley is itself a red herring.  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 28, 2016, 09:36:28 AM
"Often put down in their early years, now vastly and widely appreciated in so many, many ways, the Beach Boys and I met in 1966 and worked together for two years. They paid me $750 a month for publicity and all sorts of help and they loaned me five thou when I had a crisis. Such generosity, but Christ, they were hard work. The basis of the band was the three Wilson brothers, Brian, Dennis and Carl, and their cousin Mike Love; but there was a fifth, Al Jardine, at that time not a full-sharing financial partner; and there was a sixth, Bruce Johnston, stand-in for Brian during stage performances, not yet certain of his role (he left in 1972). And they were anxious to bring everything much more together and win a wider following among the cognoscenti. They were on the threshold of releasing "Pet Sounds" and the next single was to be 'Good Vibrations'. “ Derek Taylor - As Time Goes By

"A man called Alan Pariser attended the Monterey Jazz Festival, which was quite an established event, and while smoking a marijuana cigarette, he considered the possibility of thousands and thousands of pop fans pouring out on the grounds, instead of these rather stuffy jazzophiles in corduroy trousers.
"He went to people with money, and raised I think $50,000 'seed money' to put on a pop festival at the Monterey Fairgrounds in Northern California, to be held sometime during the summer of l967, now known as the Summer of Love.
"In January of that mild winter, he asked me if I would publicize it. Well, I had just decided to drop out of being a Hollywood press agent, which is the lowest form of life, and go home to England. It was a time for dropping out."  Derek Taylor

My memory is 50% I guess.  
It sounds like his memory is 50% as the two quotes are contradictory (the two years from 66 would indicate 68) and another source (which I'll find when I'm at my computer) indicates that he didn't move back to England until fall 67 at the earliest. I suppose if he was deciding to leave in mid-winter 66-67 he may not have actually made the move until late 67, though.

I wonder if taking on Monterey Pop had something to do with it?  I don't know.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 28, 2016, 09:50:38 AM
Where was it said Taylor was in England? It would be foolish to say that (if it was said) since his column *actually* was headlined: BEACH BOYS fly in for a hot tour - and this is why there's no single to launch it..."

And the sub-heading reads as follows: "DEREK TAYLOR reporting from Hollywood as the Big Tour hits Britain"

Direct from the page in Disc & Music Echo May 6, 1967 issue where the Taylor article appeared.

Cam, I have no idea what you saw or where you're looking at to post that wording, but the actual page reads exactly as posted above.

And that is also why no mention was made that Taylor was with the band in the UK, when the actual page reads as it does.

Cam - Who ever said he was in England touring with the BB's? He was working in LA as a freelance music publicist and also working (alongside Michael Vosse, btw) in organizing Monterey Pop. He was work for hire.

Cam - Both NME and Disc & Music Echo were weekly UK music newspapers. If something happened in the music world, it would be reported in the next week's issue. Simple as that. There was no delay (for the big stuff...) beyond a week's time, like other weekly papers or mags.


1. I got it from the same May 6 1967 issue of D&ME.

2. You did, which you have now explained.  I confirmed that he was in LA also.

3. They were weekly and presumably most of the information in them comes from 4 to 11 days or more prior to publication, as I have pointed out several times in this thread. But it is not a given, and even if Taylor learned about it 4 to 11 days prior to May 6 that doesn't mean the decision was made in that timeframe, it could have been much earlier and just kept mum for some reason (like a lawsuit perhaps).

We don't need all of that though because we KNOW a recording was started on April 4 and on through June on a track with a title and a master number and lyrics that is on the Smiley Smile album and is shown no where as a SMiLE title.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 09:52:02 AM
Was there any evidence that Wind Chimes was air?

About as much as there is for the Macca session being for "The Elements".  :)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: AndrewHickey on January 28, 2016, 10:31:17 AM
Taylor was a pro - would he make something up out of thin air, or would it be more logical to assume he reported what he got from his source (or point man) within the band he was being paid to promote?

It makes no sense, right?

Not taking any sides in the wider discussion, but Taylor was a pro precisely *because* he made stuff up out of thin air. Take his story about how he was hired for the Beatles:
Quote
I was pleased when George's Daily Express column fell to me, but I started on the wrong foot. I did a real ghosting job. George's father was a bus driver, so I invented a conversation between his father and him in typical popular-newspaper style. It went like this: 'So my dad said to me, "don't worry about me, son, you stick to your guitar and I'll carry on driving the big green jobs."'

I went down to London to deliver George's first column and I was asked by Brian, 'Oh, would you read it out for the boys? I'd like them to hear it.' So I had to take this column out of my pocket and, as if George had written it, I started reading it: '...stick to your guitar and I'll carry on driving the big green jobs.' And George said, 'What are big green jobs?' I said, 'Um, buses - Liverpool buses.' George said, 'I didn't know they were called "big green jobs".' John said, 'I didn't know they were, either.' I said, 'Well, I don't know that they are.' I had just made it up. Which, of course, is what happens on newspapers and that's why all these things sound so phoney.

Anyway, the long and short of it was, after I'd passed the test by admitting that I'd made up 'big green jobs', George said, 'I'll help you write the column - we can do it together.'

Then there's the time he was working for the Byrds, who had been booked to play a small club but were refusing to play it because now they were big stars, and their manager was worried they'd be sued by the promoter. He went to see the promoter and made up a lie about the band being sick, and was so convincing that not only did the promoter send back the contract, torn in two, he sent them a home-made cake with "Get Well, Byrds" iced onto it. (That story's in Johnny Rogan's book on the Byrds)

So while Derek Taylor had *many* admirable qualities, he was also someone who would quite happily lie his face off if it made a story more interesting, would benefit his clients in some way, or was easier than checking the facts. I don't think "Derek Taylor wouldn't have made it up" can be taken as read -- though I also don't see a strong reason *for* him to have made that up.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 10:34:07 AM
Just asked one of the people who would know about Mike dropping Derek the nod about the scrapping of Smile, and they're adamant it never happened. So, guess that's settled.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on January 28, 2016, 10:40:43 AM
"Often put down in their early years, now vastly and widely appreciated in so many, many ways, the Beach Boys and I met in 1966 and worked together for two years. They paid me $750 a month for publicity and all sorts of help and they loaned me five thou when I had a crisis. Such generosity, but Christ, they were hard work. The basis of the band was the three Wilson brothers, Brian, Dennis and Carl, and their cousin Mike Love; but there was a fifth, Al Jardine, at that time not a full-sharing financial partner; and there was a sixth, Bruce Johnston, stand-in for Brian during stage performances, not yet certain of his role (he left in 1972). And they were anxious to bring everything much more together and win a wider following among the cognoscenti. They were on the threshold of releasing "Pet Sounds" and the next single was to be 'Good Vibrations'. “ Derek Taylor - As Time Goes By

"A man called Alan Pariser attended the Monterey Jazz Festival, which was quite an established event, and while smoking a marijuana cigarette, he considered the possibility of thousands and thousands of pop fans pouring out on the grounds, instead of these rather stuffy jazzophiles in corduroy trousers.
"He went to people with money, and raised I think $50,000 'seed money' to put on a pop festival at the Monterey Fairgrounds in Northern California, to be held sometime during the summer of l967, now known as the Summer of Love.
"In January of that mild winter, he asked me if I would publicize it. Well, I had just decided to drop out of being a Hollywood press agent, which is the lowest form of life, and go home to England. It was a time for dropping out."  Derek Taylor

My memory is 50% I guess.  
It sounds like his memory is 50% as the two quotes are contradictory (the two years from 66 would indicate 68) and another source (which I'll find when I'm at my computer) indicates that he didn't move back to England until fall 67 at the earliest. I suppose if he was deciding to leave in mid-winter 66-67 he may not have actually made the move until late 67, though.

I wonder if taking on Monterey Pop had something to do with it?  I don't know.
That makes sense. Maybe we're supposed to read into his second quote that he'd decided to leave in January but then decided to stick around for Monterey. (?)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on January 28, 2016, 10:48:23 AM
Taylor was a pro - would he make something up out of thin air, or would it be more logical to assume he reported what he got from his source (or point man) within the band he was being paid to promote?

It makes no sense, right?

Not taking any sides in the wider discussion, but Taylor was a pro precisely *because* he made stuff up out of thin air. Take his story about how he was hired for the Beatles:
Quote
I was pleased when George's Daily Express column fell to me, but I started on the wrong foot. I did a real ghosting job. George's father was a bus driver, so I invented a conversation between his father and him in typical popular-newspaper style. It went like this: 'So my dad said to me, "don't worry about me, son, you stick to your guitar and I'll carry on driving the big green jobs."'

I went down to London to deliver George's first column and I was asked by Brian, 'Oh, would you read it out for the boys? I'd like them to hear it.' So I had to take this column out of my pocket and, as if George had written it, I started reading it: '...stick to your guitar and I'll carry on driving the big green jobs.' And George said, 'What are big green jobs?' I said, 'Um, buses - Liverpool buses.' George said, 'I didn't know they were called "big green jobs".' John said, 'I didn't know they were, either.' I said, 'Well, I don't know that they are.' I had just made it up. Which, of course, is what happens on newspapers and that's why all these things sound so phoney.

Anyway, the long and short of it was, after I'd passed the test by admitting that I'd made up 'big green jobs', George said, 'I'll help you write the column - we can do it together.'

Then there's the time he was working for the Byrds, who had been booked to play a small club but were refusing to play it because now they were big stars, and their manager was worried they'd be sued by the promoter. He went to see the promoter and made up a lie about the band being sick, and was so convincing that not only did the promoter send back the contract, torn in two, he sent them a home-made cake with "Get Well, Byrds" iced onto it. (That story's in Johnny Rogan's book on the Byrds)

So while Derek Taylor had *many* admirable qualities, he was also someone who would quite happily lie his face off if it made a story more interesting, would benefit his clients in some way, or was easier than checking the facts. I don't think "Derek Taylor wouldn't have made it up" can be taken as read -- though I also don't see a strong reason *for* him to have made that up.
It's certainly the case that a lot of the 60s teen magazines ran stories that were very obviously generated by PR. Beatles or Beach Boys "likes and dislikes", "a day in the life of", "what is your fave really like?" - type stories frequently have evident errors and little to do with the reality of the subject. I haven't read a "Bop" or "Tiger Beat" from any other era, but I assume that at that level of reportage, not much has changed.
I think with Derek Taylor it would be hard to identify what's true and what's not. Though a motive for saying something's ready to go one week then scrapped the next is hard to suss (for me).


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 10:49:16 AM
Just asked one of the people who would know about Mike dropping Derek the nod about the scrapping of Smile, and they're adamant it never happened. So, guess that's settled.

And, just as I spelled out above, "one of the people who would know" will remain anonymous, and whatever you say here as related to you by that person should be taken as fact, unimpeachable and definite? Should the expectation then be numerous posters demanding you reveal the source so they can judge it as well, and possibly use any manner of changing standards to discredit the source, and thus the information itself?

Again...my so-called "source" has been on the table and in the published public record for over a decade, and in several outlets including published works, not posts on message boards. If no one can find it or wants to find it, that's not my problem.

So it's settled because your source/person says it's settled, and the information is then relayed here with no details...why not demand the source be named then have that source run through the ringer of scrutiny and possible discreditation as seems to be par for the course with everyone from Van Dyke Parks to Jules Siegel to Al Jardine?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 10:51:34 AM

I think with Derek Taylor it would be hard to identify what's true and what's not. Though a motive for saying something's ready to go one week then scrapped the next is hard to suss (for me).

Not only hard to suss out, but potentially damaging to his clients regarding their label, and beyond that, refuted by the fact that Brian was still doing "Smile sessions" in the studio less than two weeks after the announcement.

As previously said, it makes no sense.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 10:53:46 AM
Just asked one of the people who would know about Mike dropping Derek the nod about the scrapping of Smile, and they're adamant it never happened. So, guess that's settled.

And, just as I spelled out above, "one of the people who would know" will remain anonymous, and whatever you say here as related to you by that person should be taken as fact, unimpeachable and definite? Should the expectation then be numerous posters demanding you reveal the source so they can judge it as well, and possibly use any manner of changing standards to discredit the source, and thus the information itself?

Again...my so-called "source" has been on the table and in the published public record for over a decade, and in several outlets including published works, not posts on message boards. If no one can find it or wants to find it, that's not my problem.

So it's settled because your source/person says it's settled, and the information is then relayed here with no details...why not demand the source be named then have that source run through the ringer of scrutiny and possible discreditation as seems to be par for the course with everyone from Van Dyke Parks to Jules Siegel to Al Jardine?

I asked Mike.  :)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: drbeachboy on January 28, 2016, 10:56:40 AM
Just asked one of the people who would know about Mike dropping Derek the nod about the scrapping of Smile, and they're adamant it never happened. So, guess that's settled.

And, just as I spelled out above, "one of the people who would know" will remain anonymous, and whatever you say here as related to you by that person should be taken as fact, unimpeachable and definite? Should the expectation then be numerous posters demanding you reveal the source so they can judge it as well, and possibly use any manner of changing standards to discredit the source, and thus the information itself?

Again...my so-called "source" has been on the table and in the published public record for over a decade, and in several outlets including published works, not posts on message boards. If no one can find it or wants to find it, that's not my problem.

So it's settled because your source/person says it's settled, and the information is then relayed here with no details...why not demand the source be named then have that source run through the ringer of scrutiny and possible discreditation as seems to be par for the course with everyone from Van Dyke Parks to Jules Siegel to Al Jardine?
Personally, I don't see any similarities with you holding back the name of a published magazine or book and Andrew withholding the name of a source who may not want their name mentioned. Did the publisher ask to remain anonymous?

EDIT: Now that Andrew has revealed his source, it is your turn.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 10:59:52 AM
Just asked one of the people who would know about Mike dropping Derek the nod about the scrapping of Smile, and they're adamant it never happened. So, guess that's settled.

And, just as I spelled out above, "one of the people who would know" will remain anonymous, and whatever you say here as related to you by that person should be taken as fact, unimpeachable and definite? Should the expectation then be numerous posters demanding you reveal the source so they can judge it as well, and possibly use any manner of changing standards to discredit the source, and thus the information itself?

Again...my so-called "source" has been on the table and in the published public record for over a decade, and in several outlets including published works, not posts on message boards. If no one can find it or wants to find it, that's not my problem.

So it's settled because your source/person says it's settled, and the information is then relayed here with no details...why not demand the source be named then have that source run through the ringer of scrutiny and possible discreditation as seems to be par for the course with everyone from Van Dyke Parks to Jules Siegel to Al Jardine?

I asked Mike.  :)

Good, so now the process can begin. Have an exact quote to offer or was the answer along the lines of "it wasn't me".

Next logical question: Then who was it?

Potential next step: Ask the sources of the sources that were my "sources" where they sourced the info in the first place.  :) Gotta keep the ball rollin', right?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 11:01:07 AM

EDIT: Now that Andrew has revealed his source, it is your turn.

Check your bookshelf, or library, chances are they may be there.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: drbeachboy on January 28, 2016, 11:04:24 AM

EDIT: Now that Andrew has revealed his source, it is your turn.

Check your bookshelf, or library, chances are they may be there.
I don't care that much to dig, plus I am at work. Not all of us have the free time. Don't share. Fight & argue instead of passing info and making the thread more interesting.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: SMiLE Brian on January 28, 2016, 11:11:49 AM
Ask Mike to explain this after months of denials that Noven Jansi was making fan videos. http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23327.msg557562.html#msg557562


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 11:14:30 AM
Craig, you asked me for my source, stating it would remain anonymous. I called your bluff. I've told you. Now I'm asking you for the published source you won't, perhaps because you can't, reveal. Put up or shut up time.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 11:22:51 AM

EDIT: Now that Andrew has revealed his source, it is your turn.

Check your bookshelf, or library, chances are they may be there.
I don't care that much to dig, plus I am at work. Not all of us have the free time. Don't share. Fight & argue instead of passing info and making the thread more interesting.

That's on my shoulders now? I put out the info into the discussion that was relative, with dates and specific article references from 1967, on a topic which touched on a contradiction that has been questioned for years regarding the "scrapped" article by Taylor and opened the discussion, and offered what some have offered as an explanation why Taylor's words contradicted Brian's words and activities at that time. Instead of researching and looking deeper into the actual issue to get their own perspective, some chose instead to demand I reveal my "source", tried to parse various words and phrases to shift the attention away from discussing the actual topic, tried to suggest I was doing this with a "blame Mike" agenda, and others attempted to find any and every way to eliminate the possibility that what I posted could have happened depending on who was talking.

Why is that? What would be so potentially negative anyway?

To that end, so far we have Mike Love telling Andrew something thus far unspecified to refute that he told Derek Taylor about scrapping Smile.

That's it for that, the follow-up questions will be in another post.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 11:27:28 AM
Craig, you asked me for my source, stating it would remain anonymous. I called your bluff. I've told you. Now I'm asking you for the published source you won't, perhaps because you can't, reveal. Put up or shut up time.

Peter Carlin's book. Domenic Priore's book. Various interviews and articles related. All readily available for over a decade. Let the parsing and discrediting begin (?)...

Might be prudent to ask *them* who their sources were for the info instead of hammering away here.

And - in all seriousness - did you ask Mike who Taylor's source was in 1967 if it wasn't him? Did he happen to say whether he was working with Taylor to promote that May 67 tour?



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 11:29:20 AM
Having a hard time trying to understand how a denial that he told Taylor the album was scrapped can be in any way unspecific.

And failing.  :)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 11:33:44 AM
Now I've put up these "sources", we should get their take on it since they published the info, and compare notes. If Mike says it wasn't him, then who was it?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 11:36:24 AM
Which of Dom's books ? And I have asked both he and PAC.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 11:41:58 AM
Which of Dom's books ? And I have asked both he and PAC.

Domenic's "Smile - The Story Of Brian Wilson's Lost Masterpiece" was the book, there are interviews too with Dom where he says the same things. Carlin makes mention of the Taylor release and reasons to suggest Brian didn't even know of it.

It would be good to know where they got the info.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 28, 2016, 12:01:33 PM
when Cam Mott in this discussion says Smile was already scrapped before the April sessions, and the timelines list them all up to June 1967 as a "Smile Session" on the timeline, why not put a challenge to Cam

Actually I did, a few pages ago, and I did so because he based his claim solely on Al Jardine's memory, and human memories always prove to be faulty. His claim is to me no more plausible than yours. At least we know Cam's source, the Al interview. I don't think a lot of people agree with Cam on this matter.

I gave several sources for my interpretation, Micha, ol' pal.  

I see that first person testimony, land and album and union and Capitol documents don't stack up to second hand opinion and fan ears and fan opinions and fan timelines and unattributed biographies and what-not but I keep pushing anyway.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 03:03:32 PM
From the Carlin book (UK hardback, p. 120):

"If Taylor's distinction between "destroyed" and "scrapped" seems unclear, Brian must have felt the same way. In fact, there's reason to suggest that Brian didn't even know Taylor had announced the demise of Smile, a release that may have been authorised by other factions of The Beach Boys."

"May have been"... and a vague reference to "other factions". Further, the bibliography for Catch A Wave lists LLVS, making it entirely possible that Carlin's source was Priore.

From Dom's book, (UK paperback, p. 114):

"Mike Love, though Derek Taylor, told a counter-productive story to Disc & Music Echo...".

Specific enough for sure, but the problem is, Mike has this very day denied he said any such thing to Taylor... and the article itself makes no attribution.

As for the 4/29/67 report of 12 tracks being finished, "Vegetables" (sic) being the next single and the album being on a rush release schedule, again, no attribution as to who was the source, but - to me at least, you may disagree - talk of a rush release and all tracks being completed smack of a frantic record company trying to pressure someone into delivering product. But, as I stated, that's just me.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: SMiLE Brian on January 28, 2016, 03:08:48 PM
Mike is legacy building in 2016, not so back in the 1960s when this whole smile saga was fresh and new.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 28, 2016, 03:15:15 PM
Shouldn't we be able to ask Peter about his source?  He's on the board isn't he?

I don't consider Dom a reliable source as he lets his bias influence what he reports as "facts." 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 28, 2016, 03:40:04 PM
From the Carlin book (UK hardback, p. 120):

"If Taylor's distinction between "destroyed" and "scrapped" seems unclear, Brian must have felt the same way. In fact, there's reason to suggest that Brian didn't even know Taylor had announced the demise of Smile, a release that may have been authorised by other factions of The Beach Boys."

"May have been"... and a vague reference to "other factions". Further, the bibliography for Catch A Wave lists LLVS, making it entirely possible that Carlin's source was Priore.

From Dom's book, (UK paperback, p. 114):

"Mike Love, though Derek Taylor, told a counter-productive story to Disc & Music Echo...".

Specific enough for sure, but the problem is, Mike has this very day denied he said any such thing to Taylor... and the article itself makes no attribution.

As for the 4/29/67 report of 12 tracks being finished, "Vegetables" (sic) being the next single and the album being on a rush release schedule, again, no attribution as to who was the source, but - to me at least, you may disagree - talk of a rush release and all tracks being completed smack of a frantic record company trying to pressure someone into delivering product. But, as I stated, that's just me.
Would Taylor have been susceptible to a "frantic record company" and prepare such a press release, as he is getting ready to move on to "greener pastures?" (Monterey)  On that Saturday, 4/29/67 they had 2 shows in 2 different states.  NY and NJ. Just because Taylor was "done" - didn't mean the project was "done."

Without familiarity with Disc and Echo, "the story within a story" loses accountability and cred for me.  A "Mike" story told through Taylor?  Seriously.  I just laughed at the whole concept.   :lol

If there was session time booked and fulfilled by the touring band, after they got back from Europe after this "scrapped" project announcement, it conflicts with this announcement.  It would seem that if the project was scrapped, so, too, would be the future scheduled sessions, going forward from the "scrapped" announcement.  I'm unconvinced.  

Further, at  that precise early May '67 tour, we have comments by Brian, Mike and Bruce concerning dissatisfaction about the type of promotion of the live concerts in Europe which were promoting them as a surf band, and not including Brian's new work.   I think those quotes are in either Badman or Rusten.  I quoted them in some other contentious thread.  



 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 03:40:57 PM
Shouldn't we be able to ask Peter about his source?  He's on the board isn't he?

I did - he didn't remember it. I'm pretty sure it came from LLVS.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 28, 2016, 03:55:23 PM
Craig, you asked me for my source, stating it would remain anonymous. I called your bluff. I've told you. Now I'm asking you for the published source you won't, perhaps because you can't, reveal. Put up or shut up time.

Peter Carlin's book. Domenic Priore's book. Various interviews and articles related. All readily available for over a decade. Let the parsing and discrediting begin (?)...

Might be prudent to ask *them* who their sources were for the info instead of hammering away here.

And - in all seriousness - did you ask Mike who Taylor's source was in 1967 if it wasn't him? Did he happen to say whether he was working with Taylor to promote that May 67 tour?



Since Taylor was in LA and Brian was in LA and Brian was the album's producer: Brian.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 28, 2016, 04:11:24 PM
Smile may have been scrapped in reality from January or even December, based on what Brian was doing in the studio, and not doing . . . my complaint with Cam's logic is his evidence that Vegetables was not a Smile session is totally unconvincing, as the sessions - particularly the tag session - and the ILTSDD session - are exactly in the mode of Smile recordings as they were conducted since August 66, they are logged with the Smile project number, use the same studio musicians, etc.  The very idea of a line demarcating Smile and Smiley is itself a red herring.  

Red herring.

There was a SMiLE and then there was something different called Smiley Smile. With all due respect to your ears, one became the other at some point and imo the evidence points to the point where a  bonafide SMiLE song was changed to a bonafide Smiley Smile song. Imo insistence that our ideas about production trump the fact that Vegetable is an actual track on Smiley is the red herring. Since it is the beginning of Smiley Smile it also evolved on as a Smiley track to the released version. Is the released version of Vegetables not Smiley enough for anybody?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: 18thofMay on January 28, 2016, 05:09:57 PM
I am sticking with the 18th of May, can't be arsed changing my thingy and the arguments about this have been going on since ET phoned home. Oh and another thing Smile was going to be the songs we all know + an elements suite at the end with the heroes theme linking the 4 parts together, that's the part Brian never finished, the sequencing and the segueing (is that a word?).


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 06:56:51 PM
 
Further, at  that precise early May '67 tour, we have comments by Brian, Mike and Bruce concerning dissatisfaction about the type of promotion of the live concerts in Europe which were promoting them as a surf band, and not including Brian's new work.   I think those quotes are in either Badman or Rusten.  I quoted them in some other contentious thread.  

I would like to see more examples of ads for the shows, specifically any that used the "surf band" label for the May 67 tour.

I've seen a handful from the pages of NME, Disc & Music Echo, and other UK ads that were more along the lines of this one I'll post here, where some version of the line "Arthur Howes Presents The World's # 1 Group" was prominent in the ad. Maybe I haven't seen all of the May 67 ads, but I've seen a handful and none have the word "surf" in the copy. Also, NME was still promoting them as the #1 group specific to the Poll Winners show, which received coverage the weeks before and after.

(http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~peterkin/Beach_Boys_02.jpg)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 28, 2016, 07:08:11 PM
From the Carlin book (UK hardback, p. 120):

"If Taylor's distinction between "destroyed" and "scrapped" seems unclear, Brian must have felt the same way. In fact, there's reason to suggest that Brian didn't even know Taylor had announced the demise of Smile, a release that may have been authorised by other factions of The Beach Boys."

"May have been"... and a vague reference to "other factions". Further, the bibliography for Catch A Wave lists LLVS, making it entirely possible that Carlin's source was Priore.

From Dom's book, (UK paperback, p. 114):

"Mike Love, though Derek Taylor, told a counter-productive story to Disc & Music Echo...".

Specific enough for sure, but the problem is, Mike has this very day denied he said any such thing to Taylor... and the article itself makes no attribution.

As for the 4/29/67 report of 12 tracks being finished, "Vegetables" (sic) being the next single and the album being on a rush release schedule, again, no attribution as to who was the source, but - to me at least, you may disagree - talk of a rush release and all tracks being completed smack of a frantic record company trying to pressure someone into delivering product. But, as I stated, that's just me.

I'd like to dialogue on this a bit.

There was more to what Domenic wrote, specifically this line coming before the quote above:

"It's clear that, at this time, one hand had no idea what the other hand was doing. Mike Love's second-guessing had now taken the form of controlling Derek Taylor's media relations about the Beach Boys - a disastrous appropriation." A line which is followed by the description of the NME article by Keith Altham about the album being readied, the one that Taylor's post the next week contradicted entirely.

Direct question: Are you willing to suggest the process that led to him publishing those words (and that claim if we call it that) may have been flawed, and the claims published were either false, or deliberately fabricated by Domenic?

If so, I think Domenic in fairness should have his say, or at least make his case or defend himself. Reading that quote, those words are also specific and definitive sounding statements.

Is it now a case of he said versus he said? It seems that way.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 28, 2016, 08:57:00 PM
In the April 29 1967 D&ME Taylor is asking "What is going on with ‘Heroes and Villains’? What is ‘Vegetables’ the next single? When is the album ready?”.  

Maybe putting too much stock in Altham's knowledge is the problem.  I can't think of any one who was involved ever claiming the album was ever "completed", they say the opposite as far as I can remember.  

"Every indication the dispute with Capitol Records is over"? "Rough draft of the sleeve"? "Release" on a "rush schedule"? I agree with AGD the info sounds like wishful thinking coming from Capitol.

Why was Altham a cycle late with the report of Paul's visit if he was so clued in (also demonstrating that not everything makes the next week cycle in a weekly) and where does it say any of the info came from Brian?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 28, 2016, 10:37:01 PM
From the Carlin book (UK hardback, p. 120):

"If Taylor's distinction between "destroyed" and "scrapped" seems unclear, Brian must have felt the same way. In fact, there's reason to suggest that Brian didn't even know Taylor had announced the demise of Smile, a release that may have been authorised by other factions of The Beach Boys."

"May have been"... and a vague reference to "other factions". Further, the bibliography for Catch A Wave lists LLVS, making it entirely possible that Carlin's source was Priore.

From Dom's book, (UK paperback, p. 114):

"Mike Love, though Derek Taylor, told a counter-productive story to Disc & Music Echo...".

Specific enough for sure, but the problem is, Mike has this very day denied he said any such thing to Taylor... and the article itself makes no attribution.

As for the 4/29/67 report of 12 tracks being finished, "Vegetables" (sic) being the next single and the album being on a rush release schedule, again, no attribution as to who was the source, but - to me at least, you may disagree - talk of a rush release and all tracks being completed smack of a frantic record company trying to pressure someone into delivering product. But, as I stated, that's just me.

I'd like to dialogue on this a bit.

Sure.

Quote
There was more to what Domenic wrote, specifically this line coming before the quote above:

"It's clear that, at this time, one hand had no idea what the other hand was doing. Mike Love's second-guessing had now taken the form of controlling Derek Taylor's media relations about the Beach Boys - a disastrous appropriation." A line which is followed by the description of the NME article by Keith Altham about the album being readied, the one that Taylor's post the next week contradicted entirely.

Direct question: Are you willing to suggest the process that led to him publishing those words (and that claim if we call it that) may have been flawed, and the claims published were either false, or deliberately fabricated by Domenic?

Accusing someone of lying isn't something I'm prone to do unless there's hard evidence they're doing just that. Dom's claim that Mike was, at the time, controlling Taylor's press releases doubtless had a considerable personal bias - he'll agree with anyone that Mike isn't his favourite band member - and the scrapped comment has as much supporting evidence that it was Mike as the 4/29/67 piece has that it was Brian: surely it would have said something along the lines of "Brian has said...". That is, none. Flawed, yes... false, in my opinion possibly... fabricated, no. Way back in the day, I wrote a piece about Brian's "lost years" (which is now utterly laughable to revisit) that put forth the proposition he started off the Spring sessions tentatively, then as he became more comfortable his involvement increased, and at the time I truly believed my assumption and reading of the available evidence was valid. Now, of course, we know the exact reverse is the case. What I'd written was indeed flawed, and false, but I didn't fabricate it out of thin air, or with malice aforethought.

Quote
If so, I think Domenic in fairness should have his say, or at least make his case or defend himself. Reading that quote, those words are also specific and definitive sounding statements.

They're definitive statements of Dom's opinions and beliefs, but are they facts ? No, I don't think so. As for words being specific, that's very subjective. For example:

"I told you in the garden".

I feel most folk would read that as "I told you when we were in the garden", and not "I told you when I was in the garden and you were down the road and round the corner."

Quote
Is it now a case of he said versus he said? It seems that way.

Always has been. Always will be. The question is which he is more credible in context. I, and pretty much every other poster in this thread, are willing to admit there are other possibilities and other readings, while you insist that all evidence shows Mike is responsible. Saying "that's exactly what happened" doesn't make it so.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 29, 2016, 02:01:35 AM
when Cam Mott in this discussion says Smile was already scrapped before the April sessions, and the timelines list them all up to June 1967 as a "Smile Session" on the timeline, why not put a challenge to Cam

Actually I did, a few pages ago, and I did so because he based his claim solely on Al Jardine's memory, and human memories always prove to be faulty. His claim is to me no more plausible than yours. At least we know Cam's source, the Al interview. I don't think a lot of people agree with Cam on this matter.

I gave several sources for my interpretation, Micha, ol' pal.  

I see that first person testimony, land and album and union and Capitol documents don't stack up to second hand opinion and fan ears and fan opinions and fan timelines and unattributed biographies and what-not but I keep pushing anyway.

I have to admit that you brought forward the master number issue additionally to Al's vague memories. But IMHO that's no valid evidence either. The Smiley master number of H&V is first used in January, when there is no talk whatsoever yet of that session being for a different album project, and both Wonderful and Wind Chimes had two different master numbers during the SMiLE era. (WC unless it's a typo in the TSS book.) So again, ol' pal, we disagree. :'(

I'm sorry, but I don't get what the word "land" means in the context of your posting - "land documents"? I must be reading it incorrectly.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 29, 2016, 02:13:19 AM
So Mike says he didn't give the info to Taylor - you can either believe that or not. As I stated, human memory isn't written in stone and instead very liable to change over time, and of course, there is also the possibility he doesn't tell the truth.

Now that GF has decided to come down from Mount Olympus and granted us mortals knowledge of his source, the next one to ask for his source is Priore.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 29, 2016, 04:39:09 AM
when Cam Mott in this discussion says Smile was already scrapped before the April sessions, and the timelines list them all up to June 1967 as a "Smile Session" on the timeline, why not put a challenge to Cam

Actually I did, a few pages ago, and I did so because he based his claim solely on Al Jardine's memory, and human memories always prove to be faulty. His claim is to me no more plausible than yours. At least we know Cam's source, the Al interview. I don't think a lot of people agree with Cam on this matter.

I gave several sources for my interpretation, Micha, ol' pal.  

I see that first person testimony, land and album and union and Capitol documents don't stack up to second hand opinion and fan ears and fan opinions and fan timelines and unattributed biographies and what-not but I keep pushing anyway.

I have to admit that you brought forward the master number issue additionally to Al's vague memories. But IMHO that's no valid evidence either. The Smiley master number of H&V is first used in January, when there is no talk whatsoever yet of that session being for a different album project, and both Wonderful and Wind Chimes had two different master numbers during the SMiLE era. (WC unless it's a typo in the TSS book.) So again, ol' pal, we disagree. :'(

I'm sorry, but I don't get what the word "land" means in the context of your posting - "land documents"? I must be reading it incorrectly.

I was talking about Vegetables' having a new master number and the land documents was in reference to a quote from Marilyn Wilson but I didn't express it very eloquently.  As always, your ol' pal in disagreement.  ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 06:10:08 AM
Replying first to what I said was fact, I was posting "that's exactly what happened" to this discussion:

Since there was a BRI board at that time, which was established for more creative control, in existence for around a year, with voting members, wouldn't something as important as a new release have to be approached democratically, say, with advice, discussion, and a vote? 

This seems to be making a few unfounded assumptions, at least to me. The existence of a BRI board (which of course at that time would have consisted only of Mike and the Wilson brothers, not the other two band members) doesn't necessarily imply decisions have to be made democratically. It's perfectly plausible that band members were given areas of responsibility where they didn't have to consult the other members -- Brian might have been given total control over recordings, Carl over setlists, and so on. Without access to BRI's corporate decision-making process in 1967, we can't assume that things would be subject to democratic vote.

(Indeed, do we know that BRI owned the Beach Boys' name yet at that point, or did it get transferred later?)
Andrew H. - Not really - if the prime reason for the incorporation was "artistic control decision-making," it would seem to make little sense that any major decisions concerning releases, would have been done in a vacuum or without consensus. 

It is doubtful to me that in that high profile 2-week eventful time window of Carl's arrest, release, and travel to the UK, Inside Pop Brian (taped) appearance, that there were no overseas calls between and among corporate band members. I am making no assumptions but looking at the events as reported. 

That one band member says it is a "go," and one says it is a "no," is just not credible to me. 

That's exactly what happened. That's how in the span of a week, it was reported that the album was being readied for rush promotion, 12 tracks ready. Then Mike tells Derek Taylor in the UK something different, and it's now "scrapped".

It was my reply that - again instead of the actual topics at hand - got parsed and tried to be picked apart word by word, and used to argue or dispute things that weren't even an issue. I guess every reply needs to include a quote and be proofread before posting so the focus is on the issue and not the parsing/spelling/grammar/punctuation...

To put this to an end, it was not written to say that Derek was in the UK, it was not written to say that everything being said was "exactly what happened" and cold, hard fact...in this case, I was replying to Andrew Hickey's comment about band members not consulting other band members, and how that point was debated. And using the "source" of Domenic's book and interviews, as well as Carlin, if it was not Brian who declared the album scrapped, if it was not Carl who declared it scrapped...who on the BRI board as of 1967 was left to make such a call to the band's publicist? Mike or Dennis.

Is it reasonable to conclude using the reference materials that addressed this specific issue that someone had to tell Taylor the album was cancelled? Is it reasonable to use those reference materials and the bigger history to conclude Carl was all but unavailable at this exact time to handle band affairs due to his draft issues with the government? Is it reasonable to use the timeline of events following the Taylor announcement as well as Carlin and Priore to conclude Brian was still recording "Smile" music with the same methods as he did on Smile (described by Bicyclerider above) after Taylor declared the album scrapped?

So there was a wide disconnect, no, there IS a massive disconnect somewhere in this whole event. What happened seemed to be these statements were made without "BRI" as a group vote, if Mike says it wasn't him, if we can reasonably conclude it wasn't Carl who was very preoccupied, if it's said that Brian wasn't aware of it and his recording schedule backs up that he was still working on music for the apparently "scrapped" album, who does that leave on the BRI front? Dennis?



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: SMiLE Brian on January 29, 2016, 06:15:12 AM
It was a band coup from Mike Love, plain and simple. He got fed up with BW's tinkering and let the world know that "smile" was canceled without BW's input.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 06:42:19 AM
From the Carlin book (UK hardback, p. 120):

"If Taylor's distinction between "destroyed" and "scrapped" seems unclear, Brian must have felt the same way. In fact, there's reason to suggest that Brian didn't even know Taylor had announced the demise of Smile, a release that may have been authorised by other factions of The Beach Boys."

"May have been"... and a vague reference to "other factions". Further, the bibliography for Catch A Wave lists LLVS, making it entirely possible that Carlin's source was Priore.

From Dom's book, (UK paperback, p. 114):

"Mike Love, though Derek Taylor, told a counter-productive story to Disc & Music Echo...".

Specific enough for sure, but the problem is, Mike has this very day denied he said any such thing to Taylor... and the article itself makes no attribution.

As for the 4/29/67 report of 12 tracks being finished, "Vegetables" (sic) being the next single and the album being on a rush release schedule, again, no attribution as to who was the source, but - to me at least, you may disagree - talk of a rush release and all tracks being completed smack of a frantic record company trying to pressure someone into delivering product. But, as I stated, that's just me.

I'd like to dialogue on this a bit.

Sure.

Quote
There was more to what Domenic wrote, specifically this line coming before the quote above:

"It's clear that, at this time, one hand had no idea what the other hand was doing. Mike Love's second-guessing had now taken the form of controlling Derek Taylor's media relations about the Beach Boys - a disastrous appropriation." A line which is followed by the description of the NME article by Keith Altham about the album being readied, the one that Taylor's post the next week contradicted entirely.

Direct question: Are you willing to suggest the process that led to him publishing those words (and that claim if we call it that) may have been flawed, and the claims published were either false, or deliberately fabricated by Domenic?

Accusing someone of lying isn't something I'm prone to do unless there's hard evidence they're doing just that. Dom's claim that Mike was, at the time, controlling Taylor's press releases doubtless had a considerable personal bias - he'll agree with anyone that Mike isn't his favourite band member - and the scrapped comment has as much supporting evidence that it was Mike as the 4/29/67 piece has that it was Brian: surely it would have said something along the lines of "Brian has said...". That is, none. Flawed, yes... false, in my opinion possibly... fabricated, no. Way back in the day, I wrote a piece about Brian's "lost years" (which is now utterly laughable to revisit) that put forth the proposition he started off the Spring sessions tentatively, then as he became more comfortable his involvement increased, and at the time I truly believed my assumption and reading of the available evidence was valid. Now, of course, we know the exact reverse is the case. What I'd written was indeed flawed, and false, but I didn't fabricate it out of thin air, or with malice aforethought.

Quote
If so, I think Domenic in fairness should have his say, or at least make his case or defend himself. Reading that quote, those words are also specific and definitive sounding statements.

They're definitive statements of Dom's opinions and beliefs, but are they facts ? No, I don't think so. As for words being specific, that's very subjective. For example:

"I told you in the garden".

I feel most folk would read that as "I told you when we were in the garden", and not "I told you when I was in the garden and you were down the road and round the corner."

Quote
Is it now a case of he said versus he said? It seems that way.

Always has been. Always will be. The question is which he is more credible in context. I, and pretty much every other poster in this thread, are willing to admit there are other possibilities and other readings, while you insist that all evidence shows Mike is responsible. Saying "that's exactly what happened" doesn't make it so.

First, no, Domenic Priore published and said in interviews that Mike was responsible, that Mike was the one at that time controlling Derek Taylor's media relations for the Beach Boys, and then going from that to say it was Mike that gave Derek the word that Smile was scrapped.

What I or anyone else on this board says or said isn't the core of the issue, what we have now is up to this point (to my knowledge) no one had really offered much of a background on how Taylor could have made such a statement when it was premature at best and not accurate for that time, and contradictory as well to other reports. We have Priore saying what he said and published in his book, we have Mike saying it wasn't him.

If Domenic wrote as specifically as he did related to this issue, then Mike says no - it wasn't him, it's now people choosing whose version of events to believe. Up to this point the only accounts that went deeper into how Taylor would come to write such a thing were Domenic's book and interviews and Carlin's book that stated there was reason to believe Taylor wrote what he did with Brian unaware of it and that it instead was "factions within the Beach Boys". Those are two published books and interviews giving that information, where no one up to this week had really gone deeper to see how this mess actually happened.

I doubt as authors Priore and Carlin would publish this specific claim without sourcing and checking the info they're going to publish, but again it's up to them if they choose to address or even defend where they sourced the info that backed up what they wrote in light of Mike saying he wasn't Taylor's source.

But what it does say now is their word has been put in doubt based on Mike's word - I'd like to see the authors whose accounts were the only frame of reference up to this point offer some explanation on how they came to write what they did.

As said, it is "he said versus he said" and every band member as far as we know has made statements that were not accurate at various times. So hopefully we'll hear more so both sides get their say.


Further dialogue relative to Taylor: Would it make sense for a band's press agent to drop such a bombshell of an announcement that not only affected his client but also his client's business with their label? Capitol was still expecting and planning for a release, Brian judging from his activities was still working toward a release (Altham article aside though it backs that up), the band was on tour for another several weeks and wouldn't be able to do much of anything recording wise until they returned home...unless he just acted on his own, which is possible, why would Taylor essentially collapse what his clients were planning to do, or why would it be done prematurely? It makes no sense, as said many times.

The only explanations so far have been published by Priore, Carlin, and now Mike. And they contradict. So where does it stand? or, better question, what other possibilities and other readings exist if we've eliminated nearly every other possibility and reading except it was either Taylor acting alone or it was someone other than Mike, Brian, or Carl in the band that tipped him off.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 29, 2016, 07:13:55 AM

Further, at  that precise early May '67 tour, we have comments by Brian, Mike and Bruce concerning dissatisfaction about the type of promotion of the live concerts in Europe which were promoting them as a surf band, and not including Brian's new work.   I think those quotes are in either Badman or Rusten.  I quoted them in some other contentious thread.  

I would like to see more examples of ads for the shows, specifically any that used the "surf band" label for the May 67 tour.

I've seen a handful from the pages of NME, Disc & Music Echo, and other UK ads that were more along the lines of this one I'll post here, where some version of the line "Arthur Howes Presents The World's # 1 Group" was prominent in the ad. Maybe I haven't seen all of the May 67 ads, but I've seen a handful and none have the word "surf" in the copy. Also, NME was still promoting them as the #1 group specific to the Poll Winners show, which received coverage the weeks before and after.

(http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~peterkin/Beach_Boys_02.jpg)
GF - Thanks for finding that ad.  Those photos don't look like 1967 Beach Boys.  They look like mid year of 1965.  Girls notice that stuff.  It is a cut-and-paste.  :lol

In Carlin's book, p. 112 "...Brian, for instance, had never once been paid for his work as a producer.  The group filed a lawsuit against the label, but the move only prompted more tension in his dealings with the executives already impatient to get Smile in the stores.  Worse, several of Brian's closest aides (who are unnamed) came to believe that Murry Wilson, who had negotiated and countersigned the first contract, might have had something to do with the situation.  How could such a savvy, hands-on businessman (I don't know who that is either) have failed to recognize the disparity between what Capitol owned and what they were actually paying?   They even speculated (Brian's aides?) that that he (Murry?) may have received some kind of kickback in exchange for not tipping off his sons that they were being ripped off.  No one knew for sure..."

This is happening during the Smile Sessions.  
 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 29, 2016, 07:14:52 AM
sorry double post - :lol


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 29, 2016, 07:20:26 AM
In the weeks before the May 6 issue, Taylor was describing how Brian had problems with the SMiLE album music and the single, so it was something Taylor was aware of and discussing and that was when they all were in LA. He attributes the problems as Brian's with the Boys as sort of bystanders. Unless Priore has something concrete, his claim does not seem to fit.  Again I'm puzzled how we go so speculative about this while we ignore that Brian was not recording SMiLE music beginning April 4, Vegetables is neither the title, lyrics, or master number of a SMiLE track, it is all of those of a Smiley Smile track. ILTSDD is not a SMiLE title.

Why would Capitol pay any attention to a unilateral Mike pronouncement (or any of the Boys save the Producer)? Why would Taylor? Brian was the Producer. Why would Brian not just have Taylor make a correction announcement (as was done with Vegetables) if it wasn't something he wanted or agreed with or was just premature or incorrect? Why would Taylor be a toll free phone call away from Brian, who he knows is the Producer, ask about this information? I find Dom's claim exetremely suspicious as of now with no evidence.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: bonnevillemariner on January 29, 2016, 07:27:15 AM
You know, as much as I love Smile (to the point of spending countless hours making my own mixes of it, which hours a reasonable person might allocate to, say, spending quality time with family and forwarding a career), I have approximately zero interest in the whole elements mythos.  I couldn't care less if "Wind Chimes" was Air. But... I'm glad that so many of you do, and it's way interesting to read you're back-and-forth.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on January 29, 2016, 07:52:35 AM

I'm sorry, but I don't get what the word "land" means in the context of your posting - "land documents"? I must be reading it incorrectly.

I was talking about Vegetables' having a new master number and the land documents was in reference to a quote from Marilyn Wilson but I didn't express it very eloquently.  As always, your ol' pal in disagreement.  ;)
I'm sorry Cam, but I'm still not clear on 'land documents'. Is it a reference to their moving houses or is there a sort of document known as a 'land document' that I'm unaware of?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on January 29, 2016, 07:58:46 AM
Two questions for whoever knows:
Is there evidence that BW was the source for the first report (that Smile was about ready to go)?
I have LLVS but if I've ever read Priore's history it was long ago. I understand that the conventional wisdom is that he's greatly biased but outside of that has he been proven factually incorrect more than is usual for a popular historian?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 29, 2016, 08:14:19 AM

I'm sorry, but I don't get what the word "land" means in the context of your posting - "land documents"? I must be reading it incorrectly.

I was talking about Vegetables' having a new master number and the land documents was in reference to a quote from Marilyn Wilson but I didn't express it very eloquently.  As always, your ol' pal in disagreement.  ;)
I'm sorry Cam, but I'm still not clear on 'land documents'. Is it a reference to their moving houses or is there a sort of document known as a 'land document' that I'm unaware of?

It was a Joint Tenancy Deed for the Bellagio house.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on January 29, 2016, 08:22:07 AM
Why would Capitol pay any attention to a unilateral Mike pronouncement (or any of the Boys save the Producer)? Why would Taylor? Brian was the Producer. Why would Brian not just have Taylor make a correction announcement (as was done with Vegetables) if it wasn't something he wanted or agreed with or was just premature or incorrect? Why would Taylor be a toll free phone call away from Brian, who he knows is the Producer, ask about this information? I find Dom's claim extremely suspicious as of now with no evidence.
In this matter though, Cam, we agree. Yay! :banana


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on January 29, 2016, 08:23:24 AM

I'm sorry, but I don't get what the word "land" means in the context of your posting - "land documents"? I must be reading it incorrectly.

I was talking about Vegetables' having a new master number and the land documents was in reference to a quote from Marilyn Wilson but I didn't express it very eloquently.  As always, your ol' pal in disagreement.  ;)
I'm sorry Cam, but I'm still not clear on 'land documents'. Is it a reference to their moving houses or is there a sort of document known as a 'land document' that I'm unaware of?

It was a Joint Tenancy Deed for the Bellagio house.
I was thinking you meant something along those lines, but I don't trust my knowledge enough in this area to assume. Thank you!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 29, 2016, 08:28:47 AM
In the weeks before the May 6 issue, Taylor was describing how Brian had problems with the SMiLE album music and the single, so it was something Taylor was aware of and discussing and that was when they all were in LA. He attributes the problems as Brian's with the Boys as sort of bystanders. Unless Priore has something concrete, his claim does not seem to fit.  Again I'm puzzled how we go so speculative about this while we ignore that Brian was not recording SMiLE music beginning April 4, Vegetables is neither the title, lyrics, or master number of a SMiLE track, it is all of those of a Smiley Smile track. ILTSDD is not a SMiLE title.

Why would Capitol pay any attention to a unilateral Mike pronouncement (or any of the Boys save the Producer)? Why would Taylor? Brian was the Producer. Why would Brian not just have Taylor make a correction announcement (as was done with Vegetables) if it wasn't something he wanted or agreed with or was just premature or incorrect? Why would Taylor be a toll free phone call away from Brian, who he knows is the Producer, ask about this information? I find Dom's claim exetremely suspicious as of now with no evidence.
Cam - here is my problem.  Taylor's job is to generate propaganda and buzz for the band.  Keep it light, upbeat and forward-moving... So, my first problem with him is that he is the one who first writes that "Brian is a genius." (p. 109) Brian's response is "I'm just a hard working guy." p. 110 (Carlin)

"Derek Taylor started to lay even more of the group's public reputation on the shoulders of its semireculusilve leader. "This is Brian Wilson.  He is a Beach Boy.  Some say he is more. (who?) Some say he is Beach Boy and a genius," read the headline of one typical profile.  And the text didn't let up: "This twenty-three-year-old powerhouse not only sings with the famous group, he writes the words, and music then arranges, engineers, and produces the disc..." I'll stop here for a second.  If Taylor is announcing Brian's tasks, which was supported by Johnston in the C50 Prism film series, he says that (I am paraphrasing) that Brian had "all these jobs."  

So, Taylor is writing the job description and Brian is maybe not getting paid.  

"...It's the last line that's priceless (thought the rest of it doesn't' hesitate to stretch the facts up to and beyond the breaking point ) given the expert way Taylor, working through a reporter (or alter ego) identified as "60's Hollywood reporter Jerry Fineman," manages to both assert Brian's genius and then shrug it off as a nuisance in the same breath."  

This looks like another "interview within an interview." An interview "through Mike?"  

"A canny publicist with a hipster's sensibility and novelist's eye for poetic imagery.  Taylor could sense how well the image of Brian as a solitary, quirky genius would play to the rapidly maturing, increasingly serious rock audience." (p. 110) Carlin.

Was Taylor trying to cause a split within the band and undermine that essential arrangement among the band, where Brian would be working on composition and the band would be out in the field working?  

A publicist's job is to make you look good.  It is a peer, who calls you a "genius" because they recognize a unique technique or process that is innovative and barrier-breaking.  Bernstein is a musician with credentials in music. Bernstein is bona fide. That is Bernstein's job and not Taylor's.  The more I read about these people the less I believe anything they say.  

Doesn't mean any of these people are inherently bad people.  But some have conflicting industry agendas that may or may not have always had the Beach Boys' (all of them) interest uppermost in their sights.   ;)  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: AndrewHickey on January 29, 2016, 09:02:57 AM
Two questions for whoever knows:
Is there evidence that BW was the source for the first report (that Smile was about ready to go)?
I have LLVS but if I've ever read Priore's history it was long ago. I understand that the conventional wisdom is that he's greatly biased but outside of that has he been proven factually incorrect more than is usual for a popular historian?

It depends what you mean by "more than is usual". Priore has a tendency to make small assumptions and present them as part of the narrative, without checking every tiny detail. So you end up sometimes with things like this paragraph from his "Riot on Sunset Strip" (the only book of his I have in electronic format to copy stuff from):

"When Kurtzman made an attempt to create a hip version of Mad called Help!, he chose a student from Birmingham High School in Los Angeles named Terry Gilliam as his associate editor. Gilliam studied art at Occidental College in LA and absorbed Sunset Strip culture while working at Help!. His talents were finally exposed to a larger audience from 1969 onward as the Californian member of the UK television comedy troupe Monty Python."

Now, it's true that Gilliam studied at Birmingham High School and Occidental College in LA, and became associate editor of Help! under Kurtzman. But to say he "absorbed Sunset Strip culture while working at Help!" seems unlikely, as Help! was based in New York, not LA, and its last issue was the one cover-dated September 1965 (I don't know the date it was released, but usually magazine cover dates are the month after release, so I'd guess August 1965), and while there's no hard start date to the "Sunset Strip culture" Priore's writing about, it was only just starting in summer '65.
To call Gilliam "the Californian member" of Monty Python also seems misleading, as while Gilliam did study in LA, he was born in Minnesota and only moved to LA when he was 12, moved away after finishing university, and by the time Monty Python had started he had British citizenship, so either "Minnesotan" or "British" would be more accurate than "Californian".

That's one example I noticed -- there are others. He's not saying anything definitely *wrong* there, and you'd get the right overall impression, but I wouldn't personally rely on Priore as my only source for a detail.

(Note that I am NOT saying Priore is a bad writer or researcher here -- rather that what he's doing is trying to construct a narrative, rather than an academic study. Different standards apply, I think.)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 29, 2016, 09:11:18 AM
In the weeks before the May 6 issue, Taylor was describing how Brian had problems with the SMiLE album music and the single, so it was something Taylor was aware of and discussing and that was when they all were in LA. He attributes the problems as Brian's with the Boys as sort of bystanders. Unless Priore has something concrete, his claim does not seem to fit.  Again I'm puzzled how we go so speculative about this while we ignore that Brian was not recording SMiLE music beginning April 4, Vegetables is neither the title, lyrics, or master number of a SMiLE track, it is all of those of a Smiley Smile track. ILTSDD is not a SMiLE title.

Why would Capitol pay any attention to a unilateral Mike pronouncement (or any of the Boys save the Producer)? Why would Taylor? Brian was the Producer. Why would Brian not just have Taylor make a correction announcement (as was done with Vegetables) if it wasn't something he wanted or agreed with or was just premature or incorrect? Why would Taylor be a toll free phone call away from Brian, who he knows is the Producer, ask about this information? I find Dom's claim exetremely suspicious as of now with no evidence.


Cam - here is my problem.  Taylor's job is to generate propaganda and buzz for the band.  Keep it light, upbeat and forward-moving... So, my first problem with him is that he is the one who first writes that "Brian is a genius." (p. 109) Brian's response is "I'm just a hard working guy." p. 110 (Carlin)

"Derek Taylor started to lay even more of the group's public reputation on the shoulders of its semireculusilve leader. "This is Brian Wilson.  He is a Beach Boy.  Some say he is more. (who?) Some say he is Beach Boy and a genius," read the headline of one typical profile.  And the text didn't let up: "This twenty-three-year-old powerhouse not only sings with the famous group, he writes the words, and music then arranges, engineers, and produces the disc..." I'll stop here for a second.  If Taylor is announcing Brian's tasks, which was supported by Johnston in the C50 Prism film series, he says that (I am paraphrasing) that Brian had "all these jobs."  

So, Taylor is writing the job description and Brian is maybe not getting paid.  

"...It's the last line that's priceless (thought the rest of it doesn't' hesitate to stretch the facts up to and beyond the breaking point ) given the expert way Taylor, working through a reporter (or alter ego) identified as "60's Hollywood reporter Jerry Fineman," manages to both assert Brian's genius and then shrug it off as a nuisance in the same breath."  

This looks like another "interview within an interview." An interview "through Mike?"  

"A canny publicist with a hipster's sensibility and novelist's eye for poetic imagery.  Taylor could sense how well the image of Brian as a solitary, quirky genius would play to the rapidly maturing, increasingly serious rock audience." (p. 110) Carlin.

Was Taylor trying to cause a split within the band and undermine that essential arrangement among the band, where Brian would be working on composition and the band would be out in the field working?  

A publicist's job is to make you look good.  It is a peer, who calls you a "genius" because they recognize a unique technique or process that is innovative and barrier-breaking.  Bernstein is a musician with credentials in music. Bernstein is bona fide. That is Bernstein's job and not Taylor's.  The more I read about these people the less I believe anything they say.  

Doesn't mean any of these people are inherently bad people.  But some have conflicting industry agendas that may or may not have always had the Beach Boys' (all of them) interest uppermost in their sights.   ;)  

Taylor was revealing that Brian was having issues with his own music when others were incorrectly saying everything is hunky dory so I guess I'm not seeing how that would be Taylor myth making or PRing.  Carlin sounds like conjecture to me but I don't know, maybe he will come on here and gives his sources.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on January 29, 2016, 09:29:49 AM
Two questions for whoever knows:
Is there evidence that BW was the source for the first report (that Smile was about ready to go)?
I have LLVS but if I've ever read Priore's history it was long ago. I understand that the conventional wisdom is that he's greatly biased but outside of that has he been proven factually incorrect more than is usual for a popular historian?

It depends what you mean by "more than is usual". Priore has a tendency to make small assumptions and present them as part of the narrative, without checking every tiny detail. So you end up sometimes with things like this paragraph from his "Riot on Sunset Strip" (the only book of his I have in electronic format to copy stuff from):

"When Kurtzman made an attempt to create a hip version of Mad called Help!, he chose a student from Birmingham High School in Los Angeles named Terry Gilliam as his associate editor. Gilliam studied art at Occidental College in LA and absorbed Sunset Strip culture while working at Help!. His talents were finally exposed to a larger audience from 1969 onward as the Californian member of the UK television comedy troupe Monty Python."

Now, it's true that Gilliam studied at Birmingham High School and Occidental College in LA, and became associate editor of Help! under Kurtzman. But to say he "absorbed Sunset Strip culture while working at Help!" seems unlikely, as Help! was based in New York, not LA, and its last issue was the one cover-dated September 1965 (I don't know the date it was released, but usually magazine cover dates are the month after release, so I'd guess August 1965), and while there's no hard start date to the "Sunset Strip culture" Priore's writing about, it was only just starting in summer '65.
To call Gilliam "the Californian member" of Monty Python also seems misleading, as while Gilliam did study in LA, he was born in Minnesota and only moved to LA when he was 12, moved away after finishing university, and by the time Monty Python had started he had British citizenship, so either "Minnesotan" or "British" would be more accurate than "Californian".

That's one example I noticed -- there are others. He's not saying anything definitely *wrong* there, and you'd get the right overall impression, but I wouldn't personally rely on Priore as my only source for a detail.

(Note that I am NOT saying Priore is a bad writer or researcher here -- rather that what he's doing is trying to construct a narrative, rather than an academic study. Different standards apply, I think.)
understood. Thanks for the good example.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 09:55:13 AM
Look at other articles also from May 1967 and statements made in those articles by various writers and band members. At that point in the UK there was a lot of talk about why the Heroes single was abandoned or delayed, why the old single was released in its place, and what was going on with a new album or single. Dennis, Bruce, Mike, and Carl at various times said the reason for the holdup was they didn't want to be rushed, and each said a variation of "we want to give the public the best product we can".

Dennis was interviewed the day of the Dublin show while waiting for Carl to fly in from the US to play that first show of the tour in Dublin. He defends the art of it, explains why they didn't release Heroes: "Oh, we got a little frightened. We've got a lot of songs recorded, but we got nervous about whether they were good enough. We've got afraid to put anything out unless it comes up to a certain standard. We're not just putting out singles to sell thousands and earn money."

Bruce was interviewed at a later show on the same leg of the show by the same Keith Altham who wrote the piece published April 29 saying Smile was being readied. After expressing his anger over releasing Then I Kissed Her as a single, he says: "I've got some tapes at home of the new tracks to be on the "Smile" LP which would blow your mind. All the ideas are new and Brian is coming up with fantastic ideas all the time"

Mike in that same article, same interview, after also commenting on the EMI single decision says: "The reason for the hold up with the new single has simply been that we wanted to give our public the best and the best isn't ready yet."

Carl's interviews from roughly the same time suggest Brian was working in the studio.

So add all of that up, the "word" from the band members ranges from Bruce suggesting Smile would be coming out, Dennis saying it will come out when it's ready, and Mike saying something similar.

This same week those interviews were given, Taylor writes that the album was scrapped.

Two weeks after the interviews, Brian is working on "DaDa" following the same template he had been recording Smile previously.

When the Beach Boys returned from the tour, the first week of sessions they did were at Western and Sound Recorders for Vegetables, With Me Tonight, and Cool Cool Water. Not the home studio, which didn't exist and wasn't ready to do sessions, but instead at the "pro studios" Brian had been using all along. The next week, they started using the home studio to start tracking Heroes, followed by Vegetables (again).



Is it out of the question to suggest something major within the band developed between that last Western session and the first "home studio" session which caused such a dramatic shift in the work?

Ironically it was Derek Taylor who - when writing his hype piece (aka PR) for the "new" Heroes single release in July '67, wrote this:

"In one inspired decision, (Nick) Grillo and the Beach Boys were able to a. Make use of Brian Wilson's new house, b. restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions and c. remove the problem of availability of commercial studios. They built their own 8-track studio in the Spanish house."

Does tracing that line add up to anything, or does it show where the band members' minds were at when talking to Altham and other press people on the UK tour, versus what Derek Taylor was writing? I don't know. But it's there (and more) for consideration.

My question beyond what the hell happened with Taylor's "scrapped" article is what did Taylor later mean when he wrote "b. Restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions". Any guesses what that refers to? Compromises, perhaps?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 10:13:26 AM
Look at other articles also from May 1967 and statements made in those articles by various writers and band members. At that point in the UK there was a lot of talk about why the Heroes single was abandoned or delayed, why the old single was released in its place, and what was going on with a new album or single. Dennis, Bruce, Mike, and Carl at various times said the reason for the holdup was they didn't want to be rushed, and each said a variation of "we want to give the public the best product we can".

Dennis was interviewed the day of the Dublin show while waiting for Carl to fly in from the US to play that first show of the tour in Dublin. He defends the art of it, explains why they didn't release Heroes: "Oh, we got a little frightened. We've got a lot of songs recorded, but we got nervous about whether they were good enough. We've got afraid to put anything out unless it comes up to a certain standard. We're not just putting out singles to sell thousands and earn money."

Bruce was interviewed at a later show on the same leg of the show by the same Keith Altham who wrote the piece published April 29 saying Smile was being readied. After expressing his anger over releasing Then I Kissed Her as a single, he says: "I've got some tapes at home of the new tracks to be on the "Smile" LP which would blow your mind. All the ideas are new and Brian is coming up with fantastic ideas all the time"

Mike in that same article, same interview, after also commenting on the EMI single decision says: "The reason for the hold up with the new single has simply been that we wanted to give our public the best and the best isn't ready yet."

Carl's interviews from roughly the same time suggest Brian was working in the studio.

So add all of that up, the "word" from the band members ranges from Bruce suggesting Smile would be coming out, Dennis saying it will come out when it's ready, and Mike saying something similar.

This same week those interviews were given, Taylor writes that the album was scrapped.

Two weeks after the interviews, Brian is working on "DaDa" following the same template he had been recording Smile previously.

When the Beach Boys returned from the tour, the first week of sessions they did were at Western and Sound Recorders for Vegetables, With Me Tonight, and Cool Cool Water. Not the home studio, which didn't exist and wasn't ready to do sessions, but instead at the "pro studios" Brian had been using all along. The next week, they started using the home studio to start tracking Heroes, followed by Vegetables (again).



Is it out of the question to suggest something major within the band developed between that last Western session and the first "home studio" session which caused such a dramatic shift in the work?

Ironically it was Derek Taylor who - when writing his hype piece (aka PR) for the "new" Heroes single release in July '67, wrote this:

"In one inspired decision, (Nick) Grillo and the Beach Boys were able to a. Make use of Brian Wilson's new house, b. restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions and c. remove the problem of availability of commercial studios. They built their own 8-track studio in the Spanish house."

Does tracing that line add up to anything, or does it show where the band members' minds were at when talking to Altham and other press people on the UK tour, versus what Derek Taylor was writing? I don't know. But it's there (and more) for consideration.

My question beyond what the hell happened with Taylor's "scrapped" article is what did Taylor later mean when he wrote "b. Restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions". Any guesses what that refers to? Compromises, perhaps?

Adding to that, specifically addressed to Cam Mott: If as you've suggested Brian's move to the new house was some kind of point where the idea of "Smile" was abandoned, Bruce for one as of May 1967 was still suggesting the Smile album would be released. Their reasons and quotes are listed above.

Further, the notion of using Brian's house to record does not seem to have been on the table until the band returned from Europe at the end of May. Even then, they were still using Western for a series of sessions upon their return. If you trace what Taylor wrote about this time, the decision to record at Brian's house could have (and most likely did) come in that week the band was back at Western in June 1967 still tracking Vegetables sessions.

The way the studio was hastily assembled using rented gear from Wally Heider, a radio station broadcast console (the Gates Dualux) versus an actual studio board, and cables running around the various floors and rooms of the house suggest it was indeed an ad hoc setup and not planned out or constructed in advance. The notion from the July Taylor piece is that the band with Grillo must have worked out some details and changed gears to get working on an album sometime after they returned from Europe, and whatever 'attitude and atmosphere' changes were discussed led to the change in direction that produced an ad hoc studio, a "produced by the Beach Boys" credit, and a total shift in direction from where Brian was recording up to that week in June.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 29, 2016, 10:39:52 AM
Look at other articles also from May 1967 and statements made in those articles by various writers and band members. At that point in the UK there was a lot of talk about why the Heroes single was abandoned or delayed, why the old single was released in its place, and what was going on with a new album or single. Dennis, Bruce, Mike, and Carl at various times said the reason for the holdup was they didn't want to be rushed, and each said a variation of "we want to give the public the best product we can".

Dennis was interviewed the day of the Dublin show while waiting for Carl to fly in from the US to play that first show of the tour in Dublin. He defends the art of it, explains why they didn't release Heroes: "Oh, we got a little frightened. We've got a lot of songs recorded, but we got nervous about whether they were good enough. We've got afraid to put anything out unless it comes up to a certain standard. We're not just putting out singles to sell thousands and earn money."

Bruce was interviewed at a later show on the same leg of the show by the same Keith Altham who wrote the piece published April 29 saying Smile was being readied. After expressing his anger over releasing Then I Kissed Her as a single, he says: "I've got some tapes at home of the new tracks to be on the "Smile" LP which would blow your mind. All the ideas are new and Brian is coming up with fantastic ideas all the time"

Mike in that same article, same interview, after also commenting on the EMI single decision says: "The reason for the hold up with the new single has simply been that we wanted to give our public the best and the best isn't ready yet."

Carl's interviews from roughly the same time suggest Brian was working in the studio.

So add all of that up, the "word" from the band members ranges from Bruce suggesting Smile would be coming out, Dennis saying it will come out when it's ready, and Mike saying something similar.

This same week those interviews were given, Taylor writes that the album was scrapped.

Two weeks after the interviews, Brian is working on "DaDa" following the same template he had been recording Smile previously.

When the Beach Boys returned from the tour, the first week of sessions they did were at Western and Sound Recorders for Vegetables, With Me Tonight, and Cool Cool Water. Not the home studio, which didn't exist and wasn't ready to do sessions, but instead at the "pro studios" Brian had been using all along. The next week, they started using the home studio to start tracking Heroes, followed by Vegetables (again).



Is it out of the question to suggest something major within the band developed between that last Western session and the first "home studio" session which caused such a dramatic shift in the work?

Ironically it was Derek Taylor who - when writing his hype piece (aka PR) for the "new" Heroes single release in July '67, wrote this:

"In one inspired decision, (Nick) Grillo and the Beach Boys were able to a. Make use of Brian Wilson's new house, b. restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions and c. remove the problem of availability of commercial studios. They built their own 8-track studio in the Spanish house."

Does tracing that line add up to anything, or does it show where the band members' minds were at when talking to Altham and other press people on the UK tour, versus what Derek Taylor was writing? I don't know. But it's there (and more) for consideration.

My question beyond what the hell happened with Taylor's "scrapped" article is what did Taylor later mean when he wrote "b. Restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions". Any guesses what that refers to? Compromises, perhaps?
That whole top section seems consistent with what comments the band were making on tour with regard Smile. 

They all wanted to "put out the max" in terms of quality for the public and did not want to rush the release.  It would make no sense to me for them to back-pedal, after all those vocal sessions, with just the resources invested. 

In Taylor's defense, if he was leaking out the fact that Brian had multiple job descriptions, (even inadvertently) that he actually saw in the studio, and it became published, it would be harder to defend against not paying Brian for his work.  I do, however,  think Taylor "crossed the line" ethically, where he alludes to "restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions." 

Attitude? What happens in Vegas stays there.  It is just not discrete.   ;)





 
   


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 29, 2016, 01:20:58 PM
Bruce was interviewed at a later show on the same leg of the show by the same Keith Altham who wrote the piece published April 29 saying Smile was being readied. After expressing his anger over releasing Then I Kissed Her as a single, he says: "I've got some tapes at home of the new tracks to be on the "Smile" LP which would blow your mind. All the ideas are new and Brian is coming up with fantastic ideas all the time"

Mike in that same article, same interview, after also commenting on the EMI single decision says: "The reason for the hold up with the new single has simply been that we wanted to give our public the best and the best isn't ready yet."

Carl's interviews from roughly the same time suggest Brian was working in the studio.

So add all of that up, the "word" from the band members ranges from Bruce suggesting Smile would be coming out, Dennis saying it will come out when it's ready, and Mike saying something similar.

This same week those interviews were given, Taylor writes that the album was scrapped.

So, according to this, Mike goes from telling Altham they want to give of their best to telling Taylor the album has been scrapped in the course of... what, a week or less ? I know these are The Beach Boys with all this implies, but... seriously ?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 29, 2016, 02:00:13 PM
Yeah the comments from Mike, Dennis and Bruce suggest to me that it makes much more sense that Brian in a moment of frustration decided to junk Smile, changed his mind for a few weeks, and then decided again to junk it.

Can I throw in another related controversial quote?  I don't have it at hand, but Cam does . . . the quote where Brian says the decision was made not to include some songs on the album (Smiley), and the group almost broke up over that . . . the clear implication is that because Brian didn't want to use Smile tracks like Surf's Up etc, and the group did, that there was dissent within the group and the group almost broke up.

I'm skeptical - has any group member mentioned they wanted to break up the group over this decision?  It certainly seemed like the group was on board for the shift to Smiley, around June-Aug were there any press reports or interviews, then or later, suggesting the group almost broke up?  What were Carl, Dennis, Mike and Al planning to do if the group broke up?  We know there was dissent over the lyrics to some of the songs from Mike, but he's never mentioned dissension over junking the Smile tracks, actually guitar fool's theory implies Mike wanted to junk them and sabotage the project by planting a false report that the tracks had been junked with Derek Taylor.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 03:59:46 PM
Adding to that, specifically addressed to Cam Mott: If as you've suggested Brian's move to the new house was some kind of point where the idea of "Smile" was abandoned, Bruce for one as of May 1967 was still suggesting the Smile album would be released. Their reasons and quotes are listed above.

Further, the notion of using Brian's house to record does not seem to have been on the table until the band returned from Europe at the end of May. Even then, they were still using Western for a series of sessions upon their return. If you trace what Taylor wrote about this time, the decision to record at Brian's house could have (and most likely did) come in that week the band was back at Western in June 1967 still tracking Vegetables sessions.

The way the studio was hastily assembled using rented gear from Wally Heider, a radio station broadcast console (the Gates Dualux) versus an actual studio board, and cables running around the various floors and rooms of the house suggest it was indeed an ad hoc setup and not planned out or constructed in advance. The notion from the July Taylor piece is that the band with Grillo must have worked out some details and changed gears to get working on an album sometime after they returned from Europe, and whatever 'attitude and atmosphere' changes were discussed led to the change in direction that produced an ad hoc studio, a "produced by the Beach Boys" credit, and a total shift in direction from where Brian was recording up to that week in June.

I'm bumping this from the bottom of the last page because the issues are relevant to what's been posted since.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 04:26:10 PM
Yeah the comments from Mike, Dennis and Bruce suggest to me that it makes much more sense that Brian in a moment of frustration decided to junk Smile, changed his mind for a few weeks, and then decided again to junk it.

Can I throw in another related controversial quote?  I don't have it at hand, but Cam does . . . the quote where Brian says the decision was made not to include some songs on the album (Smiley), and the group almost broke up over that . . . the clear implication is that because Brian didn't want to use Smile tracks like Surf's Up etc, and the group did, that there was dissent within the group and the group almost broke up.

I'm skeptical - has any group member mentioned they wanted to break up the group over this decision?  It certainly seemed like the group was on board for the shift to Smiley, around June-Aug were there any press reports or interviews, then or later, suggesting the group almost broke up?  What were Carl, Dennis, Mike and Al planning to do if the group broke up?  We know there was dissent over the lyrics to some of the songs from Mike, but he's never mentioned dissension over junking the Smile tracks, actually guitar fool's theory implies Mike wanted to junk them and sabotage the project by planting a false report that the tracks had been junked with Derek Taylor.

Did I ever say that (in bold) in this discussion? You're putting meanings and implications of your own into what was actually written. I posted essentially what Domenic Priore and Peter Carlin both said and published a decade ago. Whatever implications are there, they didn't come from my keyboard and weren't in my posts.

The quote, Brian Wilson 1968: "Early 1967, I had planned to make an album entitled SMILE. I was working with a guy named Van Dyke Parks, who was collaborating with me on the tunes, and it the process, we came up with a song called ‘Surf’s Up’, and I performed that with just a piano on a documentary show made on rock music. The song ‘Surf’s Up’, that I sang on that documentary never came out on an album, and it was supposed to come out on the SMILE album, and that and a couple of other songs were junked…because…I don’t know why…for some reason didn’t want to put them on the album…and the group nearly broke up, actually split up for good after that…”.

Take it all into consideration, my two posts above, the one with the May 67 quotes, and you see band members saying they want to give the public a good product on their terms, not be rushed, etc., some answers specific to the Heroes single, maybe implications for the Smile album too even though Bruce is the one most openly enthusiastic about "Smile" in his answers. The band is in Europe on tour, Brian holds sessions in line with "Smile" working methods he had been using. Band returns, does about a week of sessions, one at Sound, others at Western, mostly focused on Vegetables (which was where they left off immediately before the tour in mid April) and also With Me Tonight and Cool Cool Water.

If Taylor's July '67 PR piece is accurate, *something* happened between when the band returned to the US, did the week of "pro studio" sessions, then began recording at Brian's home.

In that exact period of time, possibly (and probably), Taylor's report (July 67) described this:

"In one inspired decision, (Nick) Grillo and the Beach Boys were able to a. Make use of Brian Wilson's new house, b. restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions and c. remove the problem of availability of commercial studios. They built their own 8-track studio in the Spanish house."

The part in bold, "restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions", what are the implications there? Whose attitude? What exactly was restructured?

Whatever the case, they did begin recording at Brian's house and the album they recorded there had for the first time the credit "Produced by The Beach Boys". Does that coincide with another circa November 1966 (when they arrived in Britain from Stockholm) Alan Walsh interview (subtitled 'Are the five touring Beach Boys merely puppets of sound genius Brian Wilson') with Carl where he talks about the band's contributions and addresses criticism that the group isn't the same without Brian, and defends against the criticisms being leveled then at the live sound of the touring group versus the records. That criticism got worse in May 67, some of the reviews of certain shows were harsh on the band's sound, similar to the previous year but with even more negativity directed at their shows.

Was there something that broke the dam when the band returned from that May 1967 tour? A case could be made that there was, because within weeks they were recording at Brian's house with a piecemeal rented studio setup, with totally new songs and radically different textures and arrangements, and all of this coming after (if Taylor got it right in July 67) a restructuring of attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions.


Two questions:
1 - Is there an answer for why Brian was still recording as he had been with all previous Smile tracks in mid-May 1967 while the band was on tour and in spite of the band's press agent publicly declaring the album D.O.A.?

2 - Can anyone offer anything factual or published that sheds light on what happened those first two weeks of June within the band?

If the answer is "no" to the second one, it's all speculation. But we know what things were like immediately before, and we know what things were like immediately after, and Taylor in July 67 did shed some light on those changes, specifically the decision to use Brian's house to work on the album. The entire game had changed, including future production credits on the music.




Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on January 29, 2016, 04:43:30 PM

Take it all into consideration, my two posts above, the one with the May 67 quotes, and you see band members saying they want to give the public a good product on their terms, not be rushed, etc., some answers specific to the Heroes single, maybe implications for the Smile album too even though Bruce is the one most openly enthusiastic about "Smile" in his answers. The band is in Europe on tour, Brian holds sessions in line with "Smile" working methods he had been using. Band returns, does about a week of sessions, one at Sound, others at Western, mostly focused on Vegetables (which was where they left off immediately before the tour in mid April) and also With Me Tonight and Cool Cool Water.

If Taylor's July '67 PR piece is accurate, *something* happened between when the band returned to the US, did the week of "pro studio" sessions, then began recording at Brian's home.

In that exact period of time, possibly (and probably), Taylor's report (July 67) described this:

"In one inspired decision, (Nick) Grillo and the Beach Boys were able to a. Make use of Brian Wilson's new house, b. restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions and c. remove the problem of availability of commercial studios. They built their own 8-track studio in the Spanish house."

Given the first paragraph, I don't think you need Taylor at all to make the conclusion that's in the second.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 04:49:31 PM

So, according to this, Mike goes from telling Altham they want to give of their best to telling Taylor the album has been scrapped in the course of... what, a week or less ? I know these are The Beach Boys with all this implies, but... seriously ?

If it adds context to the quotes, the Altham piece appeared in NME's May 27th issue. Derek Taylor's Echo piece appeared May 6th. The comments in the rest of Altham's May piece suggest he met up with them at a gig after they received the NME Poll award, but before they left for the Europe leg of that tour, possibly one of the May 8-10 shows. But if it were after they received the NME award, it would have been after Taylor's "scrapped" article had already hit the newsstands.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 29, 2016, 05:19:28 PM
This is great stuff. Thank you all.

Further stray thoughts on the chronology:

Dec - Mainly vocal tracking. List of titles sent to Capitol for covers. First major discord with VDP after he is ambushed by Brian into the 'over and over' incident with Mike (Carlin). Pressure mounts for a follow-up single, especially after the unexpected success of GV.
Jan/Feb - Mainly work on H&V for single release, employing sectional/modular recording style which worked so well for GV.
Mar - Recording stops almost completely for the month. Anderle recalls this period as Brian, finding it increasingly difficult to bring H&V at least to completion to his satisfaction, choosing to distract himself with various other side-projects.
April - Mainly work on new version of Vegetables for replacement single. End of month one report says 12 tracks are basically ready; a week later Taylor writes the album is scrapped.

Putting aside the issue of sources, these two statements are not necessarily contradictory. It seems (going from the '66 sessions) that backing tracks for most if not all of the 12 songs on the cover (except, probably, 'Surf's Up' and 'The Elements') might have been complete. Leads still required for 'Worms', 'Child' and 'Cabin Essence', and probably whatever 'Great Shape' was going to be, but elaborate backing vox present and correct on most songs. Something happens around this time, and someone tells Taylor the album's dead in the water.

Is it not possible that the Smile record planned in 1966 may have been almost complete, but not the Smile album Brian was sporadically working on (if, indeed, he was) in early '67? (EDIT: Isn't general satisfaction with the majority of the album tracks also suggested by the fact that work in Jan, Feb and April concentrates almost exclusively on the two songs announced as potential single releases, and one Badman names as an intended B-side? It would seem to be either that or, as Cam posits, possibly that Brian had effectively abandoned the original Smile project over the New Year, and was mainly working to get a 45 out.)

Van Dyke, Vosse and Anderle - collaborators and confidants in a way the band weren't - had all departed by April, and many sources speak of Brian's difficulty in articulating to others the plans inside his head. So one person could say 'almost ready to go' and another 'the album is scrapped', and they might both be telling the truth as they saw it. They'd just be talking about two - or multiple - quite different but intertwined conceptions of the album.

As a analogy, look at the torturous recording process for Guns'n'Roses' 'Chinese Democracy'. This was announced as being almost ready for release several times, and most of them that was probably true - except, as time showed, it wasn't. Different versions of the album may have been almost complete at different times, but not the album that eventually came out. So, like Schrödinger's cat, the record, locked up unseen and unheard inside the studio, was both alive and dead simultaneously.

Intrigued by Guitarfool's suggestion that Brian may have changed his mind in May, attempted briefly to complete 'The Elements' (maybe)/the album with the 'Dada' sessions, and then changed it back - for the last time - in June.





Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 29, 2016, 05:29:30 PM
Adding to that, specifically addressed to Cam Mott: If as you've suggested Brian's move to the new house was some kind of point where the idea of "Smile" was abandoned, Bruce for one as of May 1967 was still suggesting the Smile album would be released. Their reasons and quotes are listed above.

Further, the notion of using Brian's house to record does not seem to have been on the table until the band returned from Europe at the end of May. Even then, they were still using Western for a series of sessions upon their return. If you trace what Taylor wrote about this time, the decision to record at Brian's house could have (and most likely did) come in that week the band was back at Western in June 1967 still tracking Vegetables sessions.

The way the studio was hastily assembled using rented gear from Wally Heider, a radio station broadcast console (the Gates Dualux) versus an actual studio board, and cables running around the various floors and rooms of the house suggest it was indeed an ad hoc setup and not planned out or constructed in advance. The notion from the July Taylor piece is that the band with Grillo must have worked out some details and changed gears to get working on an album sometime after they returned from Europe, and whatever 'attitude and atmosphere' changes were discussed led to the change in direction that produced an ad hoc studio, a "produced by the Beach Boys" credit, and a total shift in direction from where Brian was recording up to that week in June.

I'm bumping this from the bottom of the last page because the issues are relevant to what's been posted since.
Bicyclerider - I think it is important to realize that Derek Taylor, because of his past relationship with the Beatles, had a reputation that perhaps "he walked on water" and was given a lot of leeway. People just believed what they read. This is not GF's fault.  These myths have taken on a life of their own.

That said, some bad things "did" happen on that tour, notwithstanding what was going on with Capitol and the nascent BRI.  And here is where historic context must be integrated with the scenario.  On May 4th, there was a press conference...

From Badman, p. 184, "Odeon Hammersmith West London...The group's visit to the English capital did not begin well.  At a press conference held at the London Hilton Hotel, Carl storms out. "The press attacked me with nasty questions about my draft resistance." he will recall on BBC radio.  "They treated me like a criminal."

This came on the heels of one week prior, Carl being arrested in NY, the night after his big brother Brian was on Inside Pop, bailed, appearing in Boston on April 28th,  NY and NJ, the 29th, and flying back on April 30th to be in court and face a judge on May 1st, hoping that he would be released to go to Ireland/UK for the tour.  They get there and find out that Then I Kissed Her is released which is cited by GF above..  They are on the heels of GV, Pet Sounds and being regressively promoted with TIKH.  

So, to GF, I think the combination of factors coupled with less than stellar concert reviews, had to be discouraging.  They had brought their own extra musicians (four) and were not allowed to use them because it was against a British Musicians' Union rule to allow them to play.  

Whoever set this tour up should have been sued. Or at the least, fired. Yes those are strong words.  It would likely have been the tour manager (who?) to do all that advance planning to verify in advance that these ancillary musicians were all cleared to perform.  And then these Taylor-made press releases... ;)

  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 29, 2016, 06:40:40 PM
Adding to that, specifically addressed to Cam Mott: If as you've suggested Brian's move to the new house was some kind of point where the idea of "Smile" was abandoned, Bruce for one as of May 1967 was still suggesting the Smile album would be released. Their reasons and quotes are listed above.

Further, the notion of using Brian's house to record does not seem to have been on the table until the band returned from Europe at the end of May. Even then, they were still using Western for a series of sessions upon their return. If you trace what Taylor wrote about this time, the decision to record at Brian's house could have (and most likely did) come in that week the band was back at Western in June 1967 still tracking Vegetables sessions.

The way the studio was hastily assembled using rented gear from Wally Heider, a radio station broadcast console (the Gates Dualux) versus an actual studio board, and cables running around the various floors and rooms of the house suggest it was indeed an ad hoc setup and not planned out or constructed in advance. The notion from the July Taylor piece is that the band with Grillo must have worked out some details and changed gears to get working on an album sometime after they returned from Europe, and whatever 'attitude and atmosphere' changes were discussed led to the change in direction that produced an ad hoc studio, a "produced by the Beach Boys" credit, and a total shift in direction from where Brian was recording up to that week in June.

I'm bumping this from the bottom of the last page because the issues are relevant to what's been posted since.

Marilyn suggested that the move to the new house was connected to what happened to SMiLE, not the home studio, the home studio wasn't mentioned as having anything to do with it.

If you read above that part in the Taylor July piece you'll find listed the issues the home studio changes were to address I believe.

Brian was the Producer according to Carl and Bruce and Jim Lockert (and the actual recordings) at least and I think we are over estimating how much the Boys knew about the nuts and bolts of what Brian intended and was doing in his Producing. For instance, in a Bravo interview (I think) from July after the release of H&V, Mike was not even aware that the title of the album had been changed to Smiley Smile on/or before July 20.  That still leaves Brian, at least as early as April 4 and on into July, recording non-SMiLE songs for the non-SMiLE album which was titled Smiley Smile and recording lots of music for Smiley Smile without the Boys necessarily knowing the album as Smiley Smile.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 29, 2016, 07:20:26 PM
Quote
I think we are over estimating how much the Boys knew about the nuts and bolts of what Brian intended and was doing in his Producing. For instance, in a Bravo interview (I think) from July after the release of H&V, Mike was not even aware that the title of the album had been changed to Smiley Smile on/or before July 20.
Which rather ties in to what I suggest in my post above.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 29, 2016, 07:29:56 PM
Code:
I think we are over estimating how much the Boys knew about the nuts and bolts of what Brian intended and was doing in his Producing. For instance, in a Bravo interview (I think) from July after the release of H&V, Mike was not even aware that the title of the album had been changed to Smiley Smile on/or before July 20.

Which rather ties in to what I suggest in my post above.

And was also backed up by Anderle and Vosse in regards to SMiLE and Taylor in his April/May post-SMiLE articles and on into July.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 07:39:40 PM
The house is a red herring, among many. Marilyn also said things about the hassles Brian was getting from the guys over the music, how do we weigh that into the story, more or less than Brian buying a new house? Seriously, with everything going on, the fact Brian moved into a new house was one of the key factors in the history of Smile, seriously?

Did it start in February when Brian and Marilyn were shopping for a house, or just when they signed the papers?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 29, 2016, 07:40:18 PM
Quote
And was also backed up by Anderle and Vosse in regards to SMiLE and Taylor in his April/May post-SMiLE articles and on into July.

Agreed.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 07:46:02 PM
So Brian buying and moving into a new house signaled the end of Smile? Seriously, even by Cam's standards, that's absurd.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 29, 2016, 07:46:52 PM
The house is a red herring, among many. Marilyn also said things about the hassles Brian was getting from the guys over the music, how do we weigh that into the story, more or less than Brian buying a new house? Seriously, with everything going on, the fact Brian moved into a new house was one of the key factors in the history of Smile, seriously?

Did it start in February when Brian and Marilyn were shopping for a house, or just when they signed the papers?

I keep hearing this. You might want to take it up with Marilyn, your argument isn't with me.

Also, here are reasons for the May decision according to Taylor in July:  “But by mid-Winter 1966/7 the Beach Boys were running into a serious creative impasse. Brian Wilson, constantly harassed by the availability of the right studio---and for him ‘the right studio’ means which ever studio he needs on whim without notice—restricted by the touring needs of the Beach Boys, disturbed by legal complications with Capitol Records, confined by the conventional brevity of the pop single, and pressured by the need of competing with other groups, decided arbitrarily that making records was, for him, no longer a pleasure.”



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 29, 2016, 07:49:38 PM
So Brian buying and moving into a new house signaled the end of Smile? Seriously, even by Cam's standards, that's absurd.

Once again, it is Marilyn's words you find absurd. By the way, are you trying to insult me?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 07:51:18 PM
The house is a red herring, among many. Marilyn also said things about the hassles Brian was getting from the guys over the music, how do we weigh that into the story, more or less than Brian buying a new house? Seriously, with everything going on, the fact Brian moved into a new house was one of the key factors in the history of Smile, seriously?

Did it start in February when Brian and Marilyn were shopping for a house, or just when they signed the papers?

I keep hearing this. You might want to take it up with Marilyn, your argument isn't with me.

Also, here are reasons for the May decision according to Taylor in July:  “But by mid-Winter 1966/7 the Beach Boys were running into a serious creative impasse. Brian Wilson, constantly harassed by the availability of the right studio---and for him ‘the right studio’ means which ever studio he needs on whim without notice—restricted by the touring needs of the Beach Boys, disturbed by legal complications with Capitol Records, confined by the conventional brevity of the pop single, and pressured by the need of competing with other groups, decided arbitrarily that making records was, for him, no longer a pleasure.”



Yet he continued to make Beach Boys records...including those mid-May 67 sessions that were the same working method he had been doing since 1966 regarding Smile sessions, record instrumental tracks, Boys return home and add vocals and finishing touches...The Boys returned from the tour, first week of June Brian was in Western (and Sound) cutting Vegetables sessions with them among others...right where they left off in April before their tour.

Anything else, Cam?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 07:54:34 PM
So Brian buying and moving into a new house signaled the end of Smile? Seriously, even by Cam's standards, that's absurd.

Once again, it is Marilyn's words you find absurd. By the way, are you trying to insult me?

No. Just referencing me having read many of your Smile theories for the past 15 years or so. I don't remember moving into a new house being one of them, even in the old "Cam And Dan Pillowfight" sub-forum on the Smile Shop when things got dicey there.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 29, 2016, 07:54:42 PM
Re: Studio time, the March break in recording, and the March-April exodus of the 'Smile Faithful' (from Crawdaddy!, mid-'68):

David Anderle: 'That [the 'Fire' tape paranoia] was the first sign that we were going to have problems on this album. That, and the fact that for the first time Brian was having trouble with studios—getting studio time. Then he was having a problem with engineers. Brian was starting to meet a fantastic amount of resistance on all fronts. Like, very slowly everything started to collapse about him. The scene with Van Dyke. Now, that's a critical point. You've gotta remember that originally Van Dyke was gonna do all the lyrics for Smile. Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying, it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening. So he abandoned the studio. Then, there was the business, Brother Records. He got his head into the business aspects of Brother Records. So that kept him out of ... he had another excuse. [...] There was gonna be the Post article by Jules Siegel, he was on television, an incredible amount of excuses not to cut, things to get into. The little film for "Good Vibrations," which took time away, the guys being out of town, whatever, he was clinging onto excuses. And I was very aware of what was happening, but I couldn't put my finger onto why Smile was now starting to nose dive, other than the fact that I still felt at that point that the central thing was Van Dyke's severing of that relationship.

Paul Williams: The creative period had been passed and the specific concept was beginning to slip away.

Anderle: Right.'


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 07:57:58 PM
Re: Studio time, the March break in recording, and the March-April exodus of the 'Smile Faithful' (from Crawdaddy!, mid-'68):

David Anderle: 'That [the 'Fire' tape paranoia] was the first sign that we were going to have problems on this album. That, and the fact that for the first time Brian was having trouble with studios—getting studio time. Then he was having a problem with engineers. Brian was starting to meet a fantastic amount of resistance on all fronts. Like, very slowly everything started to collapse about him. The scene with Van Dyke. Now, that's a critical point. You've gotta remember that originally Van Dyke was gonna do all the lyrics for Smile. Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying, it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening. So he abandoned the studio. Then, there was the business, Brother Records. He got his head into the business aspects of Brother Records. So that kept him out of ... he had another excuse. [...] There was gonna be the Post article by Jules Siegel, he was on television, an incredible amount of excuses not to cut, things to get into. The little film for "Good Vibrations," which took time away, the guys being out of town, whatever, he was clinging onto excuses. And I was very aware of what was happening, but I couldn't put my finger onto why Smile was now starting to nose dive, other than the fact that I still felt at that point that the central thing was Van Dyke's severing of that relationship.

Paul Williams: The creative period had been passed and the specific concept was beginning to slip away.

Anderle: Right.'


So now it's Van Dyke leaving as the benchmark, not Brian buying a new house? Was it the first time Van Dyke left, or was it when he came back in March after leaving the first time then left again?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 29, 2016, 08:04:12 PM
I'm just quoting Anderle. What he says in the quote I posted, as with Taylor's June '67 comments, support the hypothesis that access to studio time was a factor in the dissolution of the Smile project. And we know that one of the key considerations as regard Brian and Marilyn's new house was the hasty installation of a home recording studio. A 'benchmark' factor? I don't know. Just pointing out that a key witness seems to have viewed it as a contributing aspect - along with the departure of Van Dyke Parks as lyricist.

My reading of Anderle's statement would be that he's referring to the final departure of VDP in March, not to his December or February exits. But it's not made explicit by the text, no.

EDIT: What seems to be the case, at least going from the sessionography, recording dates, etc, is that most of the formal songwriting (at least in terms of lyrics) for Smile occurred between May and December 1966, and Van Dyke's involvement in 1967 mainly related to the single version of H&V ('Cantina', etc). Since the only new lyrics we know of being put to tape in '67 are for H&V (and possibly Vega-Tables), and considering the build-up to VDP's final departure appears to have been fairly drawn-out, I'd further suggest that whether or Anderle is referring to December, February or March, or conflating various exits in the interview, is fairly irrelevant. The data that survives firmly suggests that the great majority of Van Dyke's lyrical input occurred pre-December 1966. It's his leaving before the album was completed that matters, not the date on which he did. Vosse, Anderle and Parks himself all seem to agree on this point.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 29, 2016, 08:06:13 PM
The house is a red herring, among many. Marilyn also said things about the hassles Brian was getting from the guys over the music, how do we weigh that into the story, more or less than Brian buying a new house? Seriously, with everything going on, the fact Brian moved into a new house was one of the key factors in the history of Smile, seriously?

Did it start in February when Brian and Marilyn were shopping for a house, or just when they signed the papers?

I keep hearing this. You might want to take it up with Marilyn, your argument isn't with me.

Also, here are reasons for the May decision according to Taylor in July:  “But by mid-Winter 1966/7 the Beach Boys were running into a serious creative impasse. Brian Wilson, constantly harassed by the availability of the right studio---and for him ‘the right studio’ means which ever studio he needs on whim without notice—restricted by the touring needs of the Beach Boys, disturbed by legal complications with Capitol Records, confined by the conventional brevity of the pop single, and pressured by the need of competing with other groups, decided arbitrarily that making records was, for him, no longer a pleasure.”



Yet he continued to make Beach Boys records...including those mid-May 67 sessions that were the same working method he had been doing since 1966 regarding Smile sessions, record instrumental tracks, Boys return home and add vocals and finishing touches...The Boys returned from the tour, first week of June Brian was in Western (and Sound) cutting Vegetables sessions with them among others...right where they left off in April before their tour.

Anything else, Cam?

Yes he continued to record for the album titled Smiley starting by April and right through into July.  No, that's about it.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 08:10:13 PM
I'm just quoting Anderle. What he says in the quote I posted, as with Taylor's June '67 comments, support the hypothesis that access to studio time was a factor in the dissolution of the Smile project. And we know that one of the key considerations as regard Brian and Marilyn's new house was the hasty installation of a home recording studio. A 'benchmark'? I don't know. Just pointing out that a key witness seems to have viewed it as one - along with the departure of Van Dyke Parks as lyricist.

My reading of Anderle's statement would be that he's referring to the final departure of VDP in March, not to his December or February exits. But it's not made explicit by the text, no.

The last part, yes - Consider when it was the first time Van Dyke left, did work on Smile stop?

Consider this too: Weigh up all of the Smile tracks we know that were in the vault as of the day the Beach Boys left for their long stretch of touring in mid-April 1967.

Many of the instrumental tracks were complete. Someone give a percentage, was it more than half, 75%, or more than that even? I never did the percentages, but i know someone did to compare it to 2004.

What was missing? Vocals. If the group was on tour almost constantly from mid-April into May and for all of May on another continent, what exactly could Brian have been cutting in the studio? The guys who would be adding vocals to the tracks were gone for roughly 6 weeks...in that time, Brian did cut "Love To Say Dada", which has been suggested could have been one of the missing elements to complete that track. Agree or not on that...

But what more could Brian cut if he already had the instrumental tracks in the can waiting for vocals if the band was on tour for 6 weeks?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 29, 2016, 08:10:36 PM
So Brian buying and moving into a new house signaled the end of Smile? Seriously, even by Cam's standards, that's absurd.

Once again, it is Marilyn's words you find absurd. By the way, are you trying to insult me?

No. Just referencing me having read many of your Smile theories for the past 15 years or so. I don't remember moving into a new house being one of them, even in the old "Cam And Dan Pillowfight" sub-forum on the Smile Shop when things got dicey there.

Oh well good, I can tell by this post, just me I guess.  

No, she said it a long time ago, it was in there, you just missed it I guess.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 29, 2016, 08:17:58 PM
I'm just quoting Anderle. What he says in the quote I posted, as with Taylor's June '67 comments, support the hypothesis that access to studio time was a factor in the dissolution of the Smile project. And we know that one of the key considerations as regard Brian and Marilyn's new house was the hasty installation of a home recording studio. A 'benchmark' factor? I don't know. Just pointing out that a key witness seems to have viewed it as a contributing aspect - along with the departure of Van Dyke Parks as lyricist.

My reading of Anderle's statement would be that he's referring to the final departure of VDP in March, not to his December or February exits. But it's not made explicit by the text, no.

EDIT: What seems to be the case, at least going from the sessionography, recording dates, etc, is that most of the formal songwriting (at least in terms of lyrics) for Smile occurred between May and December 1966, and Van Dyke's involvement in 1967 mainly related to the single version of H&V ('Cantina', etc). Since the only new lyrics we know of being put to tape in '67 are for H&V (and possibly Vega-Tables), and considering the build-up to VDP's final departure appears to have been fairly drawn-out, I'd further suggest that whether or Anderle is referring to December, February or March, or conflating various exits in the interview, is fairly irrelevant. The data that survives firmly suggests that the great majority of Van Dyke's lyrical input occurred pre-December 1966. It's his leaving before the album was completed that matters, not the date on which he did. Vosse, Anderle and Parks himself all seem to agree on this point.

Doesn't Anderle say something specific like "right around February"?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 29, 2016, 08:24:48 PM
The last part, yes - Consider when it was the first time Van Dyke left, did work on Smile stop?

Consider this too: Weigh up all of the Smile tracks we know that were in the vault as of the day the Beach Boys left for their long stretch of touring in mid-April 1967.

Many of the instrumental tracks were complete. Someone give a percentage, was it more than half, 75%, or more than that even? I never did the percentages, but i know someone did to compare it to 2004.

What was missing? Vocals. If the group was on tour almost constantly from mid-April into May and for all of May on another continent, what exactly could Brian have been cutting in the studio? The guys who would be adding vocals to the tracks were gone for roughly 6 weeks...in that time, Brian did cut "Love To Say Dada", which has been suggested could have been one of the missing elements to complete that track. Agree or not on that...

But what more could Brian cut if he already had the instrumental tracks in the can waiting for vocals if the band was on tour for 6 weeks?

I added this to my last post as an edit, but will put it here too as it's relevant to what you've written above, GF:

EDIT: What seems to be the case, at least going from the sessionography, recording dates, etc, is that most of the formal songwriting (at least in terms of lyrics) for Smile occurred between May and December 1966, and Van Dyke's involvement in 1967 mainly related to the single version of H&V ('Cantina', etc). Since the only new lyrics we know of being put to tape in '67 are for H&V (and possibly Vega-Tables), and considering the build-up to VDP's final departure appears to have been fairly drawn-out, I'd further suggest that whether or not Anderle is referring to December, February or March, or conflating various exits in the interview, is fairly irrelevant. The data that survives firmly suggests that the great majority of Van Dyke's lyrical input occurred pre-December 1966. It's his leaving before the album was completed that matters, not the date on which he did. Vosse, Anderle and Parks himself all seem to agree on this point.

Re: suspension of work in May 1967. Sure, the boys were away and - as I also said above - I agree it seems that what was missing, largely, were lead vocals for several album tracks. But while I can see that concentrating on those weeks they were on tour leans toward the conclusion that Smile was still happening, just unable to proceed until the voices got back, if you widen the scope out a bit to include Jan, Feb, March and (nominally) June, a very different analysis presents itself. No work took place during that time on nine of the 'more than half, 75%'-finished twelve songs listed on the LP cover, several of which were apparently complete sans lead vocals. Two of those that were worked on are explicitly stated in press clippings as attempts at a single, and the other (the 'Wonderful' remake) apparently for the B-side of the latter.

Which suggests to me that work on Smile as a long player, as it had been originally planned, was effectively suspended by Brian in early 1967. If it was as close to completion as both of us seem to feel it might have been, and mainly what was missing were vocals, then why weren't the 'Cabin Essence' verses, for instance, laid down in January? Or February? Or March? Or April? Concentrating on the weeks the boys were away and not able to record the final leads for a number of those songs, as opposed to the several preceding months where they were and could have done so, seems to be rather missing the wood for the trees.





Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 29, 2016, 08:28:24 PM
Quote
Doesn't Anderle say something specific like "right around February"?

Correct, though Anderle seems to be referring to the point at which the creative differences between VDP and BW became impossible to ignore, not specifically to Van Dyke's final departure. That could be just a subjective reading on my part, however:

DAVID: Their parting was kind of tragic, in the fact that there were two people who absolutely did not want to separate but they both knew that they had to separate, that they could not work together. 'Cause they were too strong, you know, in their own areas.
PAUL: When, February?
DAVID: Right around February, yeah. Van was getting—his lyric was too sophisticated, and in some areas Brian's music was not sophisticated enough, and so they started clashing on that. PAUL: They missed each other.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 08:42:17 PM
The last part, yes - Consider when it was the first time Van Dyke left, did work on Smile stop?

Consider this too: Weigh up all of the Smile tracks we know that were in the vault as of the day the Beach Boys left for their long stretch of touring in mid-April 1967.

Many of the instrumental tracks were complete. Someone give a percentage, was it more than half, 75%, or more than that even? I never did the percentages, but i know someone did to compare it to 2004.

What was missing? Vocals. If the group was on tour almost constantly from mid-April into May and for all of May on another continent, what exactly could Brian have been cutting in the studio? The guys who would be adding vocals to the tracks were gone for roughly 6 weeks...in that time, Brian did cut "Love To Say Dada", which has been suggested could have been one of the missing elements to complete that track. Agree or not on that...

But what more could Brian cut if he already had the instrumental tracks in the can waiting for vocals if the band was on tour for 6 weeks?

I added this to my last post as an edit, but will put it here too as it's relevant to what you've written above, GF:

EDIT: What seems to be the case, at least going from the sessionography, recording dates, etc, is that most of the formal songwriting (at least in terms of lyrics) for Smile occurred between May and December 1966, and Van Dyke's involvement in 1967 mainly related to the single version of H&V ('Cantina', etc). Since the only new lyrics we know of being put to tape in '67 are for H&V (and possibly Vega-Tables), and considering the build-up to VDP's final departure appears to have been fairly drawn-out, I'd further suggest that whether or Anderle is referring to December, February or March, or conflating various exits in the interview, is fairly irrelevant. The data that survives firmly suggests that the great majority of Van Dyke's lyrical input occurred pre-December 1966. It's his leaving before the album was completed that matters, not the date on which he did. Vosse, Anderle and Parks himself all seem to agree on this point.

Re: suspension of work in May 1967. Sure, the boys were away and - as I also said above - I agree it seems that what was missing, largely, were lead vocals for several album tracks. But while I can see that concentrating on those weeks they were on tour leans toward the conclusion that Smile was still happening, just unable to proceed until the voices got back, if you widen the scope out a bit to include Jan, Feb, March and June, a very different analysis presents itself. No work took place during that time on nine of the 'more than half, 75%' of the twelve songs listed on the LP cover, several of which were apparently complete sans lead vocals. Two of those that were worked on are explicitly stated in press clippings as attempts at a single, and the other ('Wonderful') apparently for the B-side of the latter.

Which suggests to me that work on Smile as a long player, as it had been originally planned, was effectively suspended by Brian in early 1967. If it was as close to completion as both of us seem to feel it might have been, and mainly what was missing were vocals, then why weren't the 'Cabin Essence' verses, for instance, laid down in January? Or February? Or March? Or April? Concentrating on the weeks the boys were away and not able to record the final leads for a number of those songs, as opposed to the several preceding months where they were and could have been, seems to be rather missing the wood for the trees.


I think the basic logistics of the situation are getting obscured by the speculation.

The point is still if we know a majority of the instrumental tracks for the album were recorded and in the can, and what was needed was vocals, at the point the band left for the tour in mid April, what more could Brian have recorded without the group that had to put on their vocals to the existing tracks? Factoring in why didn't Brian track Cabinessence vocals in December or another time is irrelevant too, the point is the instrumental tracks were waiting for vocals and when the band was in town a majority of Smile sessions in 1967 were for vocals.

What instrumental tracks for Smile could Brian have recorded between mid April and June 1967 if most of the instrumental tracks already existed and needed vocals to complete them? The vocalists he needed were on the road for 6 weeks. If the claim is that Brian should have been recording Smile as the band was on the road, what other tracks could he have done during that time? He needed vocals...they were out of town.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 29, 2016, 08:54:12 PM
I'm not sure quite where we're missing each other, GF, and I also don't think I'm speculating too wildly. We agree on the facts, it's just the interpretation of them that differs.

To put it as concisely as I can: If Brian only needed lead vocals from members of the band recorded to complete several songs in mid-1967, the question for me is not so much why he didn't tape them in May - when, as you point out, he couldn't have - but why he didn't try to record them in the three and a half months prior to that tour. Even if one says that's because the sporadic dates in Jan-Feb focussed on 'Heroes', and in April on 'Veggies', there's all of March in which almost no recording seems to have taken place at all.

And that's even assuming he actually required the other Beach Boys for those vocals. Most backing vox seem to have been completed. Why couldn't Brian have taken the leads - as he, according to Anderle, quite forcefully did in one song at least which had been more-or-less 'promised to Mike' (probably 'Heroes and Villians') - if he wanted to get the tracks finished, and that's all that was missing? On the previous album, Pet Sounds, he had shown no qualms in wiping and re-recording many vocal tracks by the band to get the sound he wanted.

So, again, what this suggests to me is that Brian himself showed little interest in 1967 in completing any of the half dozen (at least) fully tracked and roughly assembled songs from the Capitol track list which had been ready to receive final vocal dubs since December, apart from largely revamped versions of H&V and VT. Or that, even if he did, some external pressures stopped him from doing so. But I really can't see how it can be argued that the absence of the Beach Boys from LA for six weeks in the middle of the year is any kind of positive evidence that Brian was still pursuing his original plans for a completed 'Smile' in May.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 09:13:59 PM
Where we may be missing each others' points is in the citation of quotes to say this or that was a key factor. There is so much being left out, and it's not as simple as saying Van Dyke leaving scuttled the whole thing because as we know now, most of his lyrical contributions had been turned in, there were missing parts here and there but it's not as if he left the majority of his work unfinished and bailed on the project. We can't even pinpoint exactly which of his exits was "the one", because work continued on the album, primarily vocals when the band was in town. Was it a setback that he left? Of course. But, like buying the house, in the bigger picture it looks far more insignificant than other issues, especially from February to June 1967.

We agree the band being out of town so long would hamper the progress if vocals were needed on existing tracks.

How about the lawsuit? Some have suggested pulling Heroes could have been a power play to make Capitol show their hand in the negotiations. Who held the upper hand? The band needed Capitol to release their music, Capitol held the contract but they needed the band to deliver the music and also they got caught with their hand in the band's cookie jar...they couldn't deny it after the books were audited.

Could the negotiations and wrangling between parties with the lawsuit have influenced some of the band's comments to the UK press in May 67, all that about not being rushed, wanting to deliver a worthy product to the fans, etc? Keep in mind, Brian said nearly the same thing to Derek Taylor months earlier, about not being rushed, about wanting to deliver the best product but deliver it when it was felt it was ready, etc.

Again, it's easy to pin certain things on many factors, but there are some key factors that can't be ignored. A major public lawsuit between the band and their label could put a damper on what we'd consider normal activity, recording or releasing material.

Another factor is one no one is hitting (yet)...but one which could possibly have been an issue.

Let's just say, if the way a group has been recording albums and singles since the end of 1965 suddenly changes direction from what was the established and successful template up to that time...and takes a 180 degree turn from recording at Western with Chuck Britz and at Gold Star with session players and full instrumentation then changes to recording in Brian's living room with rented gear and a radio broadcast mixing board capturing the band singing in empty swimming pools and bathrooms set to a Baldwin organ backing and not a full drum kit or horn section in sight....

...we're supposed to believe no one noticed a radical change had occurred? That *this* setup was the same Smile album project Bruce raved about to NME a month earlier?

Something changed, radically, as of June 1967. And, more than the move to a new house and Van Dyke leaving affected the project in March/April.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 29, 2016, 09:16:28 PM
Further, to re-quote Anderle about this period:

Quote
Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying, it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening. So he abandoned the studio. Then, there was the business, Brother Records. He got his head into the business aspects of Brother Records. So that kept him out of ... he had another excuse.

In short: one of the key witnesses explicitly states that around March Brian chose to begin to absent himself from the project. (Anderle appears to be referring to March, here, as 'Van wasn't around' - he had been around, if increasingly infrequently, right through to February. March is also the month in which, indeed, 'he stopped recording for a while.') Not one witness, nor other documentation, suggests that the Beach Boys' touring schedule was any kind of factor in the collapse of Smile, apart from their reaction to the backing tracks they heard in late '66 on their return from the UK.

This doesn't mean, of course, that Brian wasn't trying/planning to complete a version of the record in 1967, I just can't see how any of the data we've been discussing on this thread (apart from Altham's 'twelve tracks in the can', which I discussed at some length in a previous post) particularly emphatically supports that hypothesis. Especially not that a lack of access to the band was any kind of factor.

I'm probably beating a dead horse here, I realise. Apologies if I've misunderstood your point.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 09:18:48 PM
Further, to re-quote Anderle about this period:

Quote
Then there was a hassle between Van and Brian and Van wasn't around. So that meant that Brian was now going to have to finish some of the lyrics himself. Well, how was he gonna put his lyrics in with the lyrics already started by Van Dyke? So he stopped recording for a while. Got completely away from music, saying, it's time to get into films. And we all knew what was happening. So he abandoned the studio. Then, there was the business, Brother Records. He got his head into the business aspects of Brother Records. So that kept him out of ... he had another excuse.

In short: one of the key witnesses explicitly states that around March Brian chose to begin to absent himself from the project. (Anderle appears to be referring to March, here, as 'Van wasn't around' - he had been around, if increasingly infrequently, right through to February. March is also the month in which, indeed, 'he stopped recording for a while.') Not one witness, nor other documentation, suggests that the Beach Boys' touring schedule was any kind of factor in the collapse of Smile, apart from their reaction to the backing tracks they heard in late '66 on their return from the UK.

This doesn't mean, of course, that Brian wasn't trying/planning to complete a version of the record in 1967, I just can't see how any of the data we've been discussing on this thread (apart from Altham's 'twelve tracks in the can', which I discussed at some length in a previous post) particularly emphatically supports that hypothesis. Especially not that a lack of access to the band was any kind of factor.

I'm probably beating a dead horse here, I realise. Apologies if I've misunderstood your point.

March is the month when the lawsuit was filed and went public.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 29, 2016, 09:19:11 PM
Quote
Could the negotiations and wrangling between parties with the lawsuit have influenced some of the band's comments to the UK press in May 67, all that about not being rushed, wanting to deliver a worthy product to the fans, etc? Keep in mind, Brian said nearly the same thing to Derek Taylor months earlier, about not being rushed, about wanting to deliver the best product but deliver it when it was felt it was ready, etc.

Again, it's easy to pin certain things on many factors, but there are some key factors that can't be ignored. A major public lawsuit between the band and their label could put a damper on what we'd consider normal activity, recording or releasing material.

Absolutely true. There are so many 'extenuating circumstances', when discussing this period, it's hard to keep them all in mind at once!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 29, 2016, 09:22:45 PM
Quote
Could the negotiations and wrangling between parties with the lawsuit have influenced some of the band's comments to the UK press in May 67, all that about not being rushed, wanting to deliver a worthy product to the fans, etc? Keep in mind, Brian said nearly the same thing to Derek Taylor months earlier, about not being rushed, about wanting to deliver the best product but deliver it when it was felt it was ready, etc.

Again, it's easy to pin certain things on many factors, but there are some key factors that can't be ignored. A major public lawsuit between the band and their label could put a damper on what we'd consider normal activity, recording or releasing material.

Absolutely true. There are so many 'extenuating circumstances', when discussing this period, it's hard to keep them all in mind at once!

I agree completely!  :) But it's all worth factoring in, to a point. I think some issues are weighed too heavily in retrospect, while others may be more practical in nature but potentially closer to the core issues at play.

I did say there was one big one that has been dismissed in previous years, but one which in light of the May 67 interview excerpts might be very close to that core...


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on January 29, 2016, 09:29:32 PM
Quote
Let's just say, if the way a group has been recording albums and singles since the end of 1965 suddenly changes direction from what was the established and successful template up to that time...and takes a 180 degree turn from recording at Western with Chuck Britz and at Gold Star with session players and full instrumentation then changes to recording in Brian's living room with rented gear and a radio broadcast mixing board capturing the band singing in empty swimming pools and bathrooms set to a Baldwin organ backing and not a full drum kit or horn section in sight....

...we're supposed to believe no one noticed a radical change had occurred? That *this* setup was the same Smile album project Bruce raved about to NME a month earlier?

Something changed, radically, as of June 1967. And, more than the move to a new house and Van Dyke leaving affected the project in March/April.

Right. 'The project'. I think what I'm saying (EDIT for fear of misrepresenting another poster) is that June marks the beginning of a new project (Smiley Smile), and that the previous project (Smile) effectively ended much earlier on in the year. Whatever Altham may have said in April about the record being almost ready to go can still be true (most of the album does appear to have been tracked and in the can) and at the same time wildly inaccurate, as it would turn out (the material was there, but Brian evidenced little interest or ability to add final vocals and put it together). No one's debating a major shift occurred once the Boys returned from tour in mid-67, and the commencement of the 'home studio' recording era. I'm arguing that the data suggests that work on Smile-as-originally-conceived was drawing to an end six months earlier, and the Jan-April sessions were essentially a transitory period, apparently concentrating on a single release. I may well be wrong here, and my views may change, that's just how it seems to me at this point in the thread.

The impact of the new house, the lawsuit, Carl's draft, etc, are all factors worth discussion. But we know what the 12 Smile tracks were going to be called, and in the whole first half of 1967, only three of them were substantively worked on, two being complete remakes, and all of them with an eye to 45 release. Surely there are some pretty solid inferences to be drawn from this?

EDIT: Oh, and a supporting bit of observation for that last paragraph. I think it's usually underemphasized that something crucial also first occurred in the 'Heroes' sessions of January - the cannibalisation of parts of other 'Smile' tracks and their incorporation into the projected singles. Ie. 'Bicycle Rider' being co-opted from Worms and used to produce a conventional chorus for 'Heroes'; the use of OMP's 'Part Two' as the fade for the 'Cantina' edit. The voice-and-keyboard 'Child' chorus recording in April, possibly intended (but not necessarily, though it's hard to see how it may have been intended to stand on its own) for Veggies or the new Wonderful, might be a later example. Mightn't this also suggest that Brian was beginning to consider the 'album tracks' recorded and assembled the previous year increasingly expendable?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 29, 2016, 09:58:53 PM
The house is a red herring, among many.

This may be the most accurate sentence in this whole thread.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 29, 2016, 10:02:19 PM
Re: Studio time, the March break in recording, and the March-April exodus of the 'Smile Faithful' (from Crawdaddy!, mid-'68):

David Anderle: 'That [the 'Fire' tape paranoia] was the first sign that we were going to have problems on this album. That, and the fact that for the first time Brian was having trouble with studios—getting studio time. Then he was having a problem with engineers.

That reminds me of something Bruce said to me when I mentioned Brian was basically engineering as well as producing, which was (I paraphrase slightly) "Not at Columbia, I saw the engineer there slap his hand away when he tried to touch the board".


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 30, 2016, 04:21:25 AM
The house is a red herring, among many.

This may be the most accurate sentence in this whole thread.

Poor ol' Marilyn.

Taylor in the July article also associates the new house with Brian's "creative empasse" following "mid-Winter 1966/7": "None of these things, attractive and desirable though they may have been, were the answer. Nor was buying a new house a solution to his creative dilemma. How could it have been." 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 30, 2016, 05:31:07 AM
I was referring to the concept of a communist kipper, not the domicile.  ;D


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 30, 2016, 05:50:34 AM
Going back a page, I had suggested that guitarfool's proposition based on Priore and Carlin's accounts that Mike was the source of the Taylor "scrapped" press release, IMPLIED that Mike was sabotaging or trying to sabotage the project.   If not, what was his motivation if we agree that in fact Brian was still working on Smile, as evidenced by the Vegetables and ILTSDD sessions?  Or was he just the messenger relaying information from another source?

There's no doubt Van Dyke's leaving made the recording process more difficult for Brian - whereas before if on a whim Brian wrote and wanted to record a new section for a song, Van Dyke would be there and able to write lyrics to it, now he had to work with what Van Dyke had left and revisions became more difficult.  When he recorded "sweeping strings" in February he talks with Van, who is present, about the tempo needing to be slowed for the vocals - probably expecting Van was going to write lyrics to go there.  With Van gone, what does he do with that piece?

It seems after the lyric questioning in December, very little new lyrical work occurs, even though Van Dyke returns and attempts to help Brian finish Heroes and Villains.  The pressure for a single was clearly intense and Brian's focus starting in January shifts to getting a single and the other tracks are abandoned - presumably temporarily but in fact for good.  With the possible exception of that curious outlier, ILTSDD.

 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2016, 06:00:28 AM
Re: Studio time, the March break in recording, and the March-April exodus of the 'Smile Faithful' (from Crawdaddy!, mid-'68):

David Anderle: 'That [the 'Fire' tape paranoia] was the first sign that we were going to have problems on this album. That, and the fact that for the first time Brian was having trouble with studios—getting studio time. Then he was having a problem with engineers.

That reminds me of something Bruce said to me when I mentioned Brian was basically engineering as well as producing, which was (I paraphrase slightly) "Not at Columbia, I saw the engineer there slap his hand away when he tried to touch the board".
Nothing like a primary source.  :thewilsons 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: The Shift on January 30, 2016, 06:09:09 AM
The home studio deal has me curious: how was a guy capable of playing a particular studio to its own individual qualities - resonance here, echo there, etc - gonna cope with the limitations of a single ad hoc home studio, the aural qualities of which would be singular, take it or leave it?

It's like an artist who's worked in pencils, oils, watercolours, sculpture, charcoal and more suddenly being restricted to a box of wax crayons…

I understand the perceived need to be able to get studio access on a whim, but at what cost, creatively?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: mike moseley on January 30, 2016, 06:11:23 AM

a big cost - the H&V 45 is not well produced

The home studio deal has me curious: how was a guy capable of playing a particular studio to its own individual qualities - resonance here, echo there, etc - gonna cope with the limitations of a single ad hoc home studio, the aural qualities of which would be singular, take it or leave it?

It's like an artist who's worked in pencils, oils, watercolours, sculpture, charcoal and more suddenly being restricted to a box of wax crayons…

I understand the perceived need to be able to get studio access on a whim, but at what cost, creatively?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2016, 06:52:22 AM
The home studio deal has me curious: how was a guy capable of playing a particular studio to its own individual qualities - resonance here, echo there, etc - gonna cope with the limitations of a single ad hoc home studio, the aural qualities of which would be singular, take it or leave it?

It's like an artist who's worked in pencils, oils, watercolours, sculpture, charcoal and more suddenly being restricted to a box of wax crayons…

I understand the perceived need to be able to get studio access on a whim, but at what cost, creatively?
JM - that is a great analogy. But, I'm thinking that a nice box of 64 Crayola crayons provides a lot of hues with which to create. Different accounts (I think in Carlin, which I don't have right now) Brian talks about having fun in the process making Smiley.  I'd love a sessions box of Smiley or even a download version.

They got inventive using the pool without an echo chamber.  And I think it might have helped restore the unity and confidence in each other.  That Spring of '67 was an all around horror show.  I think hearing Prayer for Al and some of the other vocal tracks they were on, frustrated them not to have it released.  (That is  also in Carlin's book.)

But, Heroes, I don't think was the single to release.  Everyone was waiting for the magnificent Surf's Up - some version with the voices of The Beach Boys.  It could have been the next Good Vibrations.  

And, at least Brian would not get his hands slapped by an engineer.  Wow, I found that shocking.  What were some of those people thinking?    

A benefit of being in your own space/home is that it isn't public or accessible through third parties, (nosebags) I suppose.  You can lock people out that you don't want in-your-face.    ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 30, 2016, 07:04:52 AM
Going back a page, I had suggested that guitarfool's proposition based on Priore and Carlin's accounts that Mike was the source of the Taylor "scrapped" press release, IMPLIED that Mike was sabotaging or trying to sabotage the project.   If not, what was his motivation if we agree that in fact Brian was still working on Smile, as evidenced by the Vegetables and ILTSDD sessions?  Or was he just the messenger relaying information from another source?

There's no doubt Van Dyke's leaving made the recording process more difficult for Brian - whereas before if on a whim Brian wrote and wanted to record a new section for a song, Van Dyke would be there and able to write lyrics to it, now he had to work with what Van Dyke had left and revisions became more difficult.  When he recorded "sweeping strings" in February he talks with Van, who is present, about the tempo needing to be slowed for the vocals - probably expecting Van was going to write lyrics to go there.  With Van gone, what does he do with that piece?

It seems after the lyric questioning in December, very little new lyrical work occurs, even though Van Dyke returns and attempts to help Brian finish Heroes and Villains.  The pressure for a single was clearly intense and Brian's focus starting in January shifts to getting a single and the other tracks are abandoned - presumably temporarily but in fact for good.  With the possible exception of that curious outlier, ILTSDD.

 

I personal would like to see any attribution for that Mike reveal claim before getting obscured by the speculation.

Yet he is retooling the title and lyrics for Vegetables for the single and Smiley by April and that title nor ILTSDD are ever on the SMiLE track list nor are the titles of several other tracks to follow for Smiley through July.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2016, 07:17:29 AM
Going back a page, I had suggested that guitarfool's proposition based on Priore and Carlin's accounts that Mike was the source of the Taylor "scrapped" press release, IMPLIED that Mike was sabotaging or trying to sabotage the project.   If not, what was his motivation if we agree that in fact Brian was still working on Smile, as evidenced by the Vegetables and ILTSDD sessions?  Or was he just the messenger relaying information from another source?

There's no doubt Van Dyke's leaving made the recording process more difficult for Brian - whereas before if on a whim Brian wrote and wanted to record a new section for a song, Van Dyke would be there and able to write lyrics to it, now he had to work with what Van Dyke had left and revisions became more difficult.  When he recorded "sweeping strings" in February he talks with Van, who is present, about the tempo needing to be slowed for the vocals - probably expecting Van was going to write lyrics to go there.  With Van gone, what does he do with that piece?

It seems after the lyric questioning in December, very little new lyrical work occurs, even though Van Dyke returns and attempts to help Brian finish Heroes and Villains.  The pressure for a single was clearly intense and Brian's focus starting in January shifts to getting a single and the other tracks are abandoned - presumably temporarily but in fact for good.  With the possible exception of that curious outlier, ILTSDD.

I personal would like to see any attribution for that Mike reveal claim before getting obscured by the speculation.

Yet he is retooling the title and lyrics for Vegetables for the single and Smiley by April and that title nor ILTSDD are ever on the SMiLE track list nor are the titles of several other tracks to follow for Smiley through July.
Cam - I think you (you are not alone)  are putting way too much stock in a PR guy. 

From Rusten/Stebbins..."Jann Wenner of the new San Francisco-based music paper Rolling Stone declared that Brian's 'promotion men started to tell him and his audience that he  was a 'genius' on par with Lennon and McCartney.  That's cool cause all just folks, but no one is John Lennon except John Lennon and no one is Paul McCartney except Paul McCartney.'" p. 97.

"Men" is plural - meaning those who went to Wenner.  Besides Taylor, who else is involved in this? 

Is the fine hand of Uncle Murry in this equation or is this "scrapped" press release a "frolic of his own?" (Taylor)

This is layers of he-said / she-said. 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: The Shift on January 30, 2016, 07:21:06 AM
Is the Vegetables/vega-tables thing definitely a deliberate distinction in terms of differentiating tracks? Thinking of all those "Heros and Villians" tape boxes… Could it not be simply down to an engineer's inability to spell?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 30, 2016, 07:30:35 AM
Going back a page, I had suggested that guitarfool's proposition based on Priore and Carlin's accounts that Mike was the source of the Taylor "scrapped" press release, IMPLIED that Mike was sabotaging or trying to sabotage the project.   If not, what was his motivation if we agree that in fact Brian was still working on Smile, as evidenced by the Vegetables and ILTSDD sessions?  Or was he just the messenger relaying information from another source?

There's no doubt Van Dyke's leaving made the recording process more difficult for Brian - whereas before if on a whim Brian wrote and wanted to record a new section for a song, Van Dyke would be there and able to write lyrics to it, now he had to work with what Van Dyke had left and revisions became more difficult.  When he recorded "sweeping strings" in February he talks with Van, who is present, about the tempo needing to be slowed for the vocals - probably expecting Van was going to write lyrics to go there.  With Van gone, what does he do with that piece?

It seems after the lyric questioning in December, very little new lyrical work occurs, even though Van Dyke returns and attempts to help Brian finish Heroes and Villains.  The pressure for a single was clearly intense and Brian's focus starting in January shifts to getting a single and the other tracks are abandoned - presumably temporarily but in fact for good.  With the possible exception of that curious outlier, ILTSDD.

I personal would like to see any attribution for that Mike reveal claim before getting obscured by the speculation.

Yet he is retooling the title and lyrics for Vegetables for the single and Smiley by April and that title nor ILTSDD are ever on the SMiLE track list nor are the titles of several other tracks to follow for Smiley through July.
Cam - I think you (you are not alone)  are putting way too much stock in a PR guy. 

From Rusten/Stebbins..."Jann Wenner of the new San Francisco-based music paper Rolling Stone declared that Brian's 'promotion men started to tell him and his audience that he  was a 'genius' on par with Lennon and McCartney.  That's cool cause all just folks, but no one is John Lennon except John Lennon and no one is Paul McCartney except Paul McCartney.'" p. 97.

"Men" is plural - meaning those who went to Wenner.  Besides Taylor, who else is involved in this? 

Is the fine hand of Uncle Murry in this equation or is this "scrapped" press release a "frolic of his own?" (Taylor)

This is layers of he-said / she-said. 

None of that post was dependent on Taylor but I get what you mean. On the other hand Taylor was there, seems to be connected in ways other journalists weren't, and his reporting is not always flattering. Imo, he is maybe getting stereotyped and seems to be a truthful source as much as any scenester is with their understanding of things.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: Cam Mott on January 30, 2016, 08:05:29 AM
Is the Vegetables/vega-tables thing definitely a deliberate distinction in terms of differentiating tracks? Thinking of all those "Heros and Villians" tape boxes… Could it not be simply down to an engineer's inability to spell?

Doesn't Brian slate it as "Vegetables" on the April recordings?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2016, 08:13:05 AM
Going back a page, I had suggested that guitarfool's proposition based on Priore and Carlin's accounts that Mike was the source of the Taylor "scrapped" press release, IMPLIED that Mike was sabotaging or trying to sabotage the project.   If not, what was his motivation if we agree that in fact Brian was still working on Smile, as evidenced by the Vegetables and ILTSDD sessions?  Or was he just the messenger relaying information from another source?

There's no doubt Van Dyke's leaving made the recording process more difficult for Brian - whereas before if on a whim Brian wrote and wanted to record a new section for a song, Van Dyke would be there and able to write lyrics to it, now he had to work with what Van Dyke had left and revisions became more difficult.  When he recorded "sweeping strings" in February he talks with Van, who is present, about the tempo needing to be slowed for the vocals - probably expecting Van was going to write lyrics to go there.  With Van gone, what does he do with that piece?

It seems after the lyric questioning in December, very little new lyrical work occurs, even though Van Dyke returns and attempts to help Brian finish Heroes and Villains.  The pressure for a single was clearly intense and Brian's focus starting in January shifts to getting a single and the other tracks are abandoned - presumably temporarily but in fact for good.  With the possible exception of that curious outlier, ILTSDD.

I personal would like to see any attribution for that Mike reveal claim before getting obscured by the speculation.

Yet he is retooling the title and lyrics for Vegetables for the single and Smiley by April and that title nor ILTSDD are ever on the SMiLE track list nor are the titles of several other tracks to follow for Smiley through July.
Cam - I think you (you are not alone)  are putting way too much stock in a PR guy. 

From Rusten/Stebbins..."Jann Wenner of the new San Francisco-based music paper Rolling Stone declared that Brian's 'promotion men started to tell him and his audience that he  was a 'genius' on par with Lennon and McCartney.  That's cool cause all just folks, but no one is John Lennon except John Lennon and no one is Paul McCartney except Paul McCartney.'" p. 97.

"Men" is plural - meaning those who went to Wenner.  Besides Taylor, who else is involved in this? 

Is the fine hand of Uncle Murry in this equation or is this "scrapped" press release a "frolic of his own?" (Taylor)

This is layers of he-said / she-said. 

None of that post was dependent on Taylor but I get what you mean. On the other hand Taylor was there, seems to be connected in ways other journalists weren't, and his reporting is not always flattering. Imo, he is maybe getting stereotyped and seems to be a truthful source as much as any scenester is with their understanding of things.
Cam - I am laughing because this is like trying to solve a murder mystery (which I would not read on a bet) - and blaming Mike is just "too easy."

And, that Spring tour (at least the beginning) was a complete horror show.  Talk about extremes.  Brian on TV on one day, and Carl is arrested the next.  Polar opposites.

Going to Europe in '67 to find that it is a '65 cover and not one of their own originals, that is being promoted?   Were they consulted as to the focus of the tour?  Why would they have hired those 4 extra musicians to bring on tour if not to further promote Pet Sounds and GV? What would be the point?  Wouldn't Mike, Dennis, Bruce, Carl and Al have vetted these musicians to tour?  Advancing the new work?   And psyched to have a new blockbuster in the pipeline?

Either one hand didn't know what the other was doing, or it was a plan about which the band was not informed.  They were "distracted" and that situation presented a perfect opportunity for sabotage of the release.  By "someone or multiple someones."  They were the "last to know," like a scorned lover.  And, musicians and not "music business sharks" - still of tender age.

In the alternative, it makes no sense with the timeline of sessions after the announcement that it was Brian.   Why would he have sessions scheduled after pulling the plug?

There are layers of b.s. that have to be unearthed.  Taylor had other things on his plate at that time.  Monterey.  

Who was not a member of BRI?  Three guesses and the first two - don't count.

Someone did "make the call" or "caused the call to be made"  and made an announcement, that appears to have come from the band.  But, did it?  

More questions than answers...

Where is Columbo when we need him?  :lol


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 30, 2016, 08:29:20 AM
I personal would like to see any attribution for that Mike reveal claim before getting obscured by the speculation.

How about negative evidence ? I asked him about it specifically on Thursday, and he said he never told Tayor any such thing.

I feel there's a lot here being obscured by speculation, misdirection, red herrings and smoke & mirrors, all to a soundtrack of goalposts being moved.  ;)



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 30, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
I personal would like to see any attribution for that Mike reveal claim before getting obscured by the speculation.

How about negative evidence ? I asked him about it specifically on Thursday, and he said he never told Tayor any such thing.


Quite right, that is the only definitive info so far and should close the case on Mike I'm sure.........................................(tumbleweed).............................................................
I was thinking of the parallel claims, but wasn't clear, that it couldn't haven't been other Boys besides Mike who would pull the rug out from under Brian in this scenario.  Hopefully you will hear from Dom with an equally definitive attribution.........................................(another tumbleweed).............................................................
(stuff guys say just before eating their words)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 30, 2016, 09:15:16 AM
Oh lord, more of this Vega-tables/Vegetables nonsense.  First of all, how do you pronounce Vega-tables?  Maybe a lot like . . . Vegetables? 

By the way, the Heroes single was NEVER intended to be on Smile, all along Brian knew it was for Smiley - because all the studio documentation slates et all make it clear he was recording "Heroes and Villains."  The track list for Smile makes it perfectly clear THAT Heroes was "Heroes and Villians."


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 30, 2016, 09:16:46 AM
Going back a page, I had suggested that guitarfool's proposition based on Priore and Carlin's accounts that Mike was the source of the Taylor "scrapped" press release, IMPLIED that Mike was sabotaging or trying to sabotage the project.   If not, what was his motivation if we agree that in fact Brian was still working on Smile, as evidenced by the Vegetables and ILTSDD sessions?  Or was he just the messenger relaying information from another source?

There's no doubt Van Dyke's leaving made the recording process more difficult for Brian - whereas before if on a whim Brian wrote and wanted to record a new section for a song, Van Dyke would be there and able to write lyrics to it, now he had to work with what Van Dyke had left and revisions became more difficult.  When he recorded "sweeping strings" in February he talks with Van, who is present, about the tempo needing to be slowed for the vocals - probably expecting Van was going to write lyrics to go there.  With Van gone, what does he do with that piece?

It seems after the lyric questioning in December, very little new lyrical work occurs, even though Van Dyke returns and attempts to help Brian finish Heroes and Villains.  The pressure for a single was clearly intense and Brian's focus starting in January shifts to getting a single and the other tracks are abandoned - presumably temporarily but in fact for good.  With the possible exception of that curious outlier, ILTSDD.

I personal would like to see any attribution for that Mike reveal claim before getting obscured by the speculation.

Yet he is retooling the title and lyrics for Vegetables for the single and Smiley by April and that title nor ILTSDD are ever on the SMiLE track list nor are the titles of several other tracks to follow for Smiley through July.
Cam - I think you (you are not alone)  are putting way too much stock in a PR guy. 

From Rusten/Stebbins..."Jann Wenner of the new San Francisco-based music paper Rolling Stone declared that Brian's 'promotion men started to tell him and his audience that he  was a 'genius' on par with Lennon and McCartney.  That's cool cause all just folks, but no one is John Lennon except John Lennon and no one is Paul McCartney except Paul McCartney.'" p. 97.

"Men" is plural - meaning those who went to Wenner.  Besides Taylor, who else is involved in this? 

Is the fine hand of Uncle Murry in this equation or is this "scrapped" press release a "frolic of his own?" (Taylor)

This is layers of he-said / she-said. 

None of that post was dependent on Taylor but I get what you mean. On the other hand Taylor was there, seems to be connected in ways other journalists weren't, and his reporting is not always flattering. Imo, he is maybe getting stereotyped and seems to be a truthful source as much as any scenester is with their understanding of things.
Cam - I am laughing because this is like trying to solve a murder mystery (which I would not read on a bet) - and blaming Mike is just "too easy."

And, that Spring tour (at least the beginning) was a complete horror show.  Talk about extremes.  Brian on TV on one day, and Carl is arrested the next.  Polar opposites.

Going to Europe in '67 to find that it is a '65 cover and not one of their own originals, that is being promoted?   Were they consulted as to the focus of the tour?  Why would they have hired those 4 extra musicians to bring on tour if not to further promote Pet Sounds and GV? What would be the point?  Wouldn't Mike, Dennis, Bruce, Carl and Al have vetted these musicians to tour?  Advancing the new work?   And psyched to have a new blockbuster in the pipeline?

Either one hand didn't know what the other was doing, or it was a plan about which the band was not informed.  They were "distracted" and that situation presented a perfect opportunity for sabotage of the release.  By "someone or multiple someones."  They were the "last to know," like a scorned lover.  And, musicians and not "music business sharks" - still of tender age.

In the alternative, it makes no sense with the timeline of sessions after the announcement that it was Brian.   Why would he have sessions scheduled after pulling the plug?

There are layers of b.s. that have to be unearthed.  Taylor had other things on his plate at that time.  Monterey.  

Who was not a member of BRI?  Three guesses and the first two - don't count.

Someone did "make the call" or "caused the call to be made"  and made an announcement, that appears to have come from the band.  But, did it?  

More questions than answers...

Where is Columbo when we need him?  :lol

Later I think Taylor admitted that the old release by EMI they were all complaining had actually gone on to chart pretty high in England, which I think according to AGD was at #4.

Imo, he continued to book sessions April through July because he was recording sessions for a post-SMiLE album project and that album is Smiley Smile.  

Imo, someone did make the call and that would be the Producer which was Brian who was in LA as was Taylor.  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 30, 2016, 09:22:29 AM
"Imo, he continued to book sessions April through July because he was recording sessions for a post-SMiLE album project and that album is Smiley Smile. "

Glad to see you made that IMO since the evidence to support this is very weak.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2016, 09:25:51 AM
I personal would like to see any attribution for that Mike reveal claim before getting obscured by the speculation.

How about negative evidence ? I asked him about it specifically on Thursday, and he said he never told Tayor any such thing.
Quite right, that is the only definitive info so far and should close the case on Mike I'm sure.........................................(tumbleweed).............................................................
I was thinking of the parallel claims, but wasn't clear, that it couldn't haven't been other Boys besides Mike who would pull the rug out from under Brian in this scenario.  Hopefully you will hear from Dom with an equally definitive attribution.........................................(another tumbleweed).............................................................
(stuff guys say just before eating their words)
Cam - the "absence of a fact" (negative evidence) can be used to prove a fact, (Andrew is correct on this one.)

So, it might be the process of elimination.

Who had authority?  Who had apparent authority? Who was motivated?  (maybe someone would would not have profited from Smile - in a monetary sense)

Who would want retaliation for anything or nothing?  

Would any and all of these authors bought into this myth?

So this is one that could a dead-end.  The answer is somewhere.  But, it may un-published.        


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2016, 09:49:19 AM
Going back a page, I had suggested that guitarfool's proposition based on Priore and Carlin's accounts that Mike was the source of the Taylor "scrapped" press release, IMPLIED that Mike was sabotaging or trying to sabotage the project.   If not, what was his motivation if we agree that in fact Brian was still working on Smile, as evidenced by the Vegetables and ILTSDD sessions?  Or was he just the messenger relaying information from another source?

There's no doubt Van Dyke's leaving made the recording process more difficult for Brian - whereas before if on a whim Brian wrote and wanted to record a new section for a song, Van Dyke would be there and able to write lyrics to it, now he had to work with what Van Dyke had left and revisions became more difficult.  When he recorded "sweeping strings" in February he talks with Van, who is present, about the tempo needing to be slowed for the vocals - probably expecting Van was going to write lyrics to go there.  With Van gone, what does he do with that piece?

It seems after the lyric questioning in December, very little new lyrical work occurs, even though Van Dyke returns and attempts to help Brian finish Heroes and Villains.  The pressure for a single was clearly intense and Brian's focus starting in January shifts to getting a single and the other tracks are abandoned - presumably temporarily but in fact for good.  With the possible exception of that curious outlier, ILTSDD.

I personal would like to see any attribution for that Mike reveal claim before getting obscured by the speculation.

Yet he is retooling the title and lyrics for Vegetables for the single and Smiley by April and that title nor ILTSDD are ever on the SMiLE track list nor are the titles of several other tracks to follow for Smiley through July.
Cam - I think you (you are not alone)  are putting way too much stock in a PR guy.  

From Rusten/Stebbins..."Jann Wenner of the new San Francisco-based music paper Rolling Stone declared that Brian's 'promotion men started to tell him and his audience that he  was a 'genius' on par with Lennon and McCartney.  That's cool cause all just folks, but no one is John Lennon except John Lennon and no one is Paul McCartney except Paul McCartney.'" p. 97.

"Men" is plural - meaning those who went to Wenner.  Besides Taylor, who else is involved in this?  

Is the fine hand of Uncle Murry in this equation or is this "scrapped" press release a "frolic of his own?" (Taylor)

This is layers of he-said / she-said.  

None of that post was dependent on Taylor but I get what you mean. On the other hand Taylor was there, seems to be connected in ways other journalists weren't, and his reporting is not always flattering. Imo, he is maybe getting stereotyped and seems to be a truthful source as much as any scenester is with their understanding of things.
Cam - I am laughing because this is like trying to solve a murder mystery (which I would not read on a bet) - and blaming Mike is just "too easy."

And, that Spring tour (at least the beginning) was a complete horror show.  Talk about extremes.  Brian on TV on one day, and Carl is arrested the next.  Polar opposites.

Going to Europe in '67 to find that it is a '65 cover and not one of their own originals, that is being promoted?   Were they consulted as to the focus of the tour?  Why would they have hired those 4 extra musicians to bring on tour if not to further promote Pet Sounds and GV? What would be the point?  Wouldn't Mike, Dennis, Bruce, Carl and Al have vetted these musicians to tour?  Advancing the new work?   And psyched to have a new blockbuster in the pipeline?

Either one hand didn't know what the other was doing, or it was a plan about which the band was not informed.  They were "distracted" and that situation presented a perfect opportunity for sabotage of the release.  By "someone or multiple someones."  They were the "last to know," like a scorned lover.  And, musicians and not "music business sharks" - still of tender age.

In the alternative, it makes no sense with the timeline of sessions after the announcement that it was Brian.   Why would he have sessions scheduled after pulling the plug?

There are layers of b.s. that have to be unearthed.  Taylor had other things on his plate at that time.  Monterey.  

Who was not a member of BRI?  Three guesses and the first two - don't count.

Someone did "make the call" or "caused the call to be made"  and made an announcement, that appears to have come from the band.  But, did it?  

More questions than answers...

Where is Columbo when we need him?  :lol

Later I think Taylor admitted that the old release by EMI they were all complaining had actually gone on to chart pretty high in England, which I think according to AGD was at #4.

Imo, he continued to book sessions April through July because he was recording sessions for a post-SMiLE album project and that album is Smiley Smile.  

Imo, someone did make the call and that would be the Producer which was Brian who was in LA as was Taylor.  
Cam - it does not matter what it charted. This is no defense.  They did not bring extra musicians to Europe to play retro stuff. "... Expressing the group's feelings, Bruce exclaimed, "It's really ridiculous.  The record is in no way representative of the kind of things we are doing now...this is not the music that won us the NME award as the World's Top Vocal Group."  Rusten/Stebbins p. 90.  

Their actions are completely inconsistent with the theories that any band member is responsible for this announcement.

If Taylor admitted that the EMI old release that they complained about - he was mixed up in it - he was part of the problem.  Would Brian have wanted them to be on a "Then I Kissed Her" tour?

For whom did Taylor work?  

Was he a producer or publicist?  

Further..."Disc and Music Echo's Jonathan King piled on, "Wax wizard Brian Wilson may still be, but it has to be said in this country, the Beach Boys are finished. This tour and this record, Then I Kissed Her, were the decline. Very sad." It was a demoralizing experience for the group who had come to England expecting to be treated as triumphant heroes.  While the group was in Europe, momemtou events were unfolding in America.  On May 6, publicist (not producer) Derek Taylor broke the news in Disc and Music Echo that Smile had been SCRAPPED (yes they used caps.)  Not destroyed, but scrapped." p. 91 Rusten/Stebbins.

So I am thinking that this whole theory of "what happened to the band in the States" is nonsense.  This appears to have happened abroad.  

(I need remind myself to thank my family and friends for many of these books used as resources.  Mostly gifts.) :lol


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 30, 2016, 10:19:13 AM
Cam - the "absence of a fact" (negative evidence) can be used to prove a fact, (Andrew is correct on this one.)

So, it might be the process of elimination.

Who had authority?  Who had apparent authority? Who was motivated?  (maybe someone would would not have profited from Smile - in a monetary sense)

Who would want retaliation for anything or nothing?  

Would any and all of these authors bought into this myth?

So this is one that could a dead-end.  The answer is somewhere.  But, it may un-published.        

Let's do something criminally dumb, and introduce logic into a BB scenario.

Beach Boy X (not Brian) tells Taylor Smile is scrapped. Given that Taylor was directly employed by the band as their publicist, does he...

a) run to his typewriter, hammer out the release and wire it to D&ME without delay, or...

b) call Brian to seek both confirmation and permission to publish ?

No-brainer: it's b). The problem is now, why would Brian allow that - unless it was true ?  Of course, there is...

c) Beach Boy X is indeed Brian.

Occam's razor.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 30, 2016, 10:41:17 AM
Cam - the "absence of a fact" (negative evidence) can be used to prove a fact, (Andrew is correct on this one.)

So, it might be the process of elimination.

Who had authority?  Who had apparent authority? Who was motivated?  (maybe someone would would not have profited from Smile - in a monetary sense)

Who would want retaliation for anything or nothing?  

Would any and all of these authors bought into this myth?

So this is one that could a dead-end.  The answer is somewhere.  But, it may un-published.        

Let's do something criminally dumb, and introduce logic into a BB scenario.

Beach Boy X (not Brian) tells Taylor Smile is scrapped. Given that Taylor was directly employed by the band as their publicist, does he...

a) run to his typewriter, hammer out the release and wire it to D&ME without delay, or...

b) call Brian to seek both confirmation and permission to publish ?

No-brainer: it's b). The problem is now, why would Brian allow that - unless it was true ?  Of course, there is...

c) Beach Boy X is indeed Brian.

Occam's razor.

Occam's razor may not cut through this one, or else it needs a good sharpening.  :)

Consider the articles/interviews from this time and what was both said by band members and reported by the writers. Not trying to suggest anything definitive, but weigh the evidence and the timeline as published (and spoken).

Taylor dropped that bombshell in a column reporting on the Beach Boys flying to the UK for the tour, and specifically the NME Poll Winners show which was the highlight. Taylor's piece came out before the Poll Winners show, yet includes tidbits about the band's arrival including how their plane had the banner listing "Igor.." and all of that. Taylor described "Igor" and the musicians and the plane before he dropped the Smile bombshell in the piece, he was reporting on the tour the band would be playing.

The other Altham article in NME which I referenced in posts above came *after* Taylor's piece had dropped. The text suggests it was after the Boys had received their NME award at the Poll event, but before they left the UK region to play the European leg of the tour. Altham's piece hit the stands in the May 27 issue, but the band member interviews had to be done sometime between May 8-10 or thereabouts if we match up the tour schedule to the article's contents.

In that article, Bruce is speaking about Smile as if it will come out, and is most enthusiastic about the music. Altham reports Carl as saying Brian was back home working on very important tracks for the album. Mike echos what Dennis said the previous week (while waiting for Carl to arrive in Ireland) about not being rushed and wanting to give fans a good product. They're all upset that an old song (and not even an original) was released as a stop-gap UK single by EMI to coincide with their tour.

If we reverse the scenario, how or why would it come to pass that Derek Taylor both reports info specific to the UK tour arrival which had to come from someone in the UK, then declares the Smile album had been scrapped...if such a decision were made, surely Taylor would have let the band members know of this as well. Instead, Bruce is talking about the upcoming Smile album and Carl is saying Brian is home working on important tracks, and they're all saying we can't be rushed...it's as if the band members didn't get the word that the album had been scrapped either.

That disconnect is as blatant and obvious as the scenario painted above where Brian was the tip-off to Taylor. Did Taylor when he was reporting on the band's arrival not bother to tell them the album was scrapped too? Bruce especially is talking as if the album is still coming out. Carl too...

These comments to Altham were after Taylor's piece: The band speaks as if they didn't get the word either.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2016, 10:55:32 AM
Cam - the "absence of a fact" (negative evidence) can be used to prove a fact, (Andrew is correct on this one.)

So, it might be the process of elimination.

Who had authority?  Who had apparent authority? Who was motivated?  (maybe someone would would not have profited from Smile - in a monetary sense)

Who would want retaliation for anything or nothing?  

Would any and all of these authors bought into this myth?

So this is one that could a dead-end.  The answer is somewhere.  But, it may un-published.        

Let's do something criminally dumb, and introduce logic into a BB scenario.

Beach Boy X (not Brian) tells Taylor Smile is scrapped. Given that Taylor was directly employed by the band as their publicist, does he...

a) run to his typewriter, hammer out the release and wire it to D&ME without delay, or...

b) call Brian to seek both confirmation and permission to publish ?

No-brainer: it's b). The problem is now, why would Brian allow that - unless it was true ?  Of course, there is...

c) Beach Boy X is indeed Brian.

Occam's razor.
Andrew - Notwithstanding, that Brian 70-ish interview where Brian says he "chucked it" (Smile) - that leaves the question of not what "was said" but, how "they behaved" - and instead of relying on "words," rely on "conduct" of the parties.  

So, the old "actions speak louder than words" might be what has to be used to deal with any logic. Conduct is a clue here.  Not good or bad conduct but the extra musicians, not needed for the old garage band tunes.  ( I think of the BB's as a happy accident anyway. No logic necessary. Most are alive, and I am still alive, so it is all good.)  

They seem to behaving in a way that is in the PS and GV mode, while anticipating Smile.  Not the opposite.  

First, my sense is more that someone with "apparent authority" (a non-band member but one who may have "substituted his judgment" for the band or Brian) might have been involved in causing this press release announcement.  The band or BRI would have had "actual authority."  

Second, it was "frolic on his own" by Taylor whom others may have believed was "vested with authority" to make a decision like that. (Apparent authority)  

Third, is it the record company who could have pulled the plug?  

My question is why is this news released, at that time when they were in Europe?  And while having to sing Spector/Barry/Greenwich and not Brian Wilson. It could have been a Pet Sounds tour with those extra musicians in tow.  It is confounding.  
 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 30, 2016, 12:44:38 PM
Third, is it the record company who could have pulled the plug?  

No - even before the release of Smiley Smile, they were discussing with Brian the possibility of the next release being a 10-track Smile. There's memo dated 7/25/67, from Karl Engemann, Capitol's A&R director concerning the inclusion of the booklet, not with Smiley Smile but the next album, which would include the 10 tracks illustrated, but not included Brother 9001.

 However, there's a distinct possibility that Brian was telling them what they wanted to hear...


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2016, 01:20:19 PM
Third, is it the record company who could have pulled the plug?  

No - even before the release of Smiley Smile, they were discussing with Brian the possibility of the next release being a 10-track Smile. There's memo dated 7/25/67, from Karl Engemann, Capitol's A&R director concerning the inclusion of the booklet, not with Smiley Smile but the next album, which would include the 10 tracks illustrated, but not included Brother 9001.

 However, there's a distinct possibility that Brian was telling them what they wanted to hear...
OK - that would come off the list.

And, maybe Brian was doing what many of us do...my mother would refer to it as "yes-sing" someone to death.   ;)



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Alan Smith on January 30, 2016, 01:23:38 PM

These comments to Altham were after Taylor's piece: The band speaks as if they didn't get the word either.

So are you now suggesting no one in the band told Taylor?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 30, 2016, 01:34:11 PM

These comments to Altham were after Taylor's piece: The band speaks as if they didn't get the word either.

So are you now suggesting no one in the band told Taylor?

That seems the most likely scenario, and we get back to Andrew's assertion that the band member who told Taylor was Brian.  It is a perfectly possible scenario that while Taylor was using touring Beach Boys as information about the tour for his article, that as a separate event Brian (or someone associated with the band) told him Smile was scrapped, and that made the article as well.  Nothing unusual about having multiple sources for a single article.

Who was the tour manager in Europe with the Boys?  That may be the source of Taylor's tour information, not the Boys at all.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 30, 2016, 01:45:46 PM
Dick Duryea was road manager in 1968, so it's possible he was a year earlier.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 30, 2016, 02:23:40 PM

These comments to Altham were after Taylor's piece: The band speaks as if they didn't get the word either.

So are you now suggesting no one in the band told Taylor?

That seems the most likely scenario, and we get back to Andrew's assertion that the band member who told Taylor was Brian.  It is a perfectly possible scenario that while Taylor was using touring Beach Boys as information about the tour for his article, that as a separate event Brian (or someone associated with the band) told him Smile was scrapped, and that made the article as well.  Nothing unusual about having multiple sources for a single article.

Who was the tour manager in Europe with the Boys?  That may be the source of Taylor's tour information, not the Boys at all.


I laid out the timeline with dates and references. Whatever suggestions someone wants to add to it are their own.

My reply was long, yes, so to summarize the process Andrew used to suggest Brian was "Beach Boy X" who told Taylor could as easily flip onto the band on tour in the UK, and the question asked why wouldn't Derek Taylor have confirmed with one of the touring Beach Boys before publishing? Especially since he was doing press for their tour as much of a priority in May 1967 over anything Brian was doing that first week in May, which some here have suggested was nothing related to the music. The question could and should be asked as follows:

If Taylor was working publicity for The Beach Boys, and the Beach Boys were arriving in the UK for a major tour, why would Taylor contact Brian for information on the tour when Brian wasn't involved in that tour at all? Related to that, if Taylor is set to publish a piece that says the Beach Boys' long-awaited album has been junked and will not come out, would it make sense or not for him to inform *them* their album has been scrapped and possibly get either a confirm or even a comment? Days after Taylor's article dropped, the band is either unaware of or is ignoring the fact that their Smile album has just been declared scrapped by their press agent in a major UK weekly music paper.

It's really some kind of SNAFU when neither the band nor their producer and main songwriter seems to have been aware their album was scrapped...unless there is more to it.



Just for reference, here is Andrew's original line of thought and the timeline of the articles:



Let's do something criminally dumb, and introduce logic into a BB scenario.

Beach Boy X (not Brian) tells Taylor Smile is scrapped. Given that Taylor was directly employed by the band as their publicist, does he...

a) run to his typewriter, hammer out the release and wire it to D&ME without delay, or...

b) call Brian to seek both confirmation and permission to publish ?

No-brainer: it's b). The problem is now, why would Brian allow that - unless it was true ?  Of course, there is...

c) Beach Boy X is indeed Brian.

Occam's razor.

Occam's razor may not cut through this one, or else it needs a good sharpening.  :)

Consider the articles/interviews from this time and what was both said by band members and reported by the writers. Not trying to suggest anything definitive, but weigh the evidence and the timeline as published (and spoken).

Taylor dropped that bombshell in a column reporting on the Beach Boys flying to the UK for the tour, and specifically the NME Poll Winners show which was the highlight. Taylor's piece came out before the Poll Winners show, yet includes tidbits about the band's arrival including how their plane had the banner listing "Igor.." and all of that. Taylor described "Igor" and the musicians and the plane before he dropped the Smile bombshell in the piece, he was reporting on the tour the band would be playing.

The other Altham article in NME which I referenced in posts above came *after* Taylor's piece had dropped. The text suggests it was after the Boys had received their NME award at the Poll event, but before they left the UK region to play the European leg of the tour. Altham's piece hit the stands in the May 27 issue, but the band member interviews had to be done sometime between May 8-10 or thereabouts if we match up the tour schedule to the article's contents.

In that article, Bruce is speaking about Smile as if it will come out, and is most enthusiastic about the music. Altham reports Carl as saying Brian was back home working on very important tracks for the album. Mike echos what Dennis said the previous week (while waiting for Carl to arrive in Ireland) about not being rushed and wanting to give fans a good product. They're all upset that an old song (and not even an original) was released as a stop-gap UK single by EMI to coincide with their tour.

If we reverse the scenario, how or why would it come to pass that Derek Taylor both reports info specific to the UK tour arrival which had to come from someone in the UK, then declares the Smile album had been scrapped...if such a decision were made, surely Taylor would have let the band members know of this as well. Instead, Bruce is talking about the upcoming Smile album and Carl is saying Brian is home working on important tracks, and they're all saying we can't be rushed...it's as if the band members didn't get the word that the album had been scrapped either.

That disconnect is as blatant and obvious as the scenario painted above where Brian was the tip-off to Taylor. Did Taylor when he was reporting on the band's arrival not bother to tell them the album was scrapped too? Bruce especially is talking as if the album is still coming out. Carl too...

These comments to Altham were after Taylor's piece: The band speaks as if they didn't get the word either.







Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 30, 2016, 02:41:46 PM

Let's do something criminally dumb, and introduce logic into a BB scenario.

Beach Boy X (not Brian) tells Taylor Smile is scrapped. Given that Taylor was directly employed by the band as their publicist, does he...

a) run to his typewriter, hammer out the release and wire it to D&ME without delay, or...

b) call Brian to seek both confirmation and permission to publish ?

No-brainer: it's b). The problem is now, why would Brian allow that - unless it was true ?  Of course, there is...

c) Beach Boy X is indeed Brian.

Occam's razor.

Let's do something criminally dumb, and introduce logic into a BB scenario.

Beach Boy X (not Brian) Brian (not someone in the Beach Boys) tells Taylor Smile is scrapped. Given that Taylor was directly employed by the band as their publicist, does he...

a) run to his typewriter, hammer out the release and wire it to D&ME without delay, or...

b) call Brian one of the Beach Boys to seek both confirmation and permission to publish ?

No-brainer: it's b). The problem is now, why would Brian the Beach Boys allow that - unless it was true ?  Of course, there is...

c) Beach Boy X is indeed Brian. Taylor's source could indeed have been someone in the Beach Boys.

Occam's razor.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 30, 2016, 02:43:55 PM
Taylor's source could have been someone in the Beach Boys.

Except that you disproved that (to your own satisfaction, at least) a few pages back. That's the problem with moving the goalposts - it's a bitch to move them back to where they were.  ;D


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 30, 2016, 02:48:21 PM
Taylor's source could have been someone in the Beach Boys.

Except that you disproved that, to your own satisfaction, at least, a few pages back. That's the problem with moving the goalposts - it's a bitch to move them back to where they were.  ;D

Not moving any goalposts...exploring every possible scenario, this time plugging in the reverse variables into your logic and getting a different answer as a result. If you stand by that logic to conclude Brian tipped off Taylor, you could flip it around and conclude someone in the Beach Boys did it.

The question is why were they (the Beach Boys) either blissfully unaware or ignoring the matter entirely when talking to Altbach after the Poll Winners show?

Related: Was there a point man within the group who would be Taylor's main contact for info at that time? Domenic Priore believes that person was Mike. Thoughts?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 30, 2016, 03:26:53 PM
Oh lord, more of this Vega-tables/Vegetables nonsense.  First of all, how do you pronounce Vega-tables?  Maybe a lot like . . . Vegetables?  

By the way, the Heroes single was NEVER intended to be on Smile, all along Brian knew it was for Smiley - because all the studio documentation slates et all make it clear he was recording "Heroes and Villains."  The track list for Smile makes it perfectly clear THAT Heroes was "Heroes and Villians."

1. No. Also spelled differently.

2. I don't have many of the Capitol forms and not all of the AFM sheets and just transcripts of the H&V Part II/Side 2 #57045 sessions but a quick scan of what I have looks like most of the SMiLE H&V sessions' AFMs show it as "Villians" like the SMiLE track list except Feb. 15, and possibly March 1 and 2. I only have one of the June AFMs and it is spelled as "Villains" just like the Smiley Smile track list. It would be interesting to hear from someone with better info (wagging my eyebrows toward c-man) how the spelling shook out.

So, I guess maybe the H&V spelling did change from "Heroes and Villians" for the SMiLE sessions and tracklist to the "Heroes and Villains" for the Smiley Smile sessions and tracklist, just like "Vega-tables" to "Vegetables" did.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 30, 2016, 03:47:13 PM
Taylor's source could have been someone in the Beach Boys.

Except that you disproved that, to your own satisfaction, at least, a few pages back. That's the problem with moving the goalposts - it's a bitch to move them back to where they were.  ;D

Not moving any goalposts...exploring every possible scenario, this time plugging in the reverse variables into your logic and getting a different answer as a result. If you stand by that logic to conclude Brian tipped off Taylor, you could flip it around and conclude someone in the Beach Boys did it.

The question is why were they (the Beach Boys) either blissfully unaware or ignoring the matter entirely when talking to Altbach after the Poll Winners show?

Related: Was there a point man within the group who would be Taylor's main contact for info at that time? Domenic Priore believes that person was Mike. Thoughts?

Altbach ? You know something we don't ?  :lol

As for Dom assuming it was Mike, I think the only possible response to that is "well, he would, wouldn't he ?". Others have made the valid point that, as Brian was the man with all the toys, it's reasonable to assume it was him. Some feel it was Murry. The trick is not to pick an answer, then work back from it, but to scout around for that which might indicate an answer. Sadly, Derek is no longer with us, so I asked the other guy, and he said "no".

BTW, I knew I saw May 2nd as the given date for the "scrapped" article, and eventually, I remembered where - in David Leaf's book.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 30, 2016, 03:55:31 PM

Let's do something criminally dumb, and introduce logic into a BB scenario.

Beach Boy X (not Brian) tells Taylor Smile is scrapped. Given that Taylor was directly employed by the band as their publicist, does he...

a) run to his typewriter, hammer out the release and wire it to D&ME without delay, or...

b) call Brian to seek both confirmation and permission to publish ?

No-brainer: it's b). The problem is now, why would Brian allow that - unless it was true ?  Of course, there is...

c) Beach Boy X is indeed Brian.

Occam's razor.

Let's do something criminally dumb, and introduce logic into a BB scenario.

Beach Boy X (not Brian) Brian (not someone in the Beach Boys) tells Taylor Smile is scrapped. Given that Taylor was directly employed by the band as their publicist, does he...

a) run to his typewriter, hammer out the release and wire it to D&ME without delay, or...

b) call Brian one of the Beach Boys to seek both confirmation and permission to publish ?

No-brainer: it's b). The problem is now, why would Brian the Beach Boys allow that - unless it was true ?  Of course, there is...

c) Beach Boy X is indeed Brian. Taylor's source could indeed have been someone in the Beach Boys.

Occam's razor.



That makes no sense.  If Brian told Taylor, why would he have to confirm it with the other Beach Boys?  If Brian scraps it, it's scrapped - he's the producer and songwriter.

"If Taylor was working publicity for The Beach Boys, and the Beach Boys were arriving in the UK for a major tour, why would Taylor contact Brian for information on the tour when Brian wasn't involved in that tour at all? Related to that, if Taylor is set to publish a piece that says the Beach Boys' long-awaited album has been junked and will not come out, would it make sense or not for him to inform *them* their album has been scrapped and possibly get either a confirm or even a comment?"

What makes you think Taylor would have to contact Brian for info on the tour to have Brian tell him that the album is scrapped?  Taylor and Brian are in L.A., lots of opportunities to meet and talk on the phone.  There could be TWO events - Brian tells him it's scrapped, and he gets tour information (his job as PR guy) to relay to the UK press from whomever.  He writes up the tour info and adds in the scrapped announcement.  Not his job to inform the Boys Smile is scrapped, it's Brian's or Capitol's or somebody in BRI, not him. 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 30, 2016, 04:01:01 PM
FdP, still it was very popular in England as #4 proves. That's in spite of all the previous handwringing of the band and jounos.

I'm not sure why we are chasing the tail of conjecture about who revealed SMiLE had been junked. According to art directors and production manager at Capitol during the SMiLE years the Producer, Brian in this case, was the only one with authority, Capitol required Producer approval of everything about the album right down to the wording of the back liner. Capitol would not recognize anyone one else in the band as having any authority to make changes let alone cancel because they weren't the Producer. Is it any different today?  I suppose A&R guy  Karl Engemann could have maybe exerted authority over Brian regarding the album (seems unlikey when they were trying avoid a suit and keep the Boys with the label) but we already know from the Taylor May 6 announcement itself as it explains the problems causing the cancellation and the scrapping were Brian's and the Boys were left wondering what was next (paraphrasing).


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Chownow on January 30, 2016, 04:03:02 PM
This is a really interesting topic.


I feel like I've missed something, but Andrew Doe, if you are in contact with Mike Love, why not just ask him who it was that told Taylor the album was "scrapped", instead of everyone arguing about it here? I get the sense that he is not considered the most factually reliable guy (e.g. from the 2012 reunion tour threads) but surely he has an idea?

I understand you asked him if it was him, and he said no. But did you ask if he knew who told Taylor, or who he thought probably did?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 30, 2016, 04:05:44 PM
"Imo, he continued to book sessions April through July because he was recording sessions for a post-SMiLE album project and that album is Smiley Smile. "

Glad to see you made that IMO since the evidence to support this is very weak.

It's true, I was just trying to seem humble.  ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 30, 2016, 04:24:39 PM

Let's do something criminally dumb, and introduce logic into a BB scenario.

Beach Boy X (not Brian) tells Taylor Smile is scrapped. Given that Taylor was directly employed by the band as their publicist, does he...

a) run to his typewriter, hammer out the release and wire it to D&ME without delay, or...

b) call Brian to seek both confirmation and permission to publish ?

No-brainer: it's b). The problem is now, why would Brian allow that - unless it was true ?  Of course, there is...

c) Beach Boy X is indeed Brian.

Occam's razor.

Let's do something criminally dumb, and introduce logic into a BB scenario.

Beach Boy X (not Brian) Brian (not someone in the Beach Boys) tells Taylor Smile is scrapped. Given that Taylor was directly employed by the band as their publicist, does he...

a) run to his typewriter, hammer out the release and wire it to D&ME without delay, or...

b) call Brian one of the Beach Boys to seek both confirmation and permission to publish ?

No-brainer: it's b). The problem is now, why would Brian the Beach Boys allow that - unless it was true ?  Of course, there is...

c) Beach Boy X is indeed Brian. Taylor's source could indeed have been someone in the Beach Boys.

Occam's razor.



That makes no sense.  If Brian told Taylor, why would he have to confirm it with the other Beach Boys?  If Brian scraps it, it's scrapped - he's the producer and songwriter.

"If Taylor was working publicity for The Beach Boys, and the Beach Boys were arriving in the UK for a major tour, why would Taylor contact Brian for information on the tour when Brian wasn't involved in that tour at all? Related to that, if Taylor is set to publish a piece that says the Beach Boys' long-awaited album has been junked and will not come out, would it make sense or not for him to inform *them* their album has been scrapped and possibly get either a confirm or even a comment?"

What makes you think Taylor would have to contact Brian for info on the tour to have Brian tell him that the album is scrapped?  Taylor and Brian are in L.A., lots of opportunities to meet and talk on the phone.  There could be TWO events - Brian tells him it's scrapped, and he gets tour information (his job as PR guy) to relay to the UK press from whomever.  He writes up the tour info and adds in the scrapped announcement.  Not his job to inform the Boys Smile is scrapped, it's Brian's or Capitol's or somebody in BRI, not him.  
Bicyclerider - I must disagree.  They are working under BRI - and whatever that agreement rules the day that they set forth.  They went to great lengths in terms of risk, to break away for creative control.  Why would they not hang tight with major decisions?  They all put a lot on the line bucking the tide. This was the maiden voyage for Brother.

GF used the term "blissfully unaware" - and I am thinking that is exactly what happened.  They are no longer working under Murry.  They have set up a corporation, where they work things out. Important matters, and maybe some that were not so important.  

They are accountable to each other and in the furtherance of their business.  And it appears even now, no major changes without going to a vote.  Did they vote on this?  It does not look that way. We don't know what happened.  

There may be some evidence in board recordings, of concerts, where the guys are telling the audiences, as often happened, that "Smile was delayed" but a work-in-progress.  And enthusiastically so. These guys were enthusiastic about Smile.  They are great vocalists.  They are not that good as actors.    That would be 1967 going forward.

So, I am disinclined to latch onto a Priore "belief" that it is a named member.   Any "named" member, because they carried on as though it was a "go."  This is not their words, it is their conduct or actions that can show their intent and direction.

After Murry's checkered and underhanded chicanery with the record company, with Carlin even perhaps alluding to Brian not being paid as a producer, and Murry getting some hush money to keep the status quo. Murry's defrauding Mike of royalties that left Brian holding the bag, years later.  

So, there may have been some cooperative arrangement whereby there had to be some "consensus" of all members, either sitting down, or a phone vote, conducted by their attorney or other person charged with that duty.  And, maybe it isn't Murry, but another party who made this go down with Taylor. It was not in any band member's interest to pull the plug on their first album. Not Smiley but Smile.  

They didn't leave the States until the 29th/30th of April to go to Ireland and this Taylor bombshell is dropped on top of the TIKH Tour.  There are too many holes and inconsistencies in the story.  We need more facts and not "editorialized" facts.   None of this "I think" or "I believe"  from someone who wrote a book - you either know or your don't, and can back that up with evidence.  JMHO  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 30, 2016, 04:27:32 PM
Taylor's source could have been someone in the Beach Boys.

Except that you disproved that, to your own satisfaction, at least, a few pages back. That's the problem with moving the goalposts - it's a bitch to move them back to where they were.  ;D

Not moving any goalposts...exploring every possible scenario, this time plugging in the reverse variables into your logic and getting a different answer as a result. If you stand by that logic to conclude Brian tipped off Taylor, you could flip it around and conclude someone in the Beach Boys did it.

The question is why were they (the Beach Boys) either blissfully unaware or ignoring the matter entirely when talking to Altbach after the Poll Winners show?

Related: Was there a point man within the group who would be Taylor's main contact for info at that time? Domenic Priore believes that person was Mike. Thoughts?

Altbach ? You know something we don't ?  :lol

As for Dom assuming it was Mike, I think the only possible response to that is "well, he would, wouldn't he ?". Others have made the valid point that, as Brian was the man with all the toys, it's reasonable to assume it was him. Some feel it was Murry. The trick is not to pick an answer, then work back from it, but to scout around for that which might indicate an answer. Sadly, Derek is no longer with us, so I asked the other guy, and he said "no".

BTW, I knew I saw May 2nd as the given date for the "scrapped" article, and eventually, I remembered where - in David Leaf's book.

Altham/Altbach, Paul Williams/Paul Robbins, Studer/Scully...it all starts to blur together sometimes! Yes, *Altham* for the record.

What would be most enlightening is to find out from Domenic what info he used to base those statements from, unless it's implied he either made it up or pulled it out of thin air, which I doubt he did. He had to be going on something he felt was legit in order to publish (and repeat in interviews) his thought that Mike was working with Taylor on the band's PR at this time.

Leaf's date was wrong, no other way to say it.  :)

And as another poster I see asked as well, who then did Mike say was the source of the "scrapped" info if he was asked? He says he wasn't, so who does he know (or even believe) was the source? Did Taylor pull such a blockbuster announcement out of thin air and publish it without clarification from the band he was representing?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Theydon Bois on January 31, 2016, 01:05:48 AM
Sadly, Derek is no longer with us, so I asked the other guy, and he said "no".

I think the only possible response to that is "well, he would, wouldn't he ?".




(NB For what it's worth, I'm inclined, on the balance of probabilities, to believe Mike on this one, with the caveat that the timeline doesn't really make a lot of sense whoever you assume Taylor's source was.  But I'm uncomfortable with the idea of treating Mike as an unimpeachable witness while every other piece of witness evidence in the Smile saga gets stuck under the microscope in search of agendas, biases or factual errors.)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 31, 2016, 01:17:05 AM

Let's do something criminally dumb, and introduce logic into a BB scenario.

Beach Boy X (not Brian) tells Taylor Smile is scrapped. Given that Taylor was directly employed by the band as their publicist, does he...

a) run to his typewriter, hammer out the release and wire it to D&ME without delay, or...

b) call Brian to seek both confirmation and permission to publish ?

No-brainer: it's b). The problem is now, why would Brian allow that - unless it was true ?  Of course, there is...

c) Beach Boy X is indeed Brian.

Occam's razor.

Let's do something criminally dumb, and introduce logic into a BB scenario.

Beach Boy X (not Brian) Brian (not someone in the Beach Boys) tells Taylor Smile is scrapped. Given that Taylor was directly employed by the band as their publicist, does he...

a) run to his typewriter, hammer out the release and wire it to D&ME without delay, or...

b) call Brian one of the Beach Boys to seek both confirmation and permission to publish ?

No-brainer: it's b). The problem is now, why would Brian the Beach Boys allow that - unless it was true ?  Of course, there is...

c) Beach Boy X is indeed Brian. Taylor's source could indeed have been someone in the Beach Boys.

Occam's razor.



That makes no sense.  If Brian told Taylor, why would he have to confirm it with the other Beach Boys?  If Brian scraps it, it's scrapped - he's the producer and songwriter.

"If Taylor was working publicity for The Beach Boys, and the Beach Boys were arriving in the UK for a major tour, why would Taylor contact Brian for information on the tour when Brian wasn't involved in that tour at all? Related to that, if Taylor is set to publish a piece that says the Beach Boys' long-awaited album has been junked and will not come out, would it make sense or not for him to inform *them* their album has been scrapped and possibly get either a confirm or even a comment?"

What makes you think Taylor would have to contact Brian for info on the tour to have Brian tell him that the album is scrapped?  Taylor and Brian are in L.A., lots of opportunities to meet and talk on the phone.  There could be TWO events - Brian tells him it's scrapped, and he gets tour information (his job as PR guy) to relay to the UK press from whomever.  He writes up the tour info and adds in the scrapped announcement.  Not his job to inform the Boys Smile is scrapped, it's Brian's or Capitol's or somebody in BRI, not him.  

I agree with Lou.

There is no disconnect between the Boys comments and the May 6 article, the Boys answered new product wasn't ready yet. It wasn't ready yet because Brian had scrapped it. Taylor makes it clear the Boys didn't know what was next and their comments make that clear too even on into July, as I pointed out earlier, Mike wasn't even aware as late as after the release of H&V that the album's name had been changed to Smiley Smile. Vosse and Anderle both claimed Brian didn't explain stuff to the Boys. Didn't Mike say something like he wasn't involved in the decision to scrap or even consulted about it?

Dom's belief is discredited. The real question is was his discredited conjecture solely based on the note (his own I presume) under the May 6 article in LLVS speculating that "This press release was ahead of it's time, as it coincides with the bastard release date of 'Then I Kissed Her'..."? Even that is discredited as the April 28th release date of the single was announced in an article in the April 22 issue of D&ME.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on January 31, 2016, 05:00:35 AM
I want to savor this moment.  Cam and I agree on something!!!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 31, 2016, 06:06:25 AM
I want to savor this moment.  Cam and I agree on something!!!

(high five)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 31, 2016, 06:17:43 AM
"I've got some tapes at home of the new tracks to be on the "Smile" LP which would blow your mind. All the ideas are new and Brian is coming up with fantastic ideas all the time"

Bruce as told to Altham, that interview at a gig sometime around May 8-10 1967, published in NME May 27 edition.

Was Bruce wrong?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 31, 2016, 06:33:23 AM
He evidently was unaware that the album had been scrapped.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 31, 2016, 06:41:59 AM
He and the group were unaware *after* Derek Taylor's D&ME piece in the May 6th issue hit by the time they gave the interview to Altham? No one gave them a copy? It wasn't brought to their attention? No one asked them about it after seeing Taylor's article?

I can't buy that without more proof.

EDIT: Keep in mind, the whole band was in the same room as Altham spoke with them, it was a group interview.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: The Shift on January 31, 2016, 06:50:00 AM
He and the group were unaware *after* Derek Taylor's D&ME piece in the May 6th issue hit by the time they gave the interview to Altham? No one gave them a copy? It wasn't brought to their attention? No one asked them about it after seeing Taylor's article?

I can't buy that without more proof.

EDIT: Keep in mind, the whole band was in the same room as Altham spoke with them, it was a group interview.

"Whole band" = touring band? Or "whole band" = inc Brian?

(sorry, struggling to follow every aspect of this thread's minutia)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 31, 2016, 06:54:36 AM
He and the group were unaware *after* Derek Taylor's D&ME piece in the May 6th issue hit by the time they gave the interview to Altham? No one gave them a copy? It wasn't brought to their attention? No one asked them about it after seeing Taylor's article?

I can't buy that without more proof.

EDIT: Keep in mind, the whole band was in the same room as Altham spoke with them, it was a group interview.

Your proof is staring you in the face.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 31, 2016, 07:00:15 AM
He and the group were unaware *after* Derek Taylor's D&ME piece in the May 6th issue hit by the time they gave the interview to Altham? No one gave them a copy? It wasn't brought to their attention? No one asked them about it after seeing Taylor's article?

I can't buy that without more proof.

EDIT: Keep in mind, the whole band was in the same room as Altham spoke with them, it was a group interview.

Your proof is staring you in the face.

The band in the UK was unaware of an article that had been published in the UK (by their own paid publicist) which declared their album dead?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 31, 2016, 07:01:01 AM
He and the group were unaware *after* Derek Taylor's D&ME piece in the May 6th issue hit by the time they gave the interview to Altham? No one gave them a copy? It wasn't brought to their attention? No one asked them about it after seeing Taylor's article?

I can't buy that without more proof.

EDIT: Keep in mind, the whole band was in the same room as Altham spoke with them, it was a group interview.
GF - is there a place for Anderle in this equation? Would he have had the authority, running Brother, to let Taylor run with this story? It appears in the timeline to have been a unique "Brother" window with Getting' Hungry, Heroes and Smiley, after which there was a "reversion" of sorts to Capitol.

With all these quotes that point to a "go" (and I question how it could even raised as disingenuous) from that week that blindsided them, on many levels, what is going on?

Each of them, while on tour, taken from different points, such as Dennis waiting for Carl, for the first Ireland show, is saying the exact same thing. It doesn't come from a "scripted" place, where they are warned as to a particular line of questioning from an interviewer.  They are all saying the same things, consistently, but not using the same "scripted" press-release verbiage that someone put in their mouths.  It is the old "stick to the same story" and the content is the same but not the verbiage.  They are expressing the same concept that Smile is a "go" differently.  They would have been quoted with "parroted" responses.

It still does not add up.   ;)

 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 31, 2016, 07:30:34 AM
I don't know who knew what in the band but if they were unaware Brian had scrapped SMiLE by May 6, shame on Brian. As I said Mike didn't even know the title had changed as late as after H&V had been released but he did know that Brian had dumped some songs and changed some and added some songs to the album which was a process that started before they left for UK. So their statements are consistent with that.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 31, 2016, 07:39:59 AM
I don't know who knew what in the band but if they were unaware Brian had scrapped SMiLE by May 6, shame on Brian. As I said Mike didn't even know the title had changed as late as after H&V had been released but he did know that Brian had dumped some songs and changed some and added some songs to the album which was a process that started before they left for UK. So their statements are consistent with that.

Cam - What if someone/someones "worked around" Brian?  

That was the least reasonable point, that particular week or so, to pull the plug on the project especially after Inside Pop.    

Surf's Up was blasted across the US.  And, now,  I wonder if the band even got to see it, between the sets of one of their shows or,  if there was a TV backstage  in that theatre?  

That would make it less likely for the band to pull the plug. The timing and momentum of that program would enhance the release. 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 31, 2016, 07:41:45 AM
Impossible that they saw in while on tour.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 31, 2016, 07:44:20 AM
Impossible that they saw in while on tour.
I think they were in NY and it was broadcast over the air.  

They did about a dozen songs. 45 minutes max.

Could they have given a courtesy tape in advance?

You could not buy that kind of primetime TV for publicity.  It was a giveaway.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 31, 2016, 07:49:32 AM
My bad - I was thinking UK tour.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 31, 2016, 07:59:01 AM
I don't know who knew what in the band but if they were unaware Brian had scrapped SMiLE by May 6, shame on Brian. As I said Mike didn't even know the title had changed as late as after H&V had been released but he did know that Brian had dumped some songs and changed some and added some songs to the album which was a process that started before they left for UK. So their statements are consistent with that.

Cam, there was a call earlier in this discussion for documentation. Anyone who has LLVS can see a group of Capitol session documents for Smile.

Every one of the Smile sessions dating back to 1966 on those session sheets was logged under the project number 31-5526.

There is a sheet for Love To Say Dada, a session for May 16 1967, logged under project number 31-5526. That sheet also has names and details familiar to the Smile sessions which had come before as we've already mentioned.

If the "Smile" album had been scrapped and as you suggest Brian scrapped it (then told Taylor but the band wasn't informed), why was Brian still recording and turning in paperwork to Capitol under the same project number 31-5526 as he had used for Smile dating back months to 1966?

Who exactly was unaware the album had been scrapped if Brian handed in such a document to Capitol just over a week after something led Derek Taylor to declare the album scrapped?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 31, 2016, 08:30:25 AM
I believe that is also the Smiley Smile project number, he just kept using it.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Jim V. on January 31, 2016, 08:54:32 AM
He and the group were unaware *after* Derek Taylor's D&ME piece in the May 6th issue hit by the time they gave the interview to Altham? No one gave them a copy? It wasn't brought to their attention? No one asked them about it after seeing Taylor's article?

I can't buy that without more proof.

EDIT: Keep in mind, the whole band was in the same room as Altham spoke with them, it was a group interview.
GF - is there a place for Anderle in this equation? Would he have had the authority, running Brother, to let Taylor run with this story? It appears in the timeline to have been a unique "Brother" window with Getting' Hungry, Heroes and Smiley, after which there was a "reversion" of sorts to Capitol.

With all these quotes that point to a "go" (and I question how it could even raised as disingenuous) from that week that blindsided them, on many levels, what is going on?

Each of them, while on tour, taken from different points, such as Dennis waiting for Carl, for the first Ireland show, is saying the exact same thing. It doesn't come from a "scripted" place, where they are warned as to a particular line of questioning from an interviewer.  They are all saying the same things, consistently, but not using the same "scripted" press-release verbiage that someone put in their mouths.  It is the old "stick to the same story" and the content is the same but not the verbiage.  They are expressing the same concept that Smile is a "go" differently.  They would have been quoted with "parroted" responses.

It still does not add up.   ;)

 

I think "filledthepage" needs to "use" a few "more" of those "quotations." Anybody "agree"?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: SMiLE Brian on January 31, 2016, 08:59:44 AM
"Right" on that "idea" sweetdudejim!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 31, 2016, 09:04:12 AM
He and the group were unaware *after* Derek Taylor's D&ME piece in the May 6th issue hit by the time they gave the interview to Altham? No one gave them a copy? It wasn't brought to their attention? No one asked them about it after seeing Taylor's article?

I can't buy that without more proof.

EDIT: Keep in mind, the whole band was in the same room as Altham spoke with them, it was a group interview.
GF - is there a place for Anderle in this equation? Would he have had the authority, running Brother, to let Taylor run with this story? It appears in the timeline to have been a unique "Brother" window with Getting' Hungry, Heroes and Smiley, after which there was a "reversion" of sorts to Capitol.

With all these quotes that point to a "go" (and I question how it could even raised as disingenuous) from that week that blindsided them, on many levels, what is going on?

Each of them, while on tour, taken from different points, such as Dennis waiting for Carl, for the first Ireland show, is saying the exact same thing. It doesn't come from a "scripted" place, where they are warned as to a particular line of questioning from an interviewer.  They are all saying the same things, consistently, but not using the same "scripted" press-release verbiage that someone put in their mouths.  It is the old "stick to the same story" and the content is the same but not the verbiage.  They are expressing the same concept that Smile is a "go" differently.  They would have been quoted with "parroted" responses.

It still does not add up.   ;)
 

I think "filledthepage" needs to "use" a few "more" of those "quotations." Anybody "agree"?
sweetdudejim - Courtesy of Mr. Andrew Hickey there is an "ignore button" and I kindly invite you to use it.

If I use quotes, it is to cite or set my words apart from another person, a concept, and not to plagiarize another's work.    

And if I use a section of someone else's work, I use those punctuation marks to indicate that I am not the author.  

We are not here for a grammar lesson but to exchange ideas.  

Not everyone needs to agree.  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 31, 2016, 09:13:02 AM
I don't know who knew what in the band but if they were unaware Brian had scrapped SMiLE by May 6, shame on Brian. As I said Mike didn't even know the title had changed as late as after H&V had been released but he did know that Brian had dumped some songs and changed some and added some songs to the album which was a process that started before they left for UK. So their statements are consistent with that.

Cam, there was a call earlier in this discussion for documentation. Anyone who has LLVS can see a group of Capitol session documents for Smile.

Every one of the Smile sessions dating back to 1966 on those session sheets was logged under the project number 31-5526.

There is a sheet for Love To Say Dada, a session for May 16 1967, logged under project number 31-5526. That sheet also has names and details familiar to the Smile sessions which had come before as we've already mentioned.

If the "Smile" album had been scrapped and as you suggest Brian scrapped it (then told Taylor but the band wasn't informed), why was Brian still recording and turning in paperwork to Capitol under the same project number 31-5526 as he had used for Smile dating back months to 1966?

Who exactly was unaware the album had been scrapped if Brian handed in such a document to Capitol just over a week after something led Derek Taylor to declare the album scrapped?

I believe that is also the Smiley Smile project number, he just kept using it.


Yes, true, but if it were scrapped...


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 31, 2016, 09:29:36 AM
Focus back on some questions asked:

Mike says he was not the source for Taylor's info, but does he have any thoughts on who was the source?

Was Mike working with Taylor on the band's PR at this time, connected to the May 1967 tour and related events? If not, who was?



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 31, 2016, 09:32:24 AM
I don't know who knew what in the band but if they were unaware Brian had scrapped SMiLE by May 6, shame on Brian. As I said Mike didn't even know the title had changed as late as after H&V had been released but he did know that Brian had dumped some songs and changed some and added some songs to the album which was a process that started before they left for UK. So their statements are consistent with that.

Cam, there was a call earlier in this discussion for documentation. Anyone who has LLVS can see a group of Capitol session documents for Smile.

Every one of the Smile sessions dating back to 1966 on those session sheets was logged under the project number 31-5526.

There is a sheet for Love To Say Dada, a session for May 16 1967, logged under project number 31-5526. That sheet also has names and details familiar to the Smile sessions which had come before as we've already mentioned.

If the "Smile" album had been scrapped and as you suggest Brian scrapped it (then told Taylor but the band wasn't informed), why was Brian still recording and turning in paperwork to Capitol under the same project number 31-5526 as he had used for Smile dating back months to 1966?

Who exactly was unaware the album had been scrapped if Brian handed in such a document to Capitol just over a week after something led Derek Taylor to declare the album scrapped?

I believe that is also the Smiley Smile project number, he just kept using it.


Yes, true, but if it were scrapped...
GF - if it had been scrapped, and (I defer to your industry knowledge) wouldn't the tapes be treated as "files" -such as those used in business, or in an office, or even student files post-graduation, which would be closed and archived?

And the number would be associated with an end-date?

Wouldn't there be an end-date that could precede or coincide with the press release?  

And the subsequent sessions, be cancelled in advance?  
 
Thanks.  ;)



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 31, 2016, 10:04:39 AM
I don't know who knew what in the band but if they were unaware Brian had scrapped SMiLE by May 6, shame on Brian. As I said Mike didn't even know the title had changed as late as after H&V had been released but he did know that Brian had dumped some songs and changed some and added some songs to the album which was a process that started before they left for UK. So their statements are consistent with that.

Cam, there was a call earlier in this discussion for documentation. Anyone who has LLVS can see a group of Capitol session documents for Smile.

Every one of the Smile sessions dating back to 1966 on those session sheets was logged under the project number 31-5526.

There is a sheet for Love To Say Dada, a session for May 16 1967, logged under project number 31-5526. That sheet also has names and details familiar to the Smile sessions which had come before as we've already mentioned.

If the "Smile" album had been scrapped and as you suggest Brian scrapped it (then told Taylor but the band wasn't informed), why was Brian still recording and turning in paperwork to Capitol under the same project number 31-5526 as he had used for Smile dating back months to 1966?

Who exactly was unaware the album had been scrapped if Brian handed in such a document to Capitol just over a week after something led Derek Taylor to declare the album scrapped?

I believe that is also the Smiley Smile project number, he just kept using it.


Yes, true, but if it were scrapped...
GF - if it had been scrapped, and (I defer to your industry knowledge) wouldn't the tapes be treated as "files" -such as those used in business, or in an office, or even student files post-graduation, which would be closed and archived?

And the number would be associated with an end-date?

Wouldn't there be an end-date that could precede or coincide with the press release?  

And the subsequent sessions, be cancelled in advance?  
 
Thanks.  ;)

There was obviously a lot of activity going on at this time related to the lawsuit, and the legalities and business details (including contracts that would need to be revised and eventually were) involved in both settling the lawsuit, coming to a mutual agreement with regards to how the Beach Boys "Brother Records" would operate with Capitol, and the basic legal and business issues that surround establishing and incorporating a record label in general. It was not a process that can be wrapped up in a week or even a month until all the details have been worked out and filed as necessary.

It would take more digging and documentation to establish some exact details regarding what happened and exactly when it happened.

What I think is safe to assume is that Capitol (and related company EMI) had employees in the business keeping up with any developments, both internally and what would be reported in the trade papers and music press, such as Disc & Music Echo, Billboard, NME, Melody Maker, etc. Just as all of Hollywood would wait for Variety to come out.

If word got published in one of these papers that the album Capitol had been waiting for in the past 5 months or so had been declared "scrapped", the phones back and forth between the UK and the US would have lit up as soon as that paper published that declaration.

To try to make a point that no one knew or no one was made aware that this long-awaited album had been scrapped seems almost ridiculous in light of what was at stake and what the term "scrapped" implied. It wasn't delayed, it wasn't held up, it wasn't being reworked...it was "scrapped".

That would have triggered a major reaction both within the record companies and especially within the band. Saying it was scrapped would, i think, imply everything that was on the table had been shelved and something new was going to instead take its place. Yet Brian was back at Gold Star recording, and the band's comments suggested they thought the album's work and future release was still on as of May 1967. It's hard to line it up, for sure.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 31, 2016, 10:17:42 AM
Focus back on some questions asked:

Mike says he was not the source for Taylor's info, but does he have any thoughts on who was the source?

Was Mike working with Taylor on the band's PR at this time, connected to the May 1967 tour and related events? If not, who was?



In this case, someone can ask Mike and no because there is no evidence for it and Brian because Taylor is describing Brian as the scrapper and Brian's reasons for scrapping and the Boys as clueless and Brian was the Producer.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 31, 2016, 10:32:55 AM
I don't know who knew what in the band but if they were unaware Brian had scrapped SMiLE by May 6, shame on Brian. As I said Mike didn't even know the title had changed as late as after H&V had been released but he did know that Brian had dumped some songs and changed some and added some songs to the album which was a process that started before they left for UK. So their statements are consistent with that.

Cam, there was a call earlier in this discussion for documentation. Anyone who has LLVS can see a group of Capitol session documents for Smile.

Every one of the Smile sessions dating back to 1966 on those session sheets was logged under the project number 31-5526.

There is a sheet for Love To Say Dada, a session for May 16 1967, logged under project number 31-5526. That sheet also has names and details familiar to the Smile sessions which had come before as we've already mentioned.

If the "Smile" album had been scrapped and as you suggest Brian scrapped it (then told Taylor but the band wasn't informed), why was Brian still recording and turning in paperwork to Capitol under the same project number 31-5526 as he had used for Smile dating back months to 1966?

Who exactly was unaware the album had been scrapped if Brian handed in such a document to Capitol just over a week after something led Derek Taylor to declare the album scrapped?

I believe that is also the Smiley Smile project number, he just kept using it.


Yes, true, but if it were scrapped...
GF - if it had been scrapped, and (I defer to your industry knowledge) wouldn't the tapes be treated as "files" -such as those used in business, or in an office, or even student files post-graduation, which would be closed and archived?

And the number would be associated with an end-date?

Wouldn't there be an end-date that could precede or coincide with the press release?  

And the subsequent sessions, be cancelled in advance?  
 
Thanks.  ;)

There was obviously a lot of activity going on at this time related to the lawsuit, and the legalities and business details (including contracts that would need to be revised and eventually were) involved in both settling the lawsuit, coming to a mutual agreement with regards to how the Beach Boys "Brother Records" would operate with Capitol, and the basic legal and business issues that surround establishing and incorporating a record label in general. It was not a process that can be wrapped up in a week or even a month until all the details have been worked out and filed as necessary.

It would take more digging and documentation to establish some exact details regarding what happened and exactly when it happened.

What I think is safe to assume is that Capitol (and related company EMI) had employees in the business keeping up with any developments, both internally and what would be reported in the trade papers and music press, such as Disc & Music Echo, Billboard, NME, Melody Maker, etc. Just as all of Hollywood would wait for Variety to come out.

If word got published in one of these papers that the album Capitol had been waiting for in the past 5 months or so had been declared "scrapped", the phones back and forth between the UK and the US would have lit up as soon as that paper published that declaration.

To try to make a point that no one knew or no one was made aware that this long-awaited album had been scrapped seems almost ridiculous in light of what was at stake and what the term "scrapped" implied. It wasn't delayed, it wasn't held up, it wasn't being reworked...it was "scrapped".

That would have triggered a major reaction both within the record companies and especially within the band. Saying it was scrapped would, i think, imply everything that was on the table had been shelved and something new was going to instead take its place. Yet Brian was back at Gold Star recording, and the band's comments suggested they thought the album's work and future release was still on as of May 1967. It's hard to line it up, for sure.
GF - thanks for that.  "Scrapped" can take many contexts, for example, in the auto industry it means that a car gets "parted out" and broken up for parts as a stand-alone items.  I was looking for the music industry context.  And, I was wondering, about those "parts" (tracks) that would be migrating to a new project.  Some did and some didn't.

There certainly is a process in winding-up/wrapping-up of a project or business.   But it would seem that some of this information would be contained in the business files and/or sessions that were scheduled.

Was there a major reaction by the band?  Did we see it?  The interviews that were done contemporaneous to this press release run counter to that.  And, seems to have some of us wondering and trying to make sense of a very high profile couple of weeks, that was chaotic to say the least.  

That Variety analogy to those other industry magazine/journals was a good one.  But it does seem that the industry (EMI, perhaps) kept the band - the entire band out of the process, at least with respect to the TIKH tour and promotion.  One hand did not know (or appears not to) what the other hand was doing.   And it seems to undermine the reason they started Brother in the first place.

Would Anderle or anyone else, have known what the band (including Brian, as they represented him in the field) was walking into (a trap) when they got to Europe with this promotion?  Did someone stateside know and keep that information from the band? Smile session #85 is on May 18th, p. 182, Badman.
 
They seem to be on the same page in the Rusten/Stebbins book, p. 90-1, with regard the TIKH tour, being shocked at what music was being showcased.      

Thanks.  ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 31, 2016, 10:36:27 AM
Focus back on some questions asked:

Mike says he was not the source for Taylor's info, but does he have any thoughts on who was the source?

Was Mike working with Taylor on the band's PR at this time, connected to the May 1967 tour and related events? If not, who was?



In this case, someone can ask Mike and no because there is no evidence for it and Brian because Taylor is describing Brian as the scrapper and Brian's reasons for scrapping and the Boys as clueless and Brian was the Producer.

You're preemptively dodging the question, Cam, before anyone can answer: Was Mike working with Taylor on the band's PR at this time, connected to the May 1967 tour and related events? If not, who was?

NOT about the 'scrapping' issue, but in general related to the tour and related activities.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 31, 2016, 11:18:18 AM
Focus back on some questions asked:

Mike says he was not the source for Taylor's info, but does he have any thoughts on who was the source?

Was Mike working with Taylor on the band's PR at this time, connected to the May 1967 tour and related events? If not, who was?



In this case, someone can ask Mike and no because there is no evidence for it and Brian because Taylor is describing Brian as the scrapper and Brian's reasons for scrapping and the Boys as clueless and Brian was the Producer.

You're preemptively dodging the question, Cam, before anyone can answer: Was Mike working with Taylor on the band's PR at this time, connected to the May 1967 tour and related events? If not, who was?

NOT about the 'scrapping' issue, but in general related to the tour and related activities.


I answered it: "no because there is no evidence for it".


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 31, 2016, 11:46:25 AM
He and the group were unaware *after* Derek Taylor's D&ME piece in the May 6th issue hit by the time they gave the interview to Altham? No one gave them a copy? It wasn't brought to their attention? No one asked them about it after seeing Taylor's article?

I can't buy that without more proof.

EDIT: Keep in mind, the whole band was in the same room as Altham spoke with them, it was a group interview.

Your proof is staring you in the face.

The band in the UK was unaware of an article that had been published in the UK (by their own paid publicist) which declared their album dead?

That Bruce was still referring to a Smile album would strongly indicate this. I'll ask him.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 31, 2016, 11:47:46 AM
Focus back on some questions asked:

Mike says he was not the source for Taylor's info, but does he have any thoughts on who was the source?

Was Mike working with Taylor on the band's PR at this time, connected to the May 1967 tour and related events? If not, who was?



In this case, someone can ask Mike and no because there is no evidence for it and Brian because Taylor is describing Brian as the scrapper and Brian's reasons for scrapping and the Boys as clueless and Brian was the Producer.

You're preemptively dodging the question, Cam, before anyone can answer: Was Mike working with Taylor on the band's PR at this time, connected to the May 1967 tour and related events? If not, who was?

NOT about the 'scrapping' issue, but in general related to the tour and related activities.


I answered it: "no because there is no evidence for it".

Where was the evidence Brian had recorded a solo version of Surf's Up in the fall of 1967 before the tape was found? If someone asked even the most informed Smile historians at any point up to the discovery of the tape "Did Brian record a solo version of Surf's Up in Fall 1967?", the answer would be "no, there is no evidence of it" but there actually was audio evidence of it sitting on a tape reel which had not been discovered or even considered up to that discovery.

The question(s) still stands.

Mike says he was not the source for Taylor's info, but does he have any thoughts on who was the source?

Was Mike working with Taylor on the band's PR at this time, connected to the May 1967 tour and related events? If not, who was?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 31, 2016, 11:49:03 AM
I think "filledthepage" needs to "use" a few "more" of those "quotations." Anybody "agree"?

"I" "absolutely" "agree" "."


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 31, 2016, 11:51:19 AM
He and the group were unaware *after* Derek Taylor's D&ME piece in the May 6th issue hit by the time they gave the interview to Altham? No one gave them a copy? It wasn't brought to their attention? No one asked them about it after seeing Taylor's article?

I can't buy that without more proof.

EDIT: Keep in mind, the whole band was in the same room as Altham spoke with them, it was a group interview.

Your proof is staring you in the face.

The band in the UK was unaware of an article that had been published in the UK (by their own paid publicist) which declared their album dead?

That Bruce was still referring to a Smile album would strongly indicate this. I'll ask him.

That would absolutely help shed some light on this to hear Bruce's perspective when he made those comments to Altham in light of the "scrapped" article.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 31, 2016, 11:57:43 AM
I think "filledthepage" needs to "use" a few "more" of those "quotations." Anybody "agree"?

"I" "absolutely" "agree" "."

Andrew - Comments about "punk-tuation," and not "content" are counter-productive, and are distractors from the issues with which some don't agree.

Carry on.       


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 31, 2016, 12:09:21 PM
He and the group were unaware *after* Derek Taylor's D&ME piece in the May 6th issue hit by the time they gave the interview to Altham? No one gave them a copy? It wasn't brought to their attention? No one asked them about it after seeing Taylor's article?

I can't buy that without more proof.

EDIT: Keep in mind, the whole band was in the same room as Altham spoke with them, it was a group interview.

Your proof is staring you in the face.

The band in the UK was unaware of an article that had been published in the UK (by their own paid publicist) which declared their album dead?

That Bruce was still referring to a Smile album would strongly indicate this. I'll ask him.

That would absolutely help shed some light on this to hear Bruce's perspective when he made those comments to Altham in light of the "scrapped" article.
GF - not from Bruce, but from Badman, p. 185,under Saturday, May 6, 1967..."A week after his optimistic statement, Beach Boys publicist Derek Taylor, prematurely (emphasis added) announces to the press the abandonment of Smile...skip to May 11th, Smile session 82, Heroes and Villains session 30, Back in California, unaffected (and possibly invigorated) by Taylor's statement of the 6th, Brian returns to the studio and 'sweetens' his March 2nd mix down of Heroes and Villains...May 16th, Smile Session 83...Now almost two weeks after Derek Taylor's announcement about the abandonment of Smile, Brian continues work on the album, here with Engineer Jim Hilton. (p. 187, Badman)

Is there some clue with the word "prematurely" as it relates to May 6th?  Was this supposed to be discussed with the band and not? It seems that someone had this scrapping concept on their radar.

The actions are not matching the words.   ;)

   


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 31, 2016, 12:26:58 PM
I don't know who knew what in the band but if they were unaware Brian had scrapped SMiLE by May 6, shame on Brian. As I said Mike didn't even know the title had changed as late as after H&V had been released but he did know that Brian had dumped some songs and changed some and added some songs to the album which was a process that started before they left for UK. So their statements are consistent with that.

Cam, there was a call earlier in this discussion for documentation. Anyone who has LLVS can see a group of Capitol session documents for Smile.

Every one of the Smile sessions dating back to 1966 on those session sheets was logged under the project number 31-5526.

There is a sheet for Love To Say Dada, a session for May 16 1967, logged under project number 31-5526. That sheet also has names and details familiar to the Smile sessions which had come before as we've already mentioned.

If the "Smile" album had been scrapped and as you suggest Brian scrapped it (then told Taylor but the band wasn't informed), why was Brian still recording and turning in paperwork to Capitol under the same project number 31-5526 as he had used for Smile dating back months to 1966?

Who exactly was unaware the album had been scrapped if Brian handed in such a document to Capitol just over a week after something led Derek Taylor to declare the album scrapped?

I believe that is also the Smiley Smile project number, he just kept using it.


Yes, true, but if it were scrapped...

SMiLE was scrapped but Smiley Smile was not.

At some point recording for that project number stopped being for SMiLE and started being for Smiley Smile, so no one knows definitely when but by April 4 they had started recording songs that were not on the SMiLE track list and retooling a few songs that were and Smiley is from those recordings. So some time before that, maybe early March or late January  even, who knows?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 31, 2016, 12:30:46 PM
I think "filledthepage" needs to "use" a few "more" of those "quotations." Anybody "agree"?

"I" "absolutely" "agree" "."

Andrew - Comments about "punk-tuation," and not "content" are counter-productive, and are distractors from the issues with which some don't agree.

Carry on.        

1 - your idiosyncratic punctuation is itself counter-productive, both as a distraction and an impediment to smooth reading.

2 - who died and made you Queen of the Board ?

3 - you're using Badman as a credible source. Think again.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 31, 2016, 12:47:32 PM
Focus back on some questions asked:

Mike says he was not the source for Taylor's info, but does he have any thoughts on who was the source?

Was Mike working with Taylor on the band's PR at this time, connected to the May 1967 tour and related events? If not, who was?



In this case, someone can ask Mike and no because there is no evidence for it and Brian because Taylor is describing Brian as the scrapper and Brian's reasons for scrapping and the Boys as clueless and Brian was the Producer.

You're preemptively dodging the question, Cam, before anyone can answer: Was Mike working with Taylor on the band's PR at this time, connected to the May 1967 tour and related events? If not, who was?

NOT about the 'scrapping' issue, but in general related to the tour and related activities.


I answered it: "no because there is no evidence for it".

Where was the evidence Brian had recorded a solo version of Surf's Up in the fall of 1967 before the tape was found? If someone asked even the most informed Smile historians at any point up to the discovery of the tape "Did Brian record a solo version of Surf's Up in Fall 1967?", the answer would be "no, there is no evidence of it" but there actually was audio evidence of it sitting on a tape reel which had not been discovered or even considered up to that discovery.

The question(s) still stands.

Mike says he was not the source for Taylor's info, but does he have any thoughts on who was the source?

Was Mike working with Taylor on the band's PR at this time, connected to the May 1967 tour and related events? If not, who was?

No one was claiming there was because there was no evidence of it.

The Boys are griping about the PR around the TIKH/MOL single.  What is the evidence that Mike or any of the Boys ever worked with Taylor or anyone on the band's PR in May?



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 31, 2016, 01:15:23 PM
I think "filledthepage" needs to "use" a few "more" of those "quotations." Anybody "agree"?

"I" "absolutely" "agree" "."

Andrew - Comments about "punk-tuation," and not "content" are counter-productive, and are distractors from the issues with which some don't agree.

Carry on.        

1 - your idiosyncratic punctuation is itself counter-productive, both as a distraction and an impediment to smooth reading.

2 - who died and made you Queen of the Board ?

3 - you're using Badman as a credible source. Think again.
Andrew - we are not here to correct English papers. We are here to discuss music.  More than once, I have had women PM me, who have joined this forum, writing me for advice as to how to manage some of the bullying.  There are proportionally few women here for a reason.  It is the shark-like atmosphere.  

If my writing is a problem, please also feel free to use the ignore button.  I have let some of your errors go, and ignored the reflex, to reply nastily in-kind, as it is a distractor from the reason we are united here.  I also disregard this faction nonsense as much as possible although this thread and other Smile related threads in search of facts tend to provoke that response.  

And, having signed multiple non-plagiarism pledges in post graduate school, citation in quotes or other manner are overemphasized rather than under-emphasized to obviate charges of plagiarism.  It is erring on the side of caution. (this expression should be quoted)  And, I am still connected in the academic context, subject to the same citation-context-or expression regulations.  I repeat, if it is a problem, please use the Andrew Hickey ignore function.    

Badman is not without flaws, I will concede,  particularly with regard the publication of personal information on the session sheets.  However, there are aspects of greater completeness over other publications.  And I am not throwing the baby out with that bathwater.  (And that expression should be quoted.)

If my information is incorrect - you are most welcome to challenge and I welcome it.    


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Ian on January 31, 2016, 01:52:30 PM
Hope you understand that in terms of accurate info about gigs the beach boys in concert by Jon Stebbins and Ian rusten (that being I) is far superior and corrects hundreds of badman errors.  I did not catalog all sessions as, based on his published writing, Craig slovinski was the man to do that subject justice. However if you just want accurate dates without much discussion than bellagio gigs and sessions hosted by esq is the site for you. I collaborated on it with agd and we corrected many session dates that badman erred on.  In addition, with the help of Craig, Alan Boyd and the kind folks at the musicians Union we were able to gain access to many session documents and dates that Keith badman was unaware of when he wrote.  In my book I pointed out many other errors that we've discovered like the 1962 non existent summer tour and the correct date and info on the bbs first national TV appearance on red Skelton


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Ian on January 31, 2016, 01:55:32 PM
Basically what I was saying was that there are better sources now than badman though his book has some great photos!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 31, 2016, 02:13:43 PM
And, having signed multiple non-plagiarism pledges in post graduate school, citation in quotes or other manner are overemphasized rather than under-emphasized to obviate charges of plagiarism.  It is erring on the side of caution. (this expression should be quoted)  And, I am still connected in the academic context, subject to the same citation-context-or expression regulations.

This isn't post-graduate school: it's just a message board. No-one's going to accuse you of plagiarism. Condescension, maybe.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 31, 2016, 02:15:30 PM
Hope you understand that in terms of accurate info about gigs the beach boys in concert by Jon Stebbins and Ian rusten (that being I) is far superior and corrects hundreds of badman errors.  I did not catalog all sessions as, based on his published writing, Craig slovinski was the man to do that subject justice. However if you just want accurate dates without much discussion than bellagio gigs and sessions hosted by esq is the site for you. I collaborated on it with agd and we corrected many session dates that badman erred on.  In addition, with the help of Craig, Alan Boyd and the kind folks at the musicians Union we were able to gain access to many session documents and dates that Keith badman was unaware of when he wrote.  In my book I pointed out many other errors that we've discovered like the 1962 non existent summer tour and the correct date and info on the bbs first national TV appearance on red Skelton
Hi Ian - thanks for the post.  I have your book written with Jon Stebbins. It was a gift from a BB fan.  Just was given the Carlin book from another fan.  And, I am going among the three. Zeroing in on that two-week window is where a great deal of chaos and inconsistencies lie.  

If the facts could be extracted from some of these sources, as to who-did-what, with facts laid bare, I think a lot of the strife on this forum would cease and the focus returned to the music where most would agree it belongs.  I think it is a worthwhile search.   There is more here, with this music we all love, to unite rather than divide.  

And I enjoy both volumes for different reasons some of which you mentioned.  I enjoyed your quotes from the band, while perplexed in England, and some of the journal entries in Badman and for which I will PM you with some additional details.  Thanks again.   ;)

  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 31, 2016, 02:22:43 PM
Basically what I was saying was that there are better sources now than badman though his book has some great photos!

Badman also shamelessly plagiarised other BB authors & researchers without giving them due credit - indeed, in many case, any credit at all. I think his crowning moment was in the "earky years" section, which started out by detailing the early history of Hawthorne... Hawthorne, Putnam County, Florida.  :o :o :o


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 31, 2016, 02:27:08 PM
And, having signed multiple non-plagiarism pledges in post graduate school, citation in quotes or other manner are overemphasized rather than under-emphasized to obviate charges of plagiarism.  It is erring on the side of caution. (this expression should be quoted)  And, I am still connected in the academic context, subject to the same citation-context-or expression regulations.

This isn't post-graduate school: it's just a message board. No-one's going to accuse you of plagiarism. Condescension, maybe.
Andrew - Reasonable minds can differ. 

We can disagree without being disagreeable.   You have referred to that expression in the past, as condescending. 

A former school principal used to say that all the time. 

Maybe that is verbal plagiarism, or verbal appropriation, if that exists.   :lol


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 31, 2016, 02:31:51 PM
Might I also suggest, sparked by seeing Ian Rusten join the conversation, a look at whatever interviews, reviews, and articles exist from May 1967 that are not covered in sources mentioned here like LLVS or general online sources. I know some do exist, as they have been referenced by collectors on this board in years past. The band after finishing up the UK leg of the May 67 tour traveled further into Europe and ended the tour in Germany before returning to the US. If there are any interviews or articles which appeared in any publications from those countries which the band appeared, or anything featuring comments from the band members published to promote those shows (even if they need to be translated into English), I think whatever exists would add to the available resources.

It could also add further context to the band's mindset after the Taylor piece appeared, especially if they commented on their "next album" or Smile in any way in those weeks after Taylor declared the album scrapped.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on January 31, 2016, 02:35:40 PM
Basically what I was saying was that there are better sources now than badman though his book has some great photos!

Badman also shamelessly plagiarised other BB authors & researchers without giving them due credit - indeed, in many case, any credit at all. I think his crowning moment was in the "earky years" section, which started out by detailing the early history of Hawthorne... Hawthorne, Putnam County, Florida.  :o :o :o

Andrew - I don't read Badman in a linear fashion; I look for windows of time and compare them to firsthand knowledge/ concert dates and have found some errors, but what I am looking at for this particular time at issue Spring of 1967, and seems pretty accurate going day-to-day looking for the inconsistencies.  And compare that with other sources, including 10452.  

My biggest beef with the book is the use of the un-redacted time sheets.  Big problem.    


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on January 31, 2016, 02:47:30 PM
Basically what I was saying was that there are better sources now than badman though his book has some great photos!

Badman also shamelessly plagiarised other BB authors & researchers without giving them due credit - indeed, in many case, any credit at all. I think his crowning moment was in the "earky years" section, which started out by detailing the early history of Hawthorne... Hawthorne, Putnam County, Florida.  :o :o :o

Andrew - I don't read Badman in a linear fashion; I look for windows of time and compare them to firsthand knowledge/ concert dates and have found some errors, but what I am looking at for this particular time at issue Spring of 1967, and seems pretty accurate going day-to-day looking for the inconsistencies.  And compare that with other sources, including 10452.  

My biggest beef with the book is the use of the un-redacted time sheets.  Big problem.    

Spring 1967 concerts not listed in Badman, or listed incorrectly (research by Ian):

March
18 - Masonic Auditorium, Davenport IA* [w/Keith, The Casinos and Harpers Bizarre]
19 - Music Hall, Kansas City MO* [w/Keith, The Casinos and Harpers Bizarre]
21 - Assembly Center, Tulsa OK*  [w/Keith, The Casinos and Harpers Bizarre]

April
14 - Civic Center, Charleston WV* [w/Jim & Jean, The Casinos, The Collegiates and The Left Banke]
15 - University of Virginia, Charlottesville VA*
15 - Coliseum, Washington DC* [w/The Casinos, Jim and Jean, The Chartbusters, The Minus IV and Weam Redcoats]
17 - Geneva College, Beaver Falls PA* [w/The Pickle Brothers]
18 - State Farm Arena, Harrisburg PA*
19 - Defiance College, Defiance OH* [w/Jim & Jean and The Casinos]
20 - Eastern Kentucky State University, Richmond KY*
21 - Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Blacksburg VA* [w/The Happenings]
22 - University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana IL* [w/The Pickle Brothers, Jim & Jean and The Casinos]
23 - Memorial Auditorium, Canton OH* [w/Jim and Jean, The Buckinghams and Terry Knight & The Pack]
23 - Cincinnati Gardens, Cincinnati OH# [w/The Pickle Brothers, The Buckinghams and The Casinos]
24 - Civic Theater, Akron OH* [w/Jim and Jean, The Buckinghams and Terry Knight & The Pack]
25 - Westchester County Center, White Plains NY* [w/The Buckinghams, Jim & Jean, The Chain Reaction, The Teardrops and Satan's Helpers]
26 - Long Island Arena, Commack NY [w/The Buckinghams and Jim & Jean]
27 - Community War Memorial, Rochester NY* [w/Tommy James & The Shondells, Jim & Jean and The Buckinghams]
29 - Symphony Hall, Newark NJ* [w/The Buckinghams, Jim & Jean and The Doughboys]
29 - Union College, Schenectady NY* [w/The Buckinghams, The Casinos and Jim &  Jean]

May
12 - Grona Lund, Stockholm, Sweden*
13 - Messuhalli, Helsinki, Finland* [w/Jormas and Topmost]
14 - Vara TV taping, Amsterdam, Netherlands*
17 - Sporthalle, Cologne, West Germany* [w/Small Faces, The Smoke and David Garrick]
19 - Berliner Sportpalast, Berlin* [w/Small Faces, The Smoke and David Garrick]

And that's just three months. Anything listed on 10452 up to December 1976 with an asterisk are shows that were either wrong (date/venue/both) or not listed at all. Any show that he lists that isn't in 10452 never happened. Bigger problem.

As Ian stated, Badman does have some great photos. That's about the only good thing I have to say for it.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Ian on January 31, 2016, 03:25:34 PM
I do of course have all the magazines from that time-including British, German, Dutch, etc...and referred to many in the book-but if you like I will look through them again when I have a chance


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 31, 2016, 03:32:22 PM
Might I also suggest, sparked by seeing Ian Rusten join the conversation, a look at whatever interviews, reviews, and articles exist from May 1967 that are not covered in sources mentioned here like LLVS or general online sources. I know some do exist, as they have been referenced by collectors on this board in years past. The band after finishing up the UK leg of the May 67 tour traveled further into Europe and ended the tour in Germany before returning to the US. If there are any interviews or articles which appeared in any publications from those countries which the band appeared, or anything featuring comments from the band members published to promote those shows (even if they need to be translated into English), I think whatever exists would add to the available resources.

It could also add further context to the band's mindset after the Taylor piece appeared, especially if they commented on their "next album" or Smile in any way in those weeks after Taylor declared the album scrapped.

In the June 3 iss of D&ME, Taylor is still talking about Brian's recent problems which he attributes to his "prolonged talks" with Brian "and those near to him". I mean he had prolonged talks with Brian about his problems, not that the talks caused his problems.

"Talking of harm in print Jonathan King was very rough on the Beach Boys. He knew what he was doing of course, and I trust one of his aims was to provoke Brian Wilson into making more music for his group. If that were a result then the attack would be valuable. However, I fear that Wilson's confidence is gravely damaged. After prolonged talks with him and those near to him, I still don't know what by. That his talent is barely mined is certainly true. He cannot be written-out at age 24; anyone young knows that. But it is equally true that he is not at peace with himself. I hope everything works out."  [D&ME 6/3/67 p18]

He also calls Roger Easterby "the Beach Boys' spokesman in England" which I take to be a joke around Easterby's announcement in NME that H&V was not the single.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on January 31, 2016, 05:02:37 PM
I do of course have all the magazines from that time-including British, German, Dutch, etc...and referred to many in the book-but if you like I will look through them again when I have a chance

Time permitting, of course - That would be great and most helpful, for those who might not have the book handy and also if any pieces that did not make it into the book might have any bits of pertinent information or statements related to this topic at hand. It's hard to believe a band on tour would not comment on an article such as Taylor's May 6th piece that declared their album dead, essentially. At some point they had to be made aware what Taylor wrote, and from what I posted here so far, the interviews in the UK after the NME show suggest they were either unaware or were simply not commenting on Taylor's information.

A quick question: Is there a firm date that can be proven for the release of the "Then I Kissed Her/Mountain Of Love" single in the UK? I've seen both an April date and a May date listed previously.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on January 31, 2016, 05:10:22 PM
A quick question: Is there a firm date that can be proven for the release of the "Then I Kissed Her/Mountain Of Love" single in the UK? I've seen both an April date and a May date listed previously.

Yesterday: "...the April 28th release date of the single was announced in an article in the April 22 issue of D&ME."


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on February 01, 2016, 12:26:17 AM
Dennis was interviewed the day of the Dublin show while waiting for Carl to fly in from the US to play that first show of the tour in Dublin. He defends the art of it, explains why they didn't release Heroes: "Oh, we got a little frightened. We've got a lot of songs recorded, but we got nervous about whether they were good enough. We've got afraid to put anything out unless it comes up to a certain standard. We're not just putting out singles to sell thousands and earn money."

Bruce was interviewed at a later show on the same leg of the show by the same Keith Altham who wrote the piece published April 29 saying Smile was being readied. After expressing his anger over releasing Then I Kissed Her as a single, he says: "I've got some tapes at home of the new tracks to be on the "Smile" LP which would blow your mind. All the ideas are new and Brian is coming up with fantastic ideas all the time"

Mike in that same article, same interview, after also commenting on the EMI single decision says: "The reason for the hold up with the new single has simply been that we wanted to give our public the best and the best isn't ready yet."

Carl's interviews from roughly the same time suggest Brian was working in the studio.

So add all of that up, the "word" from the band members ranges from Bruce suggesting Smile would be coming out, Dennis saying it will come out when it's ready, and Mike saying something similar.

This same week those interviews were given, Taylor writes that the album was scrapped.

This is IMHO a stronger indication that no member of the touring band was the source for Taylor's announcement than Mike 50 years later denying it was him. Very obviously they did either not know about the article or collectively chose to ignore the article unless asked about it. Given the lack of coordination in the whole SMiLE project I tend rather to the former than the latter.

The question is why were they (the Beach Boys) either blissfully unaware  or ignoring the matter entirely when talking to Altbach after the Poll Winners show?

Lack of coordination.


Jan/Feb - Mainly work on H&V for single release, employing sectional/modular recording style which worked so well for GV.

If I'm not mistaken, the only part of GV that was recorded as a section instead of a new version of the whole song was the organ bridge.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on February 01, 2016, 12:32:06 AM
2 - who died and made you Queen of the Board ?

3 - you're using Badman as a credible source. Think again.

I think you could just as well tell her that in a less condescending and arrogant tone. If you don't know how to, see Ian's posting. But, as it seems on most internet discussions, asking to treat others respectfully is asking too much.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 01, 2016, 02:08:11 AM
It's hard to believe a band on tour would not comment on an article such as Taylor's May 6th piece that declared their album dead, essentially. At some point they had to be made aware what Taylor wrote, and from what I posted here so far, the interviews in the UK after the NME show suggest they were either unaware or were simply not commenting on Taylor's information.

The interviews very strongly suggest that the band were in the dark regarding Taylor's May 6th statement. Far from not commenting, they were actively promoting the album they thought was still forthcoming.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 01, 2016, 03:57:41 AM
Maybe Taylor wasn't joking about Roger Easterby being the Boys' spokesman for the tour.  In the June 10 iss of D&ME is an article without byline about a "rumor" titled "BEACH BOY BRUCE QUITTING?" which quotes a
"Roger Easterby, of the Arthur Howes office, which promoted the Beach Boys tour". 
So there is the PR guy for the May tour, Roger Easterby. It also claims "All Five Beach Boys have now returned to America and are busy recording a follow-up single".

Also in the June 10 issue is an interview (no byline) with Bruce where is asked: "And what of ‘Heroes and Villains’? "I think it will still be issued as a single," said Bruce, probably in a couple of records time. "After all, Brian is such a perfectionist that he even scrapped  'God Only Knows' once - and then decided perhaps it wasn’t so bad after all!"

The July 1 issue of D&ME has a piece by Bob Farmer, "Come on, Beach Boys - Let's Get Vibrating", which says "And last week Bruce Johnston, speaking to British Agent Arthur Howes, said: "We still have no plans for a new single."

In the July 15 issue of D&ME is "New York Dateline by Nancy Lewis:  “I’ve had a report from West Coast folks that the Beach Boys’ new disc, ‘Heroes and Villains’ is finally completed. I was told that Brian Wilson immediately made copies of the final tape and took them around to the Los Angeles radio stations even before the record company had it!  Apparently the ‘B’ side of the disc is most unusual. Titled ‘You’re Welcome’, it reportedly has only vocal harmonies - no instrumentation - and the only lyrics are those two words in the title.”

July 22 issue Taylor reports: “Brian Wilson, newly - inspired after an alarming lull in musical output, is now recording the  Beach Boys in an eight-track studio built in his own home in Bel-Air, a district so special that the speed limit is 25 miles an hour.  "Heroes and Villains," famous these many months as a title without a tune, was finally worked out in this new studio and it is a very fine piece of construction, dissimilar from earlier versions which Brian discarded.  It will be number one in Britain. I should apologize to Roger Easterby whose forecast that it would turn out to be the
next Beach Boys' single I dis¬missed. I should apologize But I won’t. I will just say I’m sorry. Good old Roger. There's still a lot of fight left in the British lion.”

August 12 D&ME, no byline:

We Can Afford To Gamble Says Beach Boy Bruce:

"The Beach Boys are busy again." This news must come as great joy to millions of people, and it's therefore a little ironic that the speaker, Bruce Johnston, is currently in England on a week's holiday!

"The hold-ups were really all the' fault of these legal proceed¬ings with our American record company," he said, collapsing into an arm chair at London's Waldorf Hotel. 

"All this time Brian has been thinking and writing, and now we have a whole stack of new material waiting to be recorded." First of these is "Heroes And Villains," due out on August 25, to be followed by a brand new album, probably in October. "Only two of the original tracks on 'Heroes' were kept," said Bruce.  "Brian completely re-wrote the rest and as soon as it was finished we rushed it out."

'Heroes' worth waiting for

Did Bruce feel the wait had been too long, and that "Heroes And Villains" was worth it?
"The Beach Boys can afford to gamble with records now," he replied. "This may be a strange record to some---it's not to me. Just listen to it a few more times, and it will creep up on you. The 'B' side wasn't meant as a joke (it lasts just over a minute and consists solely of the word 'welcome'). We were going to open our show with it, just as a way of welcoming people to the theatre, but we never got round to it.
"We recorded it before we left for Europe earlier this year, marching round the studio banging drums and singing." Is this waiting for Beach Boys records likely to happen again? "No, I'm sure it won't. All our problems are now solved, and we'll be regulating our concert appearances to ensure we have enough time to make records."
How about the continuing stories that Bruce is an unhappy man, with a desire to leave the group?
"Sure," he said cynically. "That's why I'm sitting here spending all this time telling you about the Beach Boys and all the work they're doing!
"No . . . I'm very happy with the group, and am really looking forward to getting back on the road with them in the autumn.  "Sure, it's a fact that I am a loner. All the others are married and naturally they like to spend their free time with their wives and children. But then I always did like peace and solitude, which explains why I'm always popping up at places by myself.”  "If there's time I'd like to do some more record production and possibly a solo single, but the group is still the main thing."









Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 01, 2016, 04:41:29 AM
It looks to me like Easterby was the PR guy, through promoter Arthur Howe's office, for that Summer tour and Taylor is just a journalist (PRing for Monterey Pop) with a close relationship with the band and his info comes mostly from prolonged talks with Brian, and the Boys are either in the dark on some things or are rallying behind Brian reassuring people they still plan to release a single and album.

I think Priore has swung and missed with a conspiracy theory.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 01, 2016, 06:23:02 AM
Cam - It's the quotes and statements specifically from May 67 that I think are most relevant to figuring this out, most of what you posted were after June into the summer of '67 after a lot had changed. After the band got home from the tour, there was obviously a major development within the band's dynamic both personally and their working methods for the near future. Taylor mentioned "restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions", and immediately after they ditched pro studios and recorded in Brian's house, they changed the entire sound of the band including instrumentation for what became Smiley Smile and became a self-contained band again, more or less, and "produced by The Beach Boys" replaced "produced by Brian Wilson" for the first time...as we all know.

Note the mention of the lawsuit and legal details as far as holding up certain releases too.

But it's May 67 that is the key - Before the band returned to the US, while they were still on tour, did any of them mention the issue of the Smile album being scrapped in any interview or article? I've repeated myself too much already, but I cannot imagine an article appearing that claimed their next album was scrapped was not at least referenced, confirmed, or refuted outright by one of the band members in the days and weeks after the article came out.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 01, 2016, 06:27:06 AM
It looks to me like Easterby was the PR guy, through promoter Arthur Howe's office, for that Summer tour and Taylor is just a journalist (PRing for Monterey Pop) with a close relationship with the band and his info comes mostly from prolonged talks with Brian, and the Boys are either in the dark on some things or are rallying behind Brian reassuring people they still plan to release a single and album.

I think Priore has swung and missed with a conspiracy theory.
Roger Easterby - manager and producer of Vanity Fare, from wiki "They played local clubs and were spotted by Roger Esterby who became their manager and producer...Vanity Fare achieved a UK hit single with their first release, a cover of 'I Live For The Sun' (originally recorded by The Sunrays in 1965.)" This was released in 1968.  Interesting.

While looking at these print media articles I think it is important to divide them into the audience they were written for. A teen magazine is targeted for 11-16 year olds.  A teen magazine that is owned by a record company is advancing it's agenda.  

A trade magazine, such as Variety, is intended to be for serious industry-type readers.  Others, such as newspaper reviews are maybe in the middle, depending on the journalist.    

JMHO

" :lol "


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 01, 2016, 06:44:12 AM
While it's true that the touring band members' later comments sound like they were unaware of the D&ME 'scrapped' report, it still seems facile to use ignorance as an explanation - not that I have a better one. They were in the country in which that was printed, no doubt surrounded by UK industry folk; and from Cam's post above, we can see that soon thereafter, at least, D&ME was regularly hooked in to the BB PR machine, such as it was. Does anyone have any information on the contemporary circulation and reader demographics of D&ME? Does anyone have earlier clippings (or evidence of a lack of earlier clippings) that would show whether D&ME was active to the BB tip before early May?
I agree with GG2002 that, while it's possible, it's extremely unlikely that nobody mentioned so dramatic a report to the band, or that D&ME journalists didn't ask them about it, seeing as they were right there. it's a simple explanation for something so bizarre, but would not be the explanation identified by Occam's Razor because it's not a logical explanation.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 01, 2016, 07:18:50 AM
While it's true that the touring band members' later comments sound like they were unaware of the D&ME 'scrapped' report, it still seems facile to use ignorance as an explanation - not that I have a better one. They were in the country in which that was printed, no doubt surrounded by UK industry folk; and from Cam's post above, we can see that soon thereafter, at least, D&ME was regularly hooked in to the BB PR machine, such as it was. Does anyone have any information on the contemporary circulation and reader demographics of D&ME? Does anyone have earlier clippings (or evidence of a lack of earlier clippings) that would show whether D&ME was active to the BB tip before early May?
I agree with GG2002 that, while it's possible, it's extremely unlikely that nobody mentioned so dramatic a report to the band, or that D&ME journalists didn't ask them about it, seeing as they were right there. it's a simple explanation for something so bizarre, but would not be the explanation identified by Occam's Razor because it's not a logical explanation.

Yes. And going further, was there any follow-up or even a response that followed Taylor's proclamation in the weeks after it was published, specifically May 1967 up to the first or second week of June, 1967? Did any other writer pick it up and repeat the information in another article or publication? Did any other journalist pick up on the Taylor article and ask the band or someone connected to the band about it? Even more bizarre, did anyone else publish or say anything to address the issue at all? The album everyone had been waiting for, for months, had just been declared scrapped...and no one noticed or bothered to address it afterward?

For decades Taylor's article and specifically the line he wrote that used the word "scrapped" was repeated and reprinted as the final word on Smile, as almost the Rosetta Stone of that aspect of the story. Was it weighed more heavily (or accurately) than it actually was taken at the time it appeared? Seriously, if that news hit the music press wouldn't someone have followed up or commented in the weeks after it appeared? You'd think...


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 01, 2016, 07:36:16 AM
While it's true that the touring band members' later comments sound like they were unaware of the D&ME 'scrapped' report, it still seems facile to use ignorance as an explanation - not that I have a better one. They were in the country in which that was printed, no doubt surrounded by UK industry folk; and from Cam's post above, we can see that soon thereafter, at least, D&ME was regularly hooked in to the BB PR machine, such as it was. Does anyone have any information on the contemporary circulation and reader demographics of D&ME? Does anyone have earlier clippings (or evidence of a lack of earlier clippings) that would show whether D&ME was active to the BB tip before early May?
I agree with GG2002 that, while it's possible, it's extremely unlikely that nobody mentioned so dramatic a report to the band, or that D&ME journalists didn't ask them about it, seeing as they were right there. it's a simple explanation for something so bizarre, but would not be the explanation identified by Occam's Razor because it's not a logical explanation.

Yes. And going further, was there any follow-up or even a response that followed Taylor's proclamation in the weeks after it was published, specifically May 1967 up to the first or second week of June, 1967? Did any other writer pick it up and repeat the information in another article or publication? Did any other journalist pick up on the Taylor article and ask the band or someone connected to the band about it? Even more bizarre, did anyone else publish or say anything to address the issue at all? The album everyone had been waiting for, for months, had just been declared scrapped...and no one noticed or bothered to address it afterward?

For decades Taylor's article and specifically the line he wrote that used the word "scrapped" was repeated and reprinted as the final word on Smile, as almost the Rosetta Stone of that aspect of the story. Was it weighed more heavily (or accurately) than it actually was taken at the time it appeared? Seriously, if that news hit the music press wouldn't someone have followed up or commented in the weeks after it appeared? You'd think...
GF - Yes, Rosetta Stone - that took on a life of it's own.  This scenario where none of these authors/journalists seem to be able to account as to what went down, in May of 1967.  

First, I think it likely was a back-channel operation which "worked around" the band.  

Second, that would remain...probably unpublished, and would be likely uncovered by connecting-the-dots.

Emily - I do not think that anyone in this band, was disingenuous.  Quite the opposite.

Check out - Youtube Gaumont Palace!

If you look at the modest on-the-twinbeds pushed together (how unlike any Paris, France interview could there be?)

OMG - not in a sumptuous giant-windowed velvet-draped salon, or function room in a Paris restaurant...but on 2 beds pushed together in Paris!  You are going to get candor in that setting.  They were still upset over being thrown under the bus by the record company.

Or, Dennis with Peter Fornatale.  Dennis just spit it all out.  He did not appear to sugar coat anything.  And here are consistent accounts from each of them.  

Were they in the dark?  I bet they were.  Where their passion (their music) lies, I think you will find absolute candor.  Otherwise, they are human like the rest of us.  The music, however, was no joke.  

JMHO, of course!
  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 01, 2016, 08:14:48 AM
Cam - It's the quotes and statements specifically from May 67 that I think are most relevant to figuring this out, most of what you posted were after June into the summer of '67 after a lot had changed. After the band got home from the tour, there was obviously a major development within the band's dynamic both personally and their working methods for the near future. Taylor mentioned "restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions", and immediately after they ditched pro studios and recorded in Brian's house, they changed the entire sound of the band including instrumentation for what became Smiley Smile and became a self-contained band again, more or less, and "produced by The Beach Boys" replaced "produced by Brian Wilson" for the first time...as we all know.

Note the mention of the lawsuit and legal details as far as holding up certain releases too.

But it's May 67 that is the key - Before the band returned to the US, while they were still on tour, did any of them mention the issue of the Smile album being scrapped in any interview or article? I've repeated myself too much already, but I cannot imagine an article appearing that claimed their next album was scrapped was not at least referenced, confirmed, or refuted outright by one of the band members in the days and weeks after the article came out.



OK.

The June 3 is about May even back into April and the session with McCartney when Taylor starts talking about Brian's problems with releases from the "prolonged talks" with Brian in LA.

The June 10 quote is about the May period showing Taylor wasn't even the Boys' or tour's PR guy but Roger Easterby was instead.

Why would they refute the announcement if it was true? That is pretty good evidence that it was no surprise or at least untrue to any Beach Boy.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 01, 2016, 09:15:26 AM
Late 66 – a lot of Smile sessions.
Jan-Early-mid April – sporadic recording focusing on H&V and Vega-tables
Mid April – begin US tour
Mid-Late april – no sessions
April 29 – “smile being readied” article
May – Europe tour
Early may – isolated "scrapped" comment but lots of comments by the band that they are still working on it.
Mid-late May -  recording gradually restarts
June – band back; recording in earnest
July – taylor – “"In one inspired decision, (Nick) Grillo and the Beach Boys were able to a. Make use of Brian Wilson's new house, b. restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions and c. remove the problem of availability of commercial studios. They built their own 8-track studio in the Spanish house."
-all data from this thread or AGD’s site. http://esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs67.html
_____________________________
It’s illogical, but not impossible, that a touring band member would say it was “scrapped” then give interviews saying they are still working on it.
It’s illogical, but not impossible, that BW would say it was “scrapped” then continue working on it.
It’s illogical that Derek Taylor would have a) made up the “scrapped” thing or b) reported it on the word of a non-Beach Boy without seeking confirmation from a Beach Boy.
_____________________________
Suppose this: the different factors (no two people will ever agree on the proportions) that contribute to the shift from Smile to Smiley Smile come to a head in March-April. This is when BW’s thinking really starts to shift. In mid April the band goes on the road and Brian stops recording. A PR piece – Smile is near completion – is put out to ward off rumors.
BW is fallow for a bit. Tells Taylor the project is “scrapped” because the project he had in mind was scrapped. He tentatively goes back to work to try to find a way to rebuild his work into a new project, ultimately Smiley Smile.
The touring BBs realize, probably correctly, that saying it’s “scrapped” is really bad PR and work on shifting the message to “still working on it,” thinking that whatever does eventually come out can be treated and marketed as the culmination of what’s been worked on all along, rather than the result of a scrapping and restarting.
When they get back from the tour, the turn-over from the original project and the group’s previous working patterns to the new project and the group’s new working pattern is completed.
Is this logical?

edit for clarity


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 01, 2016, 10:47:32 AM
Cam - It's the quotes and statements specifically from May 67 that I think are most relevant to figuring this out, most of what you posted were after June into the summer of '67 after a lot had changed. After the band got home from the tour, there was obviously a major development within the band's dynamic both personally and their working methods for the near future. Taylor mentioned "restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions", and immediately after they ditched pro studios and recorded in Brian's house, they changed the entire sound of the band including instrumentation for what became Smiley Smile and became a self-contained band again, more or less, and "produced by The Beach Boys" replaced "produced by Brian Wilson" for the first time...as we all know.

Note the mention of the lawsuit and legal details as far as holding up certain releases too.

But it's May 67 that is the key - Before the band returned to the US, while they were still on tour, did any of them mention the issue of the Smile album being scrapped in any interview or article? I've repeated myself too much already, but I cannot imagine an article appearing that claimed their next album was scrapped was not at least referenced, confirmed, or refuted outright by one of the band members in the days and weeks after the article came out.



OK.

The June 3 is about May even back into April and the session with McCartney when Taylor starts talking about Brian's problems with releases from the "prolonged talks" with Brian in LA.

The June 10 quote is about the May period showing Taylor wasn't even the Boys' or tour's PR guy but Roger Easterby was instead.

Why would they refute the announcement if it was true? That is pretty good evidence that it was no surprise or at least untrue to any Beach Boy.
Cam - The band had all made "affirmative" statements, uniformly, with unbridled enthusiasm, in support of Smile.  Those comments are "their" (the band's) position. 

Why would they comment on a press release that would make their earlier statements about Smile, appear to completely contradict their statements, while on this tour, so close in time? 

Someone else is feeding the press contrary information. 

And, yes, Taylor was busy with Monterey. Easterby does PR in 1967, and in 1968, has a band, Vanity Fare, the very next year singing I Live For The Sun?  From Murry's step-band?   ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 01, 2016, 10:51:26 AM
This "just in".

Mike has "no idea" who told Taylor Smile was "scrapped". His only "involvement" with Smile was "singing" on it.

Similarly, Bruce has no idea either.

There's one more "avenue of investigation" I'm "exploring".

Film at eleven.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 01, 2016, 10:56:15 AM
July – taylor – “"In one inspired decision, (Nick) Grillo and the Beach Boys were able to a. Make use of Brian Wilson's new house, b. restructure the attitude and atmosphere at recording sessions and c. remove the problem of availability of commercial studios. They built their own 8-track studio in the Spanish house."

Just to be exact on this point, no studio was actually constructed at 10452 for some good time yet: what the band did was rent an 8-track from Wally Heider, and record in various rooms (and, of course, the empty swimming pool). I recall someone visiting the house and noting the mixing desk was on the kitchen table and that cables were running all over the place. The addest of hoc.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 01, 2016, 11:02:37 AM
This "just in".

Mike has "no idea" who told Taylor Smile was "scrapped". His only "involvement" with Smile was "singing" on it.

Similarly, Bruce has no idea either.

There's one more "avenue of investigation" I'm "exploring".

Film at eleven.

This "just in." (Quotes stay outside the end of the sentence, in the U.S. - not so for others)

Mike has "no idea" who told Taylor, that Smile was "scrapped."  His only "involvement" with Smile was singing on it.  (no need for emphasis)

Similarly, Bruce has no idea, either.

There's one more "avenue of investigation" I'm "exploring." (exploring is a loaded word with many meanings)

Film at eleven.

Nice there is still some humor/humour... :lol

 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Paul J B on February 01, 2016, 12:02:54 PM
Umm...is it just me or is this thread rather pointless? There are now pages and pages of of debate, arguments and insults about getting to the bottom of somebody making a "Smile is scrapped" comment decades ago. People make erroneous comments everyday that end up in print. People print things that were never really said everyday. People say things that are not true intentionally and unintentionally. I don't see how anyone seriously thinks this is some mystery that will be solved. This thread is making as much sense to me as the one about a guy writing a book about Brian's druggie years that he is offering up for free on this message board in an attempt to get it published.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on February 01, 2016, 12:23:52 PM
We are the society for putting things on top of other things. ;D


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: DonnyL on February 01, 2016, 01:38:47 PM
Let me preface this by saying I have not read this entire thread (got confused trying to follow it), but ...

The way I've always understood the transition from Smile to Smiley was that it was natural and seamless. I feel like the "scrapped" bit was an exaggerated media angle.

I think Smiley in many ways WAS Smile, as intended for fall 1967. Looking at contemporary interviews, the group kind of seems to address the two projects interchangeably in some ways, and I think this was a decent way to go with the PR.

The biggest difference during this period was not Smile to Smiley specifically, it was Brian's changes in production methods. I think Smiley was an artifact of that change rather than the reason for it.

All this is to say that rather than some big deal about Smile being cancelled, the approach of the day seems to have been "We're doing it this way instead".

Quite frankly, the whole "lost album" thing was mostly revisionist rock-critic stuff that made for great myth-making (in true Beach Boys style). I personally much prefer Smiley, and the late '60s-early '70s Smile tracks that colored the subsequent albums.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 01, 2016, 07:43:28 PM
Let me preface this by saying I have not read this entire thread (got confused trying to follow it), but ...

The way I've always understood the transition from Smile to Smiley was that it was natural and seamless. I feel like the "scrapped" bit was an exaggerated media angle.

I think Smiley in many ways WAS Smile, as intended for fall 1967. Looking at contemporary interviews, the group kind of seems to address the two projects interchangeably in some ways, and I think this was a decent way to go with the PR.

The biggest difference during this period was not Smile to Smiley specifically, it was Brian's changes in production methods. I think Smiley was an artifact of that change rather than the reason for it.

All this is to say that rather than some big deal about Smile being cancelled, the approach of the day seems to have been "We're doing it this way instead".

Quite frankly, the whole "lost album" thing was mostly revisionist rock-critic stuff that made for great myth-making (in true Beach Boys style). I personally much prefer Smiley, and the late '60s-early '70s Smile tracks that colored the subsequent albums.
I almost agree. A lot of actual work was scrapped though. So whether it's one project or two, along the way a there was a decision to toss out a lot of existing effort and replace it with new stuff.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 01, 2016, 07:48:53 PM
Let me preface this by saying I have not read this entire thread (got confused trying to follow it), but ...

The way I've always understood the transition from Smile to Smiley was that it was natural and seamless. I feel like the "scrapped" bit was an exaggerated media angle.

I think Smiley in many ways WAS Smile, as intended for fall 1967. Looking at contemporary interviews, the group kind of seems to address the two projects interchangeably in some ways, and I think this was a decent way to go with the PR.

The biggest difference during this period was not Smile to Smiley specifically, it was Brian's changes in production methods. I think Smiley was an artifact of that change rather than the reason for it.

All this is to say that rather than some big deal about Smile being cancelled, the approach of the day seems to have been "We're doing it this way instead".

Quite frankly, the whole "lost album" thing was mostly revisionist rock-critic stuff that made for great myth-making (in true Beach Boys style). I personally much prefer Smiley, and the late '60s-early '70s Smile tracks that colored the subsequent albums.

I agree. To me SMiLE started transitioning like in January and sometime between then and April 4 SMiLE stopped and Smiley began.  The first Smiley sessions sound more like the recent SMiLE recordings because that's still how and where he was recording at the time (studios & Wrecking Crew). The later Smiley tracks sound the way they do because that's how and where they were recording at that time (improvised home studio and just themselves).  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 01, 2016, 08:01:29 PM

Cam - The band had all made "affirmative" statements, uniformly, with unbridled enthusiasm, in support of Smile.  Those comments are "their" (the band's) position. 

Why would they comment on a press release that would make their earlier statements about Smile, appear to completely contradict their statements, while on this tour, so close in time? 

Someone else is feeding the press contrary information. 


I think I disagree. Their statements aren't contrary to the scrapped announcement, they are in line with the announcement. The music wasn't ready.

There seems to be a presumption that the announcement has to be premature or false because the Boys didn't react in the way some think they should have.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 01, 2016, 08:53:34 PM
Something happened in those few weeks between when the Beach Boys returned home from Europe, did almost a week of sessions at Western and Sound Recorders on Vegetables that song where they left off in April, then suddenly they were running cables in Brian Wilson's living room and kitchen with rented gear. It was more than a suggestion that they make the record in Brian's house, whatever the "attitude and atmosphere" aspect might have been.

The problem with the month prior to that is the Beach Boys didn't seem to react at all, Brian was doing business as usual like he had been more or less, cutting tracks in the studio with the same people and sounds, everyone operating as if the word that the project had been scrapped had never been published.

So we assume the project they were all talking about as if it were still being worked on and coming out, and were still in fact working on, had in reality already been "scrapped" sometime in April or earlier, or had been "scrapped" based on Derek Taylor's information as he published it, even though the band seemed to be unaware where that info came from, and Brian was still in the same studios with the same people he had been using the whole time, creating similar sounds to the point where *many* have speculated "Love To Say DaDa" was the missing "Air" element of that suite.

Find the logic in that scenario, and consider it's not even a scenario, it's how it played out as far as the timeline we all have available to study.

How do some think they should have reacted? How about any reaction at all to the news their album was dead in the water?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 01, 2016, 08:58:46 PM
This "just in".

Mike has "no idea" who told Taylor Smile was "scrapped". His only "involvement" with Smile was "singing" on it.

Similarly, Bruce has no idea either.

There's one more "avenue of investigation" I'm "exploring".

Film at eleven.

Cool. Note whose name they didn't mention as the source.

"No idea" who told Taylor the album was scrapped, direct from two Beach Boys who were there. I assume having no idea who told Taylor excludes Brian as Taylor's source as well. Assuming too, that at least a trans-Atlantic phone call to Bel Air once they did get word of Taylor's article would have been made to ask something as simple as "what's going on?"...


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on February 01, 2016, 09:09:34 PM
Note whose name they didn't mention as the source.

Like--- everybody in the world?
 

I assume having no idea who told Taylor excludes Brian as Taylor's source as well.

You have made up your mind what has happened and twist your perception of any info to suit what you believe. All that Mike's and Bruce's answers show is that they don't really give a hoot about this issue.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 01, 2016, 09:23:03 PM
Note whose name they didn't mention as the source.

Like--- everybody in the world?
 

I assume having no idea who told Taylor excludes Brian as Taylor's source as well.

You have made up your mind what has happened and twist your perception of any info to suit what you believe. All that Mike's and Bruce's answers show is that they don't really give a hoot about this issue.



But, as it seems on most internet discussions, asking to treat others respectfully is asking too much.

Good advice to follow. Try it.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 01, 2016, 10:28:50 PM
This "just in".

Mike has "no idea" who told Taylor Smile was "scrapped". His only "involvement" with Smile was "singing" on it.

Similarly, Bruce has no idea either.

There's one more "avenue of investigation" I'm "exploring".

Film at eleven.

Cool. Note whose name they didn't mention as the source.

"No idea" who told Taylor the album was scrapped, direct from two Beach Boys who were there. I assume having no idea who told Taylor excludes Brian as Taylor's source as well.

You're making an entirely unwarranted assumption. "No idea" means just that. As Micha rightly points out, certainly doesn't exclude Brian, however much you might want it to

Assuming too, that at least a trans-Atlantic phone call to Bel Air once they did get word of Taylor's article would have been made to ask something as simple as "what's going on?"...[/quote]

Suddenly the air is thick with flying assumptions. Let's stick to what we know: an article published in early May from the band's press officer states Smile is scrapped. Fact. And as far as anyone knows, none of the band ever commented on it, nor did any subsequent interviewer ask them about it. Maybe, as unlikely as it seems, they simply didn't read it. Possibly, someone did read it, thought "Brian's at it again" and promptly forgot about it. Fact, no-one knows, and at this late remove, probably never will. But if you're looking for who may have told Taylor - assuming anyone did and he didn't just pull it out of thin air, and remember, he's got previous in this - there are certain suspects with both the knowledge, the motive and the ability. Did Taylor say "Brian told me..." ? No. But it didn't say it wasn't Brian either.

And yes, this has become the BB equivalent of the vexed theological topic of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?".


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 02, 2016, 12:22:25 AM
This "just in".

Mike has "no idea" who told Taylor Smile was "scrapped". His only "involvement" with Smile was "singing" on it.

Similarly, Bruce has no idea either.

There's one more "avenue of investigation" I'm "exploring".

Film at eleven.

Cool. Note whose name they didn't mention as the source.

"No idea" who told Taylor the album was scrapped, direct from two Beach Boys who were there. I assume having no idea who told Taylor excludes Brian as Taylor's source as well.

You're making an entirely unwarranted assumption. "No idea" means just that. As Micha rightly points out, certainly doesn't exclude Brian, however much you might want it to

Assuming too, that at least a trans-Atlantic phone call to Bel Air once they did get word of Taylor's article would have been made to ask something as simple as "what's going on?"...

Suddenly the air is thick with flying assumptions. Let's stick to what we know: an article published in early May from the band's press officer states Smile is scrapped. Fact. And as far as anyone knows, none of the band ever commented on it, nor did any subsequent interviewer ask them about it. Maybe, as unlikely as it seems, they simply didn't read it. Possibly, someone did read it, thought "Brian's at it again" and promptly forgot about it. Fact, no-one knows, and at this late remove, probably never will. But if you're looking for who may have told Taylor - assuming anyone did and he didn't just pull it out of thin air, and remember, he's got previous in this - there are certain suspects with both the knowledge, the motive and the ability. Did Taylor say "Brian told me..." ? No. But it didn't say it wasn't Brian either.

And yes, this has become the BB equivalent of the vexed theological topic of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?".




When did you lose your passion for researching and peeling back layer after layer to possibly answer a lingering question? Whatever I may wish, hope, or desire to be the answer (and to suggest that is playing down to Micha's level of discourse as of late)...it means nothing in terms of actually finding an answer. Which is precisely what I thought you actually enjoyed about this whole game called the history of The Beach Boys.

If Brian was or wasn't the source, I could care less. I'd like to know how all this came together, and make some sense of it for the sake of the history. If you cannot understand that or choose to level claims instead, that's your burden to carry as a historian who quit the pursuit before finding the answer no one else has found. Go on suppositions instead.

But - Did it not stand out that neither Mike, nor Bruce, had as definitive an answer as some posters in this thread who say if not insist it was Brian Wilson who tipped off Taylor?

Andrew. Base level, common sense and logic. If you found out your fellow band member who had been producing the album you and your band mates have been touting and talking up to the UK press apparently has decided to scrap the album - That album you just announced he was home working on, which you had been working on for months - Do you honestly think not one of them would have tried to confirm with that band member the news as printed in a UK weekly paper?

Or, if they did in fact know as posters like Cam Mott have suggested that Brian scrapped it sometime in March or April (which I don't buy at all but will use just for this example), wouldn't someone along the line have mention that Brian told Taylor? Or that he made it known earlier that the album was not happening?

Seriously, I thought researching an unanswered or lingering question was the whole point, not closing the book based on nothing but assumptions and falling short of a definitive answer when it's this close in the name of shutting down the discussions.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 02, 2016, 12:46:35 AM
It's not anything like close. Precisely two names have been eliminated. I'm pursuing another avenue of possible opportunity. As for the rest, I'll get back to it when I've spare time tomorrow afternoon... but I lost a good slice of my passion for the band in general following the shenanigans of recent months, and that's all I'm saying about that.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Matt Bielewicz on February 02, 2016, 01:03:16 AM
I think all sides of this debate are somewhat futile at this remove (like trying to count angels on a pin, as Andrew says). The word of Mike and Bruce nearly five decades on cannot surely be said to count for much, and I really don't mean that as a slight on them, merely that we all know how fallible the human memory can be even a couple of years later, particularly over contentious periods of history such as SMiLE. The one thing we can safely conclude from the contemporary accounts coming out of the group in Spring 1967 is that the situation was very fluid and prone to changing very fast (hence "all 12 tracks are ready to go" being the PR message one week, and "the album is SCRAPPED" coming out a few days later). It must have been pretty confusing what was going on even if you were in the group during that period. Add to that the fact that most of the group was on tour then and away from what was happening (or not happening) in California. Even if we had on record detailed inteviews from each of the Beach Boys about what was going on during that time, which of course we don't, I'm not sure one could get a completely clear picture of what was happening to SMiLE. Now, nearly half a century later, the quest for such clarity from fragmentary press reports written by third-party PR people and the half-rememberings of septuagenarians 49 years later is surely pretty hopeless?

The memory often cheats... particularly around big, important turning points, even if there's no particular agenda or axe to grind. The author Douglas Adams used to say he came up with the idea for his best-selling book The Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy while lying drunk in a field (on a hitch-hiking tour of Europe) in Innsbruck in 1971, but by the late 80s he was happy to admit that he couldn't actually remember the original inspiration at all. All he could remember was that he had told that story about lying in a field in Innsbruck in interviews so many times, that he felt it must have originally been the truth, but he couldn't be sure. He knew he went hitch-hiking in 1971, and he knew he went to Innsbruck, but he couldn't remember any more detail, just his memory of telling the story so many times.

Now imagine being Mike. You've been asked to pore over the SMiLE album and how it didn't come out so many times by journalists... for 49 years. Could anyone have retained a clear memory of the events, unsullied by the memory of the subsequent disappointing course of events and personal disasters in the Beach Boys' camp?

I would submit (although this is of course speculation like anyone else's) that you would gradually arrive at a version of what happened in your head, and it would be that which you would then trot out when called upon to do so by the press, or whoever. I'm not even saying that version would be wrong or distorted, although I think it could be.

And just for emphasis — I am not bashing Mike here. I think anyone would do the same; I think it's human nature. Hell, I think I HAVE done the same, about various important events in my life. Sometimes, it can be a shock when you compare your version of events to that of someone else you know who lived through the same things...! And of course, this can be particularly so in the case of chaotic fast-changing events where a lot of people had different opinions about what was happening, even back when they were actually happening.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 02, 2016, 03:31:46 AM
It seems to me the mistake being made is an assumption that the announcement was a surprise to any of the Boys.  An assumption from none of them reacting the way it is thought they should to this supposed surprise.  

The May announcement wasn't a surprise to any of them is a reason. They already knew is a reason, as in Brian's witness to KHJ of the Boys' (negative) reaction when he revealed he was junking Surf's Up and other SMiLE songs.

The Boys would know who told them but apparently wouldn't necessarily know who told Taylor. It is Taylor's announcement and he named who his info about Brian's continuing problems with SMiLE came from in his June 3 column and it was from "prolonged talks" with Brian.

Taylor said his April/May info came from prolonged talks with Brian (and it was all about Brian's feelings and quandary) and Brian says he told the Boys he was scrapping the SMiLE songs (and they weren't in favor).  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on February 02, 2016, 05:02:23 AM
Interesting to see how the debate has progressed. A few thoughts, for what they're worth, and out of order:

Quote
It seems to me the mistake being made is an assumption that the announcement was a surprise to any of the Boys.  An assumption from none of them reacting the way it is thought they should to this supposed surprise.  

The May announcement wasn't a surprise to any of them is a reason. They already knew is a reason, as in Brian's witness to KHJ of the Boys' (negative) reaction when he revealed he was junking Surf's Up and other SMiLE songs.

Here's the full quote, often employed in Ancient Times (c. 2002) to support the other side of the argument (ie. the band almost broke up because Brian wanted to put 'those songs' on an album, despite any close reading of the text):

"The song "Surf's Up" that I sang on that documentary never came out on an album, and it was supposed to come out on the SMILE album, and that and a couple of other songs were junked... because... I, don't know why... for some reason, didn't want to put them on the album.  And the group nearly broke up, actually broke up for good after that." [1968]

Back that up with the sessionography issues I've been harping on about a few pages back: Brian could theoretically have gotten the leads recorded for a number of album tracks in early '67 (DYLW, CE, CFTM), but he didn't. For almost a full month (March '67) no recording took place at all, despite the fact the Boys were in town and had recently been willing to go through two month's work of sessions on one individual track (H&V), for a single release that kept being postponed, and then (for three months) cancelled. This all implies - much as I believe the straightforward testimony of VDP that 'certain members' of the band were opposed to the work he and Brian were doing, and that this was instrumental in Brian not completing the record - that the final decision was Brian's, and that other members of the group weren't necessarily aware of this decision initially. And, indeed, were upset by the amount of money and time devoted to a record that would never see the shelves when the decision was made clear to them. The quotes given by both GF from April/May - 'our best isn't ready yet' - and Cam from June and later (ie. Mike not knowing that the album's title had changed; that he was 'just a singer' on the project) are actually in accord when viewed through this prism.

Quote
Let's stick to what we know: an article published in early May from the band's press officer states Smile is scrapped. Fact. And as far as anyone knows, none of the band ever commented on it, nor did any subsequent interviewer ask them about it. Maybe, as unlikely as it seems, they simply didn't read it. Possibly, someone did read it, thought "Brian's at it again" and promptly forgot about it. Fact, no-one knows, and at this late remove, probably never will. But if you're looking for who may have told Taylor - assuming anyone did and he didn't just pull it out of thin air, and remember, he's got previous in this - there are certain suspects with both the knowledge, the motive and the ability. Did Taylor say "Brian told me..." ? No. But it didn't say it wasn't Brian either.

Fact. Or, indeed, facts. Which isn't to say there aren't alternative interpretations of the data, but nothing quoted above is anything other than fact. The prerogative of the debater is to disprove it, using other data. But I probably don't need to point that out.

Quote
I agree. To me SMiLE started transitioning like in January and sometime between then and April 4 SMiLE stopped and Smiley began.  The first Smiley sessions sound more like the recent SMiLE recordings because that's still how and where he was recording at the time (studios & Wrecking Crew). The later Smiley tracks sound the way they do because that's how and where they were recording at that time (improvised home studio and just themselves).  

I agree that January seems like the practical point of transition. Conceptually I'd say mid-to-late December was more likely the moment of abandonment for the original conception, but that might just be me. I'd argue, further, that a large part of the reason general opinion holds the April sessions as still part of 'Smile' proper is because for so long we've had a more musically realised 'Vegetables', etc, that hail from those dates, as opposed to the poor orphaned 'demo' that all data from '66 suggests was at one point considered the definitive article. The TSS box certainly endorses those later 'single release' sessions as being for an authentic 'Smile' version of the song. On what historical basis, outside of convenience, I think remains unclear, if not deliberately so.

But to go back to the OP (OMP):

Quote
- Water (in 1966, at least) was water sounds that the Vosse Posse recorded on their Nagra reels

And to Matt B's response (which I, incidentally, agreed with):

Quote
[/Weeeeeeellll... we don't know that, either. With the other Elements, you've got something, however sketchy... But we don't know ANYTHING at all about Water.

I bought the kindle version of Carlin, recently, as a result of this thread. A great, thoroughly researched read, though some of the Smile stuff did strike me as a little assumptive (it's taken as a matter of course, for instance, that the 'Bicycle Rider' chorus was part of H&V when Van Dyke and Brian first worked on it, and only later was recycled into 'Worms'. All the period evidence suggests the opposite, unless I'm missing something important, which is quite possible.) But it does have this statement from Mike Vosse - not a period recollection, perhaps, but surely worth note in relation to the thread-starting discussion of the Elements:

'The next day he gave me a really nice Nagra tape recorder, a big reel-to-reel job that you could use to record in sync with a motion picture camera, and sent me out to go around town and record water sounds. He explained that part of the new album would be a suite of elements, and so he wanted as many variations of how water can sound as I could come up with. He said, 'Take your time, go to oceans, streams, whatever.' So I did, and it was exhilarating! I'd come by to see him every day, and he'd listen to my tapes and talk about them. I was just fascinated that he would hear things every once in a while and his ears would prick up and he'd go back and listen again. And I had no idea what he was listening for!"

That's a direct connection, made by a key participant, between 'The Elements' and the Fusion-recalled/'Bob Gordon's Real Trip' water recordings, if I'm not mistaken?

To finish up on this note, here's Anderle talking to Paul Williams in 1968:

'We were aware, he made us aware, of what fire was going to be, and what water was going to be; we had some idea of air.'


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 02, 2016, 06:22:53 AM
This "just in".

Mike has "no idea" who told Taylor Smile was "scrapped". His only "involvement" with Smile was "singing" on it.

Similarly, Bruce has no idea either.

There's one more "avenue of investigation" I'm "exploring".

Film at eleven.

Cool. Note whose name they didn't mention as the source.

"No idea" who told Taylor the album was scrapped, direct from two Beach Boys who were there. I assume having no idea who told Taylor excludes Brian as Taylor's source as well.

You're making an entirely unwarranted assumption. "No idea" means just that. As Micha rightly points out, certainly doesn't exclude Brian, however much you might want it to

Assuming too, that at least a trans-Atlantic phone call to Bel Air once they did get word of Taylor's article would have been made to ask something as simple as "what's going on?"...

Suddenly the air is thick with flying assumptions. Let's stick to what we know: an article published in early May from the band's press officer states Smile is scrapped. Fact. And as far as anyone knows, none of the band ever commented on it, nor did any subsequent interviewer ask them about it. Maybe, as unlikely as it seems, they simply didn't read it. Possibly, someone did read it, thought "Brian's at it again" and promptly forgot about it. Fact, no-one knows, and at this late remove, probably never will. But if you're looking for who may have told Taylor - assuming anyone did and he didn't just pull it out of thin air, and remember, he's got previous in this - there are certain suspects with both the knowledge, the motive and the ability. Did Taylor say "Brian told me..." ? No. But it didn't say it wasn't Brian either.

And yes, this has become the BB equivalent of the vexed theological topic of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?".

˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜

GF - Andrew's arithmetic is worse than mine.  There are four (two who cannot respond - Dennis and Carl.)  

Sticking to some "facts" (I am using that very word very loosely and without confidence) there are not one, but two PR people involved; Taylor and Easterby.  

Conduct of the parties is key, here, because we don't have reliable words upon which to rely.  I looked at a couple of SMiLE (2011) Sessions videos earlier - the black and white sessions on YouTube, for promos.  I looked for facial expressions when singing, Carl, working with Brian at the piano, and the general level of enthusiasm which appears high.  

1 - And, I looked at them for evidence of attitude towards the project, with the filter of "Do these guys like or love" what they are doing?  

2-  Do they look as they are just "going through the motions?"

3 - Are they blowing off the reporters with regard the release of Smile, because they have something to hide (actual knowledge of the scrapped project?)
     If they had something to hide or keep quiet, there would not be positive enthusiasm for the project and release.  Are their responses measured and scripted?  I think not. They
     appear to have the same unified position expressed in their own styles and perspectives.

This is reminding me of that old Venn diagram, with two circles with the entire band in the center, with factions on either side. They seem to have a "constant" in the center,  meaning they are still going forward with this project, and there are other forces who are changing the status quo from outside the inner circle.  

Singing on this work is hardly passive participation.  It it the match for the vision Brian had as he wrote for those voices.  

Andrew #432 - "The interviews very strongly suggest that the band were in the dark regarding Taylor's 6th statement.  Far from not commenting, they were actively promoting the album they thought was still forthcoming."

Actions that indicate they are all on the same page.  This is consistent.

Andrew - #456 - "But if you are looking for who may have told Taylor - assuming anyone did and he didn't just pull it out of thin air, and remember he's got previous (I don't know what that means) in this - there are certain suspects with both the knowledge, the motive and the ability."

Key words Andrew used here are "knowledge, motive and ability."  

But would Easterly be working under Taylor's name or credentials, for purposes of this tour?

This has nothing whatever to do with logic or theories. Someone had the power and desire to pull the plug.  And if we look to those interviews and videos, for the position of the band, their attitude going forward, to release this album appears to be consistently positive.  Why would they chuck months of labor on their first Brother album?    

JMHO  ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Jim V. on February 02, 2016, 06:55:28 AM
This "just in".

Mike has "no idea" who told Taylor Smile was "scrapped". His only "involvement" with Smile was "singing" on it.

Similarly, Bruce has no idea either.

There's one more "avenue of investigation" I'm "exploring".

Film at eleven.

No "way" Andrew? Be sure to "alert" us to the "findings" of your "investigation."

However, I do find the need to "question" what this "film at eleven" is.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 02, 2016, 07:01:41 AM
This "just in".

Mike has "no idea" who told Taylor Smile was "scrapped". His only "involvement" with Smile was "singing" on it.

Similarly, Bruce has no idea either.

There's one more "avenue of investigation" I'm "exploring".

Film at eleven.

No "way" Andrew? Be sure to "alert" us to the "findings" of your "investigation."

However, I do find the need to "question" what this "film at eleven" is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_at_11

Hope that link works, dear.   :lol


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Paul J B on February 02, 2016, 07:06:52 AM
I think all sides of this debate are somewhat futile at this remove (like trying to count angels on a pin, as Andrew says). The word of Mike and Bruce nearly five decades on cannot surely be said to count for much, and I really don't mean that as a slight on them, merely that we all know how fallible the human memory can be even a couple of years later, particularly over contentious periods of history such as SMiLE. The one thing we can safely conclude from the contemporary accounts coming out of the group in Spring 1967 is that the situation was very fluid and prone to changing very fast (hence "all 12 tracks are ready to go" being the PR message one week, and "the album is SCRAPPED" coming out a few days later). It must have been pretty confusing what was going on even if you were in the group during that period. Add to that the fact that most of the group was on tour then and away from what was happening (or not happening) in California. Even if we had on record detailed inteviews from each of the Beach Boys about what was going on during that time, which of course we don't, I'm not sure one could get a completely clear picture of what was happening to SMiLE. Now, nearly half a century later, the quest for such clarity from fragmentary press reports written by third-party PR people and the half-rememberings of septuagenarians 49 years later is surely pretty hopeless?

Very well said. I tried to convey this yesterday but you did a much better job.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 02, 2016, 07:27:56 AM
I think all sides of this debate are somewhat futile at this remove (like trying to count angels on a pin, as Andrew says). The word of Mike and Bruce nearly five decades on cannot surely be said to count for much, and I really don't mean that as a slight on them, merely that we all know how fallible the human memory can be even a couple of years later, particularly over contentious periods of history such as SMiLE. The one thing we can safely conclude from the contemporary accounts coming out of the group in Spring 1967 is that the situation was very fluid and prone to changing very fast (hence "all 12 tracks are ready to go" being the PR message one week, and "the album is SCRAPPED" coming out a few days later). It must have been pretty confusing what was going on even if you were in the group during that period. Add to that the fact that most of the group was on tour then and away from what was happening (or not happening) in California. Even if we had on record detailed inteviews from each of the Beach Boys about what was going on during that time, which of course we don't, I'm not sure one could get a completely clear picture of what was happening to SMiLE. Now, nearly half a century later, the quest for such clarity from fragmentary press reports written by third-party PR people and the half-rememberings of septuagenarians 49 years later is surely pretty hopeless?

Very well said. I tried to convey this yesterday but you did a much better job.

When I read that, I found it kind of shocking.  They are not senile.  They have amazing memories of events that took place in that era.  Prague Spring. 

That was such an unusual era, and set of events with Carl being arrested, released, Inside Pop, etc., that it seems very unlikely that they would not remember such an event as the scrapping of their first Brother album.   


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on February 02, 2016, 07:53:42 AM
Brian had previously "scrapped" Good Vibrations and thought about offering it to an R&B group - and reversed himself.  Brian was set on Heroes as the next single - then it was on hold for a few records and Vegetables was the single - then he scrapped that version of Vegetables and completed the Heroes single.

The point is the Beach Boys knew Brian's mood swings and indecision concerning the music he was making.  If they read the article about Smile being scrapped, I don't think they would comment on it because they knew that could be temporary and Brian could change his mind, again.  The weird thing to me is why, after the publication of the article in the UK and they continuing to tour there, why some journalist wouldn't have asked them about the scrapped pronouncement.  Were the journalists also unaware of this brief paragraph in the article about the tour?  And if they were unaware, it's not a stretch to think the Boys never saw it either.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Paul J B on February 02, 2016, 08:10:27 AM
I think all sides of this debate are somewhat futile at this remove (like trying to count angels on a pin, as Andrew says). The word of Mike and Bruce nearly five decades on cannot surely be said to count for much, and I really don't mean that as a slight on them, merely that we all know how fallible the human memory can be even a couple of years later, particularly over contentious periods of history such as SMiLE. The one thing we can safely conclude from the contemporary accounts coming out of the group in Spring 1967 is that the situation was very fluid and prone to changing very fast (hence "all 12 tracks are ready to go" being the PR message one week, and "the album is SCRAPPED" coming out a few days later). It must have been pretty confusing what was going on even if you were in the group during that period. Add to that the fact that most of the group was on tour then and away from what was happening (or not happening) in California. Even if we had on record detailed inteviews from each of the Beach Boys about what was going on during that time, which of course we don't, I'm not sure one could get a completely clear picture of what was happening to SMiLE. Now, nearly half a century later, the quest for such clarity from fragmentary press reports written by third-party PR people and the half-rememberings of septuagenarians 49 years later is surely pretty hopeless?

Very well said. I tried to convey this yesterday but you did a much better job.

When I read that, I found it kind of shocking.  They are not senile.  They have amazing memories of events that took place in that era.  Prague Spring. 

That was such an unusual era, and set of events with Carl being arrested, released, Inside Pop, etc., that it seems very unlikely that they would not remember such an event as the scrapping of their first Brother album.   


I totally disagree. You folks are trying to get to the bottom of a who said what to some guy 50 years ago. Good luck with that! It has nothing to do with being senile. I'm no celebrity or rock star nor would I ever want to be....the whirlwind insane lifestyle those people live is hard to imagine. Why do you think the vast majority DO end up using drugs? Go Go Go, sign this sign that, talk to this guy talk to that guy....they are NOT going to remember most of what they said to someone last year let alone 50 years back. You are just plain wrong on this.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 02, 2016, 08:53:36 AM
I think all sides of this debate are somewhat futile at this remove (like trying to count angels on a pin, as Andrew says). The word of Mike and Bruce nearly five decades on cannot surely be said to count for much, and I really don't mean that as a slight on them, merely that we all know how fallible the human memory can be even a couple of years later, particularly over contentious periods of history such as SMiLE. The one thing we can safely conclude from the contemporary accounts coming out of the group in Spring 1967 is that the situation was very fluid and prone to changing very fast (hence "all 12 tracks are ready to go" being the PR message one week, and "the album is SCRAPPED" coming out a few days later). It must have been pretty confusing what was going on even if you were in the group during that period. Add to that the fact that most of the group was on tour then and away from what was happening (or not happening) in California. Even if we had on record detailed inteviews from each of the Beach Boys about what was going on during that time, which of course we don't, I'm not sure one could get a completely clear picture of what was happening to SMiLE. Now, nearly half a century later, the quest for such clarity from fragmentary press reports written by third-party PR people and the half-rememberings of septuagenarians 49 years later is surely pretty hopeless?

Very well said. I tried to convey this yesterday but you did a much better job.

When I read that, I found it kind of shocking.  They are not senile.  They have amazing memories of events that took place in that era.  Prague Spring. 

That was such an unusual era, and set of events with Carl being arrested, released, Inside Pop, etc., that it seems very unlikely that they would not remember such an event as the scrapping of their first Brother album.   


I totally disagree. You folks are trying to get to the bottom of a who said what to some guy 50 years ago. Good luck with that! It has nothing to do with being senile. I'm no celebrity or rock star nor would I ever want to be....the whirlwind insane lifestyle those people live is hard to imagine. Why do you think the vast majority DO end up using drugs? Go Go Go, sign this sign that, talk to this guy talk to that guy....they are NOT going to remember most of what they said to someone last year let alone 50 years back. You are just plain wrong on this.
Paul JB - that is exactly the opposite.  This whole myth of the destruction or scrapping of Smile was propaganda dropped in the laps of the band.  For me (and I am only speaking for myself) something never fit right with it. It didn't make any sense to have this enormous build-up with Inside Pop, and drop Smile all at the same time. 

After some robust debate (some contentious, but very productive) and digging, for inconsistencies in stories or articles, with no really negative and counter productive talk about drugs, and just the music, we know a lot more from exchanging on this forum. 

We know, now, there was more than one publicist was involved.  We know that the tour was a TIKH tour.  We know that the public statements about the tour by the band including Brian, Mike and Bruce were negative and that the public statements from all the band were uniformly positive.  We know what they said in Paris (Gaumont.)  We know what Dennis said to Peter Fornatale.  We know how happy they look during the recording of Smile.  It does not square in any credible manner (for me) with the nonsense that was advanced by their PR people.

So, I am thinking (just for myself) that there is real progress debunking this blame-game, that was spread to perhaps every member of the band, where they were blameless.  The stories out there are inconsistent and don't pass the smell-test.  (Mine, anyway) JMHO  ;)     


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 02, 2016, 09:04:41 AM

Back that up with the sessionography issues I've been harping on about a few pages back: Brian could theoretically have gotten the leads recorded for a number of album tracks in early '67 (DYLW, CE, CFTM), but he didn't. For almost a full month (March '67) no recording took place at all, despite the fact the Boys were in town and had recently been willing to go through two month's work of sessions on one individual track (H&V), for a single release that kept being postponed, and then (for three months) cancelled. This all implies - much as I believe the straightforward testimony of VDP that 'certain members' of the band were opposed to the work he and Brian were doing, and that this was instrumental in Brian not completing the record - that the final decision was Brian's, and that other members of the group weren't necessarily aware of this decision initially. And, indeed, were upset by the amount of money and time devoted to a record that would never see the shelves when the decision was made clear to them. The quotes given by both GF from April/May - 'our best isn't ready yet' - and Cam from June and later (ie. Mike not knowing that the album's title had changed; that he was 'just a singer' on the project) are actually in accord when viewed through this prism.


The issue of "no recording took place at all" for almost a full month was addressed a few pages ago.

For all of this, you cannot ignore the lawsuit and its implications over the recording process. If the band went public after filing a lawsuit which also included the notion of wanting to break their contract with Capitol, another article already published how the lawsuit was holding up any new releases. And it was suggested too that the Heroes single at this time may have been used as a bargaining chip in the negotiations, as well as the decision to have Vegetables as a single and drop hints in the press.

A lawsuit against a label such as this might also impact the budgeting and funding of the sessions.

Question, more in theory: Would a label continue funding recording sessions for a band in the weeks after that band announced they were suing the label and wanted to get out of their contract?

Question, more in fact: Who paid for the April sessions such as Vegetables? Did Capitol pay for that studio time or did the band pay the studio bills and book the sessions without Capitol? Is there documentation to answer that question specific to the Vegetables sessions in April?


And such definitive statements are being made when there are potentially articles from May 67 that have not been entered into the discussion as of yet, which may (or may not) shed more light on what the band was saying in light of the announcement, or saying about an album or single release in general.

I don't understand the rush to close all the books and move on when there are still potentially articles or interviews direct from May 67 which have not been considered up to this point, like those Ian Rusten mentioned a few days ago. *Why* is there a rush to shut this down or make a definitive factual statement when all the available evidence has still not been presented or made available for more people to see and read? That's upsetting in a way. Again, why is this the case here?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 02, 2016, 09:31:31 AM

We know, now, there was more than one publicist was involved.  We know that the tour was a TIKH tour.  We know that the public statements about the tour by the band including Brian, Mike and Bruce were negative and that the public statements from all the band were uniformly positive.  We know what they said in Paris (Gaumont.)  We know what Dennis said to Peter Fornatale.  We know how happy they look during the recording of Smile.  It does not square in any credible manner (for me) with the nonsense that was advanced by their PR people.

So, I am thinking (just for myself) that there is real progress debunking this blame-game, that was spread to perhaps every member of the band, where they were blameless.  The stories out there are inconsistent and don't pass the smell-test.  (Mine, anyway) JMHO  ;)      

Regarding the footage: firstly, the footage of the Boys was surely staged. They knew the cameras were rolling. Of course they were gonna put on smiles. Just like a photo session. Doesn't mean they never smiled during the album, but it proves zilch about the general frame of mind. I bet there were no smiles when Mike confronted Van about Cabinessence lyrics... unless you might count nervous smiles ("smiles" that I've seen both Mike and Brian make over the years) as actual "happy" smiles?

Secondly, I believe the footage in question you are referring to is Good Vibrations, right? This is a song where Mike already (presumably) had songwriting input at the time this was filmed, so right off the bat, he (just for one) was likely going to be happier working on that tune, more so than tunes that were EVEN MORE “out there”. Not that GV wasn’t “out there” too, but there were much more extreme examples of “out there”  songs on that project that would have probably led to irksome facial expressions at the very least.

Bottom line: it’s preposterous IMO to judge that video as some sort of barometer for the final story of how Brian’s bandmates were or weren’t giving him bad vibes. Ditto for session tapes. Those are but a glimpse of the interactions the guys had together at the time.

How about you address the possibility of microagressions?  I politely ask you to not ignore this request. Microagressions are not negligible, and I don’t know why a small contingent of people illogically insist it’s impossible that they could have repeatedly been unloaded on Brian in all sorts of small ways that could have built up over the course of the project.

I’m not saying that’s the entire reason it was scrapped either – however, cumulative bandmate microagressions aimed at Brian about the SMiLE project are just not something that can be written off as absolutely not in any way, shape or form relevant to his frame of mind at the time.  That makes no sense. A project that took an eternity to work on (and never got completed) involving all sorts of weird stuff, animal noises, non-commercial songs, etc. was of COURSE gonna make some bandmates pissed and non-supportive AT SOME POINTS ALONG THE WAY. People don't hold emotions like that in 100%; those emotions were gonna leak out. They were and are human, and in the case of at least one band member, not necessarily the likely recipient of the 1966 Tact Award®.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: mike moseley on February 02, 2016, 09:35:03 AM
you can never get to the bottom of it

you're talking about a dude who kept changing his mind  + normal human miscommunication


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 02, 2016, 09:44:27 AM
CD and GF are ruling thread with logic/truth!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 02, 2016, 09:54:12 AM
CD and GF are ruling thread with logic/truth!

Thanks, SMiLE Brian. One thing you will NEVER find certain posters actually addressing with a 10-foot pole is how it’s completely illogical to state that bandmate microagressions absolutely, unequivocally didn’t happen WHATSOEVER, and/or if they did happen, they had ZERO effect on Brian’s state of mind.  (*Everyone* knows this extremist ideology is bogus, but some don't want to admit it because it hurts their all-important "cause").  What a laugh to either support this theory directly, or indirectly by ducking the question.

No, those posters will deflect, avoid, or just completely opt out of actually addressing this.  The term chickensh*t comes to mind.

Despite his amazing strength, Brian has proven he can be a very sensitive guy, and is not 100% immune to bandmate microagressions like that. Especially intermingled with familial microagressions.

Hell, who would be immune? Not many people.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 02, 2016, 09:54:19 AM

We know, now, there was more than one publicist was involved.  We know that the tour was a TIKH tour.  We know that the public statements about the tour by the band including Brian, Mike and Bruce were negative and that the public statements from all the band were uniformly positive.  We know what they said in Paris (Gaumont.)  We know what Dennis said to Peter Fornatale.  We know how happy they look during the recording of Smile.  It does not square in any credible manner (for me) with the nonsense that was advanced by their PR people.

So, I am thinking (just for myself) that there is real progress debunking this blame-game, that was spread to perhaps every member of the band, where they were blameless.  The stories out there are inconsistent and don't pass the smell-test.  (Mine, anyway) JMHO  ;)      

Regarding the footage: firstly, the footage of the Boys was surely staged. They knew the cameras were rolling. Of course they were gonna put on smiles. Just like a photo session. Doesn't mean they never smiled during the album, but it proves zilch about the general frame of mind. I bet there were no smiles when Mike confronted Van about Cabinessence lyrics... unless you might count nervous smiles ("smiles" that I've seen both Mike and Brian make over the years) as actual "happy" smiles?

Secondly, I believe the footage in question you are referring to is Good Vibrations, right? This is a song where Mike already (presumably) had songwriting input at the time this was filmed, so right off the bat, he (just for one) was likely going to be happier working on that tune, more so than tunes that were more “out there”. Not that GV wasn’t “out there” too, but there were much more extreme examples of “out there”  songs on that project that would have probably led to irksome facial expressions.

Bottom line: it’s preposterous IMO to judge that video as some sort of barometer for the final story of how Brian’s bandmates were or weren’t giving him bad vibes. Ditto for session tapes. Those are but a glimpse of the interactions the guys had together at the time.

How about you address the possibility of microagressions? They are not negligible, and I don’t know why a small contingent of people illogically insist it’s impossible that they could have repeatedly been unloaded on Brian in all sorts of small ways that could have built up over the course of the project. I’m not saying that’s the entire reason it was scrapped either – however, cumulative bandmate microagressions aimed at Brian about the SMiLE project is just not something that can be written off as absolutely not in any way, shape or form relevant to his frame of mind at the time.  

CD - the videos I looked at today were from the SMiLE box set video promos - and didn't look like the "we are on TV" stuff but more candid and not posed for.  Don't have time now but will look later or tomorrow.  They did not look like GV.  Some of these, I had not seen.

The whole lawsuit thing, I can't speculate about because I have not seen the docs.  

This concept of micro-aggressions, or value judgments, goes into what we tried ( I did) to stay away from and that is the internal stuff to which we were not privy.  I don't know of organizations where people agree on everything.  And, I won't be relying on a teen magazine, either one I would have bought at age of 11 or one that the record company advanced.  The news accounts and press releases are inconsistent.  

This band was working for each other.  By that I mean that Brian was working at home, composing, and the band was working in the field, performing.  If they had a crappy performance, he would have (or perhaps should have had ) every right to work with them on rehearsals.   From what I have seen during C50, Brian was still very much in charge of how they sounded on tour.  By the same token the members would have a say on some aspects of the music.  They were vested in the same company.    


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 02, 2016, 10:12:09 AM

We know, now, there was more than one publicist was involved.  We know that the tour was a TIKH tour.  We know that the public statements about the tour by the band including Brian, Mike and Bruce were negative and that the public statements from all the band were uniformly positive.  We know what they said in Paris (Gaumont.)  We know what Dennis said to Peter Fornatale.  We know how happy they look during the recording of Smile.  It does not square in any credible manner (for me) with the nonsense that was advanced by their PR people.

So, I am thinking (just for myself) that there is real progress debunking this blame-game, that was spread to perhaps every member of the band, where they were blameless.  The stories out there are inconsistent and don't pass the smell-test.  (Mine, anyway) JMHO  ;)      

Regarding the footage: firstly, the footage of the Boys was surely staged. They knew the cameras were rolling. Of course they were gonna put on smiles. Just like a photo session. Doesn't mean they never smiled during the album, but it proves zilch about the general frame of mind. I bet there were no smiles when Mike confronted Van about Cabinessence lyrics... unless you might count nervous smiles ("smiles" that I've seen both Mike and Brian make over the years) as actual "happy" smiles?

Secondly, I believe the footage in question you are referring to is Good Vibrations, right? This is a song where Mike already (presumably) had songwriting input at the time this was filmed, so right off the bat, he (just for one) was likely going to be happier working on that tune, more so than tunes that were more “out there”. Not that GV wasn’t “out there” too, but there were much more extreme examples of “out there”  songs on that project that would have probably led to irksome facial expressions.

Bottom line: it’s preposterous IMO to judge that video as some sort of barometer for the final story of how Brian’s bandmates were or weren’t giving him bad vibes. Ditto for session tapes. Those are but a glimpse of the interactions the guys had together at the time.

How about you address the possibility of microagressions? They are not negligible, and I don’t know why a small contingent of people illogically insist it’s impossible that they could have repeatedly been unloaded on Brian in all sorts of small ways that could have built up over the course of the project. I’m not saying that’s the entire reason it was scrapped either – however, cumulative bandmate microagressions aimed at Brian about the SMiLE project is just not something that can be written off as absolutely not in any way, shape or form relevant to his frame of mind at the time.  

CD - the videos I looked at today were from the SMiLE box set video promos - and didn't look like the "we are on TV" stuff but more candid and not posed for.  Don't have time now but will look later or tomorrow.  They did not look like GV.  Some of these, I had not seen.

The whole lawsuit thing, I can't speculate about because I have not seen the docs.  

This concept of micro-aggressions, or value judgments, goes into what we tried ( I did) to stay away from and that is the internal stuff to which we were not privy.  I don't know of organizations where people agree on everything.  And, I won't be relying on a teen magazine, either one I would have bought at age of 11 or one that the record company advanced.  The news accounts and press releases are inconsistent.  

This band was working for each other.  By that I mean that Brian was working at home, composing, and the band was working in the field, performing.  If they had a crappy performance, he would have (or perhaps should have had ) every right to work with them on rehearsals.   From what I have seen during C50, Brian was still very much in charge of how they sounded on tour.  By the same token the members would have a say on some aspects of the music.  They were vested in the same company.    

While we indeed aren't privy to the internal stuff... do you honestly think it's logical to state that bandmate microagressions absolutely, unequivocally didn’t happen WHATSOEVER, and/or if they did happen, they had ZERO effect on Brian’s state of mind?

Wouldn't you say that they probably occurred, and they probably (along with all sorts of unrelated SMiLE-killing things, like technology) made a smidgen of impact on him? In all likelihood? Or is it gonna be a cop out that "we can't know". We're talking about logic here, and what is the MORE logical choice of the two (that they likely did occur and made at least a tiny bit of impact, or that they never ever occurred nor made any impact W H A T S O E V E R).
 
Please don't duck the question! You can choose logic! It is possible! Choosing logic doesn't mean you are passing judgment on anyone either.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 02, 2016, 10:15:29 AM
She is using the same method of denial Mike Love uses when hiding from the truth of being a microagressor.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 02, 2016, 10:26:38 AM

We know, now, there was more than one publicist was involved.  We know that the tour was a TIKH tour.  We know that the public statements about the tour by the band including Brian, Mike and Bruce were negative and that the public statements from all the band were uniformly positive.  We know what they said in Paris (Gaumont.)  We know what Dennis said to Peter Fornatale.  We know how happy they look during the recording of Smile.  It does not square in any credible manner (for me) with the nonsense that was advanced by their PR people.

So, I am thinking (just for myself) that there is real progress debunking this blame-game, that was spread to perhaps every member of the band, where they were blameless.  The stories out there are inconsistent and don't pass the smell-test.  (Mine, anyway) JMHO  ;)      

Regarding the footage: firstly, the footage of the Boys was surely staged. They knew the cameras were rolling. Of course they were gonna put on smiles. Just like a photo session. Doesn't mean they never smiled during the album, but it proves zilch about the general frame of mind. I bet there were no smiles when Mike confronted Van about Cabinessence lyrics... unless you might count nervous smiles ("smiles" that I've seen both Mike and Brian make over the years) as actual "happy" smiles?

Secondly, I believe the footage in question you are referring to is Good Vibrations, right? This is a song where Mike already (presumably) had songwriting input at the time this was filmed, so right off the bat, he (just for one) was likely going to be happier working on that tune, more so than tunes that were more “out there”. Not that GV wasn’t “out there” too, but there were much more extreme examples of “out there”  songs on that project that would have probably led to irksome facial expressions.

Bottom line: it’s preposterous IMO to judge that video as some sort of barometer for the final story of how Brian’s bandmates were or weren’t giving him bad vibes. Ditto for session tapes. Those are but a glimpse of the interactions the guys had together at the time.

How about you address the possibility of microagressions? They are not negligible, and I don’t know why a small contingent of people illogically insist it’s impossible that they could have repeatedly been unloaded on Brian in all sorts of small ways that could have built up over the course of the project. I’m not saying that’s the entire reason it was scrapped either – however, cumulative bandmate microagressions aimed at Brian about the SMiLE project is just not something that can be written off as absolutely not in any way, shape or form relevant to his frame of mind at the time.  

CD - the videos I looked at today were from the SMiLE box set video promos - and didn't look like the "we are on TV" stuff but more candid and not posed for.  Don't have time now but will look later or tomorrow.  They did not look like GV.  Some of these, I had not seen.

The whole lawsuit thing, I can't speculate about because I have not seen the docs.  

This concept of micro-aggressions, or value judgments, goes into what we tried ( I did) to stay away from and that is the internal stuff to which we were not privy.  I don't know of organizations where people agree on everything.  And, I won't be relying on a teen magazine, either one I would have bought at age of 11 or one that the record company advanced.  The news accounts and press releases are inconsistent.  

This band was working for each other.  By that I mean that Brian was working at home, composing, and the band was working in the field, performing.  If they had a crappy performance, he would have (or perhaps should have had ) every right to work with them on rehearsals.   From what I have seen during C50, Brian was still very much in charge of how they sounded on tour.  By the same token the members would have a say on some aspects of the music.  They were vested in the same company.    

While we indeed aren't privy to the internal stuff... do you honestly think it's logical to state that bandmate microagressions absolutely, unequivocally didn’t happen WHATSOEVER, and/or if they did happen, they had ZERO effect on Brian’s state of mind?

Wouldn't you say that they probably occurred, and they probably (along with all sorts of unrelated SMiLE-killing things, like technology) made a smidgen of impact on him? In all likelihood? Or is it gonna be a cop out that "we can't know". We're talking about logic here, and what is the MORE logical choice of the two (that they likely did occur and had at least a tiny bit of impact, or that they never ever occurred nor had any impact whatsoever). Please don't duck the question! You can choose logic! It is possible! Choosing logic doesn't mean you are passing judgment on anyone either.
CD  - family-based companies, face particular challenges. 

They have huge benefits because no one will will put in that extra time the way you will do for a family member.  It is more likely that you will stay together, and more likely that this band stayed together longer than the Beatles because they are family. 

The challenge is to separate those other factors out.  Ignore them, until you are finished with the job. 

Look at Dennis for example.  Did anyone take him seriously at first, when he started recording?  It took a while to accept that the oldest was not in that role, on that day.  It was the middle child who had to go get his r-e-s-p-e-c-t.  Later it was each one of them

When you are doing the job, you become co-workers.  These guy were in a job role.     


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 02, 2016, 10:28:33 AM

We know, now, there was more than one publicist was involved.  We know that the tour was a TIKH tour.  We know that the public statements about the tour by the band including Brian, Mike and Bruce were negative and that the public statements from all the band were uniformly positive.  We know what they said in Paris (Gaumont.)  We know what Dennis said to Peter Fornatale.  We know how happy they look during the recording of Smile.  It does not square in any credible manner (for me) with the nonsense that was advanced by their PR people.

So, I am thinking (just for myself) that there is real progress debunking this blame-game, that was spread to perhaps every member of the band, where they were blameless.  The stories out there are inconsistent and don't pass the smell-test.  (Mine, anyway) JMHO  ;)      

Regarding the footage: firstly, the footage of the Boys was surely staged. They knew the cameras were rolling. Of course they were gonna put on smiles. Just like a photo session. Doesn't mean they never smiled during the album, but it proves zilch about the general frame of mind. I bet there were no smiles when Mike confronted Van about Cabinessence lyrics... unless you might count nervous smiles ("smiles" that I've seen both Mike and Brian make over the years) as actual "happy" smiles?

Secondly, I believe the footage in question you are referring to is Good Vibrations, right? This is a song where Mike already (presumably) had songwriting input at the time this was filmed, so right off the bat, he (just for one) was likely going to be happier working on that tune, more so than tunes that were more “out there”. Not that GV wasn’t “out there” too, but there were much more extreme examples of “out there”  songs on that project that would have probably led to irksome facial expressions.

Bottom line: it’s preposterous IMO to judge that video as some sort of barometer for the final story of how Brian’s bandmates were or weren’t giving him bad vibes. Ditto for session tapes. Those are but a glimpse of the interactions the guys had together at the time.

How about you address the possibility of microagressions? They are not negligible, and I don’t know why a small contingent of people illogically insist it’s impossible that they could have repeatedly been unloaded on Brian in all sorts of small ways that could have built up over the course of the project. I’m not saying that’s the entire reason it was scrapped either – however, cumulative bandmate microagressions aimed at Brian about the SMiLE project is just not something that can be written off as absolutely not in any way, shape or form relevant to his frame of mind at the time.  

CD - the videos I looked at today were from the SMiLE box set video promos - and didn't look like the "we are on TV" stuff but more candid and not posed for.  Don't have time now but will look later or tomorrow.  They did not look like GV.  Some of these, I had not seen.

The whole lawsuit thing, I can't speculate about because I have not seen the docs.  

This concept of micro-aggressions, or value judgments, goes into what we tried ( I did) to stay away from and that is the internal stuff to which we were not privy.  I don't know of organizations where people agree on everything.  And, I won't be relying on a teen magazine, either one I would have bought at age of 11 or one that the record company advanced.  The news accounts and press releases are inconsistent.  

This band was working for each other.  By that I mean that Brian was working at home, composing, and the band was working in the field, performing.  If they had a crappy performance, he would have (or perhaps should have had ) every right to work with them on rehearsals.   From what I have seen during C50, Brian was still very much in charge of how they sounded on tour.  By the same token the members would have a say on some aspects of the music.  They were vested in the same company.    

While we indeed aren't privy to the internal stuff... do you honestly think it's logical to state that bandmate microagressions absolutely, unequivocally didn’t happen WHATSOEVER, and/or if they did happen, they had ZERO effect on Brian’s state of mind?

Wouldn't you say that they probably occurred, and they probably (along with all sorts of unrelated SMiLE-killing things, like technology) made a smidgen of impact on him? In all likelihood? Or is it gonna be a cop out that "we can't know". We're talking about logic here, and what is the MORE logical choice of the two (that they likely did occur and made at least a tiny bit of impact, or that they never ever occurred nor made any impact W H A T S O E V E R).
 
Please don't duck the question! You can choose logic! It is possible! Choosing logic doesn't mean you are passing judgment on anyone either.

CD - I am not ducking the question and I think you are clouding the issue.  I am looking only at work product and why it did not get released.   

Nothing more, nothing less.   ;)  I don't care if they sang Kumbaya.  :lol


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 02, 2016, 10:31:02 AM
She is using the same method of denial Mike Love uses when hiding from the truth of being a microagressor.

Seriously, Smile Brian - that is a distractor from the reason the LP did not get released.

Are you making apologies for Taylor or maybe even Murry, if he was behind this? 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on February 02, 2016, 10:33:23 AM
You don't have to be senile to misremember something after 50 years. Or maybe I am senile because in my less than 50 years of life I have found to have been misremembering numerous times.


The weird thing to me is why, after the publication of the article in the UK and they continuing to tour there, why some journalist wouldn't have asked them about the scrapped pronouncement.  Were the journalists also unaware of this brief paragraph in the article about the tour?  And if they were unaware, it's not a stretch to think the Boys never saw it either.

And if the journalists did see it, did they judge it as earth-shattering as we do?


While we indeed aren't privy to the internal stuff... do you honestly think it's logical to state that bandmate microagressions absolutely, unequivocally didn’t happen WHATSOEVER, and/or if they did happen, they had ZERO effect on Brian’s state of mind?

Very few people do think so, I guess. In the Williams dialogue it was stated there was negative things from all directions, including from the boys.


But, as it seems on most internet discussions, asking to treat others respectfully is asking too much.

Good advice to follow. Try it.

I'm pretty sure I am. Did you perceive my criticism of your mindset as condescending?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 02, 2016, 10:35:30 AM

We know, now, there was more than one publicist was involved.  We know that the tour was a TIKH tour.  We know that the public statements about the tour by the band including Brian, Mike and Bruce were negative and that the public statements from all the band were uniformly positive.  We know what they said in Paris (Gaumont.)  We know what Dennis said to Peter Fornatale.  We know how happy they look during the recording of Smile.  It does not square in any credible manner (for me) with the nonsense that was advanced by their PR people.

So, I am thinking (just for myself) that there is real progress debunking this blame-game, that was spread to perhaps every member of the band, where they were blameless.  The stories out there are inconsistent and don't pass the smell-test.  (Mine, anyway) JMHO  ;)      

Regarding the footage: firstly, the footage of the Boys was surely staged. They knew the cameras were rolling. Of course they were gonna put on smiles. Just like a photo session. Doesn't mean they never smiled during the album, but it proves zilch about the general frame of mind. I bet there were no smiles when Mike confronted Van about Cabinessence lyrics... unless you might count nervous smiles ("smiles" that I've seen both Mike and Brian make over the years) as actual "happy" smiles?

Secondly, I believe the footage in question you are referring to is Good Vibrations, right? This is a song where Mike already (presumably) had songwriting input at the time this was filmed, so right off the bat, he (just for one) was likely going to be happier working on that tune, more so than tunes that were more “out there”. Not that GV wasn’t “out there” too, but there were much more extreme examples of “out there”  songs on that project that would have probably led to irksome facial expressions.

Bottom line: it’s preposterous IMO to judge that video as some sort of barometer for the final story of how Brian’s bandmates were or weren’t giving him bad vibes. Ditto for session tapes. Those are but a glimpse of the interactions the guys had together at the time.

How about you address the possibility of microagressions? They are not negligible, and I don’t know why a small contingent of people illogically insist it’s impossible that they could have repeatedly been unloaded on Brian in all sorts of small ways that could have built up over the course of the project. I’m not saying that’s the entire reason it was scrapped either – however, cumulative bandmate microagressions aimed at Brian about the SMiLE project is just not something that can be written off as absolutely not in any way, shape or form relevant to his frame of mind at the time.  

CD - the videos I looked at today were from the SMiLE box set video promos - and didn't look like the "we are on TV" stuff but more candid and not posed for.  Don't have time now but will look later or tomorrow.  They did not look like GV.  Some of these, I had not seen.

The whole lawsuit thing, I can't speculate about because I have not seen the docs.  

This concept of micro-aggressions, or value judgments, goes into what we tried ( I did) to stay away from and that is the internal stuff to which we were not privy.  I don't know of organizations where people agree on everything.  And, I won't be relying on a teen magazine, either one I would have bought at age of 11 or one that the record company advanced.  The news accounts and press releases are inconsistent.  

This band was working for each other.  By that I mean that Brian was working at home, composing, and the band was working in the field, performing.  If they had a crappy performance, he would have (or perhaps should have had ) every right to work with them on rehearsals.   From what I have seen during C50, Brian was still very much in charge of how they sounded on tour.  By the same token the members would have a say on some aspects of the music.  They were vested in the same company.    

While we indeed aren't privy to the internal stuff... do you honestly think it's logical to state that bandmate microagressions absolutely, unequivocally didn’t happen WHATSOEVER, and/or if they did happen, they had ZERO effect on Brian’s state of mind?

Wouldn't you say that they probably occurred, and they probably (along with all sorts of unrelated SMiLE-killing things, like technology) made a smidgen of impact on him? In all likelihood? Or is it gonna be a cop out that "we can't know". We're talking about logic here, and what is the MORE logical choice of the two (that they likely did occur and made at least a tiny bit of impact, or that they never ever occurred nor made any impact W H A T S O E V E R).
 
Please don't duck the question! You can choose logic! It is possible! Choosing logic doesn't mean you are passing judgment on anyone either.

CD - I am not ducking the question and I think you are clouding the issue.  I am looking only at work product and why it did not get released.    

Nothing more, nothing less.   ;)  I don't care if they sang Kumbaya.  :lol

So... to recap:

I asked you, OF THE TWO, either that

a) bandmate microagressions (however justified they may have been) in all likelihood actually occurred (with Brian being the recipient), and that these microagressions maybe... just MAYBE... had even the smallest bit of impact on Brian's state of mind... or

b) that surely none of the above bandmate microagressions ever happened, nor could they possibly have had an iota of impact on Brian in the unlikely event that they actually occured.

You refuse to answer which is the most likely scenario OF THE TWO, yet state that you are "not ducking the question".  

Amazing. I'd like to know what WOULD constitute "ducking the question".


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 02, 2016, 10:37:26 AM
Something happened in those few weeks between when the Beach Boys returned home from Europe, did almost a week of sessions at Western and Sound Recorders on Vegetables that song where they left off in April, then suddenly they were running cables in Brian Wilson's living room and kitchen with rented gear. It was more than a suggestion that they make the record in Brian's house, whatever the "attitude and atmosphere" aspect might have been.

The problem with the month prior to that is the Beach Boys didn't seem to react at all, Brian was doing business as usual like he had been more or less, cutting tracks in the studio with the same people and sounds, everyone operating as if the word that the project had been scrapped had never been published.

So we assume the project they were all talking about as if it were still being worked on and coming out, and were still in fact working on, had in reality already been "scrapped" sometime in April or earlier, or had been "scrapped" based on Derek Taylor's information as he published it, even though the band seemed to be unaware where that info came from, and Brian was still in the same studios with the same people he had been using the whole time, creating similar sounds to the point where *many* have speculated "Love To Say DaDa" was the missing "Air" element of that suite.

Find the logic in that scenario, and consider it's not even a scenario, it's how it played out as far as the timeline we all have available to study.

How do some think they should have reacted? How about any reaction at all to the news their album was dead in the water?
I think it makes sense (though it's too gray for certainty) that when the touring band got home they pressed forward with their intention to change the paradigm. I also think it made sense that they thought "nothing's changed; still working on the album" was a better PR message than "scrapped" and really, as DonnyL's comment illustrates, the same facts can be looked at two ways: old project/new project or one project with a paradigm shift.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 02, 2016, 10:38:06 AM

We know, now, there was more than one publicist was involved.  We know that the tour was a TIKH tour.  We know that the public statements about the tour by the band including Brian, Mike and Bruce were negative and that the public statements from all the band were uniformly positive.  We know what they said in Paris (Gaumont.)  We know what Dennis said to Peter Fornatale.  We know how happy they look during the recording of Smile.  It does not square in any credible manner (for me) with the nonsense that was advanced by their PR people.

So, I am thinking (just for myself) that there is real progress debunking this blame-game, that was spread to perhaps every member of the band, where they were blameless.  The stories out there are inconsistent and don't pass the smell-test.  (Mine, anyway) JMHO  ;)      

Regarding the footage: firstly, the footage of the Boys was surely staged. They knew the cameras were rolling. Of course they were gonna put on smiles. Just like a photo session. Doesn't mean they never smiled during the album, but it proves zilch about the general frame of mind. I bet there were no smiles when Mike confronted Van about Cabinessence lyrics... unless you might count nervous smiles ("smiles" that I've seen both Mike and Brian make over the years) as actual "happy" smiles?

Secondly, I believe the footage in question you are referring to is Good Vibrations, right? This is a song where Mike already (presumably) had songwriting input at the time this was filmed, so right off the bat, he (just for one) was likely going to be happier working on that tune, more so than tunes that were more “out there”. Not that GV wasn’t “out there” too, but there were much more extreme examples of “out there”  songs on that project that would have probably led to irksome facial expressions.

Bottom line: it’s preposterous IMO to judge that video as some sort of barometer for the final story of how Brian’s bandmates were or weren’t giving him bad vibes. Ditto for session tapes. Those are but a glimpse of the interactions the guys had together at the time.

How about you address the possibility of microagressions? They are not negligible, and I don’t know why a small contingent of people illogically insist it’s impossible that they could have repeatedly been unloaded on Brian in all sorts of small ways that could have built up over the course of the project. I’m not saying that’s the entire reason it was scrapped either – however, cumulative bandmate microagressions aimed at Brian about the SMiLE project is just not something that can be written off as absolutely not in any way, shape or form relevant to his frame of mind at the time.  

CD - the videos I looked at today were from the SMiLE box set video promos - and didn't look like the "we are on TV" stuff but more candid and not posed for.  Don't have time now but will look later or tomorrow.  They did not look like GV.  Some of these, I had not seen.

The whole lawsuit thing, I can't speculate about because I have not seen the docs.  

This concept of micro-aggressions, or value judgments, goes into what we tried ( I did) to stay away from and that is the internal stuff to which we were not privy.  I don't know of organizations where people agree on everything.  And, I won't be relying on a teen magazine, either one I would have bought at age of 11 or one that the record company advanced.  The news accounts and press releases are inconsistent.  

This band was working for each other.  By that I mean that Brian was working at home, composing, and the band was working in the field, performing.  If they had a crappy performance, he would have (or perhaps should have had ) every right to work with them on rehearsals.   From what I have seen during C50, Brian was still very much in charge of how they sounded on tour.  By the same token the members would have a say on some aspects of the music.  They were vested in the same company.    
FdP, do you know if those videos are online? I haven't seen them.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 02, 2016, 10:38:38 AM
She is using the same method of denial Mike Love uses when hiding from the truth of being a microagressor.

Seriously, Smile Brian - that is a distractor from the reason the LP did not get released.


But regardless, it's not untrue.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 02, 2016, 10:44:44 AM
Microagressions are not negligible, and I don’t know why a small contingent of people illogically insist it’s impossible that they could have repeatedly been unloaded on Brian in all sorts of small ways that could have built up over the course of the project.

I’m not saying that’s the entire reason it was scrapped either – however, cumulative bandmate microagressions aimed at Brian about the SMiLE project are just not something that can be written off as absolutely not in any way, shape or form relevant to his frame of mind at the time.  That makes no sense. A project that took an eternity to work on (and never got completed) involving all sorts of weird stuff, animal noises, non-commercial songs, etc. was of COURSE gonna make some bandmates pissed and non-supportive AT SOME POINTS ALONG THE WAY. People don't hold emotions like that in 100%; those emotions were gonna leak out. They were and are human, and in the case of at least one band member, not necessarily the likely recipient of the 1966 Tact Award®.

I agree with this. I also don't write off the possibility of macroaggressions. It's pretty easy to conclude that these guys haven't always had the healthiest relationships.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 02, 2016, 10:44:51 AM

We know, now, there was more than one publicist was involved.  We know that the tour was a TIKH tour.  We know that the public statements about the tour by the band including Brian, Mike and Bruce were negative and that the public statements from all the band were uniformly positive.  We know what they said in Paris (Gaumont.)  We know what Dennis said to Peter Fornatale.  We know how happy they look during the recording of Smile.  It does not square in any credible manner (for me) with the nonsense that was advanced by their PR people.

So, I am thinking (just for myself) that there is real progress debunking this blame-game, that was spread to perhaps every member of the band, where they were blameless.  The stories out there are inconsistent and don't pass the smell-test.  (Mine, anyway) JMHO  ;)      

Regarding the footage: firstly, the footage of the Boys was surely staged. They knew the cameras were rolling. Of course they were gonna put on smiles. Just like a photo session. Doesn't mean they never smiled during the album, but it proves zilch about the general frame of mind. I bet there were no smiles when Mike confronted Van about Cabinessence lyrics... unless you might count nervous smiles ("smiles" that I've seen both Mike and Brian make over the years) as actual "happy" smiles?

Secondly, I believe the footage in question you are referring to is Good Vibrations, right? This is a song where Mike already (presumably) had songwriting input at the time this was filmed, so right off the bat, he (just for one) was likely going to be happier working on that tune, more so than tunes that were more “out there”. Not that GV wasn’t “out there” too, but there were much more extreme examples of “out there”  songs on that project that would have probably led to irksome facial expressions.

Bottom line: it’s preposterous IMO to judge that video as some sort of barometer for the final story of how Brian’s bandmates were or weren’t giving him bad vibes. Ditto for session tapes. Those are but a glimpse of the interactions the guys had together at the time.

How about you address the possibility of microagressions? They are not negligible, and I don’t know why a small contingent of people illogically insist it’s impossible that they could have repeatedly been unloaded on Brian in all sorts of small ways that could have built up over the course of the project. I’m not saying that’s the entire reason it was scrapped either – however, cumulative bandmate microagressions aimed at Brian about the SMiLE project is just not something that can be written off as absolutely not in any way, shape or form relevant to his frame of mind at the time.  

CD - the videos I looked at today were from the SMiLE box set video promos - and didn't look like the "we are on TV" stuff but more candid and not posed for.  Don't have time now but will look later or tomorrow.  They did not look like GV.  Some of these, I had not seen.

The whole lawsuit thing, I can't speculate about because I have not seen the docs.  

This concept of micro-aggressions, or value judgments, goes into what we tried ( I did) to stay away from and that is the internal stuff to which we were not privy.  I don't know of organizations where people agree on everything.  And, I won't be relying on a teen magazine, either one I would have bought at age of 11 or one that the record company advanced.  The news accounts and press releases are inconsistent.  

This band was working for each other.  By that I mean that Brian was working at home, composing, and the band was working in the field, performing.  If they had a crappy performance, he would have (or perhaps should have had ) every right to work with them on rehearsals.   From what I have seen during C50, Brian was still very much in charge of how they sounded on tour.  By the same token the members would have a say on some aspects of the music.  They were vested in the same company.    

While we indeed aren't privy to the internal stuff... do you honestly think it's logical to state that bandmate microagressions absolutely, unequivocally didn’t happen WHATSOEVER, and/or if they did happen, they had ZERO effect on Brian’s state of mind?

Wouldn't you say that they probably occurred, and they probably (along with all sorts of unrelated SMiLE-killing things, like technology) made a smidgen of impact on him? In all likelihood? Or is it gonna be a cop out that "we can't know". We're talking about logic here, and what is the MORE logical choice of the two (that they likely did occur and made at least a tiny bit of impact, or that they never ever occurred nor made any impact W H A T S O E V E R).
 
Please don't duck the question! You can choose logic! It is possible! Choosing logic doesn't mean you are passing judgment on anyone either.

CD - I am not ducking the question and I think you are clouding the issue.  I am looking only at work product and why it did not get released.    

Nothing more, nothing less.   ;)  I don't care if they sang Kumbaya.  :lol

So... to recap:

I asked you, OF THE TWO, either that

a) bandmate microagressions (however justified they may have been) in all likelihood actually occurred (with Brian being the recipient), and that these microagressions maybe... just MAYBE... had even the smallest bit of impact on Brian's state of mind... or

b) that surely none of the above bandmate microagressions ever happened, nor could they possibly have had an iota of impact on Brian in the unlikely event that they actually occured.

You refuse to answer which is the most likely scenario OF THE TWO, and state that you are "not ducking the question".  

Amazing.
You bet I am not responding because it is not about the people involved.  This is about outside influence.

First,  I saw Inside Pop. Definite plug for Smile.

Second, I read the newspapers and saw the TV reports, the outside stressors of Carl's arrest.  That was an outside influence.

Third, they did not get to control the UK tour.  Outside influence.

Fourth, the LP is not released.  Outside influence.

That has zero to do with personalities and all about power and control from an outside influence.    


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 02, 2016, 10:46:16 AM

We know, now, there was more than one publicist was involved.  We know that the tour was a TIKH tour.  We know that the public statements about the tour by the band including Brian, Mike and Bruce were negative and that the public statements from all the band were uniformly positive.  We know what they said in Paris (Gaumont.)  We know what Dennis said to Peter Fornatale.  We know how happy they look during the recording of Smile.  It does not square in any credible manner (for me) with the nonsense that was advanced by their PR people.

So, I am thinking (just for myself) that there is real progress debunking this blame-game, that was spread to perhaps every member of the band, where they were blameless.  The stories out there are inconsistent and don't pass the smell-test.  (Mine, anyway) JMHO  ;)      

Regarding the footage: firstly, the footage of the Boys was surely staged. They knew the cameras were rolling. Of course they were gonna put on smiles. Just like a photo session. Doesn't mean they never smiled during the album, but it proves zilch about the general frame of mind. I bet there were no smiles when Mike confronted Van about Cabinessence lyrics... unless you might count nervous smiles ("smiles" that I've seen both Mike and Brian make over the years) as actual "happy" smiles?

Secondly, I believe the footage in question you are referring to is Good Vibrations, right? This is a song where Mike already (presumably) had songwriting input at the time this was filmed, so right off the bat, he (just for one) was likely going to be happier working on that tune, more so than tunes that were more “out there”. Not that GV wasn’t “out there” too, but there were much more extreme examples of “out there”  songs on that project that would have probably led to irksome facial expressions.

Bottom line: it’s preposterous IMO to judge that video as some sort of barometer for the final story of how Brian’s bandmates were or weren’t giving him bad vibes. Ditto for session tapes. Those are but a glimpse of the interactions the guys had together at the time.

How about you address the possibility of microagressions? They are not negligible, and I don’t know why a small contingent of people illogically insist it’s impossible that they could have repeatedly been unloaded on Brian in all sorts of small ways that could have built up over the course of the project. I’m not saying that’s the entire reason it was scrapped either – however, cumulative bandmate microagressions aimed at Brian about the SMiLE project is just not something that can be written off as absolutely not in any way, shape or form relevant to his frame of mind at the time.  

CD - the videos I looked at today were from the SMiLE box set video promos - and didn't look like the "we are on TV" stuff but more candid and not posed for.  Don't have time now but will look later or tomorrow.  They did not look like GV.  Some of these, I had not seen.

The whole lawsuit thing, I can't speculate about because I have not seen the docs.  

This concept of micro-aggressions, or value judgments, goes into what we tried ( I did) to stay away from and that is the internal stuff to which we were not privy.  I don't know of organizations where people agree on everything.  And, I won't be relying on a teen magazine, either one I would have bought at age of 11 or one that the record company advanced.  The news accounts and press releases are inconsistent.  

This band was working for each other.  By that I mean that Brian was working at home, composing, and the band was working in the field, performing.  If they had a crappy performance, he would have (or perhaps should have had ) every right to work with them on rehearsals.   From what I have seen during C50, Brian was still very much in charge of how they sounded on tour.  By the same token the members would have a say on some aspects of the music.  They were vested in the same company.    
FdP, do you know if those videos are online? I haven't seen them.

They were under Smile 2011 or something similar on youtube.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 02, 2016, 10:48:08 AM
She is using the same method of denial Mike Love uses when hiding from the truth of being a microagressor.

Seriously, Smile Brian - that is a distractor from the reason the LP did not get released.


But regardless, it's not untrue.
Exactly, Mike bullying VDP was the first microagression before the blow up with BW.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 02, 2016, 10:48:25 AM
Something happened in those few weeks between when the Beach Boys returned home from Europe, did almost a week of sessions at Western and Sound Recorders on Vegetables that song where they left off in April, then suddenly they were running cables in Brian Wilson's living room and kitchen with rented gear. It was more than a suggestion that they make the record in Brian's house, whatever the "attitude and atmosphere" aspect might have been.

The problem with the month prior to that is the Beach Boys didn't seem to react at all, Brian was doing business as usual like he had been more or less, cutting tracks in the studio with the same people and sounds, everyone operating as if the word that the project had been scrapped had never been published.

So we assume the project they were all talking about as if it were still being worked on and coming out, and were still in fact working on, had in reality already been "scrapped" sometime in April or earlier, or had been "scrapped" based on Derek Taylor's information as he published it, even though the band seemed to be unaware where that info came from, and Brian was still in the same studios with the same people he had been using the whole time, creating similar sounds to the point where *many* have speculated "Love To Say DaDa" was the missing "Air" element of that suite.

Find the logic in that scenario, and consider it's not even a scenario, it's how it played out as far as the timeline we all have available to study.

How do some think they should have reacted? How about any reaction at all to the news their album was dead in the water?
I think it makes sense (though it's too gray for certainty) that when the touring band got home they pressed forward with their intention to change the paradigm. I also think it made sense that they thought "nothing's changed; still working on the album" was a better PR message than "scrapped" and really, as DonnyL's comment illustrates, the same facts can be looked at two ways: old project/new project or one project with a paradigm shift.

Emily - this just sets the whole thing up for a philosophical discussion and does not uncover who pulled the plug on the project.  Read what Andrew wrote yesterday.  Who had the motivation and the ability to do it. Or something that I am not quoting (haha) but paraphrasing.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 02, 2016, 10:51:45 AM

We know, now, there was more than one publicist was involved.  We know that the tour was a TIKH tour.  We know that the public statements about the tour by the band including Brian, Mike and Bruce were negative and that the public statements from all the band were uniformly positive.  We know what they said in Paris (Gaumont.)  We know what Dennis said to Peter Fornatale.  We know how happy they look during the recording of Smile.  It does not square in any credible manner (for me) with the nonsense that was advanced by their PR people.

So, I am thinking (just for myself) that there is real progress debunking this blame-game, that was spread to perhaps every member of the band, where they were blameless.  The stories out there are inconsistent and don't pass the smell-test.  (Mine, anyway) JMHO  ;)      

Regarding the footage: firstly, the footage of the Boys was surely staged. They knew the cameras were rolling. Of course they were gonna put on smiles. Just like a photo session. Doesn't mean they never smiled during the album, but it proves zilch about the general frame of mind. I bet there were no smiles when Mike confronted Van about Cabinessence lyrics... unless you might count nervous smiles ("smiles" that I've seen both Mike and Brian make over the years) as actual "happy" smiles?

Secondly, I believe the footage in question you are referring to is Good Vibrations, right? This is a song where Mike already (presumably) had songwriting input at the time this was filmed, so right off the bat, he (just for one) was likely going to be happier working on that tune, more so than tunes that were more “out there”. Not that GV wasn’t “out there” too, but there were much more extreme examples of “out there”  songs on that project that would have probably led to irksome facial expressions.

Bottom line: it’s preposterous IMO to judge that video as some sort of barometer for the final story of how Brian’s bandmates were or weren’t giving him bad vibes. Ditto for session tapes. Those are but a glimpse of the interactions the guys had together at the time.

How about you address the possibility of microagressions? They are not negligible, and I don’t know why a small contingent of people illogically insist it’s impossible that they could have repeatedly been unloaded on Brian in all sorts of small ways that could have built up over the course of the project. I’m not saying that’s the entire reason it was scrapped either – however, cumulative bandmate microagressions aimed at Brian about the SMiLE project is just not something that can be written off as absolutely not in any way, shape or form relevant to his frame of mind at the time.  

CD - the videos I looked at today were from the SMiLE box set video promos - and didn't look like the "we are on TV" stuff but more candid and not posed for.  Don't have time now but will look later or tomorrow.  They did not look like GV.  Some of these, I had not seen.

The whole lawsuit thing, I can't speculate about because I have not seen the docs.  

This concept of micro-aggressions, or value judgments, goes into what we tried ( I did) to stay away from and that is the internal stuff to which we were not privy.  I don't know of organizations where people agree on everything.  And, I won't be relying on a teen magazine, either one I would have bought at age of 11 or one that the record company advanced.  The news accounts and press releases are inconsistent.  

This band was working for each other.  By that I mean that Brian was working at home, composing, and the band was working in the field, performing.  If they had a crappy performance, he would have (or perhaps should have had ) every right to work with them on rehearsals.   From what I have seen during C50, Brian was still very much in charge of how they sounded on tour.  By the same token the members would have a say on some aspects of the music.  They were vested in the same company.    

While we indeed aren't privy to the internal stuff... do you honestly think it's logical to state that bandmate microagressions absolutely, unequivocally didn’t happen WHATSOEVER, and/or if they did happen, they had ZERO effect on Brian’s state of mind?

Wouldn't you say that they probably occurred, and they probably (along with all sorts of unrelated SMiLE-killing things, like technology) made a smidgen of impact on him? In all likelihood? Or is it gonna be a cop out that "we can't know". We're talking about logic here, and what is the MORE logical choice of the two (that they likely did occur and made at least a tiny bit of impact, or that they never ever occurred nor made any impact W H A T S O E V E R).
 
Please don't duck the question! You can choose logic! It is possible! Choosing logic doesn't mean you are passing judgment on anyone either.

CD - I am not ducking the question and I think you are clouding the issue.  I am looking only at work product and why it did not get released.    

Nothing more, nothing less.   ;)  I don't care if they sang Kumbaya.  :lol

So... to recap:

I asked you, OF THE TWO, either that

a) bandmate microagressions (however justified they may have been) in all likelihood actually occurred (with Brian being the recipient), and that these microagressions maybe... just MAYBE... had even the smallest bit of impact on Brian's state of mind... or

b) that surely none of the above bandmate microagressions ever happened, nor could they possibly have had an iota of impact on Brian in the unlikely event that they actually occured.

You refuse to answer which is the most likely scenario OF THE TWO, and state that you are "not ducking the question".  

Amazing.
You bet I am not responding because it is not about the people involved.  This is about outside influence.

First,  I saw Inside Pop. Definite plug for Smile.

Second, I read the newspapers and saw the TV reports, the outside stressors of Carl's arrest.  That was an outside influence.

Third, they did not get to control the UK tour.  Outside influence.

Fourth, the LP is not released.  Outside influence.

That has zero to do with personalities and all about power and control from an outside influence.    

All of those items you stated are not non-issues; they are all parts of the puzzle for sure.  

But how does that negate bandmate microagressions? Are you saying that if they occurred, well it doesn't matter because the project was gonna fail regardless?  If that's your opinion, fair enough, but just say so, because you seem to completely fail to address the remote possibility that they even happened (regardless of how much they impacted the project ultimately).

It isn't hard for me to directly address each and every thing you mention. It would be nice if you returned the favor.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 02, 2016, 10:56:14 AM
CD - they are the prime issues for me. 

It is not personal. 

Who pulled the plug?

Reasonable minds can differ.  ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 02, 2016, 10:57:04 AM
She is using the same method of denial Mike Love uses when hiding from the truth of being a microagressor.

Seriously, Smile Brian - that is a distractor from the reason the LP did not get released.


But regardless, it's not untrue.
Exactly, Mike bullying VDP was the first known microagression before the blow up with BW.

Fixed that for ya :)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 02, 2016, 10:58:53 AM
 :woot :woot :woot :woot


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 02, 2016, 11:02:10 AM
:woot :woot :woot :woot

And again... lest I be accused of being blindly one-sided... I can genuinely empathize with Mike, and I can understand how a young guy in his position might have acted that way. It sucks, I wish it didn't happen in the manner that it did, but we can't change it. Empathy is not in short supply here.

What I am short on is patience for absurd history rewriting attempts, which are best exemplified in this thread by some of the most incredible, brazen displays of question-dodging attempts I've ever seen, which accomplish accruing absolutely no "points" for the absolving-all-bandmates-for-any-role-whatsoever-in-SMiLE's-demise camp.

I've learned a lot due to knowledgeable posters on this board (across the BB political spectrum) when it comes to nuance about the SMiLE era (ie. that many non-bandmate factors hugely impacted the project). But posters like FDP who outright duck questions only serve to inadvertently cause that type of nuance to be diminished in the minds of many budding young fans eager to learn more details about the band. Everyone sees through that, and can tell that question dodging = something not right with the logic.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 02, 2016, 11:05:03 AM
That is the whole gist of the problem, using the answers of 2016 M&B as gospel and refusing to answer anything else.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 02, 2016, 11:05:16 AM
CD - they are the prime issues for me.  

It is not personal.  

Who pulled the plug?

Reasonable minds can differ.  ;)


Maybe you missed the part where I said "regardless of how much they [microagressions] impacted the project ultimately".

 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: jiggityjars on February 02, 2016, 11:16:37 AM
edit


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 02, 2016, 11:53:34 AM
Excerpts from "The Beach Boys' Quickest Album" , LA Times, October 8th 1967:

"Well, the album didn't really head for any direction. We just decided to, or I should say Brian decided to, make a real simple album. So, with that in mind, we recorded it at his house and it's the quickest album we've ever done." (Carl Wilson quote)

"You see, the whole thing is that 'Pet Sounds' was really an expanded type of musical thing. It's really quite a musical album and we got into a thing where we just wanted to ease up and make a simple album. It was a nice change. It's very hard on a person to keep on doing a 'Pet Sounds.'" (Carl Wilson quote)

Last year, when "Good Vibrations" was racking up its million-plus sales, Capitol had the follow-up album scheduled under the title of "Smile." The album jacket already had been printed, a picture of a shop which dispensed smiles. But the album never came out and the Beach Boys became embroiled in a royalty suit against Capitol. Rumors said that Brian, a perfectionist, had destroyed all the tapes for the LP. "We didn't scrap them," Carl said. "We just haven't used them yet. We did it all from scratch when we started again. We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked. We all didn't agree on different types of things. We decided to do something new."

"If he gets an idea it's now and it's better than something from the past. I've seen it a hundred times. We've seen a lot of potentially great songs just be shelved. They come out maybe two or three years later, but they're in his mind somehow. If that particular idea seems to fit what he's working on at the time it will just come naturally." (Mike Love quote)


*This* is why I cannot understand wanting to shut this or similar discussions down. This is relevant info that cuts to the chase and gets to the core issues and questions some of us have been discussing.

Carl Wilson, in Fall 1967 after the release of Smiley Smile says the following (in bold and italics in my re-quote):

- They did not "scrap" Smile, despite what Taylor's May 6th article said.

- They had parts which they just haven't used yet, suggesting some of the Smile material may still see the light of day in some form (backed up by various Capitol memos from the months prior as well)

- They had finished the album in some way and at some point, which backs up the Altham piece from late April where he wrote the "12 tracks are finished"

- They did not all agree on some things...anyone's guess what those were.

- They decided to do something new, and started from scratch, exact words according to Carl. *Not* continue "Smile", not have what they were doing with Smile transition seamlessly into Smiley Smile as some are suggesting, but rather start from scratch and start something new. There isn't much of a way to parse or twist Carl's own description to suggest Smile just morphed into Smiley Smile by June 1967 without a definite start and end point when he says they "started from scratch" and recorded this new album which was Smiley Smile.

Further, Carl again suggests the actual "Smile" material was not scrapped and might still be coming out, i.e. "we just haven't used them yet".


So much for shutting down the discussion because everything we needed to see was already on the table.

Thanks for posting the quotes. It opened up a very large door to allow information to be entered into the discussion coming direct from a Beach Boy, and Carl the Beach Boy perhaps closest to the music besides Brian in 1967, who made these comments in the Fall of 1967 when it was still current business for the band.

And in light of what Carl said, consider taking an even closer look at what could have happened in the weeks between the Beach Boys returning home from the May 67 tour in Europe and the move to recording in Brian's house in mid June, and what during that time caused the entire focus and direction of the band and the Smile project to shift dramatically in such a relatively short period of time.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Jeff on February 02, 2016, 11:57:49 AM
Excerpts from "The Beach Boys' Quickest Album" , LA Times, October 8th 1967:

"Well, the album didn't really head for any direction. We just decided to, or I should say Brian decided to, make a real simple album. So, with that in mind, we recorded it at his house and it's the quickest album we've ever done." (Carl Wilson quote)


That again confirms that recording for Smiley Smile (other than GV and bits of Vegetables and HV of course) only took place between June 3 and July 14--not earlier.  Shut Down Vol. II, for example, was recorded 1/1/64 to 2/20/64, barely longer than Smiley Smile.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 02, 2016, 12:00:53 PM
Excerpts from "The Beach Boys' Quickest Album" , LA Times, October 8th 1967:

"Well, the album didn't really head for any direction. We just decided to, or I should say Brian decided to, make a real simple album. So, with that in mind, we recorded it at his house and it's the quickest album we've ever done." (Carl Wilson quote)

"You see, the whole thing is that 'Pet Sounds' was really an expanded type of musical thing. It's really quite a musical album and we got into a thing where we just wanted to ease up and make a simple album. It was a nice change. It's very hard on a person to keep on doing a 'Pet Sounds.'" (Carl Wilson quote)

Last year, when "Good Vibrations" was racking up its million-plus sales, Capitol had the follow-up album scheduled under the title of "Smile." The album jacket already had been printed, a picture of a shop which dispensed smiles. But the album never came out and the Beach Boys became embroiled in a royalty suit against Capitol. Rumors said that Brian, a perfectionist, had destroyed all the tapes for the LP. "We didn't scrap them," Carl said. "We just haven't used them yet. We did it all from scratch when we started again. We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked. We all didn't agree on different types of things. We decided to do something new."

"If he gets an idea it's now and it's better than something from the past. I've seen it a hundred times. We've seen a lot of potentially great songs just be shelved. They come out maybe two or three years later, but they're in his mind somehow. If that particular idea seems to fit what he's working on at the time it will just come naturally." (Mike Love quote)


*This* is why I cannot understand wanting to shut this or similar discussions down. This is relevant info that cuts to the chase and gets to the core issues and questions some of us have been discussing.

Carl Wilson, in Fall 1967 after the release of Smiley Smile says the following (in bold and italics in my re-quote):

- They did not "scrap" Smile, despite what Taylor's May 6th article said.

- They had parts which they just haven't used yet, suggesting some of the Smile material may still see the light of day in some form (backed up by various Capitol memos from the months prior as well)

- They had finished the album in some way and at some point, which backs up the Altham piece from late April where he wrote the "12 tracks are finished"

- They did not all agree on some things...anyone's guess what those were.

- They decided to do something new, and started from scratch, exact words according to Carl. *Not* continue "Smile", not have what they were doing with Smile transition seamlessly into Smiley Smile as some are suggesting, but rather start from scratch and start something new. There isn't much of a way to parse or twist Carl's own description to suggest Smile just morphed into Smiley Smile by June 1967 without a definite start and end point when he says they "started from scratch" and recorded this new album which was Smiley Smile.

Further, Carl again suggests the actual "Smile" material was not scrapped and might still be coming out, i.e. "we just haven't used them yet".


So much for shutting down the discussion because everything we needed to see was already on the table.

Thanks for posting the quotes. It opened up a very large door to allow information to be entered into the discussion coming direct from a Beach Boy, and Carl the Beach Boy perhaps closest to the music besides Brian in 1967, who made these comments in the Fall of 1967 when it was still current business for the band.

And in light of what Carl said, consider taking an even closer look at what could have happened in the weeks between the Beach Boys returning home from the May 67 tour in Europe and the move to recording in Brian's house in mid June, and what during that time caused the entire focus and direction of the band and the Smile project to shift dramatically in such a relatively short period of time.

Carl Wilson in those quotes basically challenged a lot of the theories and explanations being offered throughout this thread and in a majority of Smile related discussions I've seen for the past several decades. Anyone looking for firsthand information, published information, direct sources, etc...add Carl Wilson, Fall 1967 to the primary sources.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 02, 2016, 12:58:57 PM
Excerpts from "The Beach Boys' Quickest Album" , LA Times, October 8th 1967:

"Well, the album didn't really head for any direction. We just decided to, or I should say Brian decided to, make a real simple album. So, with that in mind, we recorded it at his house and it's the quickest album we've ever done." (Carl Wilson quote)

"You see, the whole thing is that 'Pet Sounds' was really an expanded type of musical thing. It's really quite a musical album and we got into a thing where we just wanted to ease up and make a simple album. It was a nice change. It's very hard on a person to keep on doing a 'Pet Sounds.'" (Carl Wilson quote)

Last year, when "Good Vibrations" was racking up its million-plus sales, Capitol had the follow-up album scheduled under the title of "Smile." The album jacket already had been printed, a picture of a shop which dispensed smiles. But the album never came out and the Beach Boys became embroiled in a royalty suit against Capitol. Rumors said that Brian, a perfectionist, had destroyed all the tapes for the LP. "We didn't scrap them," Carl said. "We just haven't used them yet. We did it all from scratch when we started again. We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked. We all didn't agree on different types of things. We decided to do something new."

"If he gets an idea it's now and it's better than something from the past. I've seen it a hundred times. We've seen a lot of potentially great songs just be shelved. They come out maybe two or three years later, but they're in his mind somehow. If that particular idea seems to fit what he's working on at the time it will just come naturally." (Mike Love quote)


*This* is why I cannot understand wanting to shut this or similar discussions down. This is relevant info that cuts to the chase and gets to the core issues and questions some of us have been discussing.

Carl Wilson, in Fall 1967 after the release of Smiley Smile says the following (in bold and italics in my re-quote):

- They did not "scrap" Smile, despite what Taylor's May 6th article said.

- They had parts which they just haven't used yet, suggesting some of the Smile material may still see the light of day in some form (backed up by various Capitol memos from the months prior as well)

- They had finished the album in some way and at some point, which backs up the Altham piece from late April where he wrote the "12 tracks are finished"

- They did not all agree on some things...anyone's guess what those were.

- They decided to do something new, and started from scratch, exact words according to Carl. *Not* continue "Smile", not have what they were doing with Smile transition seamlessly into Smiley Smile as some are suggesting, but rather start from scratch and start something new. There isn't much of a way to parse or twist Carl's own description to suggest Smile just morphed into Smiley Smile by June 1967 without a definite start and end point when he says they "started from scratch" and recorded this new album which was Smiley Smile.

Further, Carl again suggests the actual "Smile" material was not scrapped and might still be coming out, i.e. "we just haven't used them yet".


So much for shutting down the discussion because everything we needed to see was already on the table.

Thanks for posting the quotes. It opened up a very large door to allow information to be entered into the discussion coming direct from a Beach Boy, and Carl the Beach Boy perhaps closest to the music besides Brian in 1967, who made these comments in the Fall of 1967 when it was still current business for the band.

And in light of what Carl said, consider taking an even closer look at what could have happened in the weeks between the Beach Boys returning home from the May 67 tour in Europe and the move to recording in Brian's house in mid June, and what during that time caused the entire focus and direction of the band and the Smile project to shift dramatically in such a relatively short period of time.
Hi Guitarfool2002,
I'm a little confused (or a lot). Are you suggesting that until the band returned from the tour, none of them, not the touring band nor BW, had any inkling that the direction would change and the recorded Smile music would be shelved and that they'd leave the professional studio and home record? That this was all decided within a week of the return of the band, out of the blue? Or are you not suggesting that and I'm reading you wrong?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 02, 2016, 01:12:16 PM
Excerpts from "The Beach Boys' Quickest Album" , LA Times, October 8th 1967:

"Well, the album didn't really head for any direction. We just decided to, or I should say Brian decided to, make a real simple album. So, with that in mind, we recorded it at his house and it's the quickest album we've ever done." (Carl Wilson quote)

"You see, the whole thing is that 'Pet Sounds' was really an expanded type of musical thing. It's really quite a musical album and we got into a thing where we just wanted to ease up and make a simple album. It was a nice change. It's very hard on a person to keep on doing a 'Pet Sounds.'" (Carl Wilson quote)

Last year, when "Good Vibrations" was racking up its million-plus sales, Capitol had the follow-up album scheduled under the title of "Smile." The album jacket already had been printed, a picture of a shop which dispensed smiles. But the album never came out and the Beach Boys became embroiled in a royalty suit against Capitol. Rumors said that Brian, a perfectionist, had destroyed all the tapes for the LP. "We didn't scrap them," Carl said. "We just haven't used them yet. We did it all from scratch when we started again. We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked. We all didn't agree on different types of things. We decided to do something new."

"If he gets an idea it's now and it's better than something from the past. I've seen it a hundred times. We've seen a lot of potentially great songs just be shelved. They come out maybe two or three years later, but they're in his mind somehow. If that particular idea seems to fit what he's working on at the time it will just come naturally." (Mike Love quote)


*This* is why I cannot understand wanting to shut this or similar discussions down. This is relevant info that cuts to the chase and gets to the core issues and questions some of us have been discussing.

Carl Wilson, in Fall 1967 after the release of Smiley Smile says the following (in bold and italics in my re-quote):

- They did not "scrap" Smile, despite what Taylor's May 6th article said.

- They had parts which they just haven't used yet, suggesting some of the Smile material may still see the light of day in some form (backed up by various Capitol memos from the months prior as well)

- They had finished the album in some way and at some point, which backs up the Altham piece from late April where he wrote the "12 tracks are finished"

- They did not all agree on some things...anyone's guess what those were.

- They decided to do something new, and started from scratch, exact words according to Carl. *Not* continue "Smile", not have what they were doing with Smile transition seamlessly into Smiley Smile as some are suggesting, but rather start from scratch and start something new. There isn't much of a way to parse or twist Carl's own description to suggest Smile just morphed into Smiley Smile by June 1967 without a definite start and end point when he says they "started from scratch" and recorded this new album which was Smiley Smile.

Further, Carl again suggests the actual "Smile" material was not scrapped and might still be coming out, i.e. "we just haven't used them yet".


So much for shutting down the discussion because everything we needed to see was already on the table.

Thanks for posting the quotes. It opened up a very large door to allow information to be entered into the discussion coming direct from a Beach Boy, and Carl the Beach Boy perhaps closest to the music besides Brian in 1967, who made these comments in the Fall of 1967 when it was still current business for the band.

And in light of what Carl said, consider taking an even closer look at what could have happened in the weeks between the Beach Boys returning home from the May 67 tour in Europe and the move to recording in Brian's house in mid June, and what during that time caused the entire focus and direction of the band and the Smile project to shift dramatically in such a relatively short period of time.
Hi Guitarfool2002,
I'm a little confused (or a lot). Are you suggesting that until the band returned from the tour, none of them, not the touring band nor BW, had any inkling that the direction would change and the recorded Smile music would be shelved and that they'd leave the professional studio and home record? That this was all decided within a week of the return of the band, out of the blue? Or are you not suggesting that and I'm reading you wrong?

Carl's quotes tell the story. Let's first take his words into account as they were said and published and consider the implications.

Separate from that, to your question: To me when Carl said they started from scratch, that's definitive. Starting from scratch is not Brian in mid-May 67 recording Dada as he had been recording nearly every other Smile related track since Fall 66. Factor in the other Taylor column where he mentions the attitude and atmosphere issues regarding the studio recording, cites Nick Grillo and the fact that they decided to move the recordings into Brian's house, and as reported that studio was ad hoc, and not at all designed or built with advance planning beyond renting the gear they needed. It seems like that window of time between the band returning from the tour, doing a week of sessions in pro studios, then "starting from scratch" in Brian's house with an ad hoc studio suggests it was not planned in advance and could possibly have happened in that window of time when it seems the plans shifted.

I'd rather focus on Carl's own words specifically and not get into theories of mine or whatever which could distract from what has just been revealed here via that fall 67 article...we now have primary source evidence from the closest band member to the music other than Brian spelling it out on the record, and published.

And Carl as that primary source is suggesting a history of events that would dispute many theories and even conclusions that have been offered both here and in the past. It's great to have it available.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 02, 2016, 01:32:11 PM
Was "Smile" released as intended in 1967 ? No. Then it was scrapped. Carl is very obviously denying that the tapes were physically destroyed, as Brian had claimed.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 02, 2016, 01:39:10 PM

Carl's quotes tell the story. Let's first take his words into account as they were said and published and consider the implications.

Separate from that, to your question: To me when Carl said they started from scratch, that's definitive. Starting from scratch is not Brian in mid-May 67 recording Dada as he had been recording nearly every other Smile related track since Fall 66. Factor in the other Taylor column where he mentions the attitude and atmosphere issues regarding the studio recording, cites Nick Grillo and the fact that they decided to move the recordings into Brian's house, and as reported that studio was ad hoc, and not at all designed or built with advance planning beyond renting the gear they needed. It seems like that window of time between the band returning from the tour, doing a week of sessions in pro studios, then "starting from scratch" in Brian's house with an ad hoc studio suggests it was not planned in advance and could possibly have happened in that window of time when it seems the plans shifted.

I'd rather focus on Carl's own words specifically and not get into theories of mine or whatever which could distract from what has just been revealed here via that fall 67 article...we now have primary source evidence from the closest band member to the music other than Brian spelling it out on the record, and published.

And Carl as that primary source is suggesting a history of events that would dispute many theories and even conclusions that have been offered both here and in the past. It's great to have it available.
Now this is punk rock. Thanks for opening my mind to entirely new angles of thought.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 02, 2016, 01:42:37 PM
Is 'scrap' industry jargon or is it just plain English? If the latter, I wonder if the interviewer from the LA Times extract introduced the word in his exchange with Carl or if Carl did.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 02, 2016, 01:43:09 PM
Was "Smile" released as intended in 1967 ? No. Then it was scrapped. Carl is very obviously denying that the tapes were physically destroyed, as Brian had claimed.

Parsing words? What Carl said is now available verbatim for all to read, and if they choose to interpret without parsing or clarifications after the fact 49 years later.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The Old Master Painter on February 02, 2016, 04:55:46 PM
TO GET BACK ON TOPIC.... :lol

To me, as more days pass by, the more I start to believe "Country Air" was conceptualized as Air in one point in time.... Think of it this way:

In 1967, a Capitol Records memo confrimed they were planning a SMiLE release post-Smiley Smile..... It's interesting because, during this point in time ("Wild Honey" Era):

- Brian records a few takes of Surf's Up, which was quite uncalled for and unprecedented

- Interesting to note: Brian recorded those Surf's Up takes after recording a demo of Country Air.

- Brian (I assume) recorded a quite SMiLE-like "Water Chant" during the same period

- Country Air is a piano-dominated piece of music

- It consists mainly of humming.... Suggesting unwritten lyrics(?)

- It is similair to Da-Da/Cool Water (think: "gotta get me some cool....")


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 02, 2016, 09:18:08 PM

Last year, when "Good Vibrations" was racking up its million-plus sales, Capitol had the follow-up album scheduled under the title of "Smile." The album jacket already had been printed, a picture of a shop which dispensed smiles. But the album never came out and the Beach Boys became embroiled in a royalty suit against Capitol. Rumors said that Brian, a perfectionist, had destroyed all the tapes for the LP. "We didn't scrap them," Carl said. "We just haven't used them yet. We did it all from scratch when we started again. We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked. We all didn't agree on different types of things. We decided to do something new."


"In truth, every beautifully designed, finely-wrought inspirationally-welded piece of music made these last months by Brian and his Beach Boy craftsmen has been SCRAPPED. Not destroyed, but scrapped. For what Wilson seals in a can and destroys is scrapped."  Derek Taylor

“The song 'Surf’s Up' that I sang for that documentary never came out on an album, and it was supposed to come out on the SMILE album, and that and a couple of other songs were junked……”  Brian Wilson

"No," was his emphatic answer. "I junked it. We junked them. I didn’t like where the music was coming from. I thought it was inappropriate for the Beach Boys and I junked it.”  Brian Wilson

“After I came down off the drugs and saw what I had done with Smile, I junked it.”  Brian Wilson

"I junked it. We junked them. I didn’t like where the music was coming from. I thought it was inappropriate for the Beach Boys and I junked it.”  Brian Wilson

“We never finished it, because a lot of that sh*t just bothered me - but half of it we didn’t finish anyway." Brian Wilson

"“We didn’t finish it because we had a lot of problems, inner group problems. We had time commitments we couldn’t keep, so we stopped."  Brian Wilson




Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 03, 2016, 05:42:02 AM

Last year, when "Good Vibrations" was racking up its million-plus sales, Capitol had the follow-up album scheduled under the title of "Smile." The album jacket already had been printed, a picture of a shop which dispensed smiles. But the album never came out and the Beach Boys became embroiled in a royalty suit against Capitol. Rumors said that Brian, a perfectionist, had destroyed all the tapes for the LP. "We didn't scrap them," Carl said. "We just haven't used them yet. We did it all from scratch when we started again. We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked. We all didn't agree on different types of things. We decided to do something new."
“The song 'Surf’s Up' that I sang for that documentary never came out on an album, and it was supposed to come out on the SMILE album, and that and a couple of other songs were junked……”  Brian Wilson

"No," was his emphatic answer. "I junked it. We junked them. I didn’t like where the music was coming from. I thought it was inappropriate for the Beach Boys and I junked it.”  Brian Wilson

“After I came down off the drugs and saw what I had done with Smile, I junked it.”  Brian Wilson

"I junked it. We junked them. I didn’t like where the music was coming from. I thought it was inappropriate for the Beach Boys and I junked it.”  Brian Wilson

“We never finished it, because a lot of that sh*t just bothered me - but half of it we didn’t finish anyway." Brian Wilson

"“We didn’t finish it because we had a lot of problems, inner group problems. We had time commitments we couldn’t keep, so we stopped."  Brian Wilson.
Cam - Carl's more or less prepared statement for the LA Times, sheds light on a couple of things.  

First - It supports the concept that the tapes were not destroyed.  Maybe it is a semantic.  Scrapped, side-lined, put-on-hold, whatever any of it means.

Second - It concedes that Surf's Up was the expected release.  During 1966, singles which were usually time-constrained to be under 3 minutes, started becoming longer. GV helped that out at about 3:36. There were longer versions, of other 45s (whether pulled deliberately from an LP) or had a long version, such as Light My Fire, that were pushing the boundaries, probably driving the advertisers crazy.  Surf's Up probably could have found a way in a BB version in that mix in 1967, since there was a sort of adaptation to the longer singles.  (This may have helped the newer fm stations justify doing LP's or more extended versions of singles.)

Third - It is a shame about the LP cover.  I still maintain that that was one of the worst things that could have been done.  Marketers go for primary colors.  We had Andy Warhol, and Peter Max, next to a medium green, and that cover was lost among the eye-popping LP artwork.  That cover likely cost them sales.  Taken alone as an artwork it is pretty, but among the sea of LP covers, it drowns.  If Smile was an American journey from Plymouth to Hawaii with all the stops in between it should have been a colorful map, with topography, events, such as the railroad construction, etc., that made it clear to the listener what it was all about.  You have to tell people what your story is.  

Fourth - If there was a preliminary 12-track that was ready to go in the Spring of 1967, the band left the States working under the assumption that it was a "go"  there was some serious misleading and falsehood, lies by omission, if you will, going on.  

Fifth - could have been, directly or indirectly, some new directive from the attorneys, advising against the release, at that time, if it was a critical stage in the litigation.  We don't know enough to make that assertion without timelines and what the relative positions of both sides were.  This was speculated about earlier, but seems a weak speculation.  But I was not there, and don't know.

Sixth - there is this constant statement that doesn't seem to change, over time, that Brian makes ( I am paraphrasing) that he sometimes thought some of his music was just for him, and not to be made public.  Could be that second-thought that people somehow get.

That is sort of an artist's prerogative to hold-in-reserve, almost a private collection, that is to remain personal, on one hand.  But, on the other hand, the band had sung on the tracks, and that issue might already have arisen.  Using words such as "God" for GOK was pushing the barrier, as would Our Prayer, which remains magnificent.

There is in some stuff I have read, pointing to Van Dyke being gone in March, well ahead of this tour by weeks.  He seems to already be doing work with another record company in March of 1967.

Was Carl's article a mop-up, for Taylor? Or Taylor's surrogate?  

GF is correct as well, to keep looking at this time window, to "dispassionately" unravel the mess.  ;)    

  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 03, 2016, 06:48:01 AM
I've just checked to see if the definitions of parse, and parsing, have been changed from what I've always understood them to be, and they've not, thus I'm at a loss as to why Craig throws them at me in such a pejorative and confrontational manner.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 07:56:01 AM
Why not let Carl's words stand as they were published and let those reading it do so without the clarifications and other items added? I had a feeling this would happen...clarifying what he meant by the "scrap" line, etc. That is parsing. Let those reading read his words first before trying to tell anyone what Carl meant 49 years later.

Cam Mott served up a list of Brian quotes instead of commenting a single word of his own on what Carl said. No comments, Cam? Could it be because it looks like Carl in 1967 may have effectively shredded (or should I say scrapped?) some of the Smile theories Cam has been posting on this and other boards for over a decade? It's much harder to disprove Carl because he has a reputation among the fan base and both Carl and his word is held in high regard, so instead it's "well Carl said this, but Brian said this and here are a dozen quotes to back me up...". Says a lot about the whole ball of wax. How about addressing what Carl said?

Now Carl's statements were "more or less prepared"...Wait, how could that possibly be known enough what went into that interview in 1967 to even comment on it? It cannot, and we don't know what was prepared and what was Carl talking off the cuff, which is why I question even bringing it up unless it's to cast doubt on what he said or why he said it.  It means nothing to the point of applying what he did say to the discussions at hand and weighing them into the discourse.

We were asking for firsthand evidence from the Beach Boys, there it is. Carl Wilson, Fall 1967. Got what we asked for. If it doesn't support but instead serves to refute some popular theories and notions about Smile and Smiley Smile and the rest of it, it might be a case of "be careful what you wish for" since this (and possibly others we have not seen yet) information is exactly what some were asking for as the primary evidence possible to weigh these issues: Firsthand quotes from the Beach Boys themselves.

We now have it. Let's weigh it up based on what Carl said, not what we think he said or assume he said or speculate as to why he said it...take the words as they appear first.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 03, 2016, 08:25:45 AM
Why not let Carl's words stand as they were published and let those reading it do so without the clarifications and other items added? I had a feeling this would happen...clarifying what he meant by the "scrap" line, etc. That is parsing. Let those reading read his words first before trying to tell anyone what Carl meant 49 years later.

Cam Mott served up a list of Brian quotes instead of commenting a single word of his own on what Carl said. No comments, Cam? Could it be because it looks like Carl in 1967 may have effectively shredded (or should I say scrapped?) some of the Smile theories Cam has been posting on this and other boards for over a decade? It's much harder to disprove Carl because he has a reputation among the fan base and both Carl and his word is held in high regard, so instead it's "well Carl said this, but Brian said this and here are a dozen quotes to back me up...". Says a lot about the whole ball of wax. How about addressing what Carl said?

Now Carl's statements were "more or less prepared"...Wait, how could that possibly be known enough what went into that interview in 1967 to even comment on it? It cannot, and we don't know what was prepared and what was Carl talking off the cuff, which is why I question even bringing it up unless it's to cast doubt on what he said or why he said it.  It means nothing to the point of applying what he did say to the discussions at hand and weighing them into the discourse.

We were asking for firsthand evidence from the Beach Boys, there it is. Carl Wilson, Fall 1967. Got what we asked for. If it doesn't support but instead serves to refute some popular theories and notions about Smile and Smiley Smile and the rest of it, it might be a case of "be careful what you wish for" since this (and possibly others we have not seen yet) information is exactly what some were asking for as the primary evidence possible to weigh these issues: Firsthand quotes from the Beach Boys themselves.

We now have it. Let's weigh it up based on what Carl said, not what we think he said or assume he said or speculate as to why he said it...take the words as they appear first.
GF  - I raised the issue of "primary sources," so I will own this.  I can close my eyes and be in October of 1967, in the era of that article. (Lucky me!  :lol )

After the big build-up with Inside Pop, the TIKH tour, and the crash-and-burn that followed, (about which we know little, except in fragments) they needed someone from the band, who could give a measured statement, and I do think it was calculated and measured.  

Carl was credible and would have been the natural choice to deal with the press.  And yes, held in high regard. If he knew he would be queried about Smile, he would have collected his thoughts, with or without assistance, to face a hometown paper.  It coincides with the release of Smiley.  They may have contacted the band for an interview, and that is not unusual.

It does not sound to me as though Carl is explaining what happened, but responding, in some way, and using it, at the same time, to advance Smiley Smile.  

Carl is reassuring the public, that these epic recordings, such as Surf's Up, promoted on Inside Pop, were still intact.  That statement is not unimportant, but may have helped open-the-door to the myth of what was-in-the-can? (Carl validated the continuing existence of the music.) And, when were the listeners going to get it?  

This is debunking Taylor or his surrogate, and clearing up the record.

And that is huge, I think.  

Thanks to jj.   ;)
    
It is on a higher level than a teeny bopper magazine.  It is not Brian's recipe for Egg-in-the-hole.  :lol


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 03, 2016, 08:41:43 AM
Taylor never said anything about any tapes being destroyed. Rather, he explicitly states they were "sealed in a can".


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 03, 2016, 09:06:39 AM
Taylor never said anything about any tapes being destroyed. Rather, he explicitly states they were "sealed in a can".
Scrapped?  I guess that is a term-of-art in the music industry? Or a mis-statement?    

He said "SCRAPPED."

Why would Carl say, "We didn't scrap them."

"...the Beach Boys became embroiled in a royalty suit against Capitol.  Rumors said that Brian, a perfectionist, had destroyed all the tapes for the LP."

Carl was confirming their;

1- existence

2 - safety.




Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 03, 2016, 09:30:12 AM
I will say, GF2002, that while I really appreciate the importance of this new information (thank you jiggityjars) - and that you've inspired me to use it for fresh look -  I don't really take Carl Wilson to be the word of God - absolute truth - more than average. One Beach Boys spokesperson strikes me as being so defensive it puts much of what he says in doubt; one is so cagey it does the same; and Carl Wilson is so diplomatic and careful in his wording that it does the same. Dennis Wilson strikes me as the most straightforward. That leave two others, but I won't characterize them right now.
That's not to say the 'new' Carl quotes shouldn't contribute to a rethinking; just I think they all need between-the-lines reading.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on February 03, 2016, 09:32:38 AM
Speaking as someone whose first language isn't English and who has no real connection to the words "scrap" and "parse", I think that in that LA Times article Carl's definition of "to scrap" isn't the same as Taylor's. While Taylor makes a distinction between "to scrap" and "to destroy" (the recordings are scrapped, but not destroyed), Carl when he says the recordings aren't "scrapped" means to say "they're not destroyed". So I don't see a real contradiction between the two articles. Or maybe I just don't get anymore what this controversy is about.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 09:45:10 AM
In light of having Carl's comments posted here, if the focus is being narrowed to the point of the word "scrap" and what he could have meant by it rather than taking all of his comments into consideration, that suggests the larger meaning of and the larger context in which Carl's comments exist might be something that is not as welcome in the discussion especially if it directly contradicts some of the long-held theories as posted here and in the past. For all of the theories and speculations, and all of the various ways that the Smile saga has been told in the history of the band, we wanted more firsthand information from a band member, from that specific time, and we got it.

If the way he used the word "scrap" is the focus, if calling into doubt some other things he said in the same comments is the plan moving forward, I have to question what exactly is at play here. It's a Beach Boy giving his account of the events, firsthand in his own words. If his words instead backed up some of the theories that have become "the facts" as far as various Smile issues through the years (and in years to come), I doubt the focus would be on the word "scrap".



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 03, 2016, 10:19:44 AM
In light of having Carl's comments posted here, if the focus is being narrowed to the point of the word "scrap" and what he could have meant by it rather than taking all of his comments into consideration, that suggests the larger meaning of and the larger context in which Carl's comments exist might be something that is not as welcome in the discussion especially if it directly contradicts some of the long-held theories as posted here and in the past. For all of the theories and speculations, and all of the various ways that the Smile saga has been told in the history of the band, we wanted more firsthand information from a band member, from that specific time, and we got it.

If the way he used the word "scrap" is the focus, if calling into doubt some other things he said in the same comments is the plan moving forward, I have to question what exactly is at play here. It's a Beach Boy giving his account of the events, firsthand in his own words. If his words instead backed up some of the theories that have become "the facts" as far as various Smile issues through the years (and in years to come), I doubt the focus would be on the word "scrap".


I personally just brought up the word 'scrap' sort of as an aside - I was wondering if it's a term often used in the industry; if it was a coincidence in terminology with the older Taylor quote; or, most interestingly to me, if it was used because the interviewer made specific reference to the Taylor quote. I wondered if the rest of the piece from which this was excerpted would show that he was being asked specifically about Taylor's quote.
To debate the meaning of the word 'scrapped' seems kind of pointless. Clearly they didn't actually destroy the bulk of the work.
In terms of theorizing, I personally feel overwhelmed with seemingly contradictory information and am trying to filter out conventional wisdom and previous theories and put the historical pieces together in a way that's not contradictory but I'm not finding it easy.
My intent in my last comment was not to be dismissive of these new-to-us quotes, but just to remember that Carl Wilson, too, has an agenda.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 03, 2016, 10:21:26 AM
Why not let Carl's words stand as they were published and let those reading it do so without the clarifications and other items added? I had a feeling this would happen...clarifying what he meant by the "scrap" line, etc. That is parsing. Let those reading read his words first before trying to tell anyone what Carl meant 49 years later.

Cam Mott served up a list of Brian quotes instead of commenting a single word of his own on what Carl said. No comments, Cam? Could it be because it looks like Carl in 1967 may have effectively shredded (or should I say scrapped?) some of the Smile theories Cam has been posting on this and other boards for over a decade? It's much harder to disprove Carl because he has a reputation among the fan base and both Carl and his word is held in high regard, so instead it's "well Carl said this, but Brian said this and here are a dozen quotes to back me up...". Says a lot about the whole ball of wax. How about addressing what Carl said?

Now Carl's statements were "more or less prepared"...Wait, how could that possibly be known enough what went into that interview in 1967 to even comment on it? It cannot, and we don't know what was prepared and what was Carl talking off the cuff, which is why I question even bringing it up unless it's to cast doubt on what he said or why he said it.  It means nothing to the point of applying what he did say to the discussions at hand and weighing them into the discourse.

We were asking for firsthand evidence from the Beach Boys, there it is. Carl Wilson, Fall 1967. Got what we asked for. If it doesn't support but instead serves to refute some popular theories and notions about Smile and Smiley Smile and the rest of it, it might be a case of "be careful what you wish for" since this (and possibly others we have not seen yet) information is exactly what some were asking for as the primary evidence possible to weigh these issues: Firsthand quotes from the Beach Boys themselves.

We now have it. Let's weigh it up based on what Carl said, not what we think he said or assume he said or speculate as to why he said it...take the words as they appear first.


Didn't you, in the very first reply to jiggityjars posting, parse the words and tell us what they meant?

My comment is the question was were the tapes destroyed and Carl answered they were not saying: "scrapped". Taylor also said they were not destroyed, so they agreed.

Carl says SMiLE was finished and Altham agreed, Brian says it was never finished with which Taylor agreed.  Carl says Brian was making the calls so there is what Brian said. I don't know who was trying to stop discussion of this thread, you were asking for more witness instead.....you're welcome.

On to what did Carl mean by "start from scratch" and how did Carl calculate "the quickest".  Hopefully Ian will have something that also sheds more light.

Have you considered Carl as the theoretical scrapped announcement conspirator?  (mind blown)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 03, 2016, 10:26:13 AM

Have you considered Carl as the theoretical scrapped announcement conspirator?  (mind blown)
I actually wondered that too (though it wasn't necessarily conspiratorial). If the LA Times interviewer didn't bring up the word 'scrapped', is it entirely coincidental that Carl Wilson used the same word? But that's getting a little too parsey and reading way too much into a verbal coincidence.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 03, 2016, 10:28:20 AM

Have you considered Carl as the theoretical scrapped announcement conspirator?  (mind blown)
I actually wondered that too (though it wasn't necessarily conspiratorial). If the LA Times interviewer didn't bring up the word 'scrapped', is it entirely coincidental that Carl Wilson used the same word? But that's getting a little too parsey and reading way too much into a verbal coincidence.



Not around these parts, Ma'am.   ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 03, 2016, 10:36:36 AM
Why not let Carl's words stand as they were published and let those reading it do so without the clarifications and other items added? I had a feeling this would happen...clarifying what he meant by the "scrap" line, etc. That is parsing. Let those reading read his words first before trying to tell anyone what Carl meant 49 years later.

Cam Mott served up a list of Brian quotes instead of commenting a single word of his own on what Carl said. No comments, Cam? Could it be because it looks like Carl in 1967 may have effectively shredded (or should I say scrapped?) some of the Smile theories Cam has been posting on this and other boards for over a decade? It's much harder to disprove Carl because he has a reputation among the fan base and both Carl and his word is held in high regard, so instead it's "well Carl said this, but Brian said this and here are a dozen quotes to back me up...". Says a lot about the whole ball of wax. How about addressing what Carl said?

Now Carl's statements were "more or less prepared"...Wait, how could that possibly be known enough what went into that interview in 1967 to even comment on it? It cannot, and we don't know what was prepared and what was Carl talking off the cuff, which is why I question even bringing it up unless it's to cast doubt on what he said or why he said it.  It means nothing to the point of applying what he did say to the discussions at hand and weighing them into the discourse.

We were asking for firsthand evidence from the Beach Boys, there it is. Carl Wilson, Fall 1967. Got what we asked for. If it doesn't support but instead serves to refute some popular theories and notions about Smile and Smiley Smile and the rest of it, it might be a case of "be careful what you wish for" since this (and possibly others we have not seen yet) information is exactly what some were asking for as the primary evidence possible to weigh these issues: Firsthand quotes from the Beach Boys themselves.

We now have it. Let's weigh it up based on what Carl said, not what we think he said or assume he said or speculate as to why he said it...take the words as they appear first.


Didn't you, in the very first reply to jiggityjars posting, parse the words and tell us what they meant?

My comment is the question was were the tapes destroyed and Carl answered they were not saying: "scrapped". Taylor also said they were not destroyed, so they agreed.

Carl says SMiLE was finished and Altham agreed, Brian says it was never finished with which Taylor agreed.  Carl says Brian was making the calls so there is what Brian said. I don't know who was trying to stop discussion of this thread, you were asking for more witness instead.  You're welcome.

On to what did Carl meant by "start from scratch" and how did Carl calculate "the quickest".  Hopefully Ian will have something that also sheds more light.

Have you considered Carl as the theoretical scrapped announcement conspirator?  (mind blown)
Cam - in one of the books (Rusten or Badman) I think - ( and apologize that don't have right now) there is a "hint" with (Anderle, I think but don't have the book to source ) of a move by Brian to be a solo artist.  And I wonder if Brian was being encouraged to do that, at that time.  I would imagine it would be well out of earshot of the band.  There were artists that were breaking away from the groups that they became famous with, such as Diana Ross with The Supremes just as an example.

Carl being the conspirator to scrap Smile?  With the feds chasing him for draft evasion?  Seriously?  At that time in October of 1967, Carl was becoming very respected in the anti-war context and was likely the go-to guy to do an interview.  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: mike moseley on February 03, 2016, 10:37:48 AM
I agree with you - this is hair-splitting to the nth degree

I think its obvious 'scrapped' here means discarded

Speaking as someone whose first language isn't English and who has no real connection to the words "scrap" and "parse", I think that in that LA Times article Carl's definition of "to scrap" isn't the same as Taylor's. While Taylor makes a distinction between "to scrap" and "to destroy" (the recordings are scrapped, but not destroyed), Carl when he says the recordings aren't "scrapped" means to say "they're not destroyed". So I don't see a real contradiction between the two articles. Or maybe I just don't get anymore what this controversy is about.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 03, 2016, 10:48:27 AM
I feel there's an agenda at work here. ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 10:50:23 AM
Why not let Carl's words stand as they were published and let those reading it do so without the clarifications and other items added? I had a feeling this would happen...clarifying what he meant by the "scrap" line, etc. That is parsing. Let those reading read his words first before trying to tell anyone what Carl meant 49 years later.

Cam Mott served up a list of Brian quotes instead of commenting a single word of his own on what Carl said. No comments, Cam? Could it be because it looks like Carl in 1967 may have effectively shredded (or should I say scrapped?) some of the Smile theories Cam has been posting on this and other boards for over a decade? It's much harder to disprove Carl because he has a reputation among the fan base and both Carl and his word is held in high regard, so instead it's "well Carl said this, but Brian said this and here are a dozen quotes to back me up...". Says a lot about the whole ball of wax. How about addressing what Carl said?

Now Carl's statements were "more or less prepared"...Wait, how could that possibly be known enough what went into that interview in 1967 to even comment on it? It cannot, and we don't know what was prepared and what was Carl talking off the cuff, which is why I question even bringing it up unless it's to cast doubt on what he said or why he said it.  It means nothing to the point of applying what he did say to the discussions at hand and weighing them into the discourse.

We were asking for firsthand evidence from the Beach Boys, there it is. Carl Wilson, Fall 1967. Got what we asked for. If it doesn't support but instead serves to refute some popular theories and notions about Smile and Smiley Smile and the rest of it, it might be a case of "be careful what you wish for" since this (and possibly others we have not seen yet) information is exactly what some were asking for as the primary evidence possible to weigh these issues: Firsthand quotes from the Beach Boys themselves.

We now have it. Let's weigh it up based on what Carl said, not what we think he said or assume he said or speculate as to why he said it...take the words as they appear first.


Didn't you, in the very first reply to jiggityjars posting, parse the words and tell us what they meant?

My comment is the question was were the tapes destroyed and Carl answered they were not saying: "scrapped". Taylor also said they were not destroyed, so they agreed.

Carl says SMiLE was finished and Altham agreed, Brian says it was never finished with which Taylor agreed.  Carl says Brian was making the calls so there is what Brian said. I don't know who was trying to stop discussion of this thread, you were asking for more witness instead.....you're welcome.

On to what did Carl mean by "start from scratch" and how did Carl calculate "the quickest".  Hopefully Ian will have something that also sheds more light.

Have you considered Carl as the theoretical scrapped announcement conspirator?  (mind blown)

Cam, go back and look at the reactions here to when I first mentioned the possibility that Brian was *not* the source. Of course I've considered it. That's why I said what I said. Suggesting it brought out reactions that made it seem like even suggesting or questioning such a thing was akin to blasphemy in some circles. Implications I was doing it to again bash Mike, suggestions that the whole conversation was pointless or something...so what of those who seem to insist it was and could only be Brian tipping off Derek Taylor? Perhaps you could address some of them too.

Turns out that consideration wasn't so far out after all, was it?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 10:58:45 AM
I feel there's an agenda at work here. ;)

Getting all the available information on the table on a public forum, so everyone can read it publicly and judge for themselves instead of being told what to think or why some should be ignored or dismissed over others...basic historical research, analysis, and application. The fact those Carl Wilson comments were exactly what was being asked for and were delivered with proper credit and citation for the source, then run through the ringer starting with the word "scrap" suggests there are some who might not want to let go of long-held theories that may not hold up as well as previously thought. Or some of the old theories accepted as fact may need to be reconsidered before stating them as fact in light of new information.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 03, 2016, 11:12:03 AM
I feel there's an agenda at work here. ;)

If there's any agenda at work here, I can think of no greater evidence than the blatant question-dodging that happened earlier in this thread. 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 03, 2016, 11:18:46 AM
I feel there's an agenda at work here. ;)

If there's any agenda at work here, I can think of no greater evidence than the blatant question-dodging that happened earlier in this thread.  

CD - are you adding to the fact base of information of what happened in the Spring of 1967, in a dispassionate way?

You accused me of question-dodging.  And, in a context of this new PC concept called "micro-aggression" - which I happily use in quotations.  Maybe you can tell us what that term that means. 

Dispassionately, is what I am looking at.  First-hand, from a principal, like Carl's interview, telling the world that the Smile tapes were safe and secure.  And not from some propaganda source that may be becoming debunked.  

Please don't ask me to opine on other ancillary players, when I was not there as a witness.  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 03, 2016, 11:38:16 AM
I feel there's an agenda at work here. ;)

If there's any agenda at work here, I can think of no greater evidence than the blatant question-dodging that happened earlier in this thread. 
Exactly, it's the wall of kokomaoist question dodging.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: MarcellaHasDirtyFeet on February 03, 2016, 01:10:26 PM
This thread went from very interesting to the world's most inane pissing match. And now Smile Brian is participating. Thread over  :'(


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 03, 2016, 01:18:41 PM
This thread went from very interesting to the world's most inane pissing match. And now Smile Brian is participating. Thread over  :'(
Marcella - I would not consider that remark "participating."  :lol   

Some here are working hard, to get more clarity to that very muddy era. 

And strive to ignore immature remarks, fighting and keep working.   

Some progress already!  ;)   


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 03, 2016, 01:28:01 PM
Why not let Carl's words stand as they were published and let those reading it do so without the clarifications and other items added? I had a feeling this would happen...clarifying what he meant by the "scrap" line, etc. That is parsing. Let those reading read his words first before trying to tell anyone what Carl meant 49 years later.

Cam Mott served up a list of Brian quotes instead of commenting a single word of his own on what Carl said. No comments, Cam? Could it be because it looks like Carl in 1967 may have effectively shredded (or should I say scrapped?) some of the Smile theories Cam has been posting on this and other boards for over a decade? It's much harder to disprove Carl because he has a reputation among the fan base and both Carl and his word is held in high regard, so instead it's "well Carl said this, but Brian said this and here are a dozen quotes to back me up...". Says a lot about the whole ball of wax. How about addressing what Carl said?

Now Carl's statements were "more or less prepared"...Wait, how could that possibly be known enough what went into that interview in 1967 to even comment on it? It cannot, and we don't know what was prepared and what was Carl talking off the cuff, which is why I question even bringing it up unless it's to cast doubt on what he said or why he said it.  It means nothing to the point of applying what he did say to the discussions at hand and weighing them into the discourse.

We were asking for firsthand evidence from the Beach Boys, there it is. Carl Wilson, Fall 1967. Got what we asked for. If it doesn't support but instead serves to refute some popular theories and notions about Smile and Smiley Smile and the rest of it, it might be a case of "be careful what you wish for" since this (and possibly others we have not seen yet) information is exactly what some were asking for as the primary evidence possible to weigh these issues: Firsthand quotes from the Beach Boys themselves.

We now have it. Let's weigh it up based on what Carl said, not what we think he said or assume he said or speculate as to why he said it...take the words as they appear first.


Didn't you, in the very first reply to jiggityjars posting, parse the words and tell us what they meant?

My comment is the question was were the tapes destroyed and Carl answered they were not saying: "scrapped". Taylor also said they were not destroyed, so they agreed.

Carl says SMiLE was finished and Altham agreed, Brian says it was never finished with which Taylor agreed.  Carl says Brian was making the calls so there is what Brian said. I don't know who was trying to stop discussion of this thread, you were asking for more witness instead.....you're welcome.

On to what did Carl mean by "start from scratch" and how did Carl calculate "the quickest".  Hopefully Ian will have something that also sheds more light.

Have you considered Carl as the theoretical scrapped announcement conspirator?  (mind blown)

Cam, go back and look at the reactions here to when I first mentioned the possibility that Brian was *not* the source. Of course I've considered it. That's why I said what I said. Suggesting it brought out reactions that made it seem like even suggesting or questioning such a thing was akin to blasphemy in some circles. Implications I was doing it to again bash Mike, suggestions that the whole conversation was pointless or something...so what of those who seem to insist it was and could only be Brian tipping off Derek Taylor? Perhaps you could address some of them too.

Turns out that consideration wasn't so far out after all, was it?

I'm not one of those saying it could only be Brian but the reveal was to Taylor and it seems almost certain to me that the info came from Brian which Taylor makes clear in a whole series of articles (including the announcement) about that April/May.  

I was joking about Carl. Maybe Ian can turn something, but I'm doubting it right now because I firmly believe there is nothing like that to turn. Brian told Taylor knowing he would report it. As far as I can tell almost all of Taylor's conversations and interviews came from Brian and that's what makes him a good source for stuff Brian was thinking and doing. Altham was mis-informed (as was Carl apparently) that SMiLE was ever finished by Brian (according to Brian, which even Carl says was making those decisions). It's all straightforward as far as I can see from everything presented so far.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 01:43:11 PM
Why not let Carl's words stand as they were published and let those reading it do so without the clarifications and other items added? I had a feeling this would happen...clarifying what he meant by the "scrap" line, etc. That is parsing. Let those reading read his words first before trying to tell anyone what Carl meant 49 years later.

Cam Mott served up a list of Brian quotes instead of commenting a single word of his own on what Carl said. No comments, Cam? Could it be because it looks like Carl in 1967 may have effectively shredded (or should I say scrapped?) some of the Smile theories Cam has been posting on this and other boards for over a decade? It's much harder to disprove Carl because he has a reputation among the fan base and both Carl and his word is held in high regard, so instead it's "well Carl said this, but Brian said this and here are a dozen quotes to back me up...". Says a lot about the whole ball of wax. How about addressing what Carl said?

Now Carl's statements were "more or less prepared"...Wait, how could that possibly be known enough what went into that interview in 1967 to even comment on it? It cannot, and we don't know what was prepared and what was Carl talking off the cuff, which is why I question even bringing it up unless it's to cast doubt on what he said or why he said it.  It means nothing to the point of applying what he did say to the discussions at hand and weighing them into the discourse.

We were asking for firsthand evidence from the Beach Boys, there it is. Carl Wilson, Fall 1967. Got what we asked for. If it doesn't support but instead serves to refute some popular theories and notions about Smile and Smiley Smile and the rest of it, it might be a case of "be careful what you wish for" since this (and possibly others we have not seen yet) information is exactly what some were asking for as the primary evidence possible to weigh these issues: Firsthand quotes from the Beach Boys themselves.

We now have it. Let's weigh it up based on what Carl said, not what we think he said or assume he said or speculate as to why he said it...take the words as they appear first.


Didn't you, in the very first reply to jiggityjars posting, parse the words and tell us what they meant?

My comment is the question was were the tapes destroyed and Carl answered they were not saying: "scrapped". Taylor also said they were not destroyed, so they agreed.

Carl says SMiLE was finished and Altham agreed, Brian says it was never finished with which Taylor agreed.  Carl says Brian was making the calls so there is what Brian said. I don't know who was trying to stop discussion of this thread, you were asking for more witness instead.....you're welcome.

On to what did Carl mean by "start from scratch" and how did Carl calculate "the quickest".  Hopefully Ian will have something that also sheds more light.

Have you considered Carl as the theoretical scrapped announcement conspirator?  (mind blown)

Cam, go back and look at the reactions here to when I first mentioned the possibility that Brian was *not* the source. Of course I've considered it. That's why I said what I said. Suggesting it brought out reactions that made it seem like even suggesting or questioning such a thing was akin to blasphemy in some circles. Implications I was doing it to again bash Mike, suggestions that the whole conversation was pointless or something...so what of those who seem to insist it was and could only be Brian tipping off Derek Taylor? Perhaps you could address some of them too.

Turns out that consideration wasn't so far out after all, was it?

I'm not one of those saying it could only be Brian but the reveal was to Taylor and it seems almost certain to me that the info came from Brian which Taylor makes clear in a whole series of articles (including the announcement) about that April/May.  

I was joking about Carl. Maybe Ian can turn something, but I'm doubting it right now because I firmly believe there is nothing like that to turn. Brian told Taylor knowing he would report it. As far as I can tell almost all of Taylor's conversations and interviews came from Brian and that's what makes him a good source for stuff Brian was thinking and doing. Altham was mis-informed (as was Carl apparently) that SMiLE was ever finished by Brian (according to Brian, which even Carl says was making those decisions). It's all straightforward as far as I can see from everything presented so far.

I was not joking. On the basis of what you now say, and in spite of Carl's own words after Smiley Smile had been released, you're latest point is that Carl speaking to the LA Times published October 67 was "misinformed"?

"We didn't scrap them," Carl said. "We just haven't used them yet. We did it all from scratch when we started again. We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked. We all didn't agree on different types of things. We decided to do something new."


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 01:48:06 PM
Cam, by October 1967 if Carl was unaware of what had been going on as of April or whenever the first Altham article came out, I can be reasonably certain he knew enough to speak with firsthand knowledge about what happened after four months or so of working on the music directly with his brother Brian and working to build Brother Records in general.

Seriously Cam, where is your logic coming from that compels you to bend and twist even the most definitive statement from a primary source like Carl into something that agrees with your theories?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The Cincinnati Kid on February 03, 2016, 01:49:02 PM
If Smile was really finished, wouldn't it have been released in the next few years?  I'm not really seeing what Carl's quote adds to the discussion here.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 01:55:15 PM
If Smile was really finished, wouldn't it have been released in the next few years?  I'm not really seeing what Carl's quote adds to the discussion here.

There were discussions of what to do with the tracks other than Heroes and Vegetables which are confirmed by a late July 67 memo from Capitol's Karl Engemann, where the memo mentioned discussions between "Polley, Schwartz..." and Brian Wilson about how to handle distributing the Smile booklet in light of Smiley Smile's release and the tracks mentioned in that booklet not being included on Smiley. The decision was to hold back the booklet until the "10" tracks not on Smiley Smile but somehow referenced in the booklet would be released in the future.

Those are from Capitol memos that suggest there were still plans in existence to do something with the unused Smile tracks. Add that to Carl's comment (and others) and there was still talk of doing something with those remaining Smile tracks.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: The Shift on February 03, 2016, 01:57:53 PM
"We didn't scrap them," Carl said. "We just haven't used them yet. We did it all from scratch when we started again. We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked. We all didn't agree on different types of things. We decided to do something new."

Surely that "Smile is finished" statement effectively discredits some of what Carl had to say that day? Or are we now holding on to the hope that a tape has been/will be found in time for a 50th anniversary "reveal"?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 03, 2016, 01:59:39 PM
This thread went from very interesting to the world's most inane pissing match. And now Smile Brian is participating. Thread over  :'(
Thanks for the mature comments to me .... :-\


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 03, 2016, 02:21:59 PM
The 7/67 memo, to me, indicates that Capitol were trying to salvage something, anything, from a series of cripplingly expensive sessions. That Brian apparently agreed to their plan is beside the point: it didn't happen.

As for Carl saying the album was finished... his 1972 statement about Smile being finally released utterly contradicts that. He said it would be pieced together and where necessary overdubbed: does that sound like a finished item to anyone here ?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The Cincinnati Kid on February 03, 2016, 02:51:25 PM
The 7/67 memo, to me, indicates that Capitol were trying to salvage something, anything, from a series of cripplingly expensive sessions. That Brian apparently agreed to their plan is beside the point: it didn't happen.

As for Carl saying the album was finished... his 1972 statement about Smile being finally released utterly contradicts that. He said it would be pieced together and where necessary overdubbed: does that sound like a finished item to anyone here ?

This is what I'm thinking as well.  His 1967 statements are just PR damage control, imo.  The only other possibility is that the "rest" of the album actually was lost/destroyed sometime between 1967 and when Smile tracks started showing up on albums. 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 03, 2016, 03:24:27 PM
I feel there's an agenda at work here. ;)

If there's any agenda at work here, I can think of no greater evidence than the blatant question-dodging that happened earlier in this thread.  

CD - are you adding to the fact base of information of what happened in the Spring of 1967, in a dispassionate way?

You accused me of question-dodging.  And, in a context of this new PC concept called "micro-aggression" - which I happily use in quotations.  Maybe you can tell us what that term that means.  

Dispassionately, is what I am looking at.  First-hand, from a principal, like Carl's interview, telling the world that the Smile tapes were safe and secure.  And not from some propaganda source that may be becoming debunked.  

Please don't ask me to opine on other ancillary players, when I was not there as a witness.  

It’s quite simple: there’s a not negligible element at play when “adding to the fact base of information of what happened in the Spring of 1967” as you put it. A white elephant in the room that some people, such as yourself, try to avoid getting into is whether or not it’s logical that Brian’s state of mind would likely have been impacted, even in the slightest, by his bandmates' actions/vibes. IMO it’s enormously offbase to just try to blot that area out with White-Out simply because we aren’t “privy” to what happened. It’s true –we aren’t privy, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t make assumptions based on logic. It’s completely illogical to say that a person in a band, under enormous pressure, wouldn’t be impacted AT ALL by their mates’ opinions, frustrations, and questions. Our lack of full scope of their interpersonal relationships at the time does not negate the potential impact these actions could have made, does it?

You are clearly a big fan of the band, know the BB story and personalities very well (likely as well as most anyone could who’s not in the inner circle), and clearly everyone has some sort of opinion in their head, one way or another, about whether or not what I’ve just mentioned is remotely fathomable.  It either is possible, or it is not possible. Neither I, nor anyone on this board I’m sure, honestly believes that you don’t have an opinion either way about it. It’s yay or nay, or somewhere in between. It’s not “no answer”. Neither of us have the conclusive answer to what we are discussing – you can only pick what you honestly think is the most logical answer of the two choices: you think it likely had an effect (however insignificant)... or  you are claiming it’s logical to think that Brian’s mates had NO effect whatsoever on his state of mind. One of those two scenarios played out, and you know it.  

If you are somehow not dodging a question, please direct me to what you believe an example of dodging a question WOULD be. Or will you dodge this last question too?

It’s kind of like you saying that we only know that Murry or Landy had any kind of negative effect on Brian’s state of mind because of physical damage that happened from those guys, but that potential emotional wounds inflicted by other people are completely unimportant because we don’t have any physical proof of them. Pics or it didn’t happen, right? You do realize that type of mindset is exactly how emotional abusers continue to get away with abuse. No physical injuries means no emotional trauma or mistreatment could POSSIBLY have happened at any time, ever... right?

You surely have an opinion (perhaps somewhat mixed, not a black-and-white opinion, but an opinion nonetheless) of Murry and/or Landy, right? Every knowledgeable, well-read BB fan (such as yourself) does, to some degree. But you weren't there as a witness. So how exactly does that work? Care to explain?

PS - regarding my terminology of "microagressions" - while I have heard the term used by people in reference to subtle, aggressive comments in general, I may have misused the word since the dictionary seems to imply it is most appropriately used regarding racial stereotypes. So I'd replace that terminology with "passive aggression" or other behaviors that would have either directly or indirectly displayed dissatisfaction, lack of support, etc.  Stuff that a sensitive person could blow out of proportion. Because, you know, Brian's a sensitive guy who's been known to do that sometimes.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 03, 2016, 03:57:07 PM
Why not let Carl's words stand as they were published and let those reading it do so without the clarifications and other items added? I had a feeling this would happen...clarifying what he meant by the "scrap" line, etc. That is parsing. Let those reading read his words first before trying to tell anyone what Carl meant 49 years later.

Cam Mott served up a list of Brian quotes instead of commenting a single word of his own on what Carl said. No comments, Cam? Could it be because it looks like Carl in 1967 may have effectively shredded (or should I say scrapped?) some of the Smile theories Cam has been posting on this and other boards for over a decade? It's much harder to disprove Carl because he has a reputation among the fan base and both Carl and his word is held in high regard, so instead it's "well Carl said this, but Brian said this and here are a dozen quotes to back me up...". Says a lot about the whole ball of wax. How about addressing what Carl said?

Now Carl's statements were "more or less prepared"...Wait, how could that possibly be known enough what went into that interview in 1967 to even comment on it? It cannot, and we don't know what was prepared and what was Carl talking off the cuff, which is why I question even bringing it up unless it's to cast doubt on what he said or why he said it.  It means nothing to the point of applying what he did say to the discussions at hand and weighing them into the discourse.

We were asking for firsthand evidence from the Beach Boys, there it is. Carl Wilson, Fall 1967. Got what we asked for. If it doesn't support but instead serves to refute some popular theories and notions about Smile and Smiley Smile and the rest of it, it might be a case of "be careful what you wish for" since this (and possibly others we have not seen yet) information is exactly what some were asking for as the primary evidence possible to weigh these issues: Firsthand quotes from the Beach Boys themselves.

We now have it. Let's weigh it up based on what Carl said, not what we think he said or assume he said or speculate as to why he said it...take the words as they appear first.


Didn't you, in the very first reply to jiggityjars posting, parse the words and tell us what they meant?

My comment is the question was were the tapes destroyed and Carl answered they were not saying: "scrapped". Taylor also said they were not destroyed, so they agreed.

Carl says SMiLE was finished and Altham agreed, Brian says it was never finished with which Taylor agreed.  Carl says Brian was making the calls so there is what Brian said. I don't know who was trying to stop discussion of this thread, you were asking for more witness instead.....you're welcome.

On to what did Carl mean by "start from scratch" and how did Carl calculate "the quickest".  Hopefully Ian will have something that also sheds more light.

Have you considered Carl as the theoretical scrapped announcement conspirator?  (mind blown)

Cam, go back and look at the reactions here to when I first mentioned the possibility that Brian was *not* the source. Of course I've considered it. That's why I said what I said. Suggesting it brought out reactions that made it seem like even suggesting or questioning such a thing was akin to blasphemy in some circles. Implications I was doing it to again bash Mike, suggestions that the whole conversation was pointless or something...so what of those who seem to insist it was and could only be Brian tipping off Derek Taylor? Perhaps you could address some of them too.

Turns out that consideration wasn't so far out after all, was it?

I'm not one of those saying it could only be Brian but the reveal was to Taylor and it seems almost certain to me that the info came from Brian which Taylor makes clear in a whole series of articles (including the announcement) about that April/May.  

I was joking about Carl. Maybe Ian can turn something, but I'm doubting it right now because I firmly believe there is nothing like that to turn. Brian told Taylor knowing he would report it. As far as I can tell almost all of Taylor's conversations and interviews came from Brian and that's what makes him a good source for stuff Brian was thinking and doing. Altham was mis-informed (as was Carl apparently) that SMiLE was ever finished by Brian (according to Brian, which even Carl says was making those decisions). It's all straightforward as far as I can see from everything presented so far.

I was not joking. On the basis of what you now say, and in spite of Carl's own words after Smiley Smile had been released, you're latest point is that Carl speaking to the LA Times published October 67 was "misinformed"?

"We didn't scrap them," Carl said. "We just haven't used them yet. We did it all from scratch when we started again. We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked. We all didn't agree on different types of things. We decided to do something new."


According to Brian, as I said.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 03, 2016, 03:59:47 PM
Cam, by October 1967 if Carl was unaware of what had been going on as of April or whenever the first Altham article came out, I can be reasonably certain he knew enough to speak with firsthand knowledge about what happened after four months or so of working on the music directly with his brother Brian and working to build Brother Records in general.

Seriously Cam, where is your logic coming from that compels you to bend and twist even the most definitive statement from a primary source like Carl into something that agrees with your theories?

You are arguing and logic-ing with Brian, are you saying your "logic" trumps Brian too?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 03, 2016, 04:13:37 PM
If Smile was really finished, wouldn't it have been released in the next few years?  I'm not really seeing what Carl's quote adds to the discussion here.

You would think wouldn't you. Why not just release that supposedly finished album (that Brian says he never finished) instead of coming up with a plan to spend more money making Smiley and still release the rest of the remnants as per Brian and Engemann's supposed plan.  Talk about logic.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: felipe on February 03, 2016, 06:02:16 PM
How can anyone believe SMiLE was finished when Brian himself said in Beautiful Dreamer he didn't release it because he would need a whole year to do it and nobody would have given him that time


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Jim V. on February 03, 2016, 07:02:17 PM
If Smile was really finished, wouldn't it have been released in the next few years?  I'm not really seeing what Carl's quote adds to the discussion here.

You would think wouldn't you. Why not just release that supposedly finished album (that Brian says he never finished) instead of coming up with a plan to spend more money making Smiley and still release the rest of the remnants as per Brian and Engemann's supposed plan.  Talk about logic.

I think this whole argument is a bit senseless, but I do wanna address this. One theoretical reason why Brian would spend more money making Smiley instead of releasing the prior finished album would possibly be because he's an artist and he didn't want the prior album released as maybe he wasn't happy with it.

But it's all for naught anyways cuz there wasn't any kind of finished SMiLE album at the time. So that's that.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 08:12:21 PM
Now the suggestion of discrediting Carl appears in the discussion. In both this and the other Smile discussions, so far we have seen attempts or suggestions to discredit the following people: Carl, Brian, Al, Michael Vosse, David Anderle, Jules Siegel. Any others to add? Van Dyke perhaps? Anyone else?

First question: Let's say we do for whatever reasons. Just discredit them and their words regarding what they've said or written about Smile since 1967.

Someone tell me who that leaves as a solid and reliable source when it comes to telling the history of Smile moving forward?


That bothers me in general, for the simple fact that we're basing this on how some are interpreting, parsing, or trying to explain their words. If everyone involved with this band were 100% free and clear of any errors, mistakes, bad memories, or outright lies in the past 50+ years, that would be different. They're not. None of them.

Related to that: We're trying to bend and shape what Carl said, suggesting he was lying to do PR, suggesting whatever else to discredit his comment about finishing the album. Most of the weight of that falls on the fact that there is no master tape, no acetate, no recorded example that exists of either a 10 or 12 track album sequenced and banded together. That's been known and obvious to anyone.

Is it possible to suggest they had plans for the album, had first those 12 tracks set and waiting for it all to be put together, and further the 10 tracks not on Smiley as referenced by the Capitol memo in late July 67? It was the same with Wild Honey not long after Carl's October 67 interview. The plans on the table for that album when the original liner notes were written included a collection of live recordings to go with the studio tracks. Some of the titles were different in name as well.

Guess what...whatever plan that was soon changed into what we know as Wild Honey.

Is there a master tape or an acetate of the sequence for the album as the liner notes originally said? No.

Does that mean the plans for the album which would include all of the tracks listed plus the live material existed as Wild Honey at that particular time, in terms of the tracks are listed and were available? Yes. At that point, Wild Honey was what the tracklist said. Plans changed.

Or, perhaps Carl was just lying...lets run that scenario. He's lying about the finished album. Why? The Beach Boys the month Carl did that interview had just released their first album on Brother Records, following up the Heroes and Gettin Hungry singles.

The band won, they beat Capitol. They won the money they asked for, they got their record label set up and got Capitol to distribute the label's releases. They asked for and got revised contracts from Capitol. They were David battling Goliath and David won.

They needed little if any leverage as of September 1967 as plans were coming to fruition. When they needed leverage was the Spring of 67 after the lawsuit was filed and went public.

Capitol in late July was on board with the plans for the "ten tracks" as outlined in the memo.

If Carl were lying, why did he? He and his bandmates had just run the table on Capitol and came out on top.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 03, 2016, 08:19:08 PM
I'm wonder how Carl was measuring "quickest"?  Did he mean man hours or studio hours or days in studio or span from first session to last session? Is he just talking about the Boys involvement or the Boys and the hired musicians contributions?

If you count studio days on AGD's sessionography site, Smiley is far from the quickest album. Of the 13 albums up to Smiley, only SMiLE and PS (just barely if you count the 1965 session) had more studio days than SS and that's if you don't count the April/May sessions for Smiley (just for arguments sake).


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 03, 2016, 08:24:20 PM
It had never crossed my mind that Carl was lying about the finished work. I mean, we have now, released, plenty of finished-sounding Smile work. But that opens a second time when they coul've released and didn't. Why?
Btw - obviously I only speak for me, but when I mentioned Carl being diplomatic, I was thinking about his avoidance of ever mentioning internal difficulties; similar to his denials of Murry being abusive.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 08:28:21 PM
There were no April or May sessions for Smiley Smile. But if you choose to call Carl a liar and discredit everything he says, Cam...logic and facts then mean nothing and you could say Smiley Smile was the plan all along dating back to Summer 1966, it carries the same level of accuracy.

You have no proof. What Carl said in Fall 1967 ripped your theory to shreds. Or, should we now parse what Carl meant when he said Smiley was "started from scratch" so the theory still works?

Recording various bits in April then changing the entire direction of the music and the recording methods specific to one week in June is not starting from scratch. If they already started Smiley in April, then they would not have been starting from scratch when they moved to Brian's home studio in June.

Oh, but Carl's word can be thrown out as he's been discredited, right? He only worked on the music, he didn't have access to session data and NME articles and timelines to reference.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 08:35:22 PM
It had never crossed my mind that Carl was lying about the finished work. I mean, we have now, released, plenty of finished-sounding Smile work. But that opens a second time when they coul've released and didn't. Why?
Btw - obviously I only speak for me, but when I mentioned Carl being diplomatic, I was thinking about his avoidance of ever mentioning internal difficulties; similar to his denials of Murry being abusive.

What second time was available that fall? Smiley came out in September. The Wild Honey single dropped in October, by that time the plan was to shift to a more R&B flavored sound for the band, and that single did just that. The Wild Honey album came out in December. Maybe whatever plans there were to still put out those ten Smile tracks mentioned by Capitol got changed as soon as the band decided to do R&B rather than the music on Smile.

There are many issues at work that were not recorded on session sheets and timelines, or published in magazines.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 03, 2016, 09:04:32 PM
It had never crossed my mind that Carl was lying about the finished work. I mean, we have now, released, plenty of finished-sounding Smile work. But that opens a second time when they coul've released and didn't. Why?
Btw - obviously I only speak for me, but when I mentioned Carl being diplomatic, I was thinking about his avoidance of ever mentioning internal difficulties; similar to his denials of Murry being abusive.

What second time was available that fall? Smiley came out in September. The Wild Honey single dropped in October, by that time the plan was to shift to a more R&B flavored sound for the band, and that single did just that. The Wild Honey album came out in December. Maybe whatever plans there were to still put out those ten Smile tracks mentioned by Capitol got changed as soon as the band decided to do R&B rather than the music on Smile.

There are many issues at work that were not recorded on session sheets and timelines, or published in magazines.
I guess it makes sense that they didn't release it if they wanted to move in a new direction and they didn't think that sound represented them anymore. It just a strange thought that they were sitting on this amazing music that was somewhat ready-to-go and didn't release it for whatever myriad reasons. I'd never really thought before that it was close to a releasable state. It makes it seem even more of a shame.
I'm still confused by the scrapped/not scrapped series of reports from May and what the dynamic was that caused them to change gears so completely and seemingly suddenly. Does the shift from Capitol to Brother influence that? Is the studio work a more direct expense for them under Brother? Might it have been a financial decision?

Separately, and I'm hoping there's an easy answer because I'm not trying to shift the topic, (if the answer's not easy, just say so) is it known what the drive was to shift to R&B?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 09:08:19 PM
It had never crossed my mind that Carl was lying about the finished work. I mean, we have now, released, plenty of finished-sounding Smile work. But that opens a second time when they coul've released and didn't. Why?
Btw - obviously I only speak for me, but when I mentioned Carl being diplomatic, I was thinking about his avoidance of ever mentioning internal difficulties; similar to his denials of Murry being abusive.

What second time was available that fall? Smiley came out in September. The Wild Honey single dropped in October, by that time the plan was to shift to a more R&B flavored sound for the band, and that single did just that. The Wild Honey album came out in December. Maybe whatever plans there were to still put out those ten Smile tracks mentioned by Capitol got changed as soon as the band decided to do R&B rather than the music on Smile.

There are many issues at work that were not recorded on session sheets and timelines, or published in magazines.
I guess it makes sense that they didn't release it if they wanted to move in a new direction and they didn't think that sound represented them anymore. It just a strange thought that they were sitting on this amazing music that was somewhat ready-to-go and didn't release it for whatever myriad reasons. I'd never really thought before that it was close to a releasable state. It makes it seem even more of a shame.
I'm still confused by the scrapped/not scrapped series of reports from May and what the dynamic was that caused them to change gears so completely and seemingly suddenly. Does the shift from Capitol to Brother influence that? Is the studio work a more direct expense for them under Brother? Might it have been a financial decision?

Separately, and I'm hoping there's an easy answer because I'm not trying to shift the topic, (if the answer's not easy, just say so) is it known what the drive was to shift to R&B?

Carl also commented on the shift to R&B with Wild Honey. "We all really dug Motown, right?...So Brian reckoned we should get more into a white R&B bag. I also recall around that time the band, and Brian in particular, getting criticized very heavily for sounding like choirboys."


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 09:15:00 PM
Emily: I'll answer your other question about changing gears so suddenly with my opinion, I think a lot happened between the time the band returned from the European tour in late May, then went to the pro studios like Western for the first week of June, then there was a gap of about a week, and when they resumed recording it was at Brian's house in a studio which had been hastily assembled using rented gear. It was a sudden shift in direction, no doubt. That Taylor piece from that summer says "attitude and atmosphere" changes were made along with moving the sessions to Brian's house in June to get the new sessions up and running, the ones Carl said they started from scratch.

The answers, in my opinion, would be found somewhere in those first two weeks in June 1967.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 03, 2016, 09:21:34 PM
There were no April or May sessions for Smiley Smile. But if you choose to call Carl a liar and discredit everything he says, Cam...logic and facts then mean nothing and you could say Smiley Smile was the plan all along dating back to Summer 1966, it carries the same level of accuracy.

You have no proof. What Carl said in Fall 1967 ripped your theory to shreds. Or, should we now parse what Carl meant when he said Smiley was "started from scratch" so the theory still works?

Recording various bits in April then changing the entire direction of the music and the recording methods specific to one week in June is not starting from scratch. If they already started Smiley in April, then they would not have been starting from scratch when they moved to Brian's home studio in June.

Oh, but Carl's word can be thrown out as he's been discredited, right? He only worked on the music, he didn't have access to session data and NME articles and timelines to reference.

You probably should refrain from accusing people of calling people a liar. You are arguing with me over somebody else's words, as I've already pointed out.  Pointing out how someone disagrees or where they are mistaken isn't calling them a liar.

All of the June sessions for Vegetables save one were not in the home studio, is the whole Smiley track from that one June 15 home studio session?  I've explained my reasons and given my evidence for calling Vegetables a Smiley Smile track (it is on the tracklist), I could be wrong, just as you could be wrong based on your ears and parsing.

Start from scratch, what would he mean by that? Can you start from scratch when you are using material previously recorded 5 to 8 month earlier for a different album?  If you've changed the title and lyrics and master number, is that starting from scratch?

So how would you think Carl would have measured "quickest" and what is your math?



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 03, 2016, 09:24:23 PM
Emily: I'll answer your other question about changing gears so suddenly with my opinion, I think a lot happened between the time the band returned from the European tour in late May, then went to the pro studios like Western for the first week of June, then there was a gap of about a week, and when they resumed recording it was at Brian's house in a studio which had been hastily assembled using rented gear. It was a sudden shift in direction, no doubt. That Taylor piece from that summer says "attitude and atmosphere" changes were made along with moving the sessions to Brian's house in June to get the new sessions up and running, the ones Carl said they started from scratch.

The answers, in my opinion, would be found somewhere in those first two weeks in June 1967.
And is the information in your post pretty much all the hard information we have of what went on during those two weeks? The Taylor piece giving a look back from a month later, some session sheets, and the knowledge that they moved recording into BW's house and it was haphazard? Was Stephen Desper working with them? Would he be a good source for what happened at that time?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 09:31:15 PM
Emily: I'll answer your other question about changing gears so suddenly with my opinion, I think a lot happened between the time the band returned from the European tour in late May, then went to the pro studios like Western for the first week of June, then there was a gap of about a week, and when they resumed recording it was at Brian's house in a studio which had been hastily assembled using rented gear. It was a sudden shift in direction, no doubt. That Taylor piece from that summer says "attitude and atmosphere" changes were made along with moving the sessions to Brian's house in June to get the new sessions up and running, the ones Carl said they started from scratch.

The answers, in my opinion, would be found somewhere in those first two weeks in June 1967.
And is the information in your post pretty much all the hard information we have of what went on during those two weeks? The Taylor piece giving a look back from a month later, some session sheets, and the knowledge that they moved recording into BW's house and it was haphazard? Was Stephen Desper working with them? Would he be a good source for what happened at that time?

COMMENT:  I have answered this question in detail, if you can somehow look back at past postings, but here in a few words is what the scene was.

The question before management was should a studio be built at Brian's home or not. Someone said let's try it out. At that time I was working mostly on the road, but came in to help Jimmy Lockard who had been hired (through Hider Studios) to make it happen. He rented a Gates Radio Company console and rigged it to work as a recording console. He rented Altec speakers that Brian liked, a 4- then 8-track track from Hider. With a closed circuit TV system between the large living room and Brian's den, across the hallway entrance (foyer) and, oh yes, some headphones and a mic or five, booms -- all that stuff.  We recorded like that for several months. Then a big tour was in the booking. It was decided to build four consoles, special amplifiers, and good microphones for this huge tour in the US and Europe. I was to design the system to be used in a recording studio setting upon return to LA. The system, actually two systems, was thus designed at a cost of 200,000 in 1960-70 dollars. The system was designed and built for the tour. Upon the ending of that tour, a team of carpenters converted one of two living rooms in Brian's house to a studio and control room -- later added an echo chamber. It took several weeks to build the monitor speaker for the control room.


~swd


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 09:34:38 PM
The questions regarding what happened those first two weeks of June might be more specific to what was happening within the band, and decisions to be made on moving forward. One of those was getting Brian's house fitted out with rented equipment to begin recording at the house in mid-June, which is outlined above.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 03, 2016, 09:39:14 PM
I apologize, everyone, for needing things explained to me like a kindergartener, but that's what I am when it comes to Smile stuff (other than as a music listener).
So this just occurred to me, with the scrapped/not scrapped and sudden change: is it possible that Brian was getting flustered and unable to finish the work to his satisfaction, though it seemed so close; and that the rest of the band when they got back just figured something had to be done quickly to get product out, but couldn't get Brian to wrap up what he had (maybe with the feeling Mike was depicted to have with the cellos in Love and Mercy), so they just basically said "we're just going to home-record what we can; get it out; then we can finish this up?" But then, after the lapse of time, interests had changed (R&B) and the Smile recordings from a distance seemed even more overwhelming, so they just never went back to it?

That's obviously an oversimplification, but might it be a general outline?

I saw the Desper thing just before posting this - thank you. The tour he refers to, I assume, is not the Spring 1967 tour but the next one? After Smiley Smile?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 09:41:43 PM
Emily: What specifically happened among band members in those first two weeks in June might be restricted at this point to what any of them have chosen to say, or what they may choose to say. Very little has been published through the years, minus the technical descriptions about the recordings in the house once it was set up.

But we know some major changes happened in those weeks, biggest among them that they started from scratch and began recording in a totally different way than they had been for the past several years. If those changes happened in private and no one chooses to reveal what happened, then unfortunately we'll only have what we know led up to those changes and what the changes produced, which on the surface was the new Heroes single and the Smiley album, with a jaunt to Hawaii to play live sandwiched in between.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 03, 2016, 09:44:07 PM
Emily: What specifically happened among band members in those first two weeks in June might be restricted at this point to what any of them have chosen to say, or what they may choose to say. Very little has been published through the years, minus the technical descriptions about the recordings in the house once it was set up.

But we know some major changes happened in those weeks, biggest among them that they started from scratch and began recording in a totally different way than they had been for the past several years. If those changes happened in private and no one chooses to reveal what happened, then unfortunately we'll only have what we know led up to those changes and what the changes produced, which on the surface was the new Heroes single and the Smiley album, with a jaunt to Hawaii to play live sandwiched in between.
I think it's pretty clear that this is the moment that the group's basic paradigm shifted.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 09:53:07 PM
I apologize, everyone, for needing things explained to me like a kindergartener, but that's what I am when it comes to Smile stuff (other than as a music listener).
So this just occurred to me, with the scrapped/not scrapped and sudden change: is it possible that Brian was getting flustered and unable to finish the work to his satisfaction, though it seemed so close; and that the rest of the band when they got back just figured something had to be done quickly to get product out, but couldn't get Brian to wrap up what he had (maybe with the feeling Mike was depicted to have with the cellos in Love and Mercy), so they just basically said "we're just going to home-record what we can; get it out; then we can finish this up?" But then, after the lapse of time, interests had changed (R&B) and the Smile recordings from a distance seemed even more overwhelming, so they just never went back to it?

That's obviously an oversimplification, but might it be a general outline?

I saw the Desper thing just before posting this - thank you. The tour he refers to, I assume, is not the Spring 1967 tour but the next one? After Smiley Smile?

No apologies necessary, your contributions are both welcome and valuable!

Your general outline to me is as valid if not moreso than quite a few others I've seen, in fact it's more logical than some which have been offered and even suggested as fact in previous years.

Your outline sums up a lot of what I've been posting most recently to this discussion. Specific to your comments, we're pretty much on the same page. By the time there was a realistic window of opportunity to release the unused Smile material, hypothetically after Smiley Smile released Sept '67, the band had moved to their R&B sound with Wild Honey, with that single in October 67. They ended 1967 with Wild Honey as their current album going into 1968.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 03, 2016, 10:08:42 PM
Has any other Beach Boy ever said SMiLE was finished?

The SMiLE album artwork was ready and publicized in March and the actual album covers were done in April, so we are thinking that Brian is deliberately still recording tracks for SMiLE of alternate title or title that will not appear on the album covers that are either being made or already made instead of those alternate tracks being for the alternate album Smiley Smile.  It said "See label for correct playing order" not "for correct titles and unlisted songs".


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 03, 2016, 10:33:07 PM
Has any other Beach Boy ever said SMiLE was finished?

The SMiLE album artwork was ready and publicized in March and the actual album covers were done in April, so we are thinking that Brian is deliberately still recording tracks for SMiLE of alternate title or title that will not appear on the album covers that are either being made or already made instead of those alternate tracks being for the alternate album Smiley Smile.  It said "See label for correct playing order" not "for correct titles and unlisted songs".
Hi Cam, I'm sorry to ask you to repeat something; I looked back a few pages and couldn't find it, though I know it's there: when did the spelling of 'vegetables' change? And was it consistently one way and then consistently another after a certain date? And was there a song on Smiley Smile that they worked on before they went to the home studio that was not on the Smile sleeve?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on February 03, 2016, 11:02:01 PM
Quote
The SMiLE album artwork was ready and publicized in March and the actual album covers were done in April, so we are thinking that Brian is deliberately still recording tracks for SMiLE of alternate title or title that will not appear on the album covers that are either being made or already made instead of those alternate tracks being for the alternate album Smiley Smile.  It said "See label for correct playing order" not "for correct titles and unlisted songs".

I hadn't realised the covers were completed/printed/delivered in April. So Capitol, at least, was still working on the basis that work on SMiLE was ongoing, it appears.

Now, if you were the 'level-headed' brother in a family band, and that band was/had been in recent legal conflict with their record label, and that record label had conceded on the crucial points and was about to give your band its own subsidiary label, and that record label had been paying for months of recording that your brother/band leader had now decided was to be junked: wouldn't you try and provide some diplomatic commentary - 'damage control' might be another term for it - on that topic to the press?

That's just supposition, of course. Even 'parsing', if you like. Maybe you wouldn't. I suspect I would.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 03, 2016, 11:07:51 PM
Has any other Beach Boy ever said SMiLE was finished?

The SMiLE album artwork was ready and publicized in March and the actual album covers were done in April, so we are thinking that Brian is deliberately still recording tracks for SMiLE of alternate title or title that will not appear on the album covers that are either being made or already made instead of those alternate tracks being for the alternate album Smiley Smile.  It said "See label for correct playing order" not "for correct titles and unlisted songs".
Hi Cam, I'm sorry to ask you to repeat something; I looked back a few pages and couldn't find it, though I know it's there: when did the spelling of 'vegetables' change? And was it consistently one way and then consistently another after a certain date? And was there a song on Smiley Smile that they worked on before they went to the home studio that was not on the Smile sleeve?

I don't know that "Vega-Tables" was ever on any session documentation, even for the "cornucopia" demo.  As far as I know it was consistently spelled "Vega-Tables" on all SMiLE documentation (track list, booklet) and the titles of the publicized SMiLE album mock ups of March.

Then from April 4 on , as far as I know, (when the SMiLE album covers were being made or were already finished) it had alternate lyrics to Vega-Tables, had a different master number and session number that was continuous from then on, was always noted as "Vegetables" on AFM and Capitol session documents and tape boxes and session vocal slates as "Vegetables", and on the Smiley Smile album back liner track list. Other titles from late March, April, and May do not appear on the SMiLE track list either and I believe they also were recorded under the SMiLE/Smiley Capitol album project number as was "Vegetables" (not certain about "Tones").
 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 03, 2016, 11:14:34 PM
Quote
The SMiLE album artwork was ready and publicized in March and the actual album covers were done in April, so we are thinking that Brian is deliberately still recording tracks for SMiLE of alternate title or title that will not appear on the album covers that are either being made or already made instead of those alternate tracks being for the alternate album Smiley Smile.  It said "See label for correct playing order" not "for correct titles and unlisted songs".

I hadn't realised the covers were completed/printed/delivered in April. So Capitol, at least, was still working on the basis that work on SMiLE was ongoing, it appears.

Now, if you were the 'level-headed' brother in a family band, and that band was/had been in recent legal conflict with their record label, and that record label had conceded on the crucial points and was about to give your band its own subsidiary label, and that record label had been paying for months of recording that your brother/band leader had now decided was to be junked: wouldn't you try and provide some diplomatic commentary - 'damage control' might be another term for it - on that topic to the press?

That's just supposition, of course. Even 'parsing', if you like. Maybe you wouldn't. I suspect I would.

Remember that article in LLVS (p. 140) where Mike says "Capitol finished the sleeve in April already".


(I feel some parsing a'comin')


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 03, 2016, 11:17:44 PM
Has any other Beach Boy ever said SMiLE was finished?

The SMiLE album artwork was ready and publicized in March and the actual album covers were done in April, so we are thinking that Brian is deliberately still recording tracks for SMiLE of alternate title or title that will not appear on the album covers that are either being made or already made instead of those alternate tracks being for the alternate album Smiley Smile.  It said "See label for correct playing order" not "for correct titles and unlisted songs".
Hi Cam, I'm sorry to ask you to repeat something; I looked back a few pages and couldn't find it, though I know it's there: when did the spelling of 'vegetables' change? And was it consistently one way and then consistently another after a certain date? And was there a song on Smiley Smile that they worked on before they went to the home studio that was not on the Smile sleeve?

I don't know that "Vega-Tables" was ever on any session documentation, even for the "cornucopia" demo.  As far as I know it was consistently spelled "Vega-Tables" on all SMiLE documentation (track list, booklet) and the titles of the publicized SMiLE album mock ups of March.

Then from April 4 on (when the SMiLE album covers were being made or were already finished), as far as I know, it had alternate lyrics to Vega-Tables, had a different master number and session number that was continuous from then on, was always noted as "Vegetables" on AFM and Capitol session documents and tape boxes and session vocal slates as "Vegetables", and on the Smiley Smile album back liner track list. Other titles from late March, April, and May do not appear on the SMiLE track list either and I believe they also were recorded under the SMiLE/Smiley Capitol album project number as was "Vegetables" (not certain about "Tones").
 
Well that's confusing. I'm beginning to see how people have spent decades and reams of paper on this subject!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 03, 2016, 11:20:07 PM
Quote
The SMiLE album artwork was ready and publicized in March and the actual album covers were done in April, so we are thinking that Brian is deliberately still recording tracks for SMiLE of alternate title or title that will not appear on the album covers that are either being made or already made instead of those alternate tracks being for the alternate album Smiley Smile.  It said "See label for correct playing order" not "for correct titles and unlisted songs".

I hadn't realised the covers were completed/printed/delivered in April. So Capitol, at least, was still working on the basis that work on SMiLE was ongoing, it appears.

Now, if you were the 'level-headed' brother in a family band, and that band was/had been in recent legal conflict with their record label, and that record label had conceded on the crucial points and was about to give your band its own subsidiary label, and that record label had been paying for months of recording that your brother/band leader had now decided was to be junked: wouldn't you try and provide some diplomatic commentary - 'damage control' might be another term for it - on that topic to the press?

That's just supposition, of course. Even 'parsing', if you like. Maybe you wouldn't. I suspect I would.
This is a good point. I'd never really thought of the label as the audience for their public comments, but of course they had to keep the label in mind and say things in a way not alarming to the label.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 03, 2016, 11:22:35 PM
Has any other Beach Boy ever said SMiLE was finished?

The SMiLE album artwork was ready and publicized in March and the actual album covers were done in April, so we are thinking that Brian is deliberately still recording tracks for SMiLE of alternate title or title that will not appear on the album covers that are either being made or already made instead of those alternate tracks being for the alternate album Smiley Smile.  It said "See label for correct playing order" not "for correct titles and unlisted songs".
Hi Cam, I'm sorry to ask you to repeat something; I looked back a few pages and couldn't find it, though I know it's there: when did the spelling of 'vegetables' change? And was it consistently one way and then consistently another after a certain date? And was there a song on Smiley Smile that they worked on before they went to the home studio that was not on the Smile sleeve?

I don't know that "Vega-Tables" was ever on any session documentation, even for the "cornucopia" demo.  As far as I know it was consistently spelled "Vega-Tables" on all SMiLE documentation (track list, booklet) and the titles of the publicized SMiLE album mock ups of March.

Then from April 4 on (when the SMiLE album covers were being made or were already finished), as far as I know, it had alternate lyrics to Vega-Tables, had a different master number and session number that was continuous from then on, was always noted as "Vegetables" on AFM and Capitol session documents and tape boxes and session vocal slates as "Vegetables", and on the Smiley Smile album back liner track list. Other titles from late March, April, and May do not appear on the SMiLE track list either and I believe they also were recorded under the SMiLE/Smiley Capitol album project number as was "Vegetables" (not certain about "Tones").
 
Well that's confusing. I'm beginning to see how people have spent decades and reams of paper on this subject!

Not if you think of it this way, it was Vega-Tables on SMiLE and Vegetables on Smiley.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 11:25:21 PM
The same label the band in announcing the lawsuit said they wanted to break out of their contract with? Trying to save face with the label that they had recently publicly (and rightfully) exposed as having defrauded the band (and possibly other artists as well) out of money for several years and wanted to end their contract with wouldn't seem to be a priority.

Question: Who paid for those April Vegetables sessions, the band or Capitol? How about Carl's sessions unrelated to Smile yet held at the same time, did the band or Capitol pick up the tab for those?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 03, 2016, 11:31:32 PM
Has any other Beach Boy ever said SMiLE was finished?

The SMiLE album artwork was ready and publicized in March and the actual album covers were done in April, so we are thinking that Brian is deliberately still recording tracks for SMiLE of alternate title or title that will not appear on the album covers that are either being made or already made instead of those alternate tracks being for the alternate album Smiley Smile.  It said "See label for correct playing order" not "for correct titles and unlisted songs".
Hi Cam, I'm sorry to ask you to repeat something; I looked back a few pages and couldn't find it, though I know it's there: when did the spelling of 'vegetables' change? And was it consistently one way and then consistently another after a certain date? And was there a song on Smiley Smile that they worked on before they went to the home studio that was not on the Smile sleeve?

I don't know that "Vega-Tables" was ever on any session documentation, even for the "cornucopia" demo.  As far as I know it was consistently spelled "Vega-Tables" on all SMiLE documentation (track list, booklet) and the titles of the publicized SMiLE album mock ups of March.

Then from April 4 on (when the SMiLE album covers were being made or were already finished), as far as I know, it had alternate lyrics to Vega-Tables, had a different master number and session number that was continuous from then on, was always noted as "Vegetables" on AFM and Capitol session documents and tape boxes and session vocal slates as "Vegetables", and on the Smiley Smile album back liner track list. Other titles from late March, April, and May do not appear on the SMiLE track list either and I believe they also were recorded under the SMiLE/Smiley Capitol album project number as was "Vegetables" (not certain about "Tones").
 
Well that's confusing. I'm beginning to see how people have spent decades and reams of paper on this subject!

Not if you think of it this way, it was Vega-Tables on SMiLE and Vegetables on Smiley.
But then that means that even as the sleeves were being printed for Smile, Brian had already decided that he wasn't releasing it? And that the rest of the band didn't know he'd made that decision? Or would they have all known but as the Holy Bee suggests smoothing it over? Or was Brian just reworking that song, then was happy with the change and they kept it when they shifted to Smiley Smile? Or was 'vegetables' re-recorded again at the house? Were there ultimately three complete versions, 'Vega-Tables', 'Vegetables' studio, and 'Vegetables' house?
It's probably less confusing for you, Cam, because you've absorbed this information before, but my head is swimming trying to keep up with this thread!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 11:34:34 PM
Well that's confusing.

Unnecessarily confusing.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 11:46:02 PM
Quote
The SMiLE album artwork was ready and publicized in March and the actual album covers were done in April, so we are thinking that Brian is deliberately still recording tracks for SMiLE of alternate title or title that will not appear on the album covers that are either being made or already made instead of those alternate tracks being for the alternate album Smiley Smile.  It said "See label for correct playing order" not "for correct titles and unlisted songs".

I hadn't realised the covers were completed/printed/delivered in April. So Capitol, at least, was still working on the basis that work on SMiLE was ongoing, it appears.

Now, if you were the 'level-headed' brother in a family band, and that band was/had been in recent legal conflict with their record label, and that record label had conceded on the crucial points and was about to give your band its own subsidiary label, and that record label had been paying for months of recording that your brother/band leader had now decided was to be junked: wouldn't you try and provide some diplomatic commentary - 'damage control' might be another term for it - on that topic to the press?

That's just supposition, of course. Even 'parsing', if you like. Maybe you wouldn't. I suspect I would.

In late July 67 Capitol and Brian discussed the existing Smile booklets and the 10 remaining Smile songs whose titles were not on Smiley Smile, which at that point would not be released until September. At that point (late July) there were plans (if you believe the Capitol memo from Engemann) to release something after Smiley Smile where the booklet would be included relative to the tracks on that album.

By October 1967 the Beach Boys were doing R&B and would do so on their next singles and album.

What damage control needed to be done to the press if Capitol and Brian and the Beach Boys were in agreement over those booklets and the album releases? If plans changed after Smiley Smile was released, plans changed. It's as simple as that...no need for damage control if all sides were informed as shown by that memo (and others).



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 03, 2016, 11:47:08 PM
Question: Who paid for those April Vegetables sessions, the band or Capitol? How about Carl's sessions unrelated to Smile yet held at the same time, did the band or Capitol pick up the tab for those?




Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 03, 2016, 11:51:13 PM
Quote
The SMiLE album artwork was ready and publicized in March and the actual album covers were done in April, so we are thinking that Brian is deliberately still recording tracks for SMiLE of alternate title or title that will not appear on the album covers that are either being made or already made instead of those alternate tracks being for the alternate album Smiley Smile.  It said "See label for correct playing order" not "for correct titles and unlisted songs".

I hadn't realised the covers were completed/printed/delivered in April. So Capitol, at least, was still working on the basis that work on SMiLE was ongoing, it appears.

Now, if you were the 'level-headed' brother in a family band, and that band was/had been in recent legal conflict with their record label, and that record label had conceded on the crucial points and was about to give your band its own subsidiary label, and that record label had been paying for months of recording that your brother/band leader had now decided was to be junked: wouldn't you try and provide some diplomatic commentary - 'damage control' might be another term for it - on that topic to the press?

That's just supposition, of course. Even 'parsing', if you like. Maybe you wouldn't. I suspect I would.

In late July 67 Capitol and Brian discussed the existing Smile booklets and the 10 remaining Smile songs whose titles were not on Smiley Smile, which at that point would not be released until September. At that point (late July) there were plans (if you believe the Capitol memo from Engemann) to release something after Smiley Smile where the booklet would be included relative to the tracks on that album.

By October 1967 the Beach Boys were doing R&B and would do so on their next singles and album.

What damage control needed to be done to the press if Capitol and Brian and the Beach Boys were in agreement over those booklets and the album releases? If plans changed after Smiley Smile was released, plans changed. It's as simple as that...no need for damage control if all sides were informed as shown by that memo (and others).


I thought The Holy Bee's comments about 'damage control' referred to the May quotes by the touring band saying that everything's A-OK after the 'scrapped' comment. But perhaps not.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 04, 2016, 12:00:47 AM
Quote
The SMiLE album artwork was ready and publicized in March and the actual album covers were done in April, so we are thinking that Brian is deliberately still recording tracks for SMiLE of alternate title or title that will not appear on the album covers that are either being made or already made instead of those alternate tracks being for the alternate album Smiley Smile.  It said "See label for correct playing order" not "for correct titles and unlisted songs".

I hadn't realised the covers were completed/printed/delivered in April. So Capitol, at least, was still working on the basis that work on SMiLE was ongoing, it appears.

Now, if you were the 'level-headed' brother in a family band, and that band was/had been in recent legal conflict with their record label, and that record label had conceded on the crucial points and was about to give your band its own subsidiary label, and that record label had been paying for months of recording that your brother/band leader had now decided was to be junked: wouldn't you try and provide some diplomatic commentary - 'damage control' might be another term for it - on that topic to the press?

That's just supposition, of course. Even 'parsing', if you like. Maybe you wouldn't. I suspect I would.

In late July 67 Capitol and Brian discussed the existing Smile booklets and the 10 remaining Smile songs whose titles were not on Smiley Smile, which at that point would not be released until September. At that point (late July) there were plans (if you believe the Capitol memo from Engemann) to release something after Smiley Smile where the booklet would be included relative to the tracks on that album.

By October 1967 the Beach Boys were doing R&B and would do so on their next singles and album.

What damage control needed to be done to the press if Capitol and Brian and the Beach Boys were in agreement over those booklets and the album releases? If plans changed after Smiley Smile was released, plans changed. It's as simple as that...no need for damage control if all sides were informed as shown by that memo (and others).


I thought The Holy Bee's comments about 'damage control' referred to the May quotes by the touring band saying that everything's A-OK after the 'scrapped' comment. But perhaps not.

If it were, we still haven't had a definitive answer on who Altham's source was for the April column that reported twelve tracks were being readied for rush promotion. If it were Carl talking to Altham at that time, it would also be the same Carl saying the album was finished to the LA Times months later, in the weeks immediately after Smiley Smile had just been released. He'd have no damage to control at that time since a new Beach Boys record was in the stores, and Capitol as of late July was on board with the plans through those discussions with Brian to hold the booklet for whenever the remaining ten tracks would be released. It just happened that the next step the Beach Boys took was R&B and Wild Honey, and Capitol managed to pull an advance single and a later single out of that change to the new R&B sound which both went top-20, in some cases higher in markets more tuned in to R&B.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on February 04, 2016, 12:37:45 AM
Guitarfool2002:
Quote
The same label the band in announcing the lawsuit said they wanted to break out of their contract with? Trying to save face with the label that they had recently publicly (and rightfully) exposed as having defrauded the band (and possibly other artists as well) out of money for several years and wanted to end their contract with wouldn't seem to be a priority.
 

The same label against which they were using the defrauded royalties as leverage to get a monetary pay-out and - most importantly - their own subsidiary label. This isn't conjecture on my part. It's a matter of public record. Grillo, Anderle, members of the band are all on record on this. Is your counter-argument that the Beach Boys didn't go to the press and say, 'Oh, we don't actually want to leave Capitol - we just want our own label. So we're pretending we might leave to force them to give us one'?

Emily:
Quote
I thought The Holy Bee's comments about 'damage control' referred to the May quotes by the touring band saying that everything's A-OK after the 'scrapped' comment. But perhaps not.

Yes, but later in 1967 - post Smiley Smile - too.

Guitarfool2002:
Quote
Carl Wilson, in Fall 1967 after the release of Smiley Smile says the following (in bold and italics in my re-quote):

- They did not "scrap" Smile, despite what Taylor's May 6th article said.

- They had parts which they just haven't used yet, suggesting some of the Smile material may still see the light of day in some form (backed up by various Capitol memos from the months prior as well)

- They had finished the album in some way and at some point, which backs up the Altham piece from late April where he wrote the "12 tracks are finished"

- They did not all agree on some things...anyone's guess what those were.

- They decided to do something new, and started from scratch, exact words according to Carl. *Not* continue "Smile", not have what they were doing with Smile transition seamlessly into Smiley Smile as some are suggesting, but rather start from scratch and start something new. There isn't much of a way to parse or twist Carl's own description to suggest Smile just morphed into Smiley Smile by June 1967 without a definite start and end point when he says they "started from scratch" and recorded this new album which was Smiley Smile.

Further, Carl again suggests the actual "Smile" material was not scrapped and might still be coming out, i.e. "we just haven't used them yet".

My previous post is as true - if not more so - in this later context. They're officially back/still with Capitol. They've got their pay-out. They have their own label. There's thousands of Capitol's dollars worth of '66-'67 recordings sitting in storage unreleased. There's thousands of dollars worth of pre-printed covers and booklets unused. Am I really parsing things too closely here? And - just as an observation - the only known source of one of the two 'we've finished the album' statements released in the press is Carl.

Guitarfool states that Brian and Capitol were in talks to release a 10-track Smile album to make use of this printed stock/recording after 'Smiley Smile'. I know there's a memo from Capitol to Brian on the subject. Is there any record of Brian's active involvement with this plan? A response to Engelman from him? Any public statement? I'm really asking - there might be something I don't know about. But if there isn't, then all we know is a Capitol Exec was keen to try and salvage some of the resources they'd spent on the project, and contacted the band leader with a proposal for how to do so.

Whereas, within six months of the release of Smiley Smile, we do know that Brian Wilson said this:

Quote
Early 1967, I had planned to make an album entitled SMILE. I was working with a guy named Van Dyke Parks, who was collaborating with me on some of the tunes, and in the process, we came up with a song called "Surf's Up," and I performed that with just a piano on a documentary show made on rock music. The song "Surf's Up" that I sang on that documentary never came out on an album, and it was supposed to come out on the SMILE album, and that and a couple of other songs were junked... because... I don't know why... for some reason didn't want to put them on the album. And the group nearly broke up, actually broke up for good after that.

And, later, said this:

Quote
Cam Mott:
“After I came down off the drugs and saw what I had done with Smile, I junked it.”  Brian Wilson

"I junked it. We junked them. I didn’t like where the music was coming from. I thought it was inappropriate for the Beach Boys and I junked it.”  Brian Wilson

“We never finished it, because a lot of that sh*t just bothered me - but half of it we didn’t finish anyway." Brian Wilson

"“We didn’t finish it because we had a lot of problems, inner group problems. We had time commitments we couldn’t keep, so we stopped."  Brian Wilson


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 04, 2016, 12:59:34 AM
So is it reasonable to conclude that Carl and Brian weren't on the same page on some of this?
Cam posted that Brian quote - "early 1967, I had planned..." And now there's the quote - "We didn't finish it because..."
Both of these quotes point to "inner group problems."
I recall thinking when I saw that first quote, and it seems supported here, that Brian was personally pleased with the music but became convinced that it wasn't commercial enough (I remember that quote went on to say something about sometimes the writer likes a song but realizes it won't be commercial), and that there was a conflict bad enough that "the group nearly broke up". It sounds like Carl wanted to put the material out, and Dennis had always been positive about it, but maybe Brian ended up agreeing with Mike Love that it wasn't sufficiently commercial and they had some pretty tough conflict over it.
Sorry I'm not looking the quote up in full. I'm traveling and am using a wonky device instead of my computer.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 04, 2016, 01:46:31 AM
Would the Carl who was telling Altham the album was ready to go on a rush release schedule be the same Carl who was so involved in the draft problems that he was unable to tell Taylor the album was scrapped at almost the same time ? He was either too busy, or  not.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 04, 2016, 02:05:36 AM
I'll simplify something.

Fall 1967: Carl says the album was finished.

Fall 1972: Carl says they're going to finish up the album.

Now, one of those statements is obviously untrue. Bear in mind that the later statement was preceded by Carl actually going into the vault and listening to the tapes. So was he lying in 1967, or was he simply not fully aware of the true facts ? Strong language, lying. To be used with extreme caution.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on February 04, 2016, 03:39:40 AM
Quote
So was he lying in 1967, or was he simply not fully aware of the true facts ? Strong language, lying. To be used with extreme caution

Just to be clear: I never meant to imply that Carl was lying about 'Smile being finished'. In terms of Altham, I argued earlier that - on the basis of the tracklist - you could argue that most of the songs were basically finished, give or take an 'Elements' or a 'Surf's Up'. Several had leads, and several others were apparently just a couple hours lead vox sessions away from completion. Rough assemblies, rough mixing, backing vox - a lot of these were done. I've told a boss before that something was 'finished' and what that meant was it  would be finished by 5pm, or whenever the deadline was. No lie intended, in any practical or ethical sense. I believed at the time I said it, it would be. And it (almost) always was.

Let's remember that this was the first (and perhaps only) Beach Boys album to be conceived and composed by Brian so separately from the rest of the group. Even if he had hired Usher or Asher to write lyrics before, the group on tour was usually only a few days or weeks away from that process. In the case of Smile, they came back as 'conquering heroes' from the UK, and found the whole 'town had changed' (Vosse/Anderle). In Carlin, for instance, Van Dyke reports that the first time he met Mike was at the December confrontation over the lyrics to 'Cabin Essence', when Brian - without explanation - called him into the studio. And Smile had been being officially recorded since August, with band vocals recorded as early as September ('Prayer').

So when I say Carl might have been being diplomatic in the press, I mean only that. I think the overall takeaway from this thread is that there was genuine confusion in the band, the label, and their various press connections as to exactly what the score was. None of them seem to have really known (cf. the April-May quotes from Dennis, Bruce, Mike et al) where Brian's head was at during this period, if work on the album was ongoing, how close to being done it was, quite what the record was going to be - and maybe he didn't either. My position is simply that Brian's public statements (for what they're worth) and the surviving session records (for what they're worth) indicate he'd started removing himself from 'Smile proper' towards the end of '66/start of '67.

I have no doubt that anything Carl said to the press was: what he had been given to believe was true; what he hoped to be true; or what might have been true, or any combination of the above. Just phrased in a way which would do the band the least possible damage with the record label that had paid for those recordings, and which they had just successfully sued.  

EDIT: Having written all of this, I've just realised Emily summed it up far more succinctly just above:

Quote
So is it reasonable to conclude that Carl and Brian weren't on the same page on some of this?

Yes. That's what I was trying to suggest.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 04, 2016, 03:49:51 AM
Just to make it even clearerer, wasn't looking at you.  ;D


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on February 04, 2016, 03:55:12 AM
Sorry, another one: what I wrote above is most relevant pre-or-contemporary-to the release of Smiley Smile, perhaps less so as '67 got closer to '68. I still don't mean to make out that Carl was lying. I guess what I'm saying is, if he believed in April-June '67 that the original album was almost ready to release (minus H&V and GV), then he would presumably believe the same six months or a year later. Right up until '72, as AGD points out, when he actually listened to the extant tapes.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on February 04, 2016, 03:56:15 AM
Just to make it even clearerer, wasn't looking at you.  ;D

Good to know. In any case, redundant posting is kinda my thing.  :-D


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 04, 2016, 04:50:17 AM
Question: Who paid for those April Vegetables sessions, the band or Capitol? How about Carl's sessions unrelated to Smile yet held at the same time, did the band or Capitol pick up the tab for those?


Someone else should take a look but I believe Capitol is shown as the "employer" for April Vegetables and May ILTSDD.  Not sure I understand what was happening with Tones as it seems to be both shown as to Capitol and Brother Records.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 04, 2016, 04:50:17 AM
Double post.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 04, 2016, 05:07:39 AM
Shocking echo in here, what ?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 04, 2016, 05:13:07 AM
Shocking echo in here, what ?

I wasn't getting enough attention so I'm posting everything twice.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on February 04, 2016, 05:21:45 AM
I particularly like that Cam's 'double post' post (considering the next two directly relate to it) could make this thread even more incomprehensible for the casual reader. And considering the amount of time we've spent on the studio doors at Western 3 and press clippings from the middle of 1967, that's quite an achievement.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 04, 2016, 05:39:06 AM
Quote
So was he lying in 1967, or was he simply not fully aware of the true facts ? Strong language, lying. To be used with extreme caution

Just to be clear: I never meant to imply that Carl was lying about 'Smile being finished'. In terms of Altham, I argued earlier that - on the basis of the tracklist - you could argue that most of the songs were basically finished, give or take an 'Elements' or a 'Surf's Up'. Several had leads, and several others were apparently just a couple hours lead vox sessions away from completion. Rough assemblies, rough mixing, backing vox - a lot of these were done. I've told a boss before that something was 'finished' and what that meant was it  would be finished by 5pm, or whenever the deadline was. No lie intended, in any practical or ethical sense. I believed at the time I said it, it would be. And it (almost) always was.

Let's remember that this was the first (and perhaps only) Beach Boys album to be conceived and composed by Brian so separately from the rest of the group. Even if he had hired Usher or Asher to write lyrics before, the group on tour was usually only a few days or weeks away from that process. In the case of Smile, they came back as 'conquering heroes' from the UK, and found the whole 'town had changed' (Vosse/Anderle). In Carlin, for instance, Van Dyke reports that the first time he met Mike was at the December confrontation over the lyrics to 'Cabin Essence', when Brian - without explanation - called him into the studio. And Smile had been being officially recorded since August, with band vocals recorded as early as September ('Prayer').

So when I say Carl might have been being diplomatic in the press, I mean only that. I think the overall takeaway from this thread is that there was genuine confusion in the band, the label, and their various press connections as to exactly what the score was. None of them seem to have really known (cf. the April-May quotes from Dennis, Bruce, Mike et al) where Brian's head was at during this period, if work on the album was ongoing, how close to being done it was, quite what the record was going to be - and maybe he didn't either. My position is simply that Brian's public statements (for what they're worth) and the surviving session records (for what they're worth) indicate he'd started removing himself from 'Smile proper' towards the end of '66/start of '67.

I have no doubt that anything Carl said to the press was: what he had been given to believe was true; what he hoped to be true; or what might have been true, or any combination of the above. Just phrased in a way which would do the band the least possible damage with the record label that had paid for those recordings, and which they had just successfully sued.  

EDIT: Having written all of this, I've just realised Emily summed it up far more succinctly just above:

Quote
So is it reasonable to conclude that Carl and Brian weren't on the same page on some of this?

Yes. That's what I was trying to suggest.

THB - you mention something very interesting that I have glossed over but have read multiple times.  Thank you.  

"...In the case of Smile, they came back as conquering heroes' from the UK, and found the whole 'town had changed.' (Vosse/Anderle)" - Conquering heroes?  

After being smacked around in the UK press with the TIKH tour?  The kindest term I can use is "nonsense" because it is nicer than what I am thinking.  And the polar opposite and inconsistent with the less-than-stellar reviews alleging they were all washed up.  They go from being "washed up" to "heroes?" Propaganda.

When there is such a statement that does not line up with the actual events (and it does not) means to me that there is some big-time spin control going on.  The "town changed?" Seriously?

Or, was there a PR prep underway for Monterey to conform to an image, inconsistent with the band, with the regressive promo in Europe? JMHO  

Thanks again, for that citation.  ;)



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on February 04, 2016, 05:39:14 AM
Has any other Beach Boy ever said SMiLE was finished?

The SMiLE album artwork was ready and publicized in March and the actual album covers were done in April, so we are thinking that Brian is deliberately still recording tracks for SMiLE of alternate title or title that will not appear on the album covers that are either being made or already made instead of those alternate tracks being for the alternate album Smiley Smile.  It said "See label for correct playing order" not "for correct titles and unlisted songs".
Hi Cam, I'm sorry to ask you to repeat something; I looked back a few pages and couldn't find it, though I know it's there: when did the spelling of 'vegetables' change? And was it consistently one way and then consistently another after a certain date? And was there a song on Smiley Smile that they worked on before they went to the home studio that was not on the Smile sleeve?

I don't know that "Vega-Tables" was ever on any session documentation, even for the "cornucopia" demo.  As far as I know it was consistently spelled "Vega-Tables" on all SMiLE documentation (track list, booklet) and the titles of the publicized SMiLE album mock ups of March.

Then from April 4 on (when the SMiLE album covers were being made or were already finished), as far as I know, it had alternate lyrics to Vega-Tables, had a different master number and session number that was continuous from then on, was always noted as "Vegetables" on AFM and Capitol session documents and tape boxes and session vocal slates as "Vegetables", and on the Smiley Smile album back liner track list. Other titles from late March, April, and May do not appear on the SMiLE track list either and I believe they also were recorded under the SMiLE/Smiley Capitol album project number as was "Vegetables" (not certain about "Tones").
 
Well that's confusing. I'm beginning to see how people have spent decades and reams of paper on this subject!

Not if you think of it this way, it was Vega-Tables on SMiLE and Vegetables on Smiley.
But then that means that even as the sleeves were being printed for Smile, Brian had already decided that he wasn't releasing it? And that the rest of the band didn't know he'd made that decision? Or would they have all known but as the Holy Bee suggests smoothing it over? Or was Brian just reworking that song, then was happy with the change and they kept it when they shifted to Smiley Smile? Or was 'vegetables' re-recorded again at the house? Were there ultimately three complete versions, 'Vega-Tables', 'Vegetables' studio, and 'Vegetables' house?
It's probably less confusing for you, Cam, because you've absorbed this information before, but my head is swimming trying to keep up with this thread!

Cam is the only one who feels this Vega-Tables to Vegetables name change means anything other than the name changed.  He has been relentlessly stating this over and over again, and not one taker on the board has given it any credence but that hasn't stopped him from sticking it in post after post.  No evidence it has anything to do with  one being Smile and the other being Smiley,  in fact everything seems to point to Vegetables sessions in April being exactly similar to other Smile sessions, and of course Carl points out the June date they started from scratch with Smiley.

I've said before that with Cam's thinking, Heroes and VILLIANS (how the song is spelled on the track list and album cover) therefore must be the song intended for Smile, and all the sessions booked in Oct through March were for Heroes and VILLAINS, which is how it's spelled for Smiley Smile, so clearly Smile was scratched in October 66 and Brian was recording the VILLAINS song for Smiley.  And of course there are lyrical changes between the different versions of Heores.  It's all nonsensical thinking.  I hate to see you get drawn into it as it only confuses what is already confusing enough.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 04, 2016, 06:20:51 AM
Has any other Beach Boy ever said SMiLE was finished?

The SMiLE album artwork was ready and publicized in March and the actual album covers were done in April, so we are thinking that Brian is deliberately still recording tracks for SMiLE of alternate title or title that will not appear on the album covers that are either being made or already made instead of those alternate tracks being for the alternate album Smiley Smile.  It said "See label for correct playing order" not "for correct titles and unlisted songs".
Hi Cam, I'm sorry to ask you to repeat something; I looked back a few pages and couldn't find it, though I know it's there: when did the spelling of 'vegetables' change? And was it consistently one way and then consistently another after a certain date? And was there a song on Smiley Smile that they worked on before they went to the home studio that was not on the Smile sleeve?

I don't know that "Vega-Tables" was ever on any session documentation, even for the "cornucopia" demo.  As far as I know it was consistently spelled "Vega-Tables" on all SMiLE documentation (track list, booklet) and the titles of the publicized SMiLE album mock ups of March.

Then from April 4 on (when the SMiLE album covers were being made or were already finished), as far as I know, it had alternate lyrics to Vega-Tables, had a different master number and session number that was continuous from then on, was always noted as "Vegetables" on AFM and Capitol session documents and tape boxes and session vocal slates as "Vegetables", and on the Smiley Smile album back liner track list. Other titles from late March, April, and May do not appear on the SMiLE track list either and I believe they also were recorded under the SMiLE/Smiley Capitol album project number as was "Vegetables" (not certain about "Tones").
 
Well that's confusing. I'm beginning to see how people have spent decades and reams of paper on this subject!

Not if you think of it this way, it was Vega-Tables on SMiLE and Vegetables on Smiley.
But then that means that even as the sleeves were being printed for Smile, Brian had already decided that he wasn't releasing it? And that the rest of the band didn't know he'd made that decision? Or would they have all known but as the Holy Bee suggests smoothing it over? Or was Brian just reworking that song, then was happy with the change and they kept it when they shifted to Smiley Smile? Or was 'vegetables' re-recorded again at the house? Were there ultimately three complete versions, 'Vega-Tables', 'Vegetables' studio, and 'Vegetables' house?
It's probably less confusing for you, Cam, because you've absorbed this information before, but my head is swimming trying to keep up with this thread!

Cam is the only one who feels this Vega-Tables to Vegetables name change means anything other than the name changed.  He has been relentlessly stating this over and over again, and not one taker on the board has given it any credence but that hasn't stopped him from sticking it in post after post.  No evidence it has anything to do with  one being Smile and the other being Smiley,  in fact everything seems to point to Vegetables sessions in April being exactly similar to other Smile sessions, and of course Carl points out the June date they started from scratch with Smiley.

I've said before that with Cam's thinking, Heroes and VILLIANS (how the song is spelled on the track list and album cover) therefore must be the song intended for Smile, and all the sessions booked in Oct through March were for Heroes and VILLAINS, which is how it's spelled for Smiley Smile, so clearly Smile was scratched in October 66 and Brian was recording the VILLAINS song for Smiley.  And of course there are lyrical changes between the different versions of Heores.  It's all nonsensical thinking.  I hate to see you get drawn into it as it only confuses what is already confusing enough.
Orthography is not their strong suit.  Pre spell-check.  And, no biggie.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 04, 2016, 06:23:57 AM
Has any other Beach Boy ever said SMiLE was finished?

The SMiLE album artwork was ready and publicized in March and the actual album covers were done in April, so we are thinking that Brian is deliberately still recording tracks for SMiLE of alternate title or title that will not appear on the album covers that are either being made or already made instead of those alternate tracks being for the alternate album Smiley Smile.  It said "See label for correct playing order" not "for correct titles and unlisted songs".
Hi Cam, I'm sorry to ask you to repeat something; I looked back a few pages and couldn't find it, though I know it's there: when did the spelling of 'vegetables' change? And was it consistently one way and then consistently another after a certain date? And was there a song on Smiley Smile that they worked on before they went to the home studio that was not on the Smile sleeve?

I don't know that "Vega-Tables" was ever on any session documentation, even for the "cornucopia" demo.  As far as I know it was consistently spelled "Vega-Tables" on all SMiLE documentation (track list, booklet) and the titles of the publicized SMiLE album mock ups of March.

Then from April 4 on (when the SMiLE album covers were being made or were already finished), as far as I know, it had alternate lyrics to Vega-Tables, had a different master number and session number that was continuous from then on, was always noted as "Vegetables" on AFM and Capitol session documents and tape boxes and session vocal slates as "Vegetables", and on the Smiley Smile album back liner track list. Other titles from late March, April, and May do not appear on the SMiLE track list either and I believe they also were recorded under the SMiLE/Smiley Capitol album project number as was "Vegetables" (not certain about "Tones").
 
Well that's confusing. I'm beginning to see how people have spent decades and reams of paper on this subject!

Not if you think of it this way, it was Vega-Tables on SMiLE and Vegetables on Smiley.
But then that means that even as the sleeves were being printed for Smile, Brian had already decided that he wasn't releasing it? And that the rest of the band didn't know he'd made that decision? Or would they have all known but as the Holy Bee suggests smoothing it over? Or was Brian just reworking that song, then was happy with the change and they kept it when they shifted to Smiley Smile? Or was 'vegetables' re-recorded again at the house? Were there ultimately three complete versions, 'Vega-Tables', 'Vegetables' studio, and 'Vegetables' house?
It's probably less confusing for you, Cam, because you've absorbed this information before, but my head is swimming trying to keep up with this thread!

Cam is the only one who feels this Vega-Tables to Vegetables name change means anything other than the name changed.  He has been relentlessly stating this over and over again, and not one taker on the board has given it any credence but that hasn't stopped him from sticking it in post after post.  No evidence it has anything to do with  one being Smile and the other being Smiley,  in fact everything seems to point to Vegetables sessions in April being exactly similar to other Smile sessions, and of course Carl points out the June date they started from scratch with Smiley.

I've said before that with Cam's thinking, Heroes and VILLIANS (how the song is spelled on the track list and album cover) therefore must be the song intended for Smile, and all the sessions booked in Oct through March were for Heroes and VILLAINS, which is how it's spelled for Smiley Smile, so clearly Smile was scratched in October 66 and Brian was recording the VILLAINS song for Smiley.  And of course there are lyrical changes between the different versions of Heores.  It's all nonsensical thinking.  I hate to see you get drawn into it as it only confuses what is already confusing enough.

Thanks for your concern Lou, but I'll be fine.  I've given plenty of evidence and documentation but not everybody agrees with it, their ears are better evidence apparently, telling them stuff.......evidence stuff.

Actually Lou, I already responded on H&V.  Maybe you have more documentation then I do, but as far as I have, all but one session from October through March is documented as for the "Heroes and Villians" title which would match the SMiLE title.  I believe all but 2 of the H&V Part II/Side 2 #57045 sessions are also logged as "Heroes and Villians". I believe all of the June thorough July sessions are documented as "Heroes and Villains" as on the Smiley Smile track list.  Can anyone with complete-ish documentation confirm or deny.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 04, 2016, 07:15:27 AM
I feel there's an agenda at work here. ;)

If there's any agenda at work here, I can think of no greater evidence than the blatant question-dodging that happened earlier in this thread.  

CD - are you adding to the fact base of information of what happened in the Spring of 1967, in a dispassionate way?

You accused me of question-dodging.  And, in a context of this new PC concept called "micro-aggression" - which I happily use in quotations.  Maybe you can tell us what that term that means.  

Dispassionately, is what I am looking at.  First-hand, from a principal, like Carl's interview, telling the world that the Smile tapes were safe and secure.  And not from some propaganda source that may be becoming debunked.  

Please don't ask me to opine on other ancillary players, when I was not there as a witness.  

It’s quite simple: there’s a not negligible element at play when “adding to the fact base of information of what happened in the Spring of 1967” as you put it. A white elephant in the room that some people, such as yourself, try to avoid getting into is whether or not it’s logical that Brian’s state of mind would likely have been impacted, even in the slightest, by his bandmates' actions/vibes. IMO it’s enormously offbase to just try to blot that area out with White-Out simply because we aren’t “privy” to what happened. It’s true –we aren’t privy, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t make assumptions based on logic. It’s completely illogical to say that a person in a band, under enormous pressure, wouldn’t be impacted AT ALL by their mates’ opinions, frustrations, and questions. Our lack of full scope of their interpersonal relationships at the time does not negate the potential impact these actions could have made, does it?

You are clearly a big fan of the band, know the BB story and personalities very well (likely as well as most anyone could who’s not in the inner circle), and clearly everyone has some sort of opinion in their head, one way or another, about whether or not what I’ve just mentioned is remotely fathomable.  It either is possible, or it is not possible. Neither I, nor anyone on this board I’m sure, honestly believes that you don’t have an opinion either way about it. It’s yay or nay, or somewhere in between. It’s not “no answer”. Neither of us have the conclusive answer to what we are discussing – you can only pick what you honestly think is the most logical answer of the two choices: you think it likely had an effect (however insignificant)... or  you are claiming it’s logical to think that Brian’s mates had NO effect whatsoever on his state of mind. One of those two scenarios played out, and you know it.  

If you are somehow not dodging a question, please direct me to what you believe an example of dodging a question WOULD be. Or will you dodge this last question too?

It’s kind of like you saying that we only know that Murry or Landy had any kind of negative effect on Brian’s state of mind because of physical damage that happened from those guys, but that potential emotional wounds inflicted by other people are completely unimportant because we don’t have any physical proof of them. Pics or it didn’t happen, right? You do realize that type of mindset is exactly how emotional abusers continue to get away with abuse. No physical injuries means no emotional trauma or mistreatment could POSSIBLY have happened at any time, ever... right?

You surely have an opinion (perhaps somewhat mixed, not a black-and-white opinion, but an opinion nonetheless) of Murry and/or Landy, right? Every knowledgeable, well-read BB fan (such as yourself) does, to some degree. But you weren't there as a witness. So how exactly does that work? Care to explain?

PS - regarding my terminology of "microagressions" - while I have heard the term used by people in reference to subtle, aggressive comments in general, I may have misused the word since the dictionary seems to imply it is most appropriately used regarding racial stereotypes. So I'd replace that terminology with "passive aggression" or other behaviors that would have either directly or indirectly displayed dissatisfaction, lack of support, etc.  Stuff that a sensitive person could blow out of proportion. Because, you know, Brian's a sensitive guy who's been known to do that sometimes.
CD - If you look at THB's post on page 24, you will see some additional information about that era that I have not seen discussed but "generally accepted" and "swallowed whole."  That is the press nonsense (Vosse/Anderle) announcing they "conquered Europe (I am paraphrasing)  and came back home finding everything had changed."  - They were not triumphant in Europe with the TIKH tour.  Did they sell records?  Yes.  That is well beside-the-point. They were apparently blindsided with what that tour was all about.  I think there was a set-up of some kind.  The responses from several band members including Brian support that.

Second, of course I am a big fan of the band. As a teen, it sure beat algebra, trigonometry and geometry. I blindly devoured everything I could get my hands on. Who would join a message board otherwise?  Even the lurkers.  They have been fueled in some manner by the music.  I am no different.

Third, "getting into someone's mind-space" is well outside of my expertise.  I will not opine about Brian's state-of-mind and his interpersonal relationships. I find that ridiculous. Nor, will I be goaded into such a discussion.  Forgettaboutit.  Ain't happenin'.

Fourth, here is some of what we know about Murry, both good and bad.  Murry, did pave the way for their ultimate success.  Outside the earshot of the band, he likely did some wheeling-and-dealing.  We know, from the court findings, he was inappropriate with the apportionment of royalties. I wish this was emphasized more.  

It pit Brian and Mike against one another and it was all needless.  Maybe, it went back to sibling rivalry for him or some other dark place where he felt compelled to indirectly assert some power against the child of a sibling.  Beyond that, who would ever know what went on in his head?  From accounts, (and not at a witness, and I must separate the two) he was not always a nice guy.  Some who worked with them (some studio guy, whose name escapes me) commented that even though he was harsh, Murry wanted them to work together as a family and found that appropriate.  So that is someone else's opinion.  

Murry came from a time when he may have treated his wife and kids as chattel, as was a vestige of the Old World ways.  That is just the history of how people and society evolved.  We never heard about spousal or child abuse.  If it was your property, it was accepted even though people turned a blind eye, as the "legal head of the family."  He thought it was his right.  We accept now that he was wrong.

Fifth, I can opine about Landy, because I have some training in Ethics.  He crossed the line, ethically, making himself part of his patient's business.  But families  often make decisions that are unorthodox to try to save their family members lives and I will say, for this "Who am I to judge?" - like that Native American mantra, "Grant that I may not judge a man, until I have walked a mile in his moccasins." Not going there.  The Hand of God through a human (Melinda) saved Brian.  Now, it is a movie.  

And, microaggressions.  Standing back, looking at the relative positions of the parties, as company owners, who "pay" an ancillary contributor, I maintain that Mike Love had every right to inquire as to how what VDP wrote would "fly" with his share of the BRI product, because that is what your are alluding to.  

And, Mike might have been "put up" to making this inquiry by the rest of the band.  Think that Carl, with barely a high school eduction or Dennis, could be a match for VDP's manner of conversation or literary prowess?  I don't think so.  And Mike, bona fide lyricist, ends up taking the heat.  Directly or indirectly Mike is paying for VDP's labor.  If I am paying, for a brake job on my car, think I have a right (as a consumer)  to inquire into all related matters, such as quality of brake parts, or the mechanic?  And I have a responsibility to do exactly that, to ensure I am not wasting my money.  You betcha!

But, here is the disconnect and utter inconsistency, which has already been written about...I liken it to two trains going parallel on a track... I taught Kindergarten, (greatest job on the planet) so, I will break it down, accordingly.  I can opine, here.   :lol

It was reported in one of these books, maybe Carlin,  or the other two (Rusten/Stebbins or Badman) that Brian and VDP were writing together, in a parallel fashion side-by-side, like the 2 trains, and perhaps perceived, or in reality that VDP had pulled "way ahead" in terms of concepts matching the music.  All of a sudden, Brian stops his train, while VDP flies ahead.  In this concept, the tail (VDP) is wagging-the-dog (Brian.) VDP serves at Brian's (and the rest of the band's) pleasure.  It is not the reverse.  

And, I hate the terms Brianistas and Kokomaoists.  It is so disparaging and intolerant.  My good fortune started me at a place where I look at them as The Beach Boys, notwithstanding the current touring arrangements.   Newer fans may not understand that.  But it works for me, and I won't be apologizing for that position, any time soon.  ;)      


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 04, 2016, 07:57:39 AM
Guitarfool2002:
Quote
The same label the band in announcing the lawsuit said they wanted to break out of their contract with? Trying to save face with the label that they had recently publicly (and rightfully) exposed as having defrauded the band (and possibly other artists as well) out of money for several years and wanted to end their contract with wouldn't seem to be a priority.
 

The same label against which they were using the defrauded royalties as leverage to get a monetary pay-out and - most importantly - their own subsidiary label. This isn't conjecture on my part. It's a matter of public record. Grillo, Anderle, members of the band are all on record on this. Is your counter-argument that the Beach Boys didn't go to the press and say, 'Oh, we don't actually want to leave Capitol - we just want our own label. So we're pretending we might leave to force them to give us one'?

Emily:
Quote
I thought The Holy Bee's comments about 'damage control' referred to the May quotes by the touring band saying that everything's A-OK after the 'scrapped' comment. But perhaps not.

Yes, but later in 1967 - post Smiley Smile - too.

Guitarfool2002:
Quote
Carl Wilson, in Fall 1967 after the release of Smiley Smile says the following (in bold and italics in my re-quote):

- They did not "scrap" Smile, despite what Taylor's May 6th article said.

- They had parts which they just haven't used yet, suggesting some of the Smile material may still see the light of day in some form (backed up by various Capitol memos from the months prior as well)

- They had finished the album in some way and at some point, which backs up the Altham piece from late April where he wrote the "12 tracks are finished"

- They did not all agree on some things...anyone's guess what those were.

- They decided to do something new, and started from scratch, exact words according to Carl. *Not* continue "Smile", not have what they were doing with Smile transition seamlessly into Smiley Smile as some are suggesting, but rather start from scratch and start something new. There isn't much of a way to parse or twist Carl's own description to suggest Smile just morphed into Smiley Smile by June 1967 without a definite start and end point when he says they "started from scratch" and recorded this new album which was Smiley Smile.

Further, Carl again suggests the actual "Smile" material was not scrapped and might still be coming out, i.e. "we just haven't used them yet".

My previous post is as true - if not more so - in this later context. They're officially back/still with Capitol. They've got their pay-out. They have their own label. There's thousands of Capitol's dollars worth of '66-'67 recordings sitting in storage unreleased. There's thousands of dollars worth of pre-printed covers and booklets unused. Am I really parsing things too closely here? And - just as an observation - the only known source of one of the two 'we've finished the album' statements released in the press is Carl.

Guitarfool states that Brian and Capitol were in talks to release a 10-track Smile album to make use of this printed stock/recording after 'Smiley Smile'. I know there's a memo from Capitol to Brian on the subject. Is there any record of Brian's active involvement with this plan? A response to Engelman from him? Any public statement? I'm really asking - there might be something I don't know about. But if there isn't, then all we know is a Capitol Exec was keen to try and salvage some of the resources they'd spent on the project, and contacted the band leader with a proposal for how to do so.

Whereas, within six months of the release of Smiley Smile, we do know that Brian Wilson said this:

Quote
Early 1967, I had planned to make an album entitled SMILE. I was working with a guy named Van Dyke Parks, who was collaborating with me on some of the tunes, and in the process, we came up with a song called "Surf's Up," and I performed that with just a piano on a documentary show made on rock music. The song "Surf's Up" that I sang on that documentary never came out on an album, and it was supposed to come out on the SMILE album, and that and a couple of other songs were junked... because... I don't know why... for some reason didn't want to put them on the album. And the group nearly broke up, actually broke up for good after that.

And, later, said this:

Quote
Cam Mott:
“After I came down off the drugs and saw what I had done with Smile, I junked it.”  Brian Wilson

"I junked it. We junked them. I didn’t like where the music was coming from. I thought it was inappropriate for the Beach Boys and I junked it.”  Brian Wilson

“We never finished it, because a lot of that sh*t just bothered me - but half of it we didn’t finish anyway." Brian Wilson

"“We didn’t finish it because we had a lot of problems, inner group problems. We had time commitments we couldn’t keep, so we stopped."  Brian Wilson

Read the memo, it says "I agreed with Brian..." (about the booklets). Brian was involved in that decision.

By the time Carl spoke to the LA Times in fall 67, the lawsuit had been settled and the Beach Boys won. They had nothing to leverage, they got what they wanted and had a new Brother Records label on their new album, plus two singles on their new label. Plus, they got the money and the new contracts too. They ran the table on Capitol.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 04, 2016, 08:08:41 AM
I'll simplify something.

Fall 1967: Carl says the album was finished.

Fall 1972: Carl says they're going to finish up the album.

Now, one of those statements is obviously untrue. Bear in mind that the later statement was preceded by Carl actually going into the vault and listening to the tapes. So was he lying in 1967, or was he simply not fully aware of the true facts ? Strong language, lying. To be used with extreme caution.

Was the Surf's Up album already complete or released when Carl said that? If so - and this is BB's History 101 - the band had already officially released versions of 8 out of the 12 on the Capitol tracklist and back cover. Some were "finished" as in adding new parts to existing structures, some were full re-recordings, some were reworked into other songs (Child Is Father...).

But we all know that already. If it were any way connecting that tracklist they gave to Capitol to what Capitol and the press releases were saying was "12 songs" then "10 songs" after the Heroes and Vegetables singles (and GV somehow in there too)...it's too bad we can't ask Carl what he meant. All we have are the tracklists and tracks that were actually released.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 04, 2016, 08:22:01 AM
I'm asking the original poster, why did you delete the original post that had the Carl quotes?

Where they were posted was changed to this hours later:
edit

For reference, here is the original post with the quotes:

Excerpts from "The Beach Boys' Quickest Album" , LA Times, October 8th 1967:

"Well, the album didn't really head for any direction. We just decided to, or I should say Brian decided to, make a real simple album. So, with that in mind, we recorded it at his house and it's the quickest album we've ever done." (Carl Wilson quote)

"You see, the whole thing is that 'Pet Sounds' was really an expanded type of musical thing. It's really quite a musical album and we got into a thing where we just wanted to ease up and make a simple album. It was a nice change. It's very hard on a person to keep on doing a 'Pet Sounds.'" (Carl Wilson quote)

Last year, when "Good Vibrations" was racking up its million-plus sales, Capitol had the follow-up album scheduled under the title of "Smile." The album jacket already had been printed, a picture of a shop which dispensed smiles. But the album never came out and the Beach Boys became embroiled in a royalty suit against Capitol. Rumors said that Brian, a perfectionist, had destroyed all the tapes for the LP. "We didn't scrap them," Carl said. "We just haven't used them yet. We did it all from scratch when we started again. We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked. We all didn't agree on different types of things. We decided to do something new."

"If he gets an idea it's now and it's better than something from the past. I've seen it a hundred times. We've seen a lot of potentially great songs just be shelved. They come out maybe two or three years later, but they're in his mind somehow. If that particular idea seems to fit what he's working on at the time it will just come naturally." (Mike Love quote)


Is something going on that needs to be reported or was there a problem with the original post that made it necessary to go back later and delete it?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 04, 2016, 08:38:07 AM
Craig, I'm away from home thus no access to my archives. However...

In 1967 Carl said one thing, then five years later said exactly the opposite, something even you cannot deny without ridicule. The article gave a list of the tracks to be included, some which were to be grouped under "Heroes And Villains". Hopefully Cam will oblige with the actual wording.

Plus I find the insinuation that I am ignorant of BB 101 more than slightly, and calculatingly, insulting. I was under the impression that the mods were here to facilitate the smooth running of the forum. Maybe I'm labouring under a misapprehension.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Ian on February 04, 2016, 08:42:27 AM
Ok
HIT WEEK-May 18 1967 (Dutch magazine).  The band were interviewed in Holland on May 14 and asked why they'd released the two year old single "Then I Kissed Her."  Mike answered: "Of course we'd prefer to release something new and we thought that Smile would be released directly after our British tour but Brian is a perfectionist, that's why it takes so long."   Dennis: "Everything was already finished, also the Heroes and Villains single, but my brother Brian is very serious, I find that a good thing."   Bruce (Discussing the rumor that Brian had decided to scrap Heroes and release Vegetables as a single instead: "Heroes evolved and really became too long for a single.  Vegetables also might be a bit more commercial."  

D & ME May 20 1967 reported: "Contrary to some reports, plans for the 'Heroes and Villains' the group's scheduled new single, have not been completely scrapped.  Roger Easterby of the Howes office, who was with the boys throughout their British tour, said: 'When the boys return to the States they will spend a complete month in the studios completing 'Heroes and Villains' and also working on a new LP."

LA TIMES syndicated story that appeared in July 1967 commented: "Rumor had it that, apart from the legal hassles with Capitol. he (Brian) was not happy with the tapes, which had already been through months of mixing, balancing, splicing and mastering and might never let them be issued as records....On July 5 Brian Wilson finished the tape and invited Capitol's director of artists and repertoire Karl Engemann to the house to hear it.  'I arrived' Engemann said 'and no one was there.  Brian had gotten so excited with the finished tape that he'd taken it to radio station KHJ so he could hear it on the radio.'...The album too will be forthcoming, retitled Smiley Smile-the redundant adjective tacked on apparently as grinning finish to a long quiet hassle."    (this article makes clear-that the situation was being spun as BBs finally finished Smile to their satisfaction-rather than BBs scrapped it and did something new)

In August 12 1967 Melody Maker  Bruce refers to the gap between Good Vibrations and Heroes "came about because we were on a European tour; because we were involved in a lawsuit with our recording company in the States; and because Brian decided to record Heroes and Villains again when we got back from the tour.  He scrapped a finished version of the song and wrote it again.  This version is completely different from the number he wrote first."

Sept 1967 Carl Wilson interview with Pete Johnson of the LA Times: "Those six months were a difficult time for us.  Brian just wasn't happy with Heroes and Villains until he had worked it over and over, throwing out parts and adding new ones.  So we had no new records and we were in a lawsuit with Capitol and then my draft problem developed....

Carl commented that the new album is not the same one that Brian was working on at the time Good Vibrations was released "He still has all those tapes but we decided not to have a complicated album this time.  We did Smiley Smile quickly in a couple of weeks to get something out.  It's not nearly as ambitious an album as Pet Sounds was.

Carl interviewed in Fairfield, CT in Nov 1967 "In the case of Heroes and Villains we didn't feel that it would have the mass appeal so we canned it for awhile and decided to release it. Originally we didn't release it because we didn't think that it would be the kind of song that people would hear on the radio and immediately pick up."

Mike in Beat Instrumental February 1968 (Interview done in BBs brief visit to London in Dec 1967)- Regarding Wild Honey "Sure people were baffled and mystified by Smiley Smile but it was a matter of progression.  We had this feeling that we were going too far, losing touch I guess, and this new one brings us back more into reality....Brian has been re-thinking our recording program and in any case we all have a much greater say nowadays in what we turn out in the studio."


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on February 04, 2016, 08:43:51 AM
But if you choose to call Carl a liar and discredit everything he says, Cam...

I can't remember anybody here calling Carl a liar, and pointing out that one or two of his statements were inaccurate doesn't mean discrediting everything he says or judging him to be a bad person. In real life there is no black or white. Neither Brian or Carl are angels nor is Mike a devil - and vice versa of course. I don't think anybody here feels that Carl was an unsympathetic and unrespectable person. Quite the contrary.

And should Carl in fact have consciously bended the truth a little in his comments, I'm 100% sure he did what he felt what was best for the band and his brother Brian. And as someone said, Carl was being diplomatic. Is that a bad thing?

Now the suggestion of discrediting Carl appears in the discussion. In both this and the other Smile discussions, so far we have seen attempts or suggestions to discredit the following people: Carl, Brian, Al, Michael Vosse, David Anderle, Jules Siegel. Any others to add? Van Dyke perhaps? Anyone else?

First question: Let's say we do for whatever reasons. Just discredit them and their words regarding what they've said or written about Smile since 1967.

Someone tell me who that leaves as a solid and reliable source when it comes to telling the history of Smile moving forward?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but every human being is fallible and there is nobody whose every word can be taken as gospel. Everybody's statements have to be checked for plausibility. That doesn't equal discrediting them completely.


It’s completely illogical to say that a person in a band, under enormous pressure, wouldn’t be impacted AT ALL by their mates’ opinions, frustrations, and questions. Our lack of full scope of their interpersonal relationships at the time does not negate the potential impact these actions could have made, does it?

Is there anybody but Cam who would disagree with this? But what if some of the band members' objections were actually justified? Brian's a genius, but not infallible.


Here's my assumed scenario. It's an assumption, I could be dead wrong. The touring band felt estranged from their boss. The music he created had nothing to do with the other members anymore, they didn't identify with some of the music, which furthermore at the time was near impossible to do live. There wasn't much harmony anymore. Thus they tried to close the gap that had developed between Brian and the rest of the group in the two and a half years they had been working seperately, by working as one unit again. So it was - unfortunately - decided to junk the whole batch of one year's recordings and start from scratch. Why it was decided to record at Brian's home rather than in proper studios is another thing. And to display that it wasn't one king and a couple of pawns anymore, the new record bore the credit "produced by the Beach Boys", even though Brian still pulled the strings.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Ian on February 04, 2016, 08:48:30 AM
Well-see my above quotes-it's clear that there were discussions about direction, commercial appeal, etc.  It's also clear that at some point it was decided that future records would be "Produced by the Beach Boys" and that had to be a conversation.....or maybe not. One gets the feeling that this band didn't communicate well-things were often left unspoken.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on February 04, 2016, 08:52:31 AM
Well-see my above quotes-it's clear that there were discussions about direction, commercial appeal, etc.  It's also clear that at some point it was decided that future records would be "Produced by the Beach Boys" and that had to be a conversation.....or maybe not. One gets the feeling that this band didn't communicate well-things were often left unspoken.

It took me a long time to type what I typed, I didn't read your post before I submitted mine, but I am happy to see it consistant with what you posted. :)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: LostArt on February 04, 2016, 09:03:41 AM
Craig, I'm away from home thus no access to my archives. However...

In 1967 Carl said one thing, then five years later said exactly the opposite, something even you cannot deny without ridicule. The article gave a list of the tracks to be included, some which were to be grouped under "Heroes And Villains". Hopefully Cam will oblige with the actual wording.

Plus I find the insinuation that I am ignorant of BB 101 more than slightly, and calculatingly, insulting. I was under the impression that the mods were here to facilitate the smooth running of the forum. Maybe I'm labouring under a misapprehension.

I'm not Cam, obviously, but here is the quote from a summer of '72 Melody Maker article by Richard Williams entitled, "SMiLE...It's Carl and the Passions":

    You thought “Surf’s Up” was a nice surprise, maybe?  Well listen, kids: If you can steer clear of the grim reaper ‘til next Fall, “Smile” is coming your way.
 
     And, yes, it’s the real “Smile” – the original tapes, made in 1967 by Brian Wilson and never released because . . .  well, I guess you know the story about the “Fire” track, and how it caused a rash of conflagrations within the immediate vicinity of the studio.

     But didn’t we all think Brian had destroyed those tapes?  Sure we did.  He said so, didn’t he?  A million times.

     He must have been putting us on, though.  All the tapes have now been found, pieced together, new vocals overdubbed where necessary, and the whole album will be out
[unreadable…I’m guessing ‘before’] long.

     The complete list of tracks is: “The Child Is Father To The Man”, “Surf’s Up”, “Sunshine”, “The Old Master Painter”, “Barnyard”, “Cabin-essence” (incorporating “Iron Horse”), “Mrs. O’Leary’s Cow”, “I Love To Say Dada” (incorporating “Cool Cool Water”), and the different original versions of “Vege-tables”, “Wind Chimes”, and “Wonderful”.  Most of them seem to come under the overall sub-title of “Heroes and Villains”.

     Carl Wilson tells a story about the day he was working on the tape of “Master Painter”.  “Somebody put the tape out with the garbage, by mistake.  It got shredded, into a thousand pieces.  I had to go out, find it, and put it back together again.  It’s okay now, but we’ve made safety copies of everything, just in case.  Those old things were done on four-track tape, and they’re very fragile.”

     Carl is making his revelations by candlelight in a conference room at London’s Royal Garden Hotel.


We now know, of course, that no new vocals were overdubbed in '72, and that the only work done was to listen, catalog, and make safety copies.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 04, 2016, 09:20:16 AM
Craig, I'm away from home thus no access to my archives. However...

In 1967 Carl said one thing, then five years later said exactly the opposite, something even you cannot deny without ridicule. The article gave a list of the tracks to be included, some which were to be grouped under "Heroes And Villains". Hopefully Cam will oblige with the actual wording.

Plus I find the insinuation that I am ignorant of BB 101 more than slightly, and calculatingly, insulting. I was under the impression that the mods were here to facilitate the smooth running of the forum. Maybe I'm labouring under a misapprehension.

That wasn't the insinuation. Maybe you're being too defensive and looking for insults where they don't exist. As far as introducing your opinions on the moderation of the board as a topic in this discussion, it's not relevant at all.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: MarcellaHasDirtyFeet on February 04, 2016, 09:30:16 AM
And perhaps you're searching for conspiracy theories and agendas where they don't exist...


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 04, 2016, 09:35:01 AM
But if you choose to call Carl a liar and discredit everything he says, Cam...

I can't remember anybody here calling Carl a liar, and pointing out that one or two of his statements were inaccurate doesn't mean discrediting everything he says or judging him to be a bad person. In real life there is no black or white. Neither Brian or Carl are angels nor is Mike a devil - and vice versa of course. I don't think anybody here feels that Carl was an unsympathetic and unrespectable person. Quite the contrary.

And should Carl in fact have consciously bended the truth a little in his comments, I'm 100% sure he did what he felt what was best for the band and his brother Brian. And as someone said, Carl was being diplomatic. Is that a bad thing?

Now the suggestion of discrediting Carl appears in the discussion. In both this and the other Smile discussions, so far we have seen attempts or suggestions to discredit the following people: Carl, Brian, Al, Michael Vosse, David Anderle, Jules Siegel. Any others to add? Van Dyke perhaps? Anyone else?

First question: Let's say we do for whatever reasons. Just discredit them and their words regarding what they've said or written about Smile since 1967.

Someone tell me who that leaves as a solid and reliable source when it comes to telling the history of Smile moving forward?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but every human being is fallible and there is nobody whose every word can be taken as gospel. Everybody's statements have to be checked for plausibility. That doesn't equal discrediting them completely.


It’s completely illogical to say that a person in a band, under enormous pressure, wouldn’t be impacted AT ALL by their mates’ opinions, frustrations, and questions. Our lack of full scope of their interpersonal relationships at the time does not negate the potential impact these actions could have made, does it?

Is there anybody but Cam who would disagree with this? But what if some of the band members' objections were actually justified? Brian's a genius, but not infallible.


Here's my assumed scenario. It's an assumption, I could be dead wrong. The touring band felt estranged from their boss. The music he created had nothing to do with the other members anymore, they didn't identify with some of the music, which furthermore at the time was near impossible to do live. There wasn't much harmony anymore. Thus they tried to close the gap that had developed between Brian and the rest of the group in the two and a half years they had been working seperately, by working as one unit again. So it was - unfortunately - decided to junk the whole batch of one year's recordings and start from scratch. Why it was decided to record at Brian's home rather than in proper studios is another thing. And to display that it wasn't one king and a couple of pawns anymore, the new record bore the credit "produced by the Beach Boys", even though Brian still pulled the strings.

Micha: A few points, I'll try to address them without quoting each one.

First, it was John Manning's post several pages ago that asked about discrediting Carl's comments due to what some were seeing as factual errors or contradictions. When I posted replies after that, I also hypothetically said "IF we discredit Carl's words", or if Carl's words are discredited, or similar variations. I was not the one who brought it up in the first place, though I knew it would eventually be suggested because what Carl said would serve to disprove some very long-held theories about Smile, Smiley, the whole works.

I have advocated since Carl's comments appeared here that we take what he said for what he said, and judge it on that level. If we dismiss entirely everything he said based on a word or a line, that to me is unfair and ultimately wrong.

What you wrote here:
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but every human being is fallible and there is nobody whose every word can be taken as gospel. Everybody's statements have to be checked for plausibility. That doesn't equal discrediting them completely.


That is EXACTLY what I have been saying too. Why you direct it at me who has been agreeing with exactly that principle instead of addressing those who are using one questionable line or one word to throw away everything a person said or wrote is something maybe you could answer for me, because we're in agreement here and have been all along. I've been arguing against casting Carl's entire comments in doubt, or to use John Manning's term "discrediting" Carl based on the inaccuracies some think are there.

Your scenario is a valid one, for sure. It would make sense. What I would highlight is this specific line:
So it was - unfortunately - decided to junk the whole batch of one year's recordings and start from scratch.

This line effectively rejects most if not all of the theories that what became Smiley Smile, conceptually or in any way, could have started as early as March or April. There was a very defined starting point for when the sessions moved into Brian's house. The entire scope and methods used to record, along with brand new songs and complete overhauls, changed at that point.

In other words, as you said and as Carl said, they started from scratch. They did not pick up what had already been started months ago, as some have tried to suggest, and there was a clear shift in direction dating exactly to June 1967.

We agree on this more than you might assume we do.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: SMiLE Brian on February 04, 2016, 09:36:45 AM
The SMiLE pool scene in L&M is a very simplified summary of what Craig is saying! ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 04, 2016, 09:37:53 AM
And perhaps you're searching for conspiracy theories and agendas where they don't exist...

If that's directed at me, show me where I'm searching for conspiracy theories and agendas. If not, whoever it's directed at can answer instead.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 04, 2016, 09:47:34 AM

If you are somehow not dodging a question, please direct me to what you believe an example of dodging a question WOULD be.  
 

Still no response to this, FDP? Look, if you don't want to answer the original question, just own up to dodging and say so. You're so deep into dodging, you additionally dodge the question about dodging.



"getting into someone's mind-space" is well outside of my expertise.  I will not opine about Brian's state-of-mind and his interpersonal relationships. I find that ridiculous. Nor, will I be goaded into such a discussion.  Forgettaboutit.  Ain't happenin'.


So you don't honestly have an internal opinion about how Brian's mates most likely impacted his state of mind? No gut level feeling gives you an iota of a feeling in the slightest one way or another? Or you have some semblance of a guess, but just don't feel comfortable sharing and talking about the opinion on a message board? Which is it?  

And why is it ok to talk about how the Capitol Record execs, for example, likely put lots of pressure that weighed on Brian?  Didn't the people at the record company who pressured Brian have interpersonal relationships (however surface) with Brian? Why is that angle ok to talk about when figuring out why the project failed? Using your logic, it's off limits to discuss how Brian may have felt as a result of Capitol execs, right?



 
And, Mike might have been "put up" to making this inquiry by the rest of the band.  



If the rest of the band "put Mike up to it"... if they were gathering around to goad Mike into getting VDP into the studio for Mike to grill VDP about lyrics (especially in the tactful, respectful manner that Mike likely did), don't you for one moment think that Mike would have mentioned this in an interview over the years?

Mike seems to feel completely justified in having asked question, he's expressed zero feelings of regret for either asking, or the manner he asked the question (not an unimportant or irrelevant factor)...  yet he knows that lots of other people think otherwise because he continues to get asked about it in interviews. It makes no sense that he wouldn't at some point have said "well Carl, Denny, and/or Al put me up to it or encouraged me to ask in the manner that I did", if that scenario did actually happen, because as someone who thinks it's ok and not wrong, he wouldn't be throwing his bandmates under the bus; he'd think they did nothing wrong either, and it would surely take some heat off him.

It's one of the hugest, most infamous things Mike is known for, and I don't think he'd keep other bandmates "putting him up to it" some big secret. That's why this argument holds no water.

 


I taught Kindergarten, (greatest job on the planet)



I think that's awesome, and I have nothing but respect for teachers... but for a moment, consider if a student of yours showed symptoms of possibly having received emotional/verbal abuse. I don't imagine you'd just ignore those signs and think they are of negligible concern. People can be harmed by things other than fists.  Is Brian exempt from being emotionally harmed?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 04, 2016, 09:49:07 AM
Well-see my above quotes-it's clear that there were discussions about direction, commercial appeal, etc.  It's also clear that at some point it was decided that future records would be "Produced by the Beach Boys" and that had to be a conversation.....or maybe not. One gets the feeling that this band didn't communicate well-things were often left unspoken.

Ian - Thank you for posting those articles! Much appreciated.

Of the group, they're all important, but Bruce's and Carl's comments stood out on my first read-through. Except for his not mentioning Carl's draft issues, Bruce summed up in a few lines at that time what I tried and failed to do over several pages!  ;D

 Quote:

In August 12 1967 Melody Maker  Bruce refers to the gap between Good Vibrations and Heroes "came about because we were on a European tour; because we were involved in a lawsuit with our recording company in the States; and because Brian decided to record Heroes and Villains again when we got back from the tour.  He scrapped a finished version of the song and wrote it again.  This version is completely different from the number he wrote first."

Sept 1967 Carl Wilson interview with Pete Johnson of the LA Times: "Those six months were a difficult time for us.  Brian just wasn't happy with Heroes and Villains until he had worked it over and over, throwing out parts and adding new ones.  So we had no new records and we were in a lawsuit with Capitol and then my draft problem developed....


Both mention the lawsuit. Carl mentions the draft. Bruce and Carl mention the scrapping and re-recording of the Heroes single. The re-recording issue is one that Brian, Dennis, Mike, and I believe Carl and Bruce too had commented on various times going into May 67, all saying a variation of "we need time" to put out the quality of records we want to put out for the fans. They were on the same page.

It got lost in many sideline discussions during this thread, but the effects of that lawsuit on the whole process if not the band's musical activities in general cannot be underestimated. It had a major impact on every aspect of the band's recording and release activities, then on top of that Carl's issues with the draft reached a critical point during the same months.

The lawsuit, in terms of external (and internal) pressures that affected the album and the single's progress, was a major issue, if not one of the major issues to consider for Spring 67. And during this critical time, the band was on roughly a six-week long tour of the US and Europe that took them away from home where all of this was going on. When they finally returned, major changes took place. June 1967.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 04, 2016, 09:54:34 AM
Question for Ian Rusten...If this comes across as asking too much, my apologies in advance.  :)

Do you have a transcript for the Pete Johnson LA Times piece with Carl which you quoted here, October 8th 1967 issue? It's the same piece the previous Carl quotes which got deleted from the board appeared. I'd be interested and I'm sure others would too in seeing the context where those quotes appeared in the full article.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 04, 2016, 09:56:20 AM
Craig, I'm away from home thus no access to my archives. However...

In 1967 Carl said one thing, then five years later said exactly the opposite, something even you cannot deny without ridicule. The article gave a list of the tracks to be included, some which were to be grouped under "Heroes And Villains". Hopefully Cam will oblige with the actual wording.

Plus I find the insinuation that I am ignorant of BB 101 more than slightly, and calculatingly, insulting. I was under the impression that the mods were here to facilitate the smooth running of the forum. Maybe I'm labouring under a misapprehension.

I'm not Cam, obviously, but here is the quote from a summer of '72 Melody Maker article by Richard Williams entitled, "SMiLE...It's Carl and the Passions":

    You thought “Surf’s Up” was a nice surprise, maybe?  Well listen, kids: If you can steer clear of the grim reaper ‘til next Fall, “Smile” is coming your way.
 
     And, yes, it’s the real “Smile” – the original tapes, made in 1967 by Brian Wilson and never released because . . .  well, I guess you know the story about the “Fire” track, and how it caused a rash of conflagrations within the immediate vicinity of the studio.

     But didn’t we all think Brian had destroyed those tapes?  Sure we did.  He said so, didn’t he?  A million times.

     He must have been putting us on, though.  All the tapes have now been found, pieced together, new vocals overdubbed where necessary, and the whole album will be out
[unreadable…I’m guessing ‘before’] long.

     The complete list of tracks is: “The Child Is Father To The Man”, “Surf’s Up”, “Sunshine”, “The Old Master Painter”, “Barnyard”, “Cabin-essence” (incorporating “Iron Horse”), “Mrs. O’Leary’s Cow”, “I Love To Say Dada” (incorporating “Cool Cool Water”), and the different original versions of “Vege-tables”, “Wind Chimes”, and “Wonderful”.  Most of them seem to come under the overall sub-title of “Heroes and Villains”.

     Carl Wilson tells a story about the day he was working on the tape of “Master Painter”.  “Somebody put the tape out with the garbage, by mistake.  It got shredded, into a thousand pieces.  I had to go out, find it, and put it back together again.  It’s okay now, but we’ve made safety copies of everything, just in case.  Those old things were done on four-track tape, and they’re very fragile.”

     Carl is making his revelations by candlelight in a conference room at London’s Royal Garden Hotel.


We now know, of course, that no new vocals were overdubbed in '72, and that the only work done was to listen, catalog, and make safety copies.


That is indeed the one, many thanks. As can be seen, previously released tracks - including "Surfs Up" - were set to be included.

Incidentally, when I asked SWD about this, he told me that Carl did indeed listen to the tapes and that safety copies were made. The tapes were then returned to the vault with no further attempt at completion being made.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 04, 2016, 09:59:37 AM
Craig, I'm away from home thus no access to my archives. However...

In 1967 Carl said one thing, then five years later said exactly the opposite, something even you cannot deny without ridicule. The article gave a list of the tracks to be included, some which were to be grouped under "Heroes And Villains". Hopefully Cam will oblige with the actual wording.

Plus I find the insinuation that I am ignorant of BB 101 more than slightly, and calculatingly, insulting. I was under the impression that the mods were here to facilitate the smooth running of the forum. Maybe I'm labouring under a misapprehension.

That wasn't the insinuation. Maybe you're being too defensive and looking for insults where they don't exist. As far as introducing your opinions on the moderation of the board as a topic in this discussion, it's not relevant at all.

That's your opinion. Others may well disagree.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 04, 2016, 10:07:54 AM
Craig, I'm away from home thus no access to my archives. However...

In 1967 Carl said one thing, then five years later said exactly the opposite, something even you cannot deny without ridicule. The article gave a list of the tracks to be included, some which were to be grouped under "Heroes And Villains". Hopefully Cam will oblige with the actual wording.

Plus I find the insinuation that I am ignorant of BB 101 more than slightly, and calculatingly, insulting. I was under the impression that the mods were here to facilitate the smooth running of the forum. Maybe I'm labouring under a misapprehension.

That wasn't the insinuation. Maybe you're being too defensive and looking for insults where they don't exist. As far as introducing your opinions on the moderation of the board as a topic in this discussion, it's not relevant at all.

That's your opinion. Others may well disagree.

Do you want to shift this discussion now to make it about me and start rehashing all your previous issues about moderating the board? Why not just post and comment about the actual Smile/Smiley/etc issues being discussed here like everyone else, and discuss the new (for many readers here) quotes and articles being posted here? Seriously. If your goal is to again make me the issue and call into question the moderation of this board it won't be done in this thread, and it won't serve as a distraction to those of us (however many or few) who want to discuss these issues further. It will not be locked, it will not be deleted, and it will not become the thread to air whatever complaints you have about how the board is moderated.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 04, 2016, 10:12:58 AM
Billy's line.  :)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 04, 2016, 10:26:26 AM

If you are somehow not dodging a question, please direct me to what you believe an example of dodging a question WOULD be.  
Still no response to this, FDP? Look, if you don't want to answer the original question, just own up to dodging. You're so deep into dodging, you additionally dodge the question about dodging.

"getting into someone's mind-space" is well outside of my expertise.  I will not opine about Brian's state-of-mind and his interpersonal relationships. I find that ridiculous. Nor, will I be goaded into such a discussion.  Forgettaboutit.  Ain't happenin'.
So you don't honestly have an internal opinion about how Brian's mates most likely impacted his state of mind? No gut level feeling gives you an iota of a feeling in the slightest one way or another? Or you have some semblance of a guess, but just don't feel comfortable sharing and talking about the opinion on a message board? Which is it?  

And why is it ok to talk about how the Capitol Record execs, for example, likely put lots of pressure that weighed on Brian?  Didn't the people at the record company who pressured Brian have interpersonal relationships (however surface) with Brian? Why is that angle ok to talk about when figuring out why the project failed? Using your logic, it's off limits to discuss how Brian may have felt as a result of Capitol execs, right?



 
And, Mike might have been "put up" to making this inquiry by the rest of the band.  


If the rest of the band "put Mike up to it"... if they were gathering around to goad Mike into getting VDP into the studio for Mike to grill VDP about lyrics (especially in the tactful, respectful manner that he likely did), don't you for one moment think that Mike would have mentioned this in an interview over the years? Mike seems to feel completely justified in having asked question, he's expressed zero feelings of regret for either asking, or the manner he asked the question (not an unimportant or irrelevant factor)...  yet he knows that lots of other people think otherwise because he continues to get asked about it in interviews. It makes no sense that he wouldn't at some point have said "well Carl, Denny, and/or Al put me up to it or encouraged me to ask in the manner that I did", if that scenario did actually happen, because as someone who thinks it's ok and not wrong, he wouldn't be throwing his bandmates under the bus. That's why this argument holds no water.

I taught Kindergarten, (greatest job on the planet)
I think that's awesome, and I have nothing but respect for teachers... but for a moment, consider if a student of yours showed symptoms of possibly having received emotional/verbal abuse. I don't imagine you'd just ignore those signs and think they are of negligible concern. People can be harmed by things other than fists.  
CD - Yes, I had the greatest job on the planet for several decades and every day was a privilege.  That said, I am starting at the end of your post.  I taught the poorest of the poor, often in the most dire of situations. That said, I did have many children that were emotionally compromised.  What I did was "observe" them for behavior, write down what "they did" but not "why" they did it.  That is opining outside of my expertise.  

So, I could report that they behaved aggressively or passively.  Or could not engage with their peers, well.  And that gave me a framework to refer a child for "assessment by a professional." So, my background in education supports my reluctance to opine on someone's behavioral health.  One of my 4 year old students would wash her clean hands 50 times in a matter of a couple of hours.  I could not assess and opine on that, but it is a sign of terrible abuse that I referred immediately for diagnosis.  So, I cannot opine and diagnose as I am a step away from that expertise.   And the lines are pretty clear.  

Tact or no tact, or maybe exasperation could be the case with the lyrics.  And if the band looked at the lyrics and collectively said "what the heck" is this, who would go to the source and challenge them?  And, standing back to see who was in the best position, I would not choose Carl or Dennis because they barely finished high school.  It doesn't mean they were not smart, but younger, with fewer academic credentials.  I absolutely agree with Mike's position, because he was paying for the service.  If you pay; you get a say.  Further, he had a duty, as a corporate member to advance a product that would sell.  That is why you incorporate.  

State-of-mind... as to the reaction to the PR in 1967.  How would any ordinary person react?  Not a Brian or a Beach Boy, but anyone who was falsely represented.  It would not matter whom it would be.  

It is ok to talk about the Capitol execs.  You bet.  I am not using logic as others are attempting to use it.

What I am using - these  "inconsistent reports," promotion that was "regressive" (1967 with the clock turned backwards to 1965.)  I am comparing what is written against what quotes were given, with respect the tour.  I am offering Dennis' interview with Peter Fornatale to show the faith they had in Brian.  I am offering the Gaumont Palace interview with two twin beds pushed together and four guys squished together, reflecting candidly about their poor experience with the record company promoting an image that no longer existed.  

The Beach Boys are talking about the Capitol execs so it is fair play for discussion.  The Beach Boys opened the door to that discussion.  And, it is really easy for me.  I have compared student work for indications of cheating.  Or conflicting stories about schoolyard fights.  No logic, just prior inconsistent statements.  Means there is a big hole in the story.    

No logic; you won't find it.  Statements, interviews, PR inconsistencies; comparing them to each other.  If these journalists or PR people knew when they wrote these articles, that they would be held up to scrutiny, they might have been more careful with accuracy.  It is very much on my radar. Your work follows you.      

And, looking back, who would rely on a teeny bopper magazine to source as history? Seriously, that is not credible history. Especially if it was part of a PR campaign. Even if I hung on to every word as a teenager.  

Bottom line - there is no straight story.  Maybe they thought no teacher would ever check their work!  :lol

Hope that helps.   ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Matt Bielewicz on February 04, 2016, 10:29:45 AM
C'mon, you guys, break it up and let's keep this discussion going. The thread is (for the most part) extremely interesting. Most have us have been here a long time and want to see more of that kind of thing. And not the interpersonal stuff...

Just a plea for sanity. Let's not go to the dark side if we don't have to...


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 04, 2016, 10:50:05 AM
Good stuff, Ian. Thanks.

That LA Times puts a date on the very night Brian took H&V to KHJ, I don't remember seeing that confirmed before.  July 5 was a Wednesday.

So Dennis also thought SMiLE was finished before May 14.  So far Brian's brothers are the main suspects in the suspected scrapped sabotage, I suspect.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 04, 2016, 11:18:11 AM
Good stuff, Ian. Thanks.

That LA Times puts a date on the very night Brian took H&V to KHJ, I don't remember seeing that confirmed before.

So Dennis also thought SMiLE was finished before May 14.  So far Brian's brothers are the main suspects in the suspected scrapped sabotage, I suspect.

Very interesting indeed. Dennis in May 67 also said it was finished, add his comment to Carl's and there are two band members saying the same thing. Cam, let's take a look at that date for the KHJ visit. If what I'm about to do comes off as parsing, then I'll say in advance guilty as charged!

Here is the quote Ian posted:

LA TIMES syndicated story that appeared in July 1967 commented: "Rumor had it that, apart from the legal hassles with Capitol. he (Brian) was not happy with the tapes, which had already been through months of mixing, balancing, splicing and mastering and might never let them be issued as records....On July 5 Brian Wilson finished the tape and invited Capitol's director of artists and repertoire Karl Engemann to the house to hear it.  'I arrived' Engemann said 'and no one was there.  Brian had gotten so excited with the finished tape that he'd taken it to radio station KHJ so he could hear it on the radio.'...The album too will be forthcoming, retitled Smiley Smile-the redundant adjective tacked on apparently as grinning finish to a long quiet hassle."   

For those who may not have been on this board in 2012, I'm posting this link to what might be some of the best conversation I've ever been involved with on this forum. Well...at least for me and the board's fellow vintage radio and KHJ enthusiast Custom Machine. My mind was officially blown. This is Stephen Desper's firsthand account of what happened that night, firsthand because he went to the station with them. For the detail-oriented readers, it was an acetate which Stephen had cut for Brian that was taken to the station, not a tape copy. However, as you'll read in the discussion, KHJ was playing Heroes as an exclusive, and I know that for a fact having heard a July 67 tape of KHJ's Bobby Ocean playing the record as early as any surviving broadcast that exists in the timeline. That suggested KHJ at some point either made a copy of that acetate, took then transferred the acetate, or perhaps got one later for them to play on the air as Ocean would do later that month.

This is the link to the full discussion:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,13985.50.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,13985.50.html)

And this is an excerpt from Stephen Desper's account of that night:

COMMENT:  Custom Machine ask me to post my thoughts on this thread, so here they are . . .

SD: And I also remember having to take the lawn mower out of the back of the Phantom 5 limo.

AJ: [huge, hearty laugh]

SD: To make room for everybody. [more laughter]

AJ: That’s a great story! [still laughing] What the hell was the lawn mower doing in there? [new wave of laughter]

SD: Brian didn’t have a truck so he used his Rolls Royce to haul his yard equipment around, and we had it fixed.

AJ: Oh, God, I didn’t even know that. That is so funny…


In 2003 Mr. Desper stated that he’d taken a lawn mower out of Brian’s Rolls Royce Phantom 5 so that more people could fit in the car for the trip to KHJ, about 20 minutes away at 5515 Melrose.


That is still what I remember. I can’t recall if Brian or Dennis helped me with the removal of lawnmower, but someone did. None of this lawnmower business would be known or remembered by the station DJ.  It all happened in the back parking area of Brian’s home.

Who all does Stephen Desper recall making the trip? 

I simply do not recall. I think Brian’s wife or her sister went along, otherwise I do not recall. Maybe Carl. Maybe Alan.

Did Mr. Desper himself make the trip, or after removing the lawn mower did he head home or stay back at Brian’s home studio?

First of all, the song was delivered on an acetate disc which I had cut some time earlier at Artisan Mastering House in Hollywood. It may have been cut the day before, don’t remember. Then it was played a few times and was sitting on the kitchen counter for some time before Brian got the idea of taking it and delivering it himself to the station. He was anxious to get a reaction from the DJ and see how it sounded on the radio. There was some discussion in the kitchen with everyone jazzing each other about this idea -- finally a simple game plan evolved (big plan, drive to the station) and a dash was made to the cars. That was when we discovered the lawnmower was stilll in the Phantom.  I don’t recall who-all went, sorry. It was about five or six people, including me, because the trip was not your usual thing to do in the evening and everyone that was around wanted to go and be part of the “trip to the radio station.” 

How many vehicles does he recall making the trip?  

I can’t be certain, but I think it was two. Most in the Rolls-Royce and overflow in the other car. 

Since he went to the trouble of removing the lawn mover to make room, was it just Brian’s Rolls, or as Melcher stated, was it a caravan of limos?

The Phantom 5 will seat seven or eight people if you use the jump seats. So I would say five or six were in the Limo and the other car was just your standard sedan. I enjoyed driving the Rolls, so it may well have been that I drove. Any additional cars would have been personal cars that happened to be at the home studio that night.

Assuming Stephen Desper went to the KHJ studios, what are his recollections of what transpired?

When we got to the station there was nowhere to park and Brian wanted to go right in, so the Phantom 5 was parked on the street; illegally parked. We all hoped it's size and distinction would give it some sort of VIP illusion and not be towed.

Brian's Black Phantom 5 >>> http://www.autowp.ru/pictures/rolls_royce/phantom/autowp.ru_rolls-royce_phantom_royal_limousine_5.jpg

(( The horn of Brian's Rolls-Royce is featured in Take a Load Off Your Feet))

I remember there was some commotion about getting into the station, that is past the front desk. No appointment – and you don’t just bust into a radio show already on-the-air. But after that was straightened out, the DJ was still a little flabbergasted to have Brian there – and with a new record to be previewed on his show. On the air it seemed as if he was searching for his words, as if trying to buy himself some time before actually playing the record. He was on the phone to get clearance from someone; to cover his ass -- after all he had a responsibility to the station, not The Beach Boys. I recall that at first there was a question if Brian could do this without the record company’s OK, and if airing the song would present a later problem for the station. That was bantered about for a few minutes, but then it was decided to play it just once. You see, in those days if you released a single without stock in the store, you ran the risk of having what was then called “a turntable hit.” That is, a hit that was requested over and over to be played on the radio. By the time the record company could supply stock to the stores, the song would have run its course and not be a hit that was in demand to buy. Hence only a hit on the radio station’s turntable.  So this was something that the DJ did not want to be accused of doing by the record company's A&R people. But Brian and company was there and talking on the air about the recording of the song. The interest had been aired, so at the risk of making a turntable hit, it was decided this would be reduced by playing it once . . . so the song was played. After the airing, it was all over, Brian had gotten the reactions he wanted, and we left. The Rolls was still parked in front of the station on busy Melrose Avenue. I returned to the house studio while others departed for their homes from the station. That’s about it.


~swd

After that post, you'll see discussions about KHJ getting then playing their own copy of Heroes as an exclusive prior to the release.

And *if* Wednesday July 5th was the date of the night they visited KHJ and found DJ Tom Maule on the air in his nighttime shift, what is very frustrating is that one of the few surviving tapes of KHJ's 1967 broadcasts was recorded during the drive-time shift of The Real Don Steele, two days prior, July 3rd 1967. It is one of the coolest pieces of audio I've ever heard.

*If only* someone had also been recording Maule's Wednesday night July 5th shift as Brian showed up with the Heroes acetate... :)



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 04, 2016, 11:23:36 AM

After that post, you'll see discussions about KHJ getting then playing their own copy of Heroes as an exclusive prior to the release.

And *if* Wednesday July 5th was the date of the night they visited KHJ and found DJ Tom Maule on the air in his nighttime shift, what is very frustrating is that one of the few surviving tapes of KHJ's 1967 broadcasts was recorded during the drive-time shift of The Real Don Steele, two days prior, July 3rd 1967. It is one of the coolest pieces of audio I've ever heard.

*If only* someone had also been recording Maule's Wednesday night July 5th shift as Brian showed up with the Heroes acetate... :)


I did not remember that but it figures.  Another interview shown to be incorrect.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 04, 2016, 11:27:19 AM

After that post, you'll see discussions about KHJ getting then playing their own copy of Heroes as an exclusive prior to the release.

And *if* Wednesday July 5th was the date of the night they visited KHJ and found DJ Tom Maule on the air in his nighttime shift, what is very frustrating is that one of the few surviving tapes of KHJ's 1967 broadcasts was recorded during the drive-time shift of The Real Don Steele, two days prior, July 3rd 1967. It is one of the coolest pieces of audio I've ever heard.

*If only* someone had also been recording Maule's Wednesday night July 5th shift as Brian showed up with the Heroes acetate... :)


I did not remember that but it figures.  Another interview shown to be incorrect.

Could you clarify that? What was incorrect? Both Engemann and Desper say Brian took the song to KHJ so he could hear what it sounded like on the radio...which interview or what part of an interview are you saying is incorrect?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: doinnothin on February 04, 2016, 11:56:26 AM
I'm sure I'm behind the times, perhaps a bit dense, but I think I finally get the title "Smiley Smile". I imagine everyone having such a bad bummer of a time trying to top Pet Sounds, top Good Vibrations and create this Smile masterpiece, when finally someone says something to the effect, "we're not even smiling anymore, how can we make an album called Smile!" So they put most of what they've got on a shelf and say, hey, let's put a happier process in place and see what we can make if we're actually having fun and smiling. "Let's make a more Smiley Smile"


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Ian on February 04, 2016, 12:28:50 PM
Sorry Pete Johnson reported in the LA Times "Beach Boys Break Silence" on July 16, 1967 that July 5 was the day Brian took the record to KHJ.  He also noted "Then he took copies to other local stations, placing Capitol in the difficult position of listening to music which legally belonged to the company but which the company could not immediately distribute.  Legal difficulties, however, appear to be near settlement"


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Ian on February 04, 2016, 12:37:39 PM
In terms of October 8 1967 LA Times-again Pete Johnson's column:  Carl says "We didn't scrap them we just haven't used them yet.  We did it all from scratch when we started again.  We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked.  We all didn't agree on different types of things.  We decided to do something new."  Mike Love, another Beach Boys, said "If Brian gets an idea it's now and it's better than something from the past. I've seen it a hundred times.  we've seen a lot of potentially great songs just be shelved.  They come out maybe two or three years later, but they're in his mind somehow.  If that particular idea seems to fit what he's working on at the time it will just come naturally."


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on February 04, 2016, 12:42:09 PM
Quote
Read the memo, it says "I agreed with Brian..." (about the booklets). Brian was involved in that decision.

Fair enough. Thanks GF - I should have re-read the memo before posting.

EDIT: So, here's the relevant quote from the memo: "[Engelman] agreed with Brian that the best course of action would be to NOT include this booklet with the SMILEY SMILE package, but rather to hold it for the next album which will include the aforementioned 10 selections."

And just for contrast:

"I told the company, 'No, I don't want this to be released; I want this to go on the shelf.' We didn't tell them for how long. We told them 'For a while.'" - Brian Wilson, 2011


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 04, 2016, 01:08:56 PM
Could you clarify that? What was incorrect? Both Engemann and Desper say Brian took the song to KHJ so he could hear what it sounded like on the radio...which interview or what part of an interview are you saying is incorrect?

The date July 5 to KHJ apparently.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 04, 2016, 02:24:12 PM
The Engemann memo is something of a red herring, as previously noted, with Brian most likely telling them what they wanted to hear. The "next album" swiftly became a proposed live set, then rapidly morphed into Wild Honey. In any event, a ten track Smile never happened.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 04, 2016, 04:19:33 PM
After seeing Dennis' and Mike's quotes posted by Ian, I'm beginning to wonder if it wasn't Brian who sabotaged the Boys. Maybe intentionally, probably unintentionally, but if you take everybody at their word, the Boys seem to think SMiLE is still a go and will hit the stores after this May tour (so they aren't announcing it is scrapped) but at the same time Brian knows it's not finished, a lot is only half done, Brian's having all the issues with SMiLE and H&V that Taylor is reporting in April and May, and he is already recording alternate tracks but he announces it is scrapped in conversations with Taylor while the Boys are on the tour they think is preceding SMiLE's release.  Something like that?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on February 04, 2016, 04:25:27 PM
Quote
After seeing Dennis' and Mike's quotes posted by Ian, I'm beginning wonder if it wasn't Brian who sabotaged the Boys. Maybe intentionally, probably unintentionally, but if you take everybody at their word, the Boys seem to think SMiLE is still a go and maybe will hit the stores after this May tour but at the same time Brian knows it's not finished (he is already recording alternate tracks) and announces it is scrapped in conversations with Taylor while they are on the tour.  Something like that?

Seems plausible.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Ian on February 04, 2016, 05:17:38 PM
We've been through all this before but other mysteries remain.  How come Bruce didn't appear on most of the album? Choice or was he asked not to attend? Why did Brian insist on recording new versions of wonderful and wind chimes and vegetables when he had great ones in the can?  Did the guys challenge him on that? I mean mike doesn't strike me as a guy who loves hanging out in the studio. He's like John Lennon-just get in and get it done! So did he not say "Brian I am not doing my vocals again when you have a basically finished version of this song in the vault!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Ian on February 04, 2016, 05:26:46 PM
I think you can compare Brian to orson Welles.  He was accused of going over budget and getting too arty and having trouble finishing projects so when a studio offered to let him direct a movie called the stranger in 1946 it was on the proviso that he work on a tight budget and stick to the script. Basically they wanted him to demonstrate that he could work within the rules. Maybe smiley smile was a bit like that.  Brian was sort of on the spot to just get a record done. Less crazy all night sessions and less modular recording. Straightforward hours and less outside musicians and a tight budget.  But as many have pointed out some even stranger arrangements and odd songs.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 04, 2016, 06:31:13 PM
After seeing Dennis' and Mike's quotes posted by Ian, I'm beginning to wonder if it wasn't Brian who sabotaged the Boys. Maybe intentionally, probably unintentionally, but if you take everybody at their word, the Boys seem to think SMiLE is still a go and will hit the stores after this May tour (so they are aren't announcing it is scrapped) but at the same time Brian knows it's not finished, a lot is only half done, Brian's having all the issues with SMiLE and H&V that Taylor is reporting in April and May, and he is already recording alternate tracks but he announces it is scrapped in conversations with Taylor while the Boys are on the tour they think is preceding SMiLE's release.  Something like that?

Well, why oh why would Brian even *possibly*, as you concede he *might* have, intentionally sabotage the Boys, when there was surely zero resentment over the project (Brian being resentful of the Boys over some aspects of the project) whatsoever? Zilch, nada, none, right?

Hmm...


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Alan Smith on February 04, 2016, 06:31:43 PM
We've been through all this before but other mysteries remain.  How come Bruce didn't appear on most of the album? Choice or was he asked not to attend? Why did Brian insist on recording new versions of wonderful and wind chimes and vegetables when he had great ones in the can?  Did the guys challenge him on that? I mean mike doesn't strike me as a guy who loves hanging out in the studio. He's like John Lennon-just get in and get it done! So did he not say "Brian I am not doing my vocals again when you have a basically finished version of this song in the vault!
Great questions, Ian.  Your later questions remind me of a brief section in the Byron Preiss book that says, "For the Beach Boys there was a sense of departure from the intense period of recording that had begun with Pet Sounds and dissipated in the final days of Smile.  The group and the family were back together again.  Brian's circle of friends from the Smile days had moved on. "Heroes and Villians" was a bona-fide hit, and Capitol wanted it on a new album along with "Good Vibrations".

No great insights from me as usual, but I imagine the "group/family" approach combined with hanging out at Brian's house would have removed/lessened any resistance to redoing things - a more on their terms kind of thing.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Ian on February 04, 2016, 07:06:44 PM
I agree with everything you said.  And like I said earlier-even though there is a ton of stuff that they should have discussed-I wouldn't be stunned to learn that none of this was ever addressed directly


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on February 04, 2016, 08:14:38 PM

That Engemann memo has always fascinated me. I wish we knew more about it.

Over the last 55 years, The Beach Boys have shown a propensity to, shall I say, not exactly tell the truth in interviews, for a variety of reasons. That makes it difficult and sometimes impossible to use quotes to make a point and certainly to prove (or disprove) one. I suppose we all, to some extent, use (cherry-pick?) quotes that strengthen our personal positions and dismiss the ones that weaken our arguments. However, to get down to the bare basics, as a Beach Boy diehard, I have learned, just because Brian or Mike or Carl or whoever said something, doesn't automatically mean it is true - or a fact. It might be all we have, and you have to consider it, and you have to assign some weight to it, but you also have to consider the source, and I'm sorry if that's being too blunt or negative.

I tend to put more weight on things that took more time to think over, discussed, and ultimately put down in writing. I think you get a better shot at the truth, or at least honest thoughts, when people (specifically the individual Beach Boys) take the time to discuss issues, maybe in a meeting setting, as opposed to just blurting out comments or sound bites to an interviewer. At the top of my wish list has always been meeting minutes. I think we would be astounded at what was discussed there and by whom. I think long-held myths would drop like flies.

Anyway, back to things in writing... I always put a lot of stock in the handwritten SMiLE tracklist submitted to Capitol in December 1966. It had to be thought out. It had to written down. It had to be submitted. It had to be/should have been taken seriously due to the reason/request for the tracklist in the first place. It wasn't something blurted out in a minute or two to satisfy fans or a reporter who wanted some quotes for a magazine article.

I'm finally getting to my point of this post! I guess I put more stock in the Karl Engemann memo than most do. This memo was the result of a series of conversations with Brian Wilson. It wasn't a quickie interview where Brian blurts out a few lines. This memo stated "After discussing a number of alternatives with Brian..." To me the key words are "discussing" and "a number". The memo mentioned specifically ten songs, SMiLE booklets, and a specific time frame, meaning the NEXT  Beach Boys'album. This was important stuff, not Teen Beat magazine fluff. Oh, and did I mention that it involved $$$$$$$$$$?

Brian Wilson could be a jerk in the way he treated various people including his wife, his children, and sometimes his bandmates and lyricists. But I would hope when he was discussing projects DIRECTLY with representatives of the record company, that he was being honest and fair. I believe that the December 1966 SMiLE tracklist was honest, and, at least for some period of time (insert your own), based on the Engemann memo, he intended to release a ten track SMiLE album after Smiley Smile. Based on that belief, I tend to view Smiley Smile as a laid back, Party-like album, used to buy more time, giving the record company and fans some "product", while Brian could satisfy himself with his next work of art (like Pet Sounds, now SMiLE). Yes, obviously things didn't come to pass as the Engemann memo planned, but, again, I believe, for a short period of time, it was THE PLAN. I hope Brian wasn't conning anybody. And, now it raises more questions. Why didn't it come to pass. Why did they go into Wild Honey? In SMiLE's history, it serves as a marker, I believe, and an important marker to at least consider. Hey, Karl Engemann is still alive and kicking. Anybody know how to contact him? ;D


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 05, 2016, 12:37:10 AM
Discussing a number of alternatives could mean anything from several structured meetings to Engemann calling Brian for a few minutes, outlining three or four different plans and Brian saying "that one". I feel the memo reveals  more of Capitol than of Brian.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Matt Bielewicz on February 05, 2016, 12:57:27 AM
...Brian was sort of on the spot to just get a record done. Less crazy all night sessions and less modular recording. Straightforward hours and less outside musicians and a tight budget.  But as many have pointed out some even stranger arrangements and odd songs.

Ian, I think you're making some great points here and bringing, in the form of the quotes you've found by scouring contemporary publications, some fascinating material to this saga! But I did want to highlight this point. Although the Smiley recordings are simpler than the stuff recorded at the SMiLE sessions, and unquestionably involve fewer outside musicians (and therefore much less expense)... well, they're still pretty out there. Many of the tracks ARE recorded in modular fashion, as the SOT disc shows us. And the arrangements, particularly the vocals, are actually still very intricate, even if the slightly sloppy way a couple of them are delivered helps to create a superficially different impression (the intro to Little Pad, I'm looking at you).

This is one of the things that has always baffled me about Smiley Smile. It's been discussed here before, of course, and can be summed up as follows: if it was supposed to be a solution to the difficulties that Brian had got himself into while trying to finish SMiLE... then it's a pretty strange solution! Consider:

Some of the Beach Boys (we know who...) have expressed concerns about the VDP lyrics being hard to relate to. Maybe Brian thinks they are, too. So, what do they do for Smiley Smile? They, er... STILL USE several tracks featuring VDP's lyrics. And the others aren't exactly straightforward, 'Boy-Girl relatable' stuff. Even Getting Hungry, which is written by Brian and Mike, the classic team behind some of their archetypal boy-girl numbers, and does seem to be a boy addressing a girl, is pretty off-the-wall... the 'boy' sounds incredibly oversexed and creepy, and not in a good way. It's hardly 'Your Summer Dream'.

Brian said, both at the time and many times later, that he junked SMiLE because of concerns about it 'not being right for the Beach Boys' or 'not being commercial enough'. And we know, despite the success of Good Vibrations in between, that since Pet Sounds there had been concerns about the commercial appeal of the Boys' recent material: certainly at the record company and also, um, within the band (naming no names). So the obvious solution to this... IS TO PUT OUT SMILEY SMILE???? An album featuring the Boys so obviously stoned that they crack up laughing, with songs about Vegetables and a girl pouring hair restorer on her head in a desperate attempt to bring back her shining tresses of yore...?? These aren't the apple-pie, gold-disc-winning Beach Boys of Surfer Girl any more — listen instead to the 'crazed acid party chat' rammed into the middle of the languid ballad Wonderful... the deep 'laughing' vocals and wonky Woody Woodpecker accordion motifs of the oddball 'Fall Breaks And Back To Winter', and the chipmunk squeaks of the 'Eltronned' Boys on 'She's Going Bald'...

OK, so the big hit Good Vibrations is on there too... but at that stage, that record was nearly three-quarters of a year old, and doesn't sound like anything else on the album. In short, what the ACTUAL Foda??

We also know that there were, as there had been over Pet Sounds, 'concerns' from the touring group that the new material would be far too hard to play on stage. So what does the group do? It puts out an album which... they hardly ever played any tracks from live. From memory, what? Heroes and Villains for a few weeks only (and then it was in the deep freeze until the early 70s concerts) and Getting Hungry for even less time... that was pretty much it for the 60s, wasn't it? Oh, and of course Brian put Baldwin organ all over it... that most eminently portable and lightweight of instruments for live use. And yeah, I know they DID use the Baldwin live in Hawaii... but it wasn't something they did very often after that. If, indeed, ever!

We also know that Brian is getting more and more unhappy as the SMiLE sessions progress. He doesn't feel as though things are coming easily to him any more... he gets totally stressed out over the recording of Heroes and Villains and how to put it together. He records more and more things in shorter and shorter sections, cutting far fewer tracks live as one piece. And his solution, moving to the 'clean sheet' of the Smiley Smile sessions, is... er...

...to continue recording everything in short sections, and to bring the recording environment which has caused him so much stress in recent time INTO HIS ACTUAL LIVING SPACE!

I could go on. In short, it just seems as though they looked at all the things that weren't working about SMiLE, said (sensibly enough) 'this is causing no end of stress, we need a break from this and a fresh start...' And then they pitched headlong into an album that almost seems calculated NOT to resolve any of the problems SMiLE was causing, and if anything, would actually exacerbate them...

Not that any of this diminishes my absolute love of Smiley Smile (I'm a believer through and through)... but it seems a pretty odd response to all the problems thrown up by late 1966 and early 1967 in Beach Boys land...!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 05, 2016, 02:32:32 AM
After seeing Dennis' and Mike's quotes posted by Ian, I'm beginning to wonder if it wasn't Brian who sabotaged the Boys. Maybe intentionally, probably unintentionally, but if you take everybody at their word, the Boys seem to think SMiLE is still a go and will hit the stores after this May tour (so they are aren't announcing it is scrapped) but at the same time Brian knows it's not finished, a lot is only half done, Brian's having all the issues with SMiLE and H&V that Taylor is reporting in April and May, and he is already recording alternate tracks but he announces it is scrapped in conversations with Taylor while the Boys are on the tour they think is preceding SMiLE's release.  Something like that?

Well, why oh why would Brian even *possibly*, as you concede he *might* have, intentionally sabotage the Boys, when there was surely zero resentment over the project (Brian being resentful of the Boys over some aspects of the project) whatsoever? Zilch, nada, none, right?

Hmm...

I only mentioned "intentionally" because as I remember the original Priore "scrapped" announcement conspiracy theory was Mike was intentionally sabotaging Brian. Something like that.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 05, 2016, 03:20:57 AM
Smiley is a mystery. According to Brian in that KHJ HoR&R interview apparently the Boys did protest about the scrapping of the songs they had for SMiLE.  On the other hand, they had done take after take for the SMiLE versions and then did more takes of some of the same songs for Smiley. On the third hand, it doesn't seem to matter much maybe what they think and they don't seem that well informed about what is going on anyway. 

I suppose that what Brian didn't like or want is in what he scrapped or changed and I guess it must have been something other than the arrangements or instrumentation etc. for the ones he scrapped because he could have kept them, as he kept some, in alternate arrangements. Conversely I suppose what he did want is kept in or created for Smiley.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 05, 2016, 06:06:30 AM
Could you clarify that? What was incorrect? Both Engemann and Desper say Brian took the song to KHJ so he could hear what it sounded like on the radio...which interview or what part of an interview are you saying is incorrect?

The date July 5 to KHJ apparently.

After some sleep, I realize Engemann says it is a tape, so the original delivery of on or before July 3 was an acetate which isn't in conflict with Brian also delivering  tape on July 5. Seems sensible actually.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 05, 2016, 06:47:02 AM
Could you clarify that? What was incorrect? Both Engemann and Desper say Brian took the song to KHJ so he could hear what it sounded like on the radio...which interview or what part of an interview are you saying is incorrect?

The date July 5 to KHJ apparently.

After some sleep, I realize Engemann says it is a tape, so the original delivery of on or before July 3 was an acetate which isn't in conflict with Brian also delivering  tape on July 5. Seems sensible actually.

What previous date was given? I only said July 3 referencing a KHJ aircheck that exists but has nothing to do with Heroes or Brian's tape, not the date when they went to KHJ's studios.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 05, 2016, 07:08:48 AM
Could you clarify that? What was incorrect? Both Engemann and Desper say Brian took the song to KHJ so he could hear what it sounded like on the radio...which interview or what part of an interview are you saying is incorrect?

The date July 5 to KHJ apparently.

After some sleep, I realize Engemann says it is a tape, so the original delivery of on or before July 3 was an acetate which isn't in conflict with Brian also delivering  tape on July 5. Seems sensible actually.

What previous date was given? I only said July 3 referencing a KHJ aircheck that exists but has nothing to do with Heroes or Brian's tape, not the date when they went to KHJ's studios.

My bad, I thought you were saying Steele played H&V on the 3rd, I didn't read it closely enough.  The 5th it is then.  An acetate for KHJ and a tape for Engemann.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 05, 2016, 07:29:45 AM
Could you clarify that? What was incorrect? Both Engemann and Desper say Brian took the song to KHJ so he could hear what it sounded like on the radio...which interview or what part of an interview are you saying is incorrect?

The date July 5 to KHJ apparently.

After some sleep, I realize Engemann says it is a tape, so the original delivery of on or before July 3 was an acetate which isn't in conflict with Brian also delivering  tape on July 5. Seems sensible actually.

What previous date was given? I only said July 3 referencing a KHJ aircheck that exists but has nothing to do with Heroes or Brian's tape, not the date when they went to KHJ's studios.

My bad, I thought you were saying Steele played H&V on the 3rd, I didn't read it closely enough.  The 5th it is then.  An acetate for KHJ and a tape for Engemann.
Cam - according to Carlin, p. 121, "...in the summer of 1967, Brian felt strongly enough about the new version that he kept it to himself for weeks, waiting for his astrologer, named Genevelyn, to identify the perfect moment to spring it upon the unsuspecting world. She came to Brian in the evening of July 11

...As Terry Melcher told the tale to Rolling Stone in 1971, it all began around the evening on the eleventh, when Brian gathered his remaining intimates (unnamed) into a flock of limousines and sped from the gates of his Bel Air home...to... KHJ-AM...presented it to Tom Maule, the overnight DJ..."Hi, I'm Brian Wilson, Melcher recalled hearing the pop monarch declare. 'Here is the new Beach Boys single, and I'd like to give you and KHJ an exclusive on it.'

'...I can't play anything that's not on the playlist,'...Maule was convinced to call the program director at home --'Put it on, you idiot!' Melcher recalled hearing the guy shreik..."



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 05, 2016, 07:38:29 AM
double post - mea culpa

Happy Friday!  :beer


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on February 05, 2016, 09:53:36 AM
What you wrote here:
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but every human being is fallible and there is nobody whose every word can be taken as gospel. Everybody's statements have to be checked for plausibility. That doesn't equal discrediting them completely.


That is EXACTLY what I have been saying too. Why you direct it at me who has been agreeing with exactly that principle instead of addressing those who are using one questionable line or one word to throw away everything a person said or wrote is something maybe you could answer for me

All right, here we go. This is my perception of things. I went back to read John Manning's post with the word "discredit", and he says:

Surely that "Smile is finished" statement effectively discredits some of what Carl had to say that day?

SOME of what Carl had to say THAT DAY. You then went into a kind of rant that seemed to me like a hissy fit about people trying to discredit Carl totally as a person rather a very limited couple of statements of his. You even accused Cam of claiming Carl was a liar, which, if I didn't skip the post in which he did because of lack of concentration, Cam didn't. It seemed to me your point was "How can you all doubt Carl?", as earlier it seemed to me your point was that it was proven Mike told Taylor about SMiLE being scrapped and that you were annoyed some of us didn't agree that it was proven. You even refused to give us the source for some time and for reasons beyond me. Also it seemed to me that you got into a huff about Cam's theories as if everybody was buying them.

In short, your points may actually elude me because of all these emotional reactions of yours that sidetrack your argumentation.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on February 05, 2016, 10:02:30 AM
Some of the Beach Boys (we know who...) have expressed concerns about the VDP lyrics being hard to relate to. Maybe Brian thinks they are, too. So, what do they do for Smiley Smile? They, er... STILL USE several tracks featuring VDP's lyrics.

It seems significant to me that we have SMiLE era lead vocals only for those songs that were reworked for Smiley: H&V, Vegetables, Wind Chimes, Wonderful. Obviously there was no problem with those lyrics. The unused tracks - CE, SU, DYLW - all have no 1966 lead vocals, maybe because those were the questioned lyrics.


Brian said, both at the time and many times later, that he junked SMiLE because of concerns about it 'not being right for the Beach Boys' or 'not being commercial enough'.

Well, that's just making excuses, or trying to deliver an official version of things to cloud what was going on behind the scenes. The point is that in the Smiley recording mode the other boys were working WITH Brian rather than FOR Brian.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 05, 2016, 10:18:13 AM
What you wrote here:
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but every human being is fallible and there is nobody whose every word can be taken as gospel. Everybody's statements have to be checked for plausibility. That doesn't equal discrediting them completely.


That is EXACTLY what I have been saying too. Why you direct it at me who has been agreeing with exactly that principle instead of addressing those who are using one questionable line or one word to throw away everything a person said or wrote is something maybe you could answer for me

All right, here we go. This is my perception of things. I went back to read John Manning's post with the word "discredit", and he says:

Surely that "Smile is finished" statement effectively discredits some of what Carl had to say that day?

SOME of what Carl had to say THAT DAY. You then went into a kind of rant that seemed to me like a hissy fit about people trying to discredit Carl totally as a person rather a very limited couple of statements of his. You even accused Cam of claiming Carl was a liar, which, if I didn't skip the post in which he did because of lack of concentration, Cam didn't. It seemed to me your point was "How can you all doubt Carl?", as earlier it seemed to me your point was that it was proven Mike told Taylor about SMiLE being scrapped and that you were annoyed some of us didn't agree that it was proven. You even refused to give us the source for some time and for reasons beyond me. Also it seemed to me that you got into a huff about Cam's theories as if everybody was buying them.

In short, your points may actually elude me because of all these emotional reactions of yours that sidetrack your argumentation.

This is exactly what I said:

But if you choose to call Carl a liar and discredit everything he says, Cam

"if you choose". Make sure you read my words correctly before accusing me of something.

I'll engage a conversation but not with someone whose goal might be more personal than something related to discussing the information. As I've already said, if your goal in posting this is to distract those who want to talk about the topics being discussed or make it about me and whatever issues you have against me or the board's moderation or anything else related, it will not happen here.

If you're here to discuss the issues, I engaged you in that and you chose instead to again bring up personal gripes, complaints, and everything else to make it personal. Your actions are unwelcome and if you're concerned about respect being shown by board members, start showing it in your own actions.

Line drawn.

Now we can get back to talking about the Smile issues people want to read and discuss.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: drbeachboy on February 05, 2016, 10:21:26 AM
Micha,

Plus, besides the two hits, there is nothing "Commercial" about Smiley Smile at all. Brian's justification at that time does not hold water.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 05, 2016, 10:22:40 AM
Could you clarify that? What was incorrect? Both Engemann and Desper say Brian took the song to KHJ so he could hear what it sounded like on the radio...which interview or what part of an interview are you saying is incorrect?

The date July 5 to KHJ apparently.

After some sleep, I realize Engemann says it is a tape, so the original delivery of on or before July 3 was an acetate which isn't in conflict with Brian also delivering  tape on July 5. Seems sensible actually.

What previous date was given? I only said July 3 referencing a KHJ aircheck that exists but has nothing to do with Heroes or Brian's tape, not the date when they went to KHJ's studios.

My bad, I thought you were saying Steele played H&V on the 3rd, I didn't read it closely enough.  The 5th it is then.  An acetate for KHJ and a tape for Engemann.
Cam - according to Carlin, p. 121, "...in the summer of 1967, Brian felt strongly enough about the new version that he kept it to himself for weeks, waiting for his astrologer, named Genevelyn, to identify the perfect moment to spring it upon the unsuspecting world. She came to Brian in the evening of July 11

...As Terry Melcher told the tale to Rolling Stone in 1971, it all began around the evening on the eleventh, when Brian gathered his remaining intimates (unnamed) into a flock of limousines and sped from the gates of his Bel Air home...to... KHJ-AM...presented it to Tom Maule, the overnight DJ..."Hi, I'm Brian Wilson, Melcher recalled hearing the pop monarch declare. 'Here is the new Beach Boys single, and I'd like to give you and KHJ an exclusive on it.'

'...I can't play anything that's not on the playlist,'...Maule was convinced to call the program director at home --'Put it on, you idiot!' Melcher recalled hearing the guy shreik..."



I'd recommend reading Stephen Desper's account of that trip to KHJ at the link I posted here earlier, he gives more details and also clarifies some of what had been written and previously assumed about that night. And it's fascinating info as well!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on February 05, 2016, 10:22:55 AM
What you wrote here:
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but every human being is fallible and there is nobody whose every word can be taken as gospel. Everybody's statements have to be checked for plausibility. That doesn't equal discrediting them completely.


That is EXACTLY what I have been saying too. Why you direct it at me who has been agreeing with exactly that principle instead of addressing those who are using one questionable line or one word to throw away everything a person said or wrote is something maybe you could answer for me

All right, here we go. This is my perception of things. I went back to read John Manning's post with the word "discredit", and he says:

Surely that "Smile is finished" statement effectively discredits some of what Carl had to say that day?

SOME of what Carl had to say THAT DAY. You then went into a kind of rant that seemed to me like a hissy fit about people trying to discredit Carl totally as a person rather a very limited couple of statements of his. You even accused Cam of claiming Carl was a liar, which, if I didn't skip the post in which he did because of lack of concentration, Cam didn't. It seemed to me your point was "How can you all doubt Carl?", as earlier it seemed to me your point was that it was proven Mike told Taylor about SMiLE being scrapped and that you were annoyed some of us didn't agree that it was proven. You even refused to give us the source for some time and for reasons beyond me. Also it seemed to me that you got into a huff about Cam's theories as if everybody was buying them.

In short, your points may actually elude me because of all these emotional reactions of yours that sidetrack your argumentation.

This is exactly what I said:

But if you choose to call Carl a liar and discredit everything he says, Cam

"if you choose". Make sure you read my words correctly before accusing me of something.

I'll engage a conversation but not with someone whose goal might be more personal than something related to discussing the information. As I've already said, if your goal in posting this is to distract those who want to talk about the topics being discussed or make it about me and whatever issues you have against me or the board's moderation or anything else related, it will not happen here.

If you're here to discuss the issues, I engaged you in that and you chose instead to again bring up personal gripes, complaints, and everything else to make it personal. Your actions are unwelcome and if you're concerned about respect being shown by board members, start showing it in your own actions.

Line drawn.

Now we can get back to talking about the Smile issues people want to read and discuss.

I see our perceptions of each other's words differ strongly.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 05, 2016, 10:25:28 AM
What you wrote here:
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but every human being is fallible and there is nobody whose every word can be taken as gospel. Everybody's statements have to be checked for plausibility. That doesn't equal discrediting them completely.


That is EXACTLY what I have been saying too. Why you direct it at me who has been agreeing with exactly that principle instead of addressing those who are using one questionable line or one word to throw away everything a person said or wrote is something maybe you could answer for me

All right, here we go. This is my perception of things. I went back to read John Manning's post with the word "discredit", and he says:

Surely that "Smile is finished" statement effectively discredits some of what Carl had to say that day?

SOME of what Carl had to say THAT DAY. You then went into a kind of rant that seemed to me like a hissy fit about people trying to discredit Carl totally as a person rather a very limited couple of statements of his. You even accused Cam of claiming Carl was a liar, which, if I didn't skip the post in which he did because of lack of concentration, Cam didn't. It seemed to me your point was "How can you all doubt Carl?", as earlier it seemed to me your point was that it was proven Mike told Taylor about SMiLE being scrapped and that you were annoyed some of us didn't agree that it was proven. You even refused to give us the source for some time and for reasons beyond me. Also it seemed to me that you got into a huff about Cam's theories as if everybody was buying them.

In short, your points may actually elude me because of all these emotional reactions of yours that sidetrack your argumentation.

This is exactly what I said:

But if you choose to call Carl a liar and discredit everything he says, Cam

"if you choose". Make sure you read my words correctly before accusing me of something.

I'll engage a conversation but not with someone whose goal might be more personal than something related to discussing the information. As I've already said, if your goal in posting this is to distract those who want to talk about the topics being discussed or make it about me and whatever issues you have against me or the board's moderation or anything else related, it will not happen here.

If you're here to discuss the issues, I engaged you in that and you chose instead to again bring up personal gripes, complaints, and everything else to make it personal. Your actions are unwelcome and if you're concerned about respect being shown by board members, start showing it in your own actions.

Line drawn.

Now we can get back to talking about the Smile issues people want to read and discuss.

I see our perceptions of each other's words differ strongly.

What part of "line drawn" was unclear? If you want to talk about the topics being discussed, then do it. If you want to continue engaging in personal issues, whatever they may be, take it elsewhere. It ends here.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: filledeplage on February 05, 2016, 11:37:41 AM
Micha,

Plus, besides the two hits, there is nothing "Commercial" about Smiley Smile at all. Brian's justification at that time does not hold water.

drbeachboy - I never thought of Smiley being "commercial" in that context.  But there might not have been stuff that could be "mined as singles" - except if Surf's Up had been on it. In its own disjointed manner, there is some real beauty there.  But, no one seemed to inquire beyond Surf's Up being MIA.   


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 05, 2016, 12:42:33 PM
Cam's theories as if everybody was buying them.

Et tu, Micha?  And I thought we were internet friends.... ;)

Why do you guys (you know who you are) keep pickin' on me by name?  (doe eyes)

I don't call you guys out by name over your half-assed theories and conspiracies that nobody else is buying. (granite jaw set)



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Paul J B on February 05, 2016, 01:17:52 PM
...Brian was sort of on the spot to just get a record done. Less crazy all night sessions and less modular recording. Straightforward hours and less outside musicians and a tight budget.  But as many have pointed out some even stranger arrangements and odd songs.

Ian, I think you're making some great points here and bringing, in the form of the quotes you've found by scouring contemporary publications, some fascinating material to this saga! But I did want to highlight this point. Although the Smiley recordings are simpler than the stuff recorded at the SMiLE sessions, and unquestionably involve fewer outside musicians (and therefore much less expense)... well, they're still pretty out there. Many of the tracks ARE recorded in modular fashion, as the SOT disc shows us. And the arrangements, particularly the vocals, are actually still very intricate, even if the slightly sloppy way a couple of them are delivered helps to create a superficially different impression (the intro to Little Pad, I'm looking at you).

This is one of the things that has always baffled me about Smiley Smile. It's been discussed here before, of course, and can be summed up as follows: if it was supposed to be a solution to the difficulties that Brian had got himself into while trying to finish SMiLE... then it's a pretty strange solution! Consider:

Some of the Beach Boys (we know who...) have expressed concerns about the VDP lyrics being hard to relate to. Maybe Brian thinks they are, too. So, what do they do for Smiley Smile? They, er... STILL USE several tracks featuring VDP's lyrics. And the others aren't exactly straightforward, 'Boy-Girl relatable' stuff. Even Getting Hungry, which is written by Brian and Mike, the classic team behind some of their archetypal boy-girl numbers, and does seem to be a boy addressing a girl, is pretty off-the-wall... the 'boy' sounds incredibly oversexed and creepy, and not in a good way. It's hardly 'Your Summer Dream'.

Brian said, both at the time and many times later, that he junked SMiLE because of concerns about it 'not being right for the Beach Boys' or 'not being commercial enough'. And we know, despite the success of Good Vibrations in between, that since Pet Sounds there had been concerns about the commercial appeal of the Boys' recent material: certainly at the record company and also, um, within the band (naming no names). So the obvious solution to this... IS TO PUT OUT SMILEY SMILE???? An album featuring the Boys so obviously stoned that they crack up laughing, with songs about Vegetables and a girl pouring hair restorer on her head in a desperate attempt to bring back her shining tresses of yore...?? These aren't the apple-pie, gold-disc-winning Beach Boys of Surfer Girl any more — listen instead to the 'crazed acid party chat' rammed into the middle of the languid ballad Wonderful... the deep 'laughing' vocals and wonky Woody Woodpecker accordion motifs of the oddball 'Fall Breaks And Back To Winter', and the chipmunk squeaks of the 'Eltronned' Boys on 'She's Going Bald'...

OK, so the big hit Good Vibrations is on there too... but at that stage, that record was nearly three-quarters of a year old, and doesn't sound like anything else on the album. In short, what the ACTUAL Foda??

We also know that there were, as there had been over Pet Sounds, 'concerns' from the touring group that the new material would be far too hard to play on stage. So what does the group do? It puts out an album which... they hardly ever played any tracks from live. From memory, what? Heroes and Villains for a few weeks only (and then it was in the deep freeze until the early 70s concerts) and Getting Hungry for even less time... that was pretty much it for the 60s, wasn't it? Oh, and of course Brian put Baldwin organ all over it... that most eminently portable and lightweight of instruments for live use. And yeah, I know they DID use the Baldwin live in Hawaii... but it wasn't something they did very often after that. If, indeed, ever!

We also know that Brian is getting more and more unhappy as the SMiLE sessions progress. He doesn't feel as though things are coming easily to him any more... he gets totally stressed out over the recording of Heroes and Villains and how to put it together. He records more and more things in shorter and shorter sections, cutting far fewer tracks live as one piece. And his solution, moving to the 'clean sheet' of the Smiley Smile sessions, is... er...

...to continue recording everything in short sections, and to bring the recording environment which has caused him so much stress in recent time INTO HIS ACTUAL LIVING SPACE!

I could go on. In short, it just seems as though they looked at all the things that weren't working about SMiLE, said (sensibly enough) 'this is causing no end of stress, we need a break from this and a fresh start...' And then they pitched headlong into an album that almost seems calculated NOT to resolve any of the problems SMiLE was causing, and if anything, would actually exacerbate them...

Not that any of this diminishes my absolute love of Smiley Smile (I'm a believer through and through)... but it seems a pretty odd response to all the problems thrown up by late 1966 and early 1967 in Beach Boys land...!
Matt- some great points here that I agree with in a big way. I would further your statements and add that Smiley also would be a preposterous choice in place of Smile if it was all about Mike's opposition...a false long held myth IMO. Yes Mike had objections and may have been a pain about. That was only one issue though.

That fact of the studio being installed at Brian's house also never made sense to me. Being able to not get away from your work that is obviously taking a toll on you makes no sense. At least at Western or something he could call it a day and get away from it. If he was hearing voices and had been suffering from a schizo effective disorder, was that part of the reason for the home studio? Was it obvious Brian was losing it and a cozy home studio seemed like a solution to the problem? I don't see how that could have ONLY resulted in making matters worse. In fact, I think history proves it.

That stuff about Carl and the LA Times article a few pages back had a few eye popping quotes. Carl more than implied Brian was under extreme pressure. I can't pull up the quote typing on my phone here, sorry. The one about it "being really hard on Brian" or something. Brian ceased being the main man, producer, writer, arranger, vocalist, and all the rest. It all started during this time period.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: krabklaw on February 05, 2016, 01:24:56 PM
Some of the Beach Boys (we know who...) have expressed concerns about the VDP lyrics being hard to relate to. Maybe Brian thinks they are, too. So, what do they do for Smiley Smile? They, er... STILL USE several tracks featuring VDP's lyrics.

It seems significant to me that we have SMiLE era lead vocals only for those songs that were reworked for Smiley: H&V, Vegetables, Wind Chimes, Wonderful. Obviously there was no problem with those lyrics. The unused tracks - CE, SU, DYLW - all have no 1966 lead vocals, maybe because those were the questioned lyrics.

It would seem like those three, however obscure the lyrics may be, are the ones that seem to paint American history in an unflattering light. Uncovering the worms, as it were. Might that be what BW called "inappropriate"? Could be with VDP gone he lost his nerve?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 05, 2016, 02:31:08 PM
Just for yucks, a timeline:

4/29 - Someone* states that Smile is finished and ready to be rush released once the Capitol lawsuit is settled.

  5/2 - European tour starts (ends 19th)

  5/6 - Derek Taylor states that Smile is "scrapped"

  6/3 - Smiley Smile sessions commence

  7/5 - Brian previews "H&V" at KHJ

7/20 - Smiley Smile assembled & mastered

7/24 - "H&V" single released (Brother)

7/25 - Engemann "10-track Smile" memo

7/31 - Best of... Volume 2 released

8/26 - and 27: Hawaiian shows for live album

8/28 - "Gettin' Hungry" single released (Brother)

9/11 - Wally Heider session for fake live album

9/15 - Smiley Smile released (Brother)

9/26 - "Wild Honey" session (and 27th)

10/18 - "Wild Honey" single released (Capitol)

10/25 - Wild Honey sessions commence

[* seeing as it was Carl who later claimed the album was finished, this earlier statement must make him at least a suspect...]

So... between July 25th and some time before August 26th, the Smile redux album went out the door. Why ? If Carl is to be believed, the tracks were waiting and ready to go, as was the booklets and cover art. Someone had to have said "no". Who ? And why ?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 05, 2016, 02:45:26 PM
Some of the Beach Boys (we know who...) have expressed concerns about the VDP lyrics being hard to relate to. Maybe Brian thinks they are, too. So, what do they do for Smiley Smile? They, er... STILL USE several tracks featuring VDP's lyrics.

It seems significant to me that we have SMiLE era lead vocals only for those songs that were reworked for Smiley: H&V, Vegetables, Wind Chimes, Wonderful. Obviously there was no problem with those lyrics. The unused tracks - CE, SU, DYLW - all have no 1966 lead vocals, maybe because those were the questioned lyrics.

It would seem like those three, however obscure the lyrics may be, are the ones that seem to paint American history in an unflattering light. Uncovering the worms, as it were. Might that be what BW called "inappropriate"? Could be with VDP gone he lost his nerve?

I agree, I think it was probably something like that too; either too political or preachy or old timey or something like that for Brian (whatever he considered "too sophisticated" or artistically selfish).

I suppose we don't know enough about CIFOTM, OMP, or IIGS to even speculate, although I also suppose there are faint hints of being something similar maybe.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: DonnyL on February 05, 2016, 03:03:08 PM
I think you can compare Brian to orson Welles.  He was accused of going over budget and getting too arty and having trouble finishing projects so when a studio offered to let him direct a movie called the stranger in 1946 it was on the proviso that he work on a tight budget and stick to the script. Basically they wanted him to demonstrate that he could work within the rules. Maybe smiley smile was a bit like that.  Brian was sort of on the spot to just get a record done. Less crazy all night sessions and less modular recording. Straightforward hours and less outside musicians and a tight budget.  But as many have pointed out some even stranger arrangements and odd songs.

Not to split hairs, but Smiley was definitely recorded and put together in a very modular way.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 06, 2016, 06:13:52 AM
Just for yucks, a timeline:

[* seeing as it was Carl who later claimed the album was finished, this earlier statement must make him at least a suspect...]

So... between July 25th and some time before August 26th, the Smile redux album went out the door. Why ? If Carl is to be believed, the tracks were waiting and ready to go, as was the booklets and cover art. Someone had to have said "no". Who ? And why ?


I'm going to guess that it was something boring and practical like they were never finished as Brian has said (and Taylor reported) or even more boring like Engemann eventually realized 5 of the 12 SMiLE titles had already been released in original or alternate form on Smiley instead of just 2 as he cites in the memo.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: mike moseley on February 06, 2016, 07:14:16 AM

completely agree

Just for yucks, a timeline:

[* seeing as it was Carl who later claimed the album was finished, this earlier statement must make him at least a suspect...]

So... between July 25th and some time before August 26th, the Smile redux album went out the door. Why ? If Carl is to be believed, the tracks were waiting and ready to go, as was the booklets and cover art. Someone had to have said "no". Who ? And why ?


I'm going to guess that it was something boring and practical like they were never finished as Brian has said (and Taylor reported) or even more boring like Engemann eventually realized 5 of the 12 SMiLE titles had already been released in original or alternate form on Smiley instead of just 2 as he cites in the memo.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on February 06, 2016, 07:56:52 AM
Just for yucks, a timeline:

4/29 - Someone* states that Smile is finished and ready to be rush released once the Capitol lawsuit is settled.

  5/2 - European tour starts (ends 19th)

  5/6 - Derek Taylor states that Smile is "scrapped"

  6/3 - Smiley Smile sessions commence

  7/5 - Brian previews "H&V" at KHJ

7/20 - Smiley Smile assembled & mastered

7/24 - "H&V" single released (Brother)

7/25 - Engemann "10-track Smile" memo

7/31 - Best of... Volume 2 released

8/26 - and 27: Hawaiian shows for live album

8/28 - "Gettin' Hungry" single released (Brother)

9/11 - Wally Heider session for fake live album

9/15 - Smiley Smile released (Brother)

9/26 - "Wild Honey" session (and 27th)

10/18 - "Wild Honey" single released (Capitol)

10/25 - Wild Honey sessions commence

[* seeing as it was Carl who later claimed the album was finished, this earlier statement must make him at least a suspect...]

So... between July 25th and some time before August 26th, the Smile redux album went out the door. Why ? If Carl is to be believed, the tracks were waiting and ready to go, as was the booklets and cover art. Someone had to have said "no". Who ? And why ?

This is my opinion, speculation if you will. No, I don't have...facts; just making conversation on a message board. I mentioned in an above post that, per Karl Engemann's memo, I believe that Brian intended to finish/release SMiLE as a follow-up album to Smiley Smile. I think there were enough quality tracks "left over" to compile a ten track SMiLE including:

01  Our Prayer
02  Heroes And Villains (a more fuller, longer, album version)
03  Do You Like Worms
04  I'm In Great Shape
05  I Wanna Be Around/Workshop
06  Barnyard
07  The Old Master Painter/You Are My Sunshine
08  Cabinessence
09  Look
10  Holidays
11  Mrs. O'Leary's Cow (and/or other Elements)
12  I Love To Say Dada
13  Child Is Father Of The Man
14  Surf's Up
15  You're Welcome
16  He Gives Speeches
17  Tones/Tune X
18  I Don't Know

Looking at the songs that were used on Smiley Smile, "Good Vibrations" wasn't necessary for a follow-up SMiLE album, and the other tracks - "Heroes And Villains", "Wonderful", "Wind Chimes", and Vegetables" - could've been finished into the fuller, better (it's a matter of opinion) versions that we eventually heard on The Smile Sessions. It wasn't unheard of for Brian to re-record songs - significant songs - within months of each other, "Be True To Your School" and "Help Me Rhonda" being the prime examples. "Help Me, R(h)onda" did appear on back-to-back albums. Hell, we even got two versions of "Papa Oom Mow Mow". ;D

Now to answer AGD's question. I give Brian the benefit of the doubt. I believe that Brian did discuss - in good faith - with Karl Engemann, a ten track SMiLE album to follow Smiley Smile. Maybe he was under the influence of drugs, maybe mental illness was affecting his judgment, maybe he was being an asshole, or maybe it was a combination of all three. But, maybe Brian was lucid, honest, and sincere. If he was, and I believe he was, for some period of time - a day, a week, a month - Brian was going to finish and release SMiLE after Smiley Smile, complete with the original album cover and booklets.

Why didn't that "plan" come to fruition? I think David Leaf said it best in one of the documentaries. Brian turned out the light, or turned off the switch, or whatever he (David) said. I believe that one day, during the time frame AGD laid out, Brian just came to the realization that, "I don't want to record like this (modular) anymore", or "I don't want to finish these songs", or "I'm tired of these songs", or "I want to go back to my old way of recording (two minute, non-modular recordings)", or "I just want to record "normal" music", or "I just want to record songs, not album projects", or "I just want to make a Beach Boys' record", or... whatever.

Not to appear hypocritical, but I think Brian, again for some period of time, SINCERELY INTENDED to finish and release SMiLE after Smiley Smile. However, the drugs, the mental illness, the conflicts around him, the burnout, the fill in your own reasons, probably got the best of him. I do think it was a COMBINATION of things, things that have been discussed ad nauseum. I think at that precise moment, when Brian finally dropped SMiLE and went into Wild Honey, he was never the same again, much like David Leaf was inferring.  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Ian on February 06, 2016, 11:24:10 AM
By the way-another interview of the time:  Mike Love talking in early February 1967 to Loraine Alterman of Detroit Free Press: she mentions that Brian told her in October 1966 when she interviewed him in Ann Arbor (which I have posted on the site today) that he said Smile would be ready by end of 66 and Mike says "We got into a thing where we're really doing a perfectionist thing on the album.  It will be a month or so before Smile is released."  As For the single Heroes, Mike says it will be released "when we finish it.  I don't know if it's going to be a hit but it sounds pretty good."


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 06, 2016, 10:47:20 PM
I guess what we need to explore now is the obvious, which is: why would Carl and/or Dennis mislead Taylor to sabotage Brian and the other Boys and SMiLE when it is all finished and ready to be released in a couple of weeks at the end of the May tour?  Thoughts?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 06, 2016, 11:58:25 PM
Who is the person or persons close to the action not saying the album is good to go in spring 1967 ?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: The Shift on February 07, 2016, 12:01:45 AM
I guess what we need to explore now is the obvious, which is: why would Carl and/or Dennis mislead Taylor to sabotage Brian and the other Boys and SMiLE when it is all finished and ready to be released in a couple of weeks at the end of the May tour?  Thoughts?

Instillmdont think the "all finished" line sticks. Instrumentally, maybe, maybe arguably, but there was still some vocal work to be done and obviously mixing and mastering. I think the "all finished" line was in a similar context to "have you finished your homework/tidied your bedroom/eaten your greens?" "Yeah, finished that…) knowing there's gonna be a blitz on it overnight before it gets handed in/inspected/washed up the following morning. There's an element of PR in it and there's an element of simplifying the state of things for the sake of an outsider's uninitiated ears. If Smile had been finished, we'd've been presented with something quite different in 2004, before being presented with the real deal in 2011.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 07, 2016, 12:28:50 AM
Unless there are two, three (minimum) session contracts missing, "The Elements" consisted of "Fire" and nothing else since 11/28/66. Knowing Brian's working methods for the preceding few years, that means at least two, three more tracking sessions. Add to that, say, six, seven vocal sessions, the sweetening, the mixing, the editing, the sequencing and the mastering... you're looking at another good two months work. In the 2000s, Brian said he needed another year to finish it. Carl et al may have thought Smile was finished and ready to go... they may have even been told that... but the available hard evidence contradicts that, and no amount of smoke & mirrors can make it read otherwise. If Smile was capable of being rush released by late April 1967, or again in late summer, then surely it would have been. As someone else noted, downthread, when Brian said something, he may have truly believed it at that moment in time. The next morning... that afternoon... an hour later... who knows ?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Matt Bielewicz on February 07, 2016, 02:10:34 AM
I totally agree. It's often said that SMiLE was complete to a fairly major extent - I've seen estimates of 75 percent, 60 percent, 80 percent, even 95 percent from various people over the years. But all these estimates are just guesswork, based on the state of the tapes as they've come down to us. If you think about it, though, it's actually completely impossible to say. You can only assign percentages like that in a creative process when the work is totally finished. With God Only Knows, for example, you could look at that on various dates in early 1966 and say... OK, on such and such a date the tracking was done, on such and such a date the instrumental backing for the pickup section at the end was complete (as you can tell, I don't know the actual dates of the top of my head, otherwise I'd be quoting 'em here), on such and such date an early attempt was made at the vocal, on this date the final vocals for the tage were done. And then you could say it was mixed on this and this date, and mastered on that date, and finally released to the public.

Then, if you really wanted to, you could go back and say 'on this date, based on how much work we know there was left to do before it came out, it was 23 percent done, or 56 percent, or 74 percent'... or whatever it was.

But with an unfinished creative process, like so much of the product of the SMiLE Sessions ended up being, that's utterly impossible. To illustrate this using another track that was actually finished and released in the end, consider the state of the track that became Good Vibrations... in June 1966. Yes, June 1966. Brian had a backing track recorded (from February) - it's on the Pet Sounds Sessions. Based on that, if you were trying to assign a 'percentage complete' to THAT in Summer 1966, you might say 'well, God Only Knows was at a similar stage a couple of months back... there's a track and a scratch vocal, so it's probably at least 75 percent done...'

But of course between then and the eventual release of the track in Autumn 1966, the recorded track and its lyrics and vocal arrangement were almost totally scrapped, rewritten and re-recorded (several times). When you look back at the finished article, the only piece of the track from the Feb 66 sessions used in the final thing was the verse backing. Everything else was redone. So any percentage guessed at in Summer 1966 would have been completely wrong. It would also depend WHEN you were trying to assess your 'percentage complete'. You might have thought it was 100 percent done after Brian got the version done that was released on Rarities. But of course THAT didn't come out either, so that would have been wrong too.

At one point, the track was going to be canned completely, or given away. If THAT had transpired, nothing of the version Brian began recording in February 1966 might ever have seen release for the Beach Boys at all. Then you might have to revise your percentage for Good Vibrations down to 0 percent - because it would have been an infinite process that was never complete.

You can see where I'm going with this. All attempts at assigning 'it was X percent complete' for SMiLE itself are as futile and wrong as estimating a 'percentage complete' would have been for Good Vibrations in Summer 1966. If you don't know how much work is left to do, which can ONLY be correctly estimated from the point in time when it's done and released, you can't assign any kind of accurate 'percentage done' at all.

As you can probably tell, I think the idea of assigning a 'percentage complete' is pretty daft anyway. I mean, if you can only accurately assign numbers once the project's over anyway, what's the point while work is on-going as any kind of indication of how much further you've got to go? And when it's done, you don't really care any more that on February 12th you were this much through finishing it...

I'd also argue that all bets are off where SMiLE is concerned, even more so than with previous Beach Boys projects. Basing an estimate of how much the tracks were complete on Brian's established production methods up until 1966 is surely a bit of a non-starter, as SMiLE was way more complex in terms of production, assembly, mixing and completion than any previous record they'd made until then. I mean... how done is the April version of Vega-Tables? It's completely impossible to say. Sure, there's lots of stuff on tape, instruments, vocals, overdubs, various sections... but because of how the sections are recorded, we can't even say what order the verses, choruses and various sections were going to be in. You can guess at a *likely* order — as Mark L did for the GV box set mix/edit, and Alan Boyd did for the SMiLE Sessions — but we can't say that those released versions reflect the plan back in the day. Who knows how many more overdubs, edits, and mono overdubs to the edited track at mixing stage there might possibly have been?

It turns out that all the effort on Vega-Tables (the 'demo' from Autumn 1966, and the various sessions and recording sessions for different sections in early Spring 1967) produced very, very little in terms of an assessable percentage of material that was finally used on the 'released' track. A couple of bars of backing and vocals on the tag of the Smiley Smile version of Vegetables was all that was released that year. You probably would have said in late April 1967 that the track was nearly done... but you'd have been wrong. It took them starting almost completely afresh for Smiley Smile before the track was completed to the extent that they would put it out.

Based on all that, I'd say that Brian, even at the super-speed he was accustomed to working at in the studio when all his cylinders were firing, might not have been far wrong when he said it might have taken him another year to complete the album. But his assessment of that, made only in recent years and several decades after the original sessions, is to some extent almost as much guesswork as it would be from anyone else. And I feel as though Andrew's guess of a couple of months has got to be a minimum, given all the work that went on getting GV right before it finally came out. But that, of course, is just MY guess... and therefore just as much smoke as all the other speculation here! ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on February 07, 2016, 04:17:24 AM
Unless there are two, three (minimum) session contracts missing, "The Elements" consisted of "Fire" and nothing else since 11/28/66. Knowing Brian's working methods for the preceding few years, that means at least two, three more tracking sessions. Add to that, say, six, seven vocal sessions, the sweetening, the mixing, the editing, the sequencing and the mastering... you're looking at another good two months work. In the 2000s, Brian said he needed another year to finish it. Carl et al may have thought Smile was finished and ready to go... they may have even been told that... but the available hard evidence contradicts that, and no amount of smoke & mirrors can make it read otherwise. If Smile was capable of being rush released by late April 1967, or again in late summer, then surely it would have been. As someone else noted, downthread, when Brian said something, he may have truly believed it at that moment in time. The next morning... that afternoon... an hour later... who knows ?

Yes, it would've taken a few (several?) sessions for Brian to complete "The Elements" - if he still planned to complete the track. It would've been nice to hear a completed "The Elements", but he didn't necessarily need it for a subsequent (after Smiley Smile) album; he had enough quality material left. And, due to the fact that he used up "Vegetables" and "Wind Chimes" on Smiley Smile, maybe he didn't want "The Elements" on the ten track SMiLE anyway (not that I'm necessarily insinuating "Vegetables" and Wind Chimes" were part of "The Elements" ;D)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Ian on February 07, 2016, 04:40:46 AM
But it is also clear that Brian had enough material for an incredible album in early 67, just not the album that he initially envisioned.  His perfectionism finally worked against him-he just couldn't stop tinkering with already incredible tracks.  If he'd just moved on from Heroes, he could undoubtedly have gotten an album together by March-April.  The endless Heroes sessions in January (plus in my opinion needless tinkering with the gorgeous Wonderful) really hurt him.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on February 07, 2016, 05:08:04 AM
But it is also clear that Brian had enough material for an incredible album in early 67, just not the album that he initially envisioned.  His perfectionism finally worked against him-he just couldn't stop tinkering with already incredible tracks.  If he'd just moved on from Heroes, he could undoubtedly have gotten an album together by March-April.  The endless Heroes sessions in January (plus in my opinion needless tinkering with the gorgeous Wonderful) really hurt him.

And, you're absolutely right. Brian did have enough incredible material for an early 1967 release. Maybe he just felt (as you suggest, because of tinkering), he needed more time. Smiley Smile bought him more time.

Another thought on Brian using "Vegetables" and "Wind Chimes" on Smiley Smile. I'm not just saying this to bolster my argument (though I'm not really arguing with anybody :police:), but I always felt that, like "Good Vibrations", "Vegetables" and "Wind Chimes" were the most un-SMiLE-like songs, mainly because of the lyrics. In Vegetables" you have the lines "my tenny flew right off" and "...when you send us in your letter". And, as we know, Brian's inspiration for "Wind Chimes" wasn't some brilliant Van Dyke Parks' lyric; it was Brian staring at his wind chimes and deciding to write a song about them!

You can remove "Good Vibrations", ""Vegetables", and ""Wind Chimes", and still have a unified ten track SMiLE:

Side A
01  Our Prayer
02  Heroes And Villains (an album version different from the single, maybe including "Cantina" and other goodies)
03  Do You Like Worms
04  Holidays
05  Cabinessence

Side B
06  I'm In Great Shape/I Wanna Be Around/Workshop/Barnyard/The Old Master Painter/Fade
07  Wonderful (original version)
08  Look
09  Child Is Father Of The Man
10  Surf's Up


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 07, 2016, 06:05:30 AM
Who is the person or persons close to the action not saying the album is good to go in spring 1967 ?

Brian?  No, you mean Al.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: The Shift on February 07, 2016, 06:25:51 AM
But it is also clear that Brian had enough material for an incredible album in early 67, just not the album that he initially envisioned.  His perfectionism finally worked against him-he just couldn't stop tinkering with already incredible tracks.  If he'd just moved on from Heroes, he could undoubtedly have gotten an album together by March-April.  The endless Heroes sessions in January (plus in my opinion needless tinkering with the gorgeous Wonderful) really hurt him.

For my money he could have made an album of Heroes and all its variants and I'd've been delirious. They're simply a parade of exquisity after exquisity and I can never get enough. This thread has prompted me recently to get all my SoT, TSS, PsychS, Archeology and other discs uploaded into one iTunes playlist and have them on repeat-shuffle … I'd become over-familiar with the material over years of incessant listening and consequently given it a wide berth for quite a while, so it's been an incredibly enjoyable indulgence. And it's amazing how many of the tunes have a root somewhere or other in that Heroes/Bicycle Rider theme, and how many more feature that ascending/descending Iron Horse/Fire sequence; and of course they're effectively conjoined by the H&V Intro piece… so many wonderful, recurring musical themes…


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The Old Master Painter on February 07, 2016, 07:00:29 AM
According to me, SMiLE was more complete in 1966 than in 1967.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The Old Master Painter on February 07, 2016, 07:29:32 AM
But it is also clear that Brian had enough material for an incredible album in early 67, just not the album that he initially envisioned.  His perfectionism finally worked against him-he just couldn't stop tinkering with already incredible tracks.  If he'd just moved on from Heroes, he could undoubtedly have gotten an album together by March-April.  The endless Heroes sessions in January (plus in my opinion needless tinkering with the gorgeous Wonderful) really hurt him.

And, you're absolutely right. Brian did have enough incredible material for an early 1967 release. Maybe he just felt (as you suggest, because of tinkering), he needed more time. Smiley Smile bought him more time.

Another thought on Brian using "Vegetables" and "Wind Chimes" on Smiley Smile. I'm not just saying this to bolster my argument (though I'm not really arguing with anybody :police:), but I always felt that, like "Good Vibrations", "Vegetables" and "Wind Chimes" were the most un-SMiLE-like songs, mainly because of the lyrics. In Vegetables" you have the lines "my tenny flew right off" and "...when you send us in your letter". And, as we know, Brian's inspiration for "Wind Chimes" wasn't some brilliant Van Dyke Parks' lyric; it was Brian staring at his wind chimes and deciding to write a song about them!

You can remove "Good Vibrations", ""Vegetables", and ""Wind Chimes", and still have a unified ten track SMiLE:

Side A
01  Our Prayer
02  Heroes And Villains (an album version different from the single, maybe including "Cantina" and other goodies)
03  Do You Like Worms
04  Holidays
05  Cabinessence

Side B
06  I'm In Great Shape/I Wanna Be Around/Workshop/Barnyard/The Old Master Painter/Fade
07  Wonderful (original version)
08  Look
09  Child Is Father Of The Man
10  Surf's Up

Here's my tracklisting on a "concept" album I'm working on. No Elements, just Americana and Spirituality.

Americana:

1. Chimes 1966 Intro/Our Prayer/Gee

This starts off the album with the early Heroes and Villains Intro..... The reason is because Smile all started with a flashback in a bookstore in 1965, and the 1966 Heroes Intro starts off the album just like that. Then we get an actual intro, an auditory replication of Brain's first LSD trip... then we go straight into Gee ala BWPS.

2. Heroes and Villains

The first trip is set up upon a Western setting, and tells a tale of how far apart the protagonist and his life had become, smiliar to how Brian became later on in Smile and his working relationship with The Beach Boys.

3. Do You Like Worms?

Also set in a western setting, based on a trip induced by a lava lamp which made obscure Worms shapes and had a slow pulsing rhythm. This also takes our journey towards Plymouth Rock, and highlights a focus on Native American spirituality.

4. Barnyard/He Gives Speeches/I'm In Great Shape

Ala BWPS, Barnyard is next, were Barnyard Billy (protagonist of Heroes) goes into farming and leads a new identity. Barnyard then segues into He Gives Speeches set in juxtapose to were Barnyard Billy is now, which then leads into Great Shape,

5. Cabin Essence

Cabin Essence sets the lamp which Mrs. O' Leary's Cow has to tumble and burn:

"Light the lamp and fire mellow"

6. 1967 Fire Intro/Mrs. O' Leary's Cow/I Wanna Be Around/Workshop

The firemen and Barnyard Billy rush to an already ablaze set off buildings, including Barnyard Billy's old Vega-Tables farm were he still stocks all his items, and the firemen try to put out the fire and rebuild Barnyard Billy's Vega-Table shop

7. Vega-Tables

Barnyard Billy is back selling Vega-Tables, and he lives happily ever after.


Spirituality:

1. Wonderful

(Veggies and Wonderful were rumoured A-sides and B-sides in 1967 anyways)

2. Look!/I Love to Say Dada/Holidays

The child learns how to look... Then the child learns how to speak, then his/her family goes on a holiday where he/she sees the world...

3. Wind Chimes

The child grows old, and discovers the wonders of Zen, tranquility, and a peaceful life, which he/she believes will lead him/her closer to a divine presence. This trip also occured during the worms trip, now set during an Eastern setting. Lava lamp = Wind chimes. At the end of said trip, Brian sees God, therefore the realization during Surf's Up.

4. Child Is The Father of The Man

The child sees the majesty of the earth, and how one should behold it.

5. The Old Master Painter

The child sees God, which could only lead up to one thing

6. Surf's Up

Smile in one song. One man's quest for knowledge, conciousness, and spirituality fully accomplished.

7. You're Welcome

The amen Vosse was talking about. It really does make you SMiLE at the end.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The Old Master Painter on February 07, 2016, 07:33:23 AM
Diyble post


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: mike moseley on February 07, 2016, 07:48:32 AM
I think its possible the other Elements could have been the various chants/skits..?  Although underwhelming that would make sense - it could also maybe explain why he gave up..?  The mix of awesome, apocalyptic pieces with 'zany' comedy just didn't work - see 'woody woodpecker' backing in Surf's Up, the whacky whistle in the 'Heroes...' verses track (although the latter was humorously answering a Dylan track I think).

I'm not trying to say I'm definitely right - its merely a thought.


Unless there are two, three (minimum) session contracts missing, "The Elements" consisted of "Fire" and nothing else since 11/28/66. Knowing Brian's working methods for the preceding few years, that means at least two, three more tracking sessions. Add to that, say, six, seven vocal sessions, the sweetening, the mixing, the editing, the sequencing and the mastering... you're looking at another good two months work. In the 2000s, Brian said he needed another year to finish it. Carl et al may have thought Smile was finished and ready to go... they may have even been told that... but the available hard evidence contradicts that, and no amount of smoke & mirrors can make it read otherwise. If Smile was capable of being rush released by late April 1967, or again in late summer, then surely it would have been. As someone else noted, downthread, when Brian said something, he may have truly believed it at that moment in time. The next morning... that afternoon... an hour later... who knows ?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 11:02:25 AM
But it is also clear that Brian had enough material for an incredible album in early 67, just not the album that he initially envisioned.  His perfectionism finally worked against him-he just couldn't stop tinkering with already incredible tracks.  If he'd just moved on from Heroes, he could undoubtedly have gotten an album together by March-April.  The endless Heroes sessions in January (plus in my opinion needless tinkering with the gorgeous Wonderful) really hurt him.

For my money he could have made an album of Heroes and all its variants and I'd've been delirious. They're simply a parade of exquisity after exquisity and I can never get enough. This thread has prompted me recently to get all my SoT, TSS, PsychS, Archeology and other discs uploaded into one iTunes playlist and have them on repeat-shuffle … I'd become over-familiar with the material over years of incessant listening and consequently given it a wide berth for quite a while, so it's been an incredibly enjoyable indulgence. And it's amazing how many of the tunes have a root somewhere or other in that Heroes/Bicycle Rider theme, and how many more feature that ascending/descending Iron Horse/Fire sequence; and of course they're effectively conjoined by the H&V Intro piece… so many wonderful, recurring musical themes…
Ya, John Manning - your first sentence!  And, your second!  :thewilsons


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 07, 2016, 11:18:47 AM
I think its possible the other Elements could have been the various chants/skits..?  Although underwhelming that would make sense - it could also maybe explain why he gave up..?

Um... he described "Air" as a piano tune that they never finished, so... probably not.  :)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: Bicyclerider on February 07, 2016, 11:42:54 AM
Micha,

Plus, besides the two hits, there is nothing "Commercial" about Smiley Smile at all. Brian's justification at that time does not hold water.

The big change to me wasn't just the move to the home studio - it was the conscious decision to record as a self contained group and not use outside/session musicians.  the June studio sessions before the home studio bear this out - Vegetables, Cool Cool Water, With Me Tonight - the Boys are the musicians with Brian leading everything.  Why this change?  I think there are multiple reasons:

1. The criticism of the live show on the road, particularly in Europe - the Boys being unable to reproduce their records on stage.

2. The Monkees brou-ha-ha over not playing on their records - they lost a lot of "cred" over this and as a result fired Kirshner and became a self-contained group for their next album, Headquarters.

3. Perhaps the dissension of the group over the material Brian was doing in the studio would be nullified by bringing them into the creative and production process.  And Brian could count on more support and less weight on his shoulders by sharing the production credit.

4. It's unclear to me if the lawsuit with Capitol had an effect on Brian's ability to book studio time - could Capitol, while engaged in the lawsuit, have been reluctant to pay for the ever spiraling costs of the Smile/BB next album ?  By eliminating studio musicians he cuts costs and then the move to the home studio, which was non-Union, cuts costs even more.

5. So the move to the home studio becomes the next logical step once the decision to use the group as the sole musicians on the album is made.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 07, 2016, 11:58:38 AM
Micha,

Plus, besides the two hits, there is nothing "Commercial" about Smiley Smile at all. Brian's justification at that time does not hold water.

The big change to me wasn't just the move to the home studio - it was the conscious decision to record as a self contained group and not use outside/session musicians.  the June studio sessions before the home studio bear this out - Vegetables, Cool Cool Water, With Me Tonight - the Boys are the musicians with Brian leading everything.  Why this change?  I think there are multiple reasons:

1. The criticism of the live show on the road, particularly in Europe - the Boys being unable to reproduce their records on stage.

2. The Monkees brou-ha-ha over not playing on their records - they lost a lot of "cred" over this and as a result fired Kirshner and became a self-contained group for their next album, Headquarters.

3. Perhaps the dissension of the group over the material Brian was doing in the studio would be nullified by bringing them into the creative and production process.  And Brian could count on more support and less weight on his shoulders by sharing the production credit.

4. It's unclear to me if the lawsuit with Capitol had an effect on Brian's ability to book studio time - could Capitol, while engaged in the lawsuit, have been reluctant to pay for the ever spiraling costs of the Smile/BB next album ?  By eliminating studio musicians he cuts costs and then the move to the home studio, which was non-Union, cuts costs even more.

5. So the move to the home studio becomes the next logical step once the decision to use the group as the sole musicians on the album is made.

These are good points. Very good points. Specific to this one:

1. The criticism of the live show on the road, particularly in Europe - the Boys being unable to reproduce their records on stage.


The criticisms of their stage sound were there after they played the Fall 66 tour, and included the criticism of their stage outfits, which Dennis apparently took very hard. There was an interview with Carl where he comes off as very defensive about the "puppets" claim suggesting the differences between hearing the records and hearing the live band, and rightfully so for him as the de facto leader of the touring band.

Forward to May 67, the criticisms were still there in the UK music press, perhaps even worse and more personally directed. Some of the concert reviews were harsh and again directed at the band's thin live sound. Mike in the Altham piece defends against that by mentioning the hassles with the UK musicians' union over adding extra musicians to the stage lineup, how they were not allowed to use the players they had contracted to play.

But, the critique was still centered around the stage sound of the group versus the records.

Factor in the group's return home, and all that happened in June 1967 into July...focused on the band's music and possible live shows. Monterey obviously didn't happen.

But: They did record Smiley Smile in between, as a self-contained band more or less, or with something of a recorded sound that the band members instrumentally could do on stage, in that stripped-down kind of setting. There was nothing requiring strings, horns, multiple percussion instruments as on Pet Sounds and Smile, etc.

In 1967 The Beatles turned down a very large follow-up offer to play Shea Stadium, the reason given beyond the obvious that they didn;t tour was because they could not reproduce their sound as of 1967 on stage.


To consider: Is it coincidence that the Beach Boys' first live shows since recording Smiley Smile (in Hawaii, August 1967) featured their band sound as of that moment in 1967? It was more or less the Smiley Smile sound being reproduced on stage, complete with the Baldwin organ that marked so much of Smiley's sessions, along with very sparse drumming, sometimes not more than a snare drum hitting the downbeats if that.

By recording something as they did the revised Heroes single, the Gettin Hungry single, and what would come out that September on the Smiley Smile album, the band on stage was able to sound like the records. It would solve that issue, it may remove some of the criticism that they had gotten even worse after the May 67 tour than in 66, and the audience would hear the band's sound as of that moment in the summer of 67 when Smiley was waiting to come out.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: filledeplage on February 07, 2016, 12:03:23 PM
Micha,

Plus, besides the two hits, there is nothing "Commercial" about Smiley Smile at all. Brian's justification at that time does not hold water.

The big change to me wasn't just the move to the home studio - it was the conscious decision to record as a self contained group and not use outside/session musicians.  the June studio sessions before the home studio bear this out - Vegetables, Cool Cool Water, With Me Tonight - the Boys are the musicians with Brian leading everything.  Why this change?  I think there are multiple reasons:

1. The criticism of the live show on the road, particularly in Europe - the Boys being unable to reproduce their records on stage.

2. The Monkees brou-ha-ha over not playing on their records - they lost a lot of "cred" over this and as a result fired Kirshner and became a self-contained group for their next album, Headquarters.

3. Perhaps the dissension of the group over the material Brian was doing in the studio would be nullified by bringing them into the creative and production process.  And Brian could count on more support and less weight on his shoulders by sharing the production credit.

4. It's unclear to me if the lawsuit with Capitol had an effect on Brian's ability to book studio time - could Capitol, while engaged in the lawsuit, have been reluctant to pay for the ever spiraling costs of the Smile/BB next album ?  By eliminating studio musicians he cuts costs and then the move to the home studio, which was non-Union, cuts costs even more.

5. So the move to the home studio becomes the next logical step once the decision to use the group as the sole musicians on the album is made.

These are good points. Very good points. Specific to this one:

1. The criticism of the live show on the road, particularly in Europe - the Boys being unable to reproduce their records on stage.


The criticisms of their stage sound were there after they played the Fall 66 tour, and included the criticism of their stage outfits, which Dennis apparently took very hard. There was an interview with Carl where he comes off as very defensive about the "puppets" claim suggesting the differences between hearing the records and hearing the live band, and rightfully so for him as the de facto leader of the touring band.

Forward to May 67, the criticisms were still there in the UK music press, perhaps even worse and more personally directed. Some of the concert reviews were harsh and again directed at the band's thin live sound. Mike in the Altham piece defends against that by mentioning the hassles with the UK musicians' union over adding extra musicians to the stage lineup, how they were not allowed to use the players they had contracted to play.

But, the critique was still centered around the stage sound of the group versus the records.

Factor in the group's return home, and all that happened in June 1967 into July...focused on the band's music and possible live shows. Monterey obviously didn't happen.

But: They did record Smiley Smile in between, as a self-contained band more or less, or with something of a recorded sound that the band members instrumentally could do on stage, in that stripped-down kind of setting. There was nothing requiring strings, horns, multiple percussion instruments as on Pet Sounds and Smile, etc.

In 1967 The Beatles turned down a very large follow-up offer to play Shea Stadium, the reason given beyond the obvious that they didn;t tour was because they could not reproduce their sound as of 1967 on stage.


To consider: Is it coincidence that the Beach Boys' first live shows since recording Smiley Smile (in Hawaii, August 1967) featured their band sound as of that moment in 1967? It was more or less the Smiley Smile sound being reproduced on stage, complete with the Baldwin organ that marked so much of Smiley's sessions, along with very sparse drumming, sometimes not more than a snare drum hitting the downbeats if that.

By recording something as they did the revised Heroes single, the Gettin Hungry single, and what would come out that September on the Smiley Smile album, the band on stage was able to sound like the records. It would solve that issue, it may remove some of the criticism that they had gotten even worse after the May 67 tour than in 66, and the audience would hear the band's sound as of that moment in the summer of 67 when Smiley was waiting to come out.


Let's not forget that the British Musicians Union would not permit the ancillary players (Igor +) on the "TIKH tour" May '67, to play.  Their role was to do exactly what was complained of.  ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 07, 2016, 01:14:36 PM
How would this be that much of a concern though since they continued to perform songs like GV, WIBN, GOK, CG, SJB as the same 5 man group that had performed them before the home studio? I'm pretty sure they had planned to take extra musicians as early as the Fall 1966 tour but I think Mike said they decided against when all of the shows had already sold out anyway.  Also didn't Carl effectively say concert goers are dumb to expect their concerts to sound like the recordings.

Taylor explains how Grillo's solution to move to the home studio came to be: “But by mid-Winter 1966/7 the Beach Boys were running into a serious creative impasse. Brian Wilson, constantly harassed by the availability of the right studio---and for him ‘the right studio’ means which ever studio he needs on whim without notice—restricted by the touring needs of the Beach Boys, disturbed by legal complications with Capitol Records, confined by the conventional brevity of the pop single, and pressured by the need of competing with other groups, decided arbitrarily that making records was, for him, no longer a pleasure.”


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 07, 2016, 01:22:42 PM
How would this be that much of a concern though since they continued to perform songs like GV, WIBN, GOK, CG, SJB as the same 5 man group that had performed them before the home studio? I'm pretty sure they had planned to take extra musicians as early as the Fall 1966 tour but I think Mike said they decided against when all of the shows had already sold out anyway.  Also didn't Carl effectively say concert goer are dumb to expect their concerts to sound like the recordings.

Taylor explains how Grillo's solution to move to the home studio came to be: “But by mid-Winter 1966/7 the Beach Boys were running into a serious creative impasse. Brian Wilson, constantly harassed by the availability of the right studio---and for him ‘the right studio’ means which ever studio he needs on whim without notice—restricted by the touring needs of the Beach Boys, disturbed by legal complications with Capitol Records, confined by the conventional brevity of the pop single, and pressured by the need of competing with other groups, decided arbitrarily that making records was, for him, no longer a pleasure.”
That's a weird quote - it lists a bunch of reasons that BW was not enjoying recording, then says it was 'arbitrary' that he wasn't enjoying recording.
This is aside from your point, Cam, which I leave unmolested.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 07, 2016, 01:28:02 PM
He writes "restricted by the touring needs of the Beach Boys", what were those restrictions?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 07, 2016, 01:29:59 PM
How would this be that much of a concern though since they continued to perform songs like GV, WIBN, GOK, CG, SJB as the same 5 man group that had performed them before the home studio? I'm pretty sure they had planned to take extra musicians as early as the Fall 1966 tour but I think Mike said they decided against when all of the shows had already sold out anyway.  Also didn't Carl effectively say concert goer are dumb to expect their concerts to sound like the recordings.

Taylor explains how Grillo's solution to move to the home studio came to be: “But by mid-Winter 1966/7 the Beach Boys were running into a serious creative impasse. Brian Wilson, constantly harassed by the availability of the right studio---and for him ‘the right studio’ means which ever studio he needs on whim without notice—restricted by the touring needs of the Beach Boys, disturbed by legal complications with Capitol Records, confined by the conventional brevity of the pop single, and pressured by the need of competing with other groups, decided arbitrarily that making records was, for him, no longer a pleasure.”
That's a weird quote - it lists a bunch of reasons that BW was not enjoying recording, then says it was 'arbitrary' that he wasn't enjoying recording.
This is aside from your point, Cam, which I leave unmolested.

Perhaps in the sense of "based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something."


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 07, 2016, 01:43:05 PM
He writes "restricted by the touring needs of the Beach Boys", what were those restrictions?

In the context and sense that it is grammatically connected to ", constantly harassed by the availability of the right studio---and for him ‘the right studio’ means which ever studio he needs on whim without notice--restricted by the touring needs of the Beach Boys,".

In other words the availability of the right studio on a whim without notice was restricted by the touring.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 07, 2016, 02:02:28 PM
The studio availability issues were addressed by others too, in a context of Brian maybe wanting to book studios very late at night when inspiration struck but that not being possible for more practical reasons - The Beatles began to run into that too when they'd want to record very late into the night, into the early morning at Abbey Road dating back to the Pepper album, and the EMI studio staff simply not being able to go days on end with little or no sleep, and also have to work their other scheduled sessions from the morning to evening. They did it up to a point, but what the Beatles wanted in terms of availability to record almost on demand, usually late at night, was not always available. It was the same with Brian - If he got an idea and wanted to go in at, say, 1 a.m. to start a session, it wasn't always available or practical for those involved in the studio process for hire to be available on call with other obligations.

This was also when the whole nature of how artists recorded began to shift as well. It was still handled for the most part on a "normal" block scheduling situation, say a schedule where a band would come in from 2pm to 6pm and record. It was the shift to the studio as a creative tool that the Beatles were doing at Abbey Road in 66/67 and which Brian was doing in LA that changed up some of the old ways of doing things. If the creativity was flowing, these artists didn't want to be told their session ended at 9pm and they had to clear out.

That was yet another paradigm of the record business that began to change at precisely this moment in time, 1966/67. A pop band or artist up to that point would simply not "camp out" in a specific studio for weeks until the album was done, though that later became almost standard practice. The only example into 1967 I can think of was The Monkees blocking out a specific RCA studio room for several weeks to record Headquarters on their own terms, but they were the Monkees and Screen Gems backed them up.

The original plans of Brother Records back to '66 included owning a recording studio facility, it just took them a little longer to get there than was originally, I think, hoped would happen.

But those "restrictions" - If it were limited to an issue with the band being on the road, they had already recorded Pet Sounds, Good Vibrations, and even other singles and albums while working within the same framework, to great success. Brian would cut the tracks, get the vocals ready, the band would come in off the road, cut their tracks, and it would become a single or album.

Could other restrictions have included what the band could or could not reproduce from their records on stage with their touring lineup? I think it's no accident that the only show they played in the summer of '67 sounded like the music they were recording at that exact time. If they began to bristle at even more pointed criticism of their live sound after yet another European tour, they could solve that by moving toward a studio sound on their records that could be reproduced on stage without a lot of auxiliary musicians or parts.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 07, 2016, 02:36:12 PM
Taylor explains how Grillo's solution to move to the home studio came to be: “But by mid-Winter 1966/7 the Beach Boys were running into a serious creative impasse. Brian Wilson, constantly harassed by the availability of the right studio---and for him ‘the right studio’ means which ever studio he needs on whim without notice—restricted by the touring needs of the Beach Boys, disturbed by legal complications with Capitol Records, confined by the conventional brevity of the pop single, and pressured by the need of competing with other groups, decided arbitrarily that making records was, for him, no longer a pleasure.”

Doesn't stack up: the first documented session at the home "studio" was June 11th 1967 - hardly mid-winter. As for "restricted by the touring needs...", Grillo - who, let it be remembered, completely confused the financially catastrophic Maharishi tour with the preceding tour that was mildly affected by the assassination of MLK - may be similarly misremembering much later in 1967/8, when the home studio was also an integral part of the band's touring rig: thus, if they were on tour and Brian was struck by the muse... no studio at home.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 07, 2016, 02:41:02 PM
Taylor explains how Grillo's solution to move to the home studio came to be: “But by mid-Winter 1966/7 the Beach Boys were running into a serious creative impasse. Brian Wilson, constantly harassed by the availability of the right studio---and for him ‘the right studio’ means which ever studio he needs on whim without notice—restricted by the touring needs of the Beach Boys, disturbed by legal complications with Capitol Records, confined by the conventional brevity of the pop single, and pressured by the need of competing with other groups, decided arbitrarily that making records was, for him, no longer a pleasure.”

Doesn't stack up: the first documented session at the home "studio" was June 11th 1967 - hardly mid-winter. As for "restricted by the touring needs...", Grillo - who, let it be remembered, completely confused the financially catastrophic Maharishi tour with the preceding tour that was mildly affected by the assassination of MLK - may be similarly misremembering much later in 1967/8, when the home studio was also an integral part of the band's touring rig: thus, if they were on tour and Brian was struck by the muse... no studio at home.

In July 1967 Taylor says Mid-Winter 66/67 is when they began to have the problems that in May 1967 Nick Grillo was solving suggesting a home studio.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 07, 2016, 02:47:55 PM
From January to May 1967, Brian recorded at Columbia, Western, Sound Recorders and Gold Star a total of 49 times, with a further five scheduled sessions cancelled. Does that look like problems getting studio time to you, or someone unhappy with commercial facilities ?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 07, 2016, 02:50:45 PM
From January to May 1967, the Brian recorded at Columbia, Western, Sound Recorders and Gold Star a total of 49 times, with a further five scheduled sessions cancelled. Does that look like problems getting studio time ?

If he wasn't able to use them "on a whim without notice" I guess it was, according to Anderle and Taylor.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 07, 2016, 02:53:19 PM
Well, and what would they know, huh ? Have they studied the subject in minute detail as we have ? So, they were there. Means nothing.  ;D


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 07, 2016, 03:01:58 PM
Well, and what would they know, huh ? Have they studied the subject in minute detail as we have ? So, they were there. Means nothing.  ;D

True dat.  ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: The Shift on February 07, 2016, 03:04:44 PM
They weren't fans they were just involvees.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on February 07, 2016, 06:34:36 PM
From January to May 1967, the Brian recorded at Columbia, Western, Sound Recorders and Gold Star a total of 49 times, with a further five scheduled sessions cancelled. Does that look like problems getting studio time ?

If he wasn't able to use them "on a whim without notice" I guess it was, according to Anderle and Taylor.

He couldn't record on a whim at the home studio either - was Jim Lockert staying at the house so that he could get up and engineer at a moment's notice?  Would the other Beach Boys get up at midnight and go to the house to record after a phone call?  the latter probably did happen occasionally, but more likely there would be a set time to show up and then recording would go on for as long Brian was up for it.

I still think the main change was the Beach boys doing it all instead of the studio musicians - hence the credit "produced by the Beach Boys" not in the sense of record producer production, but literally produced or a product of the Beach Boys, and not  a product of Brian and studio musicians.  "Puppets" no longer.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Ian on February 07, 2016, 06:49:47 PM
We've covered this topic many times and as has been brought up before it was also Brian's issues.  As we've discussed he'd become a fanatical perfectionist so smiley smiles looseness has to strike one as Brian kind of just giving up control to a degree.  Also he was bred to be a fanatical competitor so a single that hit 15 and an album that didn't do well just combined to send him into a real funk.  He came back for friends and again for sunflower to a degree but I think he came to view the beach boys as a failure by his impossible standards. He sure takes that point of view in his 1973 interviews on radio and in print. The beach boys weren't a big success on the charts and to Brian that was crucial


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 07, 2016, 08:19:22 PM
"Puppets" no longer.

It also may have addressed two main points of criticism coming from the press after the May 67 tour in one fell swoop. Not only were the Beach Boys playing the music on their albums, the credit "Produced by The Beach Boys" would suggest they're no longer puppets, and as shown by the only concert they would give between May and the fall of 67, they could also play on stage and sound like they did on their most recent record. I'm sure at various times that criticism had to sting the band pretty hard and compromises made could serve to alleviate any issues related to that.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on February 07, 2016, 08:29:30 PM
Quote
The Old Master Painter:
According to me, SMiLE was more complete in 1966 than in 1967.

With certain qualifications, I agree with this. At least I suspect that it was not significantly less complete in 1966 than mid-67. Certainly conceptually speaking.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 07, 2016, 08:36:39 PM
We've covered this topic many times and as has been brought up before it was also Brian's issues.  As we've discussed he'd become a fanatical perfectionist so smiley smiles looseness has to strike one as Brian kind of just giving up control to a degree.  Also he was bred to be a fanatical competitor so a single that hit 15 and an album that didn't do well just combined to send him into a real funk.  He came back for friends and again for sunflower to a degree but I think he came to view the beach boys as a failure by his impossible standards. He sure takes that point of view in his 1973 interviews on radio and in print. The beach boys weren't a big success on the charts and to Brian that was crucial

I've been following and have been aware of most Smile related "stuff" for 25 years or so, and I have seen little or no attention paid to June 1967 and the reasons how the band ended up in Brian's living room, apart from generalizations or theories painted with a broad brush. I've also seen theories about why they pulled out of Monterey that ranged from they just pulled out with no notice, Brian was concerned with getting the new album out, the pressures on Carl over the draft issues combined with pressure to release a single and an album would be too much of a distraction, to Stephen Desper recalling Mike had an objection with Coca Cola being a sponsor of the Montetery festival.

So there are still areas to explore. If it means revisiting some theories that may seem like old news, maybe looking at them anew isn;t such a bad thing. I'm certainly enjoying going over everything. And it's far better than some of the outright red herrings or whitewashing that has also crept into the dialogue even since the 2000's.

As far as Brian being a competitor: "As we've discussed he'd become a fanatical perfectionist so smiley smiles looseness has to strike one as Brian kind of just giving up control to a degree.  Also he was bred to be a fanatical competitor so a single that hit 15 and an album that didn't do well just combined to send him into a real funk.

That wouldn't seem relevant to the decisions made in June 67 that changed the entire scope of both the band and their recording methods and schedule. Heroes wasn't even out yet, so the band's single of record for the US was still the #1 smash Good Vibrations. The Beach Boys into 1967 were still Capitol's top selling US group on the label. Brian was still winning polls awards in various countries and markets for top producer on the strength of Good Vibrations, the band had just been presented with the NME award in May for topping the Beatles in the poll.

Brian was just on Inside Pop the third week of April doing Surf's Up, and that program was so talked-about that I even saw an article saying they were considering releasing a soundtrack from the program. Janis Ian got one of the most unlikely radio hits of '67 directly from that program, and Brian's performance near the end was one of the highlights. The industry buzz was still there.

If Heroes had not yet been released, and if Smiley Smile had not yet been recorded, then Good Vibrations was still the most recent single - there would be nothing to connect sending Brian into a funk relative to an under-performing release as of June 1967 when the whole ballgame changed almost in a few weeks' time while GV was still their latest release, and it was a #1 hit. If we're talking August or September, after Heroes didn't go top-5 and after Smiley stalled out, then a better case could be made. But the group didn't even have the revised single ready to present until July.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 07, 2016, 08:49:27 PM
From January to May 1967, the Brian recorded at Columbia, Western, Sound Recorders and Gold Star a total of 49 times, with a further five scheduled sessions cancelled. Does that look like problems getting studio time ?

If he wasn't able to use them "on a whim without notice" I guess it was, according to Anderle and Taylor.

He couldn't record on a whim at the home studio either - was Jim Lockert staying at the house so that he could get up and engineer at a moment's notice?  Would the other Beach Boys get up at midnight and go to the house to record after a phone call?  the latter probably did happen occasionally, but more likely there would be a set time to show up and then recording would go on for as long Brian was up for it.

I still think the main change was the Beach boys doing it all instead of the studio musicians - hence the credit "produced by the Beach Boys" not in the sense of record producer production, but literally produced or a product of the Beach Boys, and not  a product of Brian and studio musicians.  "Puppets" no longer.


Jimmy was on contract or some kind of an arrangement as a dedicated engineer I believe, maybe Mr. Desper can elaborate.  Brian was able to record on much more of a whim with much less notice, which was the appeal of and reason for adoption of Grillo's plan, which also explains how SS took about as many sessions as PS but got done in a much shorter timespan.

The Beach Boys were doing it that same way most of their earlier career and it wasn't credited as to the Beach Boys, the real difference imo is they owned the label together in 1967.

Jim may have stayed at Bellagio on ocassion, I don't know.  He had a wife at home at the time and she was still his wife up until his death, as I remember, she mentioned being (not staying) at the house sometimes.




Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 07, 2016, 09:04:08 PM
"Puppets" no longer.

It also may have addressed two main points of criticism coming from the press after the May 67 tour in one fell swoop. Not only were the Beach Boys playing the music on their albums, the credit "Produced by The Beach Boys" would suggest they're no longer puppets, and as shown by the only concert they would give between May and the fall of 67, they could also play on stage and sound like they did on their most recent record. I'm sure at various times that criticism had to sting the band pretty hard and compromises made could serve to alleviate any issues related to that.

I just don't see it. They must have only been much bothered in Europe for one tour. Even in May they didn't cancel concerts when they couldn't get their extra musicians, they just went on as before. They just went on as before with out an expanded line-up after November 1966 and after May 1967. If the expanded band was because of this embarrassment, the embarrassment would still be there and why did they not keep enhancing the line up if it was out of embarrassmment?

I have a feeling it was more of a promotion for a particular newly expanding market or something like it, which would explain why they had not been bothered by it before or after this May 1967 tour and why when they planned to take extra musicians in November 1966 they dropped them when they were pre-sold and didn't need it.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \ recording times
Post by: Zesterz on February 07, 2016, 11:57:53 PM
Al Jardine told me emphatically " Brian would call up at 2am/ 3am.......and would HAVE to be at the studio in half an hour. When he had that urge, we had to seize the moment"


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 08, 2016, 07:42:19 AM
That would be the home studio, I'm assuming.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 08, 2016, 09:16:59 AM
Am I right in recalling that Stephen Desper said that he and one other person had the keys and when neither of them were there it was locked?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Alan Smith on February 08, 2016, 01:03:18 PM
Just for yucks, a timeline:

4/29 - Someone* states that Smile is finished and ready to be rush released once the Capitol lawsuit is settled.

  5/2 - European tour starts (ends 19th)

  5/6 - Derek Taylor states that Smile is "scrapped"

  6/3 - Smiley Smile sessions commence

  7/5 - Brian previews "H&V" at KHJ

7/20 - Smiley Smile assembled & mastered

7/24 - "H&V" single released (Brother)

7/25 - Engemann "10-track Smile" memo

7/31 - Best of... Volume 2 released

8/26 - and 27: Hawaiian shows for live album

8/28 - "Gettin' Hungry" single released (Brother)

9/11 - Wally Heider session for fake live album

9/15 - Smiley Smile released (Brother)

9/26 - "Wild Honey" session (and 27th)

10/18 - "Wild Honey" single released (Capitol)

10/25 - Wild Honey sessions commence

[* seeing as it was Carl who later claimed the album was finished, this earlier statement must make him at least a suspect...]

So... between July 25th and some time before August 26th, the Smile redux album went out the door. Why ? If Carl is to be believed, the tracks were waiting and ready to go, as was the booklets and cover art. Someone had to have said "no". Who ? And why ?


AGD - thanks for taking the time to do this timeline.

For my own sanity post reading through the thread, I started to put one together, wishing/hoping you or Cam (ie, people who know what they are talking about) would beat me to it.  And thank fcuk you did - cheers - A

PS - and someone also had to have said "where" (are these ready to go Smile songs)?"


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on February 08, 2016, 02:10:16 PM
Ready to go Smile songs:

Wonderful
Wind Chimes
Surf's Up (solo version)
Good Vibrations
Vegetables (cornucopia version)
Mrs. O'Leary's Cow/The Elements (part one, but it certainly could have been released as its' own track)
Old Master Painter

Very close to ready:

Worms - needs lead vocal on verses only
Cabinessence - lead vocal on verses only

Tracks complete need vocals:
Child is Father (has chorus vocals, needs verse and bridge)
Heroes, December version (verses/shape/children were raised/3rd verse/Barnyard) - tracks complete, unclear in December what vocals had been attempted other than Barnyard backing vocals
Great Shape - part of Heroes at this point still, but some tracks could be added to the album as instrumentals - IWBA/Friday Night, Look, Holidays.

So An Album could have been close to completion - if he did the verse vocals on Worms and Cabinessence, and finished Heroes, I think the releasable tracks would have made a mind-blowing album in January 67.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 08, 2016, 02:19:24 PM
Just for yucks, a timeline:

4/29 - Someone* states that Smile is finished and ready to be rush released once the Capitol lawsuit is settled.

  5/2 - European tour starts (ends 19th)

  5/6 - Derek Taylor states that Smile is "scrapped"

  6/3 - Smiley Smile sessions commence

  7/5 - Brian previews "H&V" at KHJ

7/20 - Smiley Smile assembled & mastered

7/24 - "H&V" single released (Brother)

7/25 - Engemann "10-track Smile" memo

7/31 - Best of... Volume 2 released

8/26 - and 27: Hawaiian shows for live album

8/28 - "Gettin' Hungry" single released (Brother)

9/11 - Wally Heider session for fake live album

9/15 - Smiley Smile released (Brother)

9/26 - "Wild Honey" session (and 27th)

10/18 - "Wild Honey" single released (Capitol)

10/25 - Wild Honey sessions commence

[* seeing as it was Carl who later claimed the album was finished, this earlier statement must make him at least a suspect...]

So... between July 25th and some time before August 26th, the Smile redux album went out the door. Why ? If Carl is to be believed, the tracks were waiting and ready to go, as was the booklets and cover art. Someone had to have said "no". Who ? And why ?


AGD - thanks for taking the time to do this timeline.

For my own sanity post reading through the thread, I started to put one together, wishing/hoping you or Cam (ie, people who know what they are talking about) would beat me to it.  And thank fcuk you did - cheers - A

PS - and someone also had to have said "where" (are these ready to go Smile songs)?"


The timeline and the memo itself disputes the premise of the question asked. The memo is about not including the booklets with Smiley Smile, but instead "to hold it for the next album which will include the aforementioned 10 selections. The second album which would be packaged with the booklet would not include the selections Heroes And Villains and Vegetables"...and goes on to suggest an explanation would be included in the liner notes of the second album.

Why would the "Smile Redux" album have gone out the door between July 25 and August 26 if the memo was written July 25, and the timeline above says Smiley Smile wasn't released until September 15? Carl's comments were also published in the LA Times the first week of October, where he again suggested something was complete.

In other words, if this Smile redux album (the 'second album' in the Engemann memo) was going to at some point follow up after the release of Smiley Smile, and that didn't come out until September 15, how would it have gone out the door several weeks before Smiley Smile was even released if the plan were to follow Smiley?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Alan Smith on February 08, 2016, 02:23:35 PM
Ready to go Smile songs:

Wonderful
Wind Chimes
Surf's Up (solo version)
Good Vibrations
Vegetables (cornucopia version)
Mrs. O'Leary's Cow/The Elements (part one, but it certainly could have been released as its' own track)
Old Master Painter

Very close to ready:

Worms - needs lead vocal on verses only
Cabinessence - lead vocal on verses only

Tracks complete need vocals:
Child is Father (has chorus vocals, needs verse and bridge)
Heroes, December version (verses/shape/children were raised/3rd verse/Barnyard) - tracks complete, unclear in December what vocals had been attempted other than Barnyard backing vocals
Great Shape - part of Heroes at this point still, but some tracks could be added to the album as instrumentals - IWBA/Friday Night, Look, Holidays.

So An Album could have been close to completion - if he did the verse vocals on Worms and Cabinessence, and finished Heroes, I think the releasable tracks would have made a mind-blowing album in January 67.

I consider Wonderful and Wind Chimes to be in the very close to ready bucket - both have minor things to address (endings, edits) and I'm sure they could have used some additional complex vocal layering.  Similarly so for OMP - and Worms, sure it has chorus vocals, but it potentially would also need additional vocals on the chorus.

IMO of course - what would I know?  I'm just basing this on the vocal complexities of H/V (and the "Part 2" stuff), the verse background vox of Cabinessence and GV, and the complex vocal layers of Pet Sounds - I think vocally there was(is) still a long way to go on a releasable version of Smile.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 08, 2016, 02:46:50 PM
Why would the "Smile Redux" album have gone out the door between July 25 and August 26 if the memo was written July 25, and the timeline above says Smiley Smile wasn't released until September 15? Carl's comments were also published in the LA Times the first week of October, where he again suggested something was complete.

In other words, if this Smile redux album (the 'second album' in the Engemann memo) was going to at some point follow up after the release of Smiley Smile, and that didn't come out until September 15, how would it have gone out the door several weeks before Smiley Smile was even released if the plan were to follow Smiley?

Because... on August 26th, the band were in Honolulu for the express purpose of recording a live album. Why would they do this, with Smiley Smile scant days away from release and a followup in the wings, unless there was a sudden and compelling need for some kind - any kind - of product ? If Smile redux was still a going concern, cover art, booklets and tracks ready to roll... just release the damn thing, already. Remember, Lei'd in Hawaii got as far as having a cover, and a catalog number  - Brother 9002 - some thing Smile II never achieved. As I've said before, to me, all the Engemann memo is proof of is a company trying to get some, any, return for a nearly year-long investment that looked like going straight down the drain, and Brian telling them what they wanted to hear, or saying whatever would get them off his case. My foundation for this premise ? Smile redux never happened, at a time when it really should have... if the tracks were, as claimed, all finished. Patently, they weren't, or we'd not be having this discussion now.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on February 08, 2016, 05:02:37 PM
Cam's theories as if everybody was buying them.

Et tu, Micha?  And I thought we were internet friends.... ;)

Why do you guys (you know who you are) keep pickin' on me by name?  (doe eyes)

I don't call you guys out by name over your half-assed theories and conspiracies that nobody else is buying. (granite jaw set)



Cam, I'm sorry if I did hurt your feelings with that, I don't know if I did, as you added that blinking smiley, but if so I apologize - I was just pointing out that while some of your opinions on this thread have not convinced a lot of people a certain poster got really upset as if everybody was readily agreeing. Probably I've been wording it badly, my excuse is of course that English is not my first language. :wink Though I don't agree with some of your opinions I do respect them and appreciate your calm discussion style that doesn't take to emotional accusations when people disagree with you.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Micha on February 08, 2016, 05:16:10 PM
I have to get back to this once more as I have been accused of being disrespectful and having "issues" which isn't true. I had been thinking of taking it to PMs but decided against that because if I'm on the wrong track maybe some of the other posters on this thread will be kind enough to tell me so. Some posters have confided me their sympathy with my points over the weekend, but other third party views are welcome.

I'll engage a conversation but not with someone whose goal might be more personal than something related to discussing the information. As I've already said, if your goal in posting this is to distract those who want to talk about the topics being discussed or make it about me and whatever issues you have against me or the board's moderation or anything else related, it will not happen here..

So, who's been talking about board moderation? Only you brought that up. I didn't. I was reflecting my perceptions oft your conduct in parts of this thread to you, but you don't consider them or explain to me what you really meant as I obviously got it wrong.


If you're here to discuss the issues, I engaged you in that and you chose instead to again bring up personal gripes, complaints, and everything else to make it personal. Your actions are unwelcome and if you're concerned about respect being shown by board members, start showing it in your own actions.

Some of your actions here are unwelcome to me, too. There's several instances where I found you to be not respectful at all. In what world is it respectful to just claim something and when asked for the source just go "Look for it, take more effort" - that's not what I would call camaraderie, that's condescending. And that is something I do have an issue with. Or do you find this respectful:

Oh, but Carl's word can be thrown out as he's been discredited, right? He only worked on the music, he didn't have access to session data and NME articles and timelines to reference.

Oh, so you choose to use sarcasm to discredit Cam? Is that quote not a "complaint", what you accused me of? GF, it's really too bad that you keep getting back to this style of discussion when people disagree with you, because you are very knowledgable and should not take disagreeing as a personal insult. That's how it seems sometimes to me. Maybe I'm just too sensitive and not tough enough to deal with this kind of behavior. It seems you have cooled down a bit in the last few days and I appreciate that. Still, I'll drop out of this discussion - the one about the situation of the band in summer 1967 and what led to the installation of the home studio - because I'm kind of emotionally drained right now.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 08, 2016, 06:06:30 PM
Cam's theories as if everybody was buying them.

Et tu, Micha?  And I thought we were internet friends.... ;)

Why do you guys (you know who you are) keep pickin' on me by name?  (doe eyes)

I don't call you guys out by name over your half-assed theories and conspiracies that nobody else is buying. (granite jaw set)



Cam, I'm sorry if I did hurt your feelings with that, I don't know if I did, as you added that blinking smiley, but if so I apologize - I was just pointing out that while some of your opinions on this thread have not convinced a lot of people a certain poster got really upset as if everybody was readily agreeing. Probably I've been wording it badly, my excuse is of course that English is not my first language. :wink Though I don't agree with some of your opinions I do respect them and appreciate your calm discussion style that doesn't take to emotional accusations when people disagree with you.

I was teasing you (in a friendly way) while making a point about the board but we are respectfully friends and friendly even in our disagreements as far as I'm concerned.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: The Shift on February 08, 2016, 08:22:52 PM
I have to get back to this once more as I have been accused of being disrespectful and having "issues" which isn't true. I had been thinking of taking it to PMs but decided against that because if I'm on the wrong track maybe some of the other posters on this thread will be kind enough to tell me so. Some posters have confided me their sympathy with my points over the weekend, but other third party views are welcome.

I'll engage a conversation but not with someone whose goal might be more personal than something related to discussing the information. As I've already said, if your goal in posting this is to distract those who want to talk about the topics being discussed or make it about me and whatever issues you have against me or the board's moderation or anything else related, it will not happen here..

So, who's been talking about board moderation? Only you brought that up. I didn't. I was reflecting my perceptions oft your conduct in parts of this thread to you, but you don't consider them or explain to me what you really meant as I obviously got it wrong.


If you're here to discuss the issues, I engaged you in that and you chose instead to again bring up personal gripes, complaints, and everything else to make it personal. Your actions are unwelcome and if you're concerned about respect being shown by board members, start showing it in your own actions.

Some of your actions here are unwelcome to me, too. There's several instances where I found you to be not respectful at all. In what world is it respectful to just claim something and when asked for the source just go "Look for it, take more effort" - that's not what I would call camaraderie, that's condescending. And that is something I do have an issue with. Or do you find this respectful:

Oh, but Carl's word can be thrown out as he's been discredited, right? He only worked on the music, he didn't have access to session data and NME articles and timelines to reference.

Oh, so you choose to use sarcasm to discredit Cam? Is that quote not a "complaint", what you accused me of? GF, it's really too bad that you keep getting back to this style of discussion when people disagree with you, because you are very knowledgable and should not take disagreeing as a personal insult. That's how it seems sometimes to me. Maybe I'm just too sensitive and not tough enough to deal with this kind of behavior. It seems you have cooled down a bit in the last few days and I appreciate that. Still, I'll drop out of this discussion - the one about the situation of the band in summer 1967 and what led to the installation of the home studio - because I'm kind of emotionally drained right now.

Micha, I admire you for returning to this as it seems to me that this has had you troubled for a few days, days in which I've not seen you post at all.

I also stepped back from this discussion for a while after an over-reaction to my comments about certain points made by Carl Wilson that were posted here; I sensed a potential shitstorm brewing and from the experience of one previous shitstorm thought it wiser to step back and let it play out or, better, immediately dissipate.

I hope some air has been cleared already; there's little hope for fair debate when personal misunderstandings impede posters' willingness to partake.

I also hope the weather forecast is for clear skies and sunshine.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 08, 2016, 09:41:52 PM
I've already said this is not the place to shift the discussions anywhere else except discussing and debating the issues related to Smile, I doubt people coming here to read the discussions and participate in them want to read personal issues, issues about moderating the board, or anything not Smile related. I have been discussing those issues, will continue to do so, and hope everyone will do the same moving forward.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Phoenix on February 08, 2016, 09:45:23 PM
I hate to derail the topic by asking about "Wind Chimes" but since Micha is still active in this thread, I figured it was better than starting a new thread for him or anyone else to answer.

I recently learned (from Micha) that the first Smile recording of "Wind Chimes" was nearly identical in structure to the one on the first disc of TSS but with harpsichord in place of the marimba. Regarding this I have two questions: Am I correct that this version is "Take 5" on Unsurpassed Masters Vol. 17?  Second, when did the structure change? I know "Wind Chimes" was the first song recorded for the Smile sessions. Did Brian return to it later using the modular recording technique or did the tape used as the template for the 1993 use sections taken from the original session.  Either way, one final question as well: At what point did Brian first record it with the marimba?

Thanks in advance.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 08, 2016, 10:13:54 PM
Why would the "Smile Redux" album have gone out the door between July 25 and August 26 if the memo was written July 25, and the timeline above says Smiley Smile wasn't released until September 15? Carl's comments were also published in the LA Times the first week of October, where he again suggested something was complete.

In other words, if this Smile redux album (the 'second album' in the Engemann memo) was going to at some point follow up after the release of Smiley Smile, and that didn't come out until September 15, how would it have gone out the door several weeks before Smiley Smile was even released if the plan were to follow Smiley?

Because... on August 26th, the band were in Honolulu for the express purpose of recording a live album. Why would they do this, with Smiley Smile scant days away from release and a followup in the wings, unless there was a sudden and compelling need for some kind - any kind - of product ? If Smile redux was still a going concern, cover art, booklets and tracks ready to roll... just release the damn thing, already. Remember, Lei'd in Hawaii got as far as having a cover, and a catalog number  - Brother 9002 - some thing Smile II never achieved. As I've said before, to me, all the Engemann memo is proof of is a company trying to get some, any, return for a nearly year-long investment that looked like going straight down the drain, and Brian telling them what they wanted to hear, or saying whatever would get them off his case. My foundation for this premise ? Smile redux never happened, at a time when it really should have... if the tracks were, as claimed, all finished. Patently, they weren't, or we'd not be having this discussion now.

Add this to the timeline, taken from Billboard's July 22 1967 issue:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/billboard%20july%2022%201967_zps2uawl1hn.jpg)


With that time frame in mind, again I'd ask why would there be an expectation that an album specifically described in the July 25th memo as a release which would follow Smiley Smile that was even planned as of July 25th to include an explanation in the liner notes be released prior to Smiley Smile?

Now - factoring in that Billboard article of July 22 - we can also better estimate a date when Capitol and the Beach Boys/Brother Records finally came to an agreement to allow new releases, as well as new contracts in place as the band had been demanding for months. As written in that article, the first Brother release was to be Heroes And Villains, even though some markets (and there is proof KHJ was among those playing advance copies as "exclusives" prior to the release) had already been playing it on air.

Thinking along the lines of a new record label, literally one which had just gotten all the papers signed and had been given the go-ahead to begin doing business as a record label with agreed distribution from Capitol...

What would be the #1, top priority for a new record label in its first months of business? Absolutely, positively, that label would need to have product on the store shelves. Within days after this "official" news item in Billboard, the first Brother single came out. Within a month, the second Brother "Brian And Mike" single came out. EDIT: Just a few weeks after Around the same that single came out, the Smiley Smile album was released.

How or why would Hawaii 67 be tied into this proposed Smile release, to come after Smiley Smile? It's quite simple. An album is rarely planned, executed, finished, then released in a few weeks' time. The Beach Boys needed material on hand for releases on their new label. When they played Hawaii, that label was more or less a month old since it had been made official - and since the Summer Spectacular shows were a big yearly event for the band, this time add the appeal that it was held in Hawaii...what better way to get material to have on hand for a future release? It's not as if they did not do this before, as the live shows in the vaults up to that point prove.

When they played Hawaii, they had a release date set for Smiley Smile. They had the ten-track album of whatever that would have been of the Smile tracks on the table. Now they had a set of new live recordings along with ones from Fall 66 and even back to 65 if they wanted to have another live release...and that was also planned around Wild Honey for a time, as the original WH tracklists, handwritten and typed, clearly show.

It does not suggest the Hawaii live material would have gone into the market right away, in fact to release it at any point too close to the release of Smiley Smile in September would have gone against basic record company practice of not flooding the market and piggybacking albums on top of each other without giving the previous album time to run its course on the charts and with sales. Had any Beach Boys' album except for the Christmas record come less than 2-3 months after the previous album was released? That's a simple label practice of not flooding the market with product.

*IF* this Smile 10-track deal would have come out, when would it come out? The memo says it would follow Smiley...but how soon after?

What we do know is the band got into their R&B thing by the fall of 67 with Wild Honey, first the Oct 67 single, then the December 67 album...both for some reason issued on Capitol.

If Smiley had come out in mid September, again according to standard label release practices and the usual schedule of new album releases from label artists, just how soon after that would they be expected to release a live album that had been recorded in late August? The expectation being presented in the points here wouldn't be in line with how things were done, perhaps as simple as that.

But they had more material in the vaults which they could use for future releases, both live and whatever the Smile material was, and we have both memos and proposed liner notes to back up that there were in fact plans in the fall of '67 to do something with the live material, and at one point in the timeline similar plans to include the Smile booklets in the album to be released after Smiley Smile.

The plans and dates and details changed as they often do, but there was still material to pull from in the Brother vaults for future releases if needed. Perhaps not coincidentally, Brian was working with Redwood to give them even more material for future Brother releases in the fall of 67. That was the plan for the label, to release both Beach Boys and outside acts, and they were following it.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 08, 2016, 10:47:24 PM
For those who may not have seen the "Wild Honey" liner notes handwritten as they had existed at one point, here they are:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/wildhoneymemooriginal.jpg)

Note the mention of an upcoming live album.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 08, 2016, 11:29:19 PM

Add this to the timeline, taken from Billboard's July 22 1967 issue:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/billboard%20july%2022%201967_zps2uawl1hn.jpg)


With that time frame in mind, again I'd ask why would there be an expectation that an album specifically described in the July 25th memo as a release which would follow Smiley Smile that was even planned as of July 25th to include an explanation in the liner notes be released prior to Smiley Smile?

I've never said, nor implied, that Smile redux would be released prior to Smiley Smile (which incidentally had been assembled, and presumably mastered, five days before the memo). Nor has anyone else here. The wording of the memo is very clear on that point. Kindly refrain from attributing something I've not said to me, or inferring same.

Quote
Now - factoring in that Billboard article of July 22 - we can also better estimate a date when Capitol and the Beach Boys/Brother Records finally came to an agreement to allow new releases, as well as new contracts in place as the band had been demanding for months.

July 18th.

Quote
What would be the #1, top priority for a new record label in its first months of business? Absolutely, positively, that label would need to have product on the store shelves. Within days after this "official" news item in Billboard, the first Brother single came out. Within a month, the second Brother "Brian And Mike" single came out. EDIT: Just a few weeks after Around the same that single came out, the Smiley Smile album was released.

Single released August 28th, album released September 18th.

Quote
It does not suggest the Hawaii live material would have gone into the market right away, in fact to release it at any point too close to the release of Smiley Smile in September would have gone against basic record company practice of not flooding the market and piggybacking albums on top of each other without giving the previous album time to run its course on the charts and with sales. Had any Beach Boys' album except for the Christmas record come less than 2-3 months after the previous album was released? That's a simple label practice of not flooding the market with product.

*IF* this Smile 10-track deal would have come out, when would it come out? The memo says it would follow Smiley...but how soon after?

What we do know is the band got into their R&B thing by the fall of 67 with Wild Honey, first the Oct 67 single, then the December 67 album...both for some reason issued on Capitol.

If Smiley had come out in mid September, again according to standard label release practices and the usual schedule of new album releases from label artists, just how soon after that would they be expected to release a live album that had been recorded in late August? The expectation being presented in the points here wouldn't be in line with how things were done, perhaps as simple as that.

But they had more material in the vaults which they could use for future releases, both live and whatever the Smile material was, and we have both memos and proposed liner notes to back up that there were in fact plans in the fall of '67 to do something with the live material, and at one point in the timeline similar plans to include the Smile booklets in the album to be released after Smiley Smile.

The plans and dates and details changed as they often do, but there was still material to pull from in the Brother vaults for future releases if needed. Perhaps not coincidentally, Brian was working with Redwood to give them even more material for future Brother releases in the fall of 67. That was the plan for the label, to release both Beach Boys and outside acts, and they were following it.

All this is assuming standard business practise, and one of the ideas behind Brother was that it do business in a new way. As for material in the vaults, I doubt that even Mike would have contemplated the release of 1965 & 1966 shows, top heavy with hits and standards, in super-hip 1967. A reminder of the 1966 Michigan show:

1. Help Me Rhonda
2. I Get Around
3. Surfin Safari (#3-7 performed as a medley)
4. Fun Fun Fun
5. Shut Down
6. Little Deuce Coupe
7. Surfin USA
8. Surfer Girl
9. Papa Oom Mow Mow
10. You're So Good To Me
11. You've Got To Hide Your Love Away
12. California Girls
13. Sloop John B
14. Wouldnt It Be Nice
15. God Only Knows
16. Good Vibrations
17. Graduation Day
18. Barbara Ann
19. Johnny B. Goode

Released in, say, December 1966/January 1967, it would have been an invitation to ridicule. To be fair, the Hawaii shows weren't that much better:

1. Hawthorne Boulevard
2. Hawaii
3. You're So Good To Me
4. Help Me Rhonda
5. California Girls
6. Wouldn't It Be Nice
7. Gettin Hungry
8. Surfer Girl
9. Surfin'
10. Sloop John B
11. The Letter
12. God Only Knows
13. Good Vibrations
14. Heroes And Villains
15. Barbara Ann .

Maybe this was Plan Z - when in doubt, record a live album. But back to known facts. Smile redux, despite being allegedly on the blocks and ready to roar... never happened, likely because it never was good to go. The live Hawaii tapes were so problematic that the band seriously considered faking it up in the studio: now, if there was product available, why do this, and in a commercial studio too with the additional expense ? Then suddenly... there's a new single sounding like nothing they've ever done before, and when that does relatively well, they start recording a similarly themed album. I propose that none of this indicates a band with a profusion of material in the can that they were willing to release.

Also... Wild Honey was apparently originally set to be Brother 9003... yet the trailering single was released on Capitol. That's always fascinated me: why did Brother founder within months, if not weeks ? The Brother 1003 "Wild Honey" single would have given it a Top 40 hit, and then "Darlin'"on 1004 a respectable Top 20 placing, helping the album on 9003 into the Top 30. And this is the exact same music. Maybe Capitol sabotaged the deal with indifferent distribution... maybe the band just said "f*** it". Who knows ? Not me.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 08, 2016, 11:47:38 PM
For those who may not have seen the "Wild Honey" liner notes handwritten as they had existed at one point, here they are:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/wildhoneymemooriginal.jpg)

Note the mention of an upcoming live album.

Indeed... but compiled from a variety of shows, not the full Hawaii set. Also, the proposed track listing for this Ur-Wild Honey included songs that were never finished up, for whatever reason (tracks discarded indicated):

Side 1
Wild Honey
Here Comes The Night
Let The Wind Blow
I Was Made To Love Her
The Letter
Darlin'

Side 2
A Thing Or Two
Aren't You Glad
Cool, Cool Water
Game Of Love
Lonely Days
Honey Get Home


The Wild Honey sessions, the title track (and one other) excepted, occupied a very compressed timespan - October 25th to November 15th -  and the discarded tracks were all cut in October. The album itself was released December 18th, which somewhat contradicts your previous statement of " An album is rarely planned, executed, finished, then released in a few weeks' time." Essentially, 55 days from studio to the racks. Now, that's a rush release ! And somewhere in those 55 days, an early version was proposed, discarded, and the label changed. Again, looks to me like a band hurting for material they were comfortable releasing.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 09, 2016, 12:02:19 AM
I was addressing this comment:

So... between July 25th and some time before August 26th, the Smile redux album went out the door. Why ? If Carl is to be believed, the tracks were waiting and ready to go, as was the booklets and cover art. Someone had to have said "no". Who ? And why ?

How do we know the 10-track Smile plans were ditched before Hawaii? The suggestion that because the band recorded the Hawaii shows in August the "Smile Redux" went out the door between the date of the memo (July 25) and Hawaii (August 26) doesn't add up - they're not related. The Hawaii shows were a big deal, the band wanted to record them so they had more live material in their vaults to eventually release, there is nothing unusual about that, and nothing about holding such material for months on end waiting for a release. It's the claim that whatever the Smile Redux might have been got ditched before Hawaii or because of Hawaii being recorded that doesn't jive with the timeline. Maybe the band just wanted to capture the event of being in Hawaii for their annual Spectacular shows and that Brian would be performing with them live for the first time in several years which made it appealing as a potential live release. And, as a self-contained band on stage, they'd sound like their upcoming record, upcoming single, previous single, etc. No room for the type of criticism that followed their most recent UK shows on that point.  

And they would have more material to pull from the vaults for releases after Smiley Smile on the new label, independent of whatever would happen with the 10-track Smile deal. Plans changed.

I'm also revisiting how Wild Honey came about, it was obviously a major change in the band's sound to R&B, yet the single...it had Wind Chimes as the B-side, so even that doesn't seem to fit stylistically. Yet, releasing Wild Honey was a definite shift in direction especially in Carl's vocal style, followed by the album.

As I've said earlier, perhaps such a shift in sound going on the band's next lead-off single might have made releasing the Smile material at that specific time not as good of a match. If the band was trying to toughen up their sound as Carl said, go more hard-edged R&B in October 67 with that single, releasing Smile tapes at that time wouldn't fit their plan.

So, as Carl said not long before the WH single came out in October 67, ""We didn't scrap them we just haven't used them yet." If the band changed their sound for an important single, that would be one reason why they didn't use them at that time.

How or why Wild Honey ended up on the Capitol label and not Brother was a total mystery.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 09, 2016, 12:17:46 AM
Was Smile redux ever mentioned again, in such specific terms... or indeed at all ? No, so it's reasonable to consider it abandoned. Granted my wording could, should, have been less assured. I don't know, you don't know, hardly anyone knows. But fact is, it was canned at some point after 7/25/67 and before 9/11/67, when the band tried to fake a live album, realised it wasn't happening and instead made the first step on the road to Wild Honey.

We need to ask anyone we can what happened in the second half of 1967. In many ways, it's more of a mystery then Smile.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Nile on February 09, 2016, 01:31:57 AM
We need to ask anyone we can what happened in the second half of 1967. In many ways, it's more of a mystery then Smile.

Maybe some  answers on what was happening with BW in summer of 1967 can be found in this "must read" article by D. Dalton. But on the other hand maybe it's just a big put on by BW, but..remember the scene in the pool in "Love and Mercy"?
Unfortunately, this is not an entire article, but if I recall correctly it's pretty close.. Maybe someone can put out entire article!
http://pleasekillme.com/epiphany-at-zuma-beach-or-brian-wilson-hallucinates-me/
Enjoy!


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 09, 2016, 01:32:42 AM
Maybe this was Plan Z - when in doubt, record a live album. But back to known facts. Smile redux, despite being allegedly on the blocks and ready to roar... never happened, likely because it never was good to go. The live Hawaii tapes were so problematic that the band seriously considered faking it up in the studio: now, if there was product available, why do this, and in a commercial studio too with the additional expense ?

I can perhaps address the issue of why they used the commercial studio (Wally Heider) for the Hawaii re-records. Wally Heider had the only mixing board available that could accommodate the tape machines that were used to record the actual Hawaii shows, and the 1" 8-track tape machines they were recorded on. That board was designed and custom built for the Hawaii shows by Frank Demedio, Wally needed an 8-bus board for the dual 1" 8-track machines he would be shipping to Hawaii. According to Dale Manquen:

Recording the Beach Boys in Hawaii
Posted on 03.31.05 by Dale Manquen

This story doesn’t involve Wally to any large extent, but it describes Wally’s willingness to stretch the envelope.

The Beach Boys were headed for the Honolulu International Center (HIC) in Hawaii, and they hired Heider Recording to record the performances. This was to be the first double 8-track remote, two machines running together, making redundant recordings with a slight overlap so that nothing got lost. The 8-track 1” format was still fairly new, and not many people had two machines that they could send out on a remote, but Wally had two 3M Model 23 8-tracks ready for the job.

What Wally didn’t have was an 8-bus console to feed the 8-track machines. Frank DeMedio was working on an 8-bus console that would eventually be used in Wally’s Studio 3, but it wasn’t finished.



Frank and his father with help from Dale finished that custom console the day it was to be shipped to Hawaii for the concerts. Assuming some of the original tapes may have been included in the album plans, perhaps they considered using certain songs here and there which were truly live, maybe fake or fix the others, add crowd noise, etc or in any way work with the master tapes from the shows...if they wanted in some way to use those Hawaii master tapes within 2 weeks of those shows, Wally literally was the only one who had that equipment. Since they had already been to Wally's studio for Smiley Smile, and since Wally really did go all-out for the band for the Hawaii recordings using the most state of the art equipment he had, it would make sense for them to go there instead of doing it at Brian's house which was still basically ad hoc in early September.

They could have transferred those master Hawaii reels to another 8-track tape and gone anywhere to mix and fix, sure, but technical details aside they found a place where they (or Brian specifically) liked to work at Wally Heider's studio. Beyond mixing Smiley and the Hawaii session in September, a majority of the sessions in the Fall of 67, including Wild Honey and Brian's Redwood productions were still being done at Heider's.


Something else I caught in one of Dale Manquen's replies to my questions back in 2005:

I can remember Jimmie’s frustrations with the eccentricities of working with the Beach Boys. Things like irregular hours, recording in the dry swimming pool and the general problems of dealing with an undisciplined group.

It goes back to the issues recently discussed here about studio time and booking/working odd hours, it apparently was an issue for Jim Lockert working at the house.



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 09, 2016, 04:30:29 AM
Craig, with all due respect, when you're responding to something I've posted to correct you, don't introduce a different topic to confuse the issue.

You quoted me and replied with these exact words (reply #718):

"With that time frame in mind, again I'd ask why would there be an expectation that an album specifically described in the July 25th memo as a release which would follow Smiley Smile that was even planned as of July 25th to include an explanation in the liner notes be released prior to Smiley Smile?"

... to which I rightly responded that I'd never said, or implied anything about Smile redux being released before Smiley Smile. Your response to this was as follows:

I was addressing this comment:

So... between July 25th and some time before August 26th, the Smile redux album went out the door. Why ? If Carl is to be believed, the tracks were waiting and ready to go, as was the booklets and cover art. Someone had to have said "no". Who ? And why ?

So, you were responding to a post from me that never so much as mentioned it being released before Smiley Smile by asking why I thought it might be released before said album. Rather, I was putting forth the likelihood that between those dates the potential release was junked, or exactly the opposite to what you thought, or wanted to think, I'd said. I didn't. Because I wouldn't: the memo is very specific as to when they hoped Smile redux to be released. So, can we lay this to rest, please ?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on February 09, 2016, 08:43:28 AM
Surely someone can shed some light on what happened after the Gettin' Hungry single and Smiley Smile flopped on Brother and then Wild Honey was released on Capitol.  Who was "in charge" of Brother Records after Anderle left?  I suspect Mike, always involved with the business side of things, might recall why the change.  the commercial failure of the second two Brother releases likely had something to do with it, but presumably the contracts and agreements with Capitol settling the financial dispute as reported in July stayed in effect through the release of Wild Honey and onwards?  Any renegotiation would have been reported in the music press?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 09, 2016, 08:47:55 AM
Like the draft of the Wild Honey tracklist mentions an upcoming live release but nothing ever came of it, we have that internal Capitol memo that says at that point on July 25 there was something in the works regarding the Smile tracks and the booklets, but nothing ever came of it. Do we know when or exactly why that upcoming live release ever happened, any more than we know exactly when or why the Smiley follow-up never happened? Is there a memo, document, or statement which exists from July 67 to anytime into 1968 which declares either the Smile remnants thing with the booklet or the live release off the table?

We know definitely they both did exist as plans both from and for the band based on that documentation - we also know neither project ended up happening in the long run. Since I still have not seen anything similar in terms of a comment or a document to suggest a point in the process when it was decided not to move on the Smile material with those booklets, no more than we've seen anything to suggest when it was decided not to release the upcoming live album mentioned in the WH tracklist draft, there is as much speculation that could support a theory that the band may have been planning to move on it sometime after Smiley Smile's release as to suggest the idea was dead based on the timeline of Hawaii projects. At some point after Wild Honey, they decided to abandon the live album idea too which was to follow that album, we don't know when or even why but it just never happened. I can see a parallel there.

If there is more documentation that exists similar to the WH memos and the Engemann memo, I hope it somehow turns up.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 09, 2016, 08:51:12 AM
Who was "in charge" of Brother Records after Anderle left? 

Nick Grillo.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 09, 2016, 09:50:52 AM
I can see why the Live album didn't come out, maybe because the material wasn't suitable for release.

Why not the SMiLE leftover album though if, as Andrew pointed out, Carl and Dennis were right (and Brian was wrong) that SMiLE was finished and in the can and had been ready for release since May?

I can imagine that Brother possibly not being a workable label that couldn't even manage to release their own studio albums had something to do with it too, but Smile Redux was Capitol's idea with Brian just agreeing to the plan as I remember, so why not on Capitol at least as they supposedly already had it in the can and were able to release BBs' albums as a label?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: The Shift on February 09, 2016, 02:24:49 PM
I think we have as much evidence as we need to safely say that a Smile redux was pie in the sky.

1. It wasn't released in 67
2. It wasn't released in 68
3. When Carl - the guy quoted earlier in this thread as saying Smile was done and ready to roll - worked on the tapes with Desper in Fall '72 (thank you AGD), he found it was not done and he couldn't manage to roll his own
4. When Bruce Johnston talked about releasing he Smile tapes in the late 70s, as a UNICEF charity thing, it wasn't released
5. When the tapes were (supposedly) exhumed during research for BWPS, VDP was called in to help create new bits because it had never been finished
6. When TSS was compiled, even meticulous archive research turned up nothing to indicate a ready to roll redux
7. Erm, that's it.

Next year's 50th anniversary is the last opportunity for an anniversary release of a newly discovered finished 66/67 Smile. It aint goong to happen. After that I'm going back to Brad's boot with the Miles Davis track as my go-to definitive Smile, and I'm going back to writing it as SMiLE.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 09, 2016, 02:38:31 PM
What he said.  :)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 09, 2016, 06:46:45 PM
Brian had just deliberately scrapped the songs, so one wonders how anyone involved thought seriously he was wanting to release them.  The fact Brian didn't release the songs that he didn't want to release is no surprise to anyone but Engemann I guess.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 09, 2016, 07:27:55 PM
I can see why the Live album didn't come out, maybe because the material wasn't suitable for release.

Then why mention an upcoming live album on those proposed tracklist and liners for Wild Honey? At the point in time when those liners were written, a live release was still on the table. At the point in time when the Engemann memo was written, something was on the table. When Carl and Dennis spoke as they did, they had something in their mind which made them say what they did, unless Carl was completely clueless about their own label in Fall '67 (which is a ridiculous notion) or they were not being honest (which is absurd).

The bizarre part of this is no one has yet turned up another memo which had followed up on the ones we know and have seen, and memos flew around Capitol and any other office every day with two or three carbon copies, so we don't have all the background. As an old Smile bootleg had the title "Bits N' Pieces", ultimately that's what we have and yet some of the suggestions imply fact where there is no way to back it up.

One example: When exactly were the Smile booklets finally destroyed? And the cover slicks, too? We know they were, but when? Some have said 1969, some even said they were in a Pennsylvania warehouse until 1989...Do we have any of the inter-office and company-wide correspondence that gave a definite time as to when those booklets were absolutely not going to be used at any future time, and therefore should be destroyed? Or was there any memo or letter that advised all parties and departments involved that it was officially a done deal, let's clear all those cases out and send them to the furnace?



Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 09, 2016, 08:27:31 PM
I can see why the Live album didn't come out, maybe because the material wasn't suitable for release.

Then why mention an upcoming live album on those proposed tracklist and liners for Wild Honey? At the point in time when those liners were written, a live release was still on the table. At the point in time when the Engemann memo was written, something was on the table. When Carl and Dennis spoke as they did, they had something in their mind which made them say what they did, unless Carl was completely clueless about their own label in Fall '67 (which is a ridiculous notion) or they were not being honest (which is absurd).

The bizarre part of this is no one has yet turned up another memo which had followed up on the ones we know and have seen, and memos flew around Capitol and any other office every day with two or three carbon copies, so we don't have all the background. As an old Smile bootleg had the title "Bits N' Pieces", ultimately that's what we have and yet some of the suggestions imply fact where there is no way to back it up.

One example: When exactly were the Smile booklets finally destroyed? And the cover slicks, too? We know they were, but when? Some have said 1969, some even said they were in a Pennsylvania warehouse until 1989...Do we have any of the inter-office and company-wide correspondence that gave a definite time as to when those booklets were absolutely not going to be used at any future time, and therefore should be destroyed? Or was there any memo or letter that advised all parties and departments involved that it was officially a done deal, let's clear all those cases out and send them to the furnace?



Did the info about a proposed live album appear on the Wild Honey album? If not, apparently plans changed between Wild Honey's proposed liner notes and the actual liner notes, but we know for sure that live album did not happen.

Do we need a memo to know for a fact that neither album was released? If you are implying my quoted post is implying fact, please read it again. Is your claim that Carl's claims (when compared to Brian's) show he could be mis-informed or ill-informed is a ridiculous notion a fact?

I don't have copies but we are told there are Capitol memos starting August 1969 (the month after the BBs' Capitol contract ended) asking permission to destroy the SMiLE covers and booklets and permission to destroy was given in October 1969.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: The Shift on February 09, 2016, 09:22:05 PM
We're talking memos that are near-50 years old. My office has a special filing place for memos of les than 50 days old, especially inaccurate drafts, and memos acted upon since written … chances are that unless a fan saved any such paperwork for his/her own collection, they were similarly recycled decades ago. The survival of anything that exists today, such a draft liner notes for albums released in very different formats, is against the odds. Even docs saved by fans are subject to floods, fires, unhappy spouses and having shopping lists written on the back of 'em.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: CenturyDeprived on February 09, 2016, 09:27:55 PM
I have to get back to this once more as I have been accused of being disrespectful and having "issues" which isn't true. I had been thinking of taking it to PMs but decided against that because if I'm on the wrong track maybe some of the other posters on this thread will be kind enough to tell me so. Some posters have confided me their sympathy with my points over the weekend, but other third party views are welcome.

I'll engage a conversation but not with someone whose goal might be more personal than something related to discussing the information. As I've already said, if your goal in posting this is to distract those who want to talk about the topics being discussed or make it about me and whatever issues you have against me or the board's moderation or anything else related, it will not happen here..

So, who's been talking about board moderation? Only you brought that up. I didn't. I was reflecting my perceptions oft your conduct in parts of this thread to you, but you don't consider them or explain to me what you really meant as I obviously got it wrong.


If you're here to discuss the issues, I engaged you in that and you chose instead to again bring up personal gripes, complaints, and everything else to make it personal. Your actions are unwelcome and if you're concerned about respect being shown by board members, start showing it in your own actions.

Some of your actions here are unwelcome to me, too. There's several instances where I found you to be not respectful at all. In what world is it respectful to just claim something and when asked for the source just go "Look for it, take more effort" - that's not what I would call camaraderie, that's condescending. And that is something I do have an issue with. Or do you find this respectful:

Oh, but Carl's word can be thrown out as he's been discredited, right? He only worked on the music, he didn't have access to session data and NME articles and timelines to reference.

Oh, so you choose to use sarcasm to discredit Cam? Is that quote not a "complaint", what you accused me of? GF, it's really too bad that you keep getting back to this style of discussion when people disagree with you, because you are very knowledgable and should not take disagreeing as a personal insult. That's how it seems sometimes to me. Maybe I'm just too sensitive and not tough enough to deal with this kind of behavior. It seems you have cooled down a bit in the last few days and I appreciate that. Still, I'll drop out of this discussion - the one about the situation of the band in summer 1967 and what led to the installation of the home studio - because I'm kind of emotionally drained right now.

The funny thing is, and not to diminish your own feelings in this discussion, but the things you mention: using sarcasm to discredit someone, and dropping out because someone made you feel emotionally drained... Those seem to very closely mirror what Brian seemed to experience in 1967 via some of his bandmates. I cannot understand why some people wish to diminish those items as they straw-grab and search for reasons why they were irrelevant to Brian's state of mind. Just as they are relevant factors in how you feel in this discussion, so were those feelings surely relevant to Brian.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: Alan Smith on February 09, 2016, 10:15:37 PM
I think we have as much evidence as we need to safely say that a Smile redux was pie in the sky.

1. It wasn't released in 67
2. It wasn't released in 68
3. When Carl - the guy quoted earlier in this thread as saying Smile was done and ready to roll - worked on the tapes with Desper in (I think) 71, he found it was not done and he couldn't manage to roll his own
4. When Bruce Johnston talked about releasing he Smile tapes in the late 70s, as a UNICEF charity thing, it wasn't released
5. When the tapes were (supposedly) exhumed during research for BWPS, VDP was called in to help create new bits because it had never been finished
6. When TSS was compiled, even meticulous archive research turned up nothing to indicate a ready to roll redux
7. Erm, that's it.

Next year's 50th anniversary is the last opportunity for an anniversary release of a newly discovered finished 66/67 Smile. It aint goong to happen. After that I'm going back to Brad's boot with the Miles Davis track as my go-to definitive Smile, and I'm going back to writing it as SMiLE.

Thanks, John.

Were your family away for the weekend (ie, you must have had some spare time available to boil down the herring & elephant stew) - A

- A


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: The Shift on February 09, 2016, 10:33:31 PM
Kids are away NEXT week so might have more time to play… currently waking at 4am for no reason so playing in the dark.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 09, 2016, 11:54:39 PM
I can see why the Live album didn't come out, maybe because the material wasn't suitable for release.

Then why mention an upcoming live album on those proposed tracklist and liners for Wild Honey? At the point in time when those liners were written, a live release was still on the table. At the point in time when the Engemann memo was written, something was on the table.

Both were considered viable, by at least one party, at the time. Then someone changed their mind. Irregardless of how many times anyone says that there was "something on the table" or cites the memos, fact is... they never happened. I'd love to know why as much as you, but I'm not beating myself up about it. My father, who was the wisest man I ever knew despite leaving school at 14, told me more than once, "It's a wise man who knows when to say "sod it"". I really, really should have listened to him. :)

Quote
When Carl and Dennis spoke as they did, they had something in their mind which made them say what they did, unless Carl was completely clueless about their own label in Fall '67 (which is a ridiculous notion) or they were not being honest (which is absurd).

But apparently Carl was completely clueless, because his own words (and actions) in fall 1972 confirm that the album was unfinished.

Quote
The bizarre part of this is no one has yet turned up another memo which had followed up on the ones we know and have seen, and memos flew around Capitol and any other office every day with two or three carbon copies, so we don't have all the background. As an old Smile bootleg had the title "Bits N' Pieces", ultimately that's what we have and yet some of the suggestions imply fact where there is no way to back it up.

Time for another trip to LA, destination Capitol Tower...

Quote
One example: When exactly were the Smile booklets finally destroyed? And the cover slicks, too? We know they were, but when? Some have said 1969, some even said they were in a Pennsylvania warehouse until 1989...Do we have any of the inter-office and company-wide correspondence that gave a definite time as to when those booklets were absolutely not going to be used at any future time, and therefore should be destroyed? Or was there any memo or letter that advised all parties and departments involved that it was officially a done deal, let's clear all those cases out and send them to the furnace?

Of course, there had to be a memo, and The Camster has supplied the dates for them. Unless the warehouses in question were company owned, I can't see Capitol paying storage space for 400,000 booklets for something like 22 years, in any case. The back covers likely didn't need to be trashed, because it's almost certain that none were ever printed up beyond the dozen or so that were pasted on the sleeve mock-ups prepared by the art department for the band to OK, or not. There is evidence - admittedly, just the one memo dated November 14th 1966 - that the front slicks were properly printed. (interesting aside: the 1000 slicks that Derek Bill had printed in 1978 for his Beach Boys Collectors Series (as Volume 1) are, technically, the real thing, because he used the original 1966 color separation sheets).


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 10, 2016, 06:04:53 AM
We know the redux didn't happen, so we don't really need memos about its cancellation to prove it. What we need are memos or evidence that Brian or Capitol ever did anything, anything at all, toward making a reality of the memo-ed album of all tracks that Brian had just deliberately and expensively scrapped from their just completed next album plus alternate takes of tracks that are already on their just completed next album.  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 10, 2016, 07:05:21 AM
The point of the memos is that at various points, there were calls for documentation, firsthand eyewitness accounts, even comments or interviews that dated close to the actual events being commented on to avoid memory lapses/biases/etc from creeping into the commentary.

And examples of that kind of evidence were produced related to various topics being discussed here, in the case of Carl's comments to the LA Times...

Excerpts from "The Beach Boys' Quickest Album" , LA Times, October 8th 1967:

"Well, the album didn't really head for any direction. We just decided to, or I should say Brian decided to, make a real simple album. So, with that in mind, we recorded it at his house and it's the quickest album we've ever done." (Carl Wilson quote)

"You see, the whole thing is that 'Pet Sounds' was really an expanded type of musical thing. It's really quite a musical album and we got into a thing where we just wanted to ease up and make a simple album. It was a nice change. It's very hard on a person to keep on doing a 'Pet Sounds.'" (Carl Wilson quote)

Last year, when "Good Vibrations" was racking up its million-plus sales, Capitol had the follow-up album scheduled under the title of "Smile." The album jacket already had been printed, a picture of a shop which dispensed smiles. But the album never came out and the Beach Boys became embroiled in a royalty suit against Capitol. Rumors said that Brian, a perfectionist, had destroyed all the tapes for the LP. "We didn't scrap them," Carl said. "We just haven't used them yet. We did it all from scratch when we started again. We actually had finished the album but then a lot of things didn't turn out the way Brian liked. We all didn't agree on different types of things. We decided to do something new."

"If he gets an idea it's now and it's better than something from the past. I've seen it a hundred times. We've seen a lot of potentially great songs just be shelved. They come out maybe two or three years later, but they're in his mind somehow. If that particular idea seems to fit what he's working on at the time it will just come naturally." (Mike Love quote)

In the case of Ian Rusten's collection of quotes from Spring and Fall 67 into '68, these excerpted selections out of all that Ian posted:

HIT WEEK-May 18 1967 (Dutch magazine).  The band were interviewed in Holland on May 14 and asked why they'd released the two year old single "Then I Kissed Her."  Mike answered: "Of course we'd prefer to release something new and we thought that Smile would be released directly after our British tour but Brian is a perfectionist, that's why it takes so long."   Dennis: "Everything was already finished, also the Heroes and Villains single, but my brother Brian is very serious, I find that a good thing."   Bruce (Discussing the rumor that Brian had decided to scrap Heroes and release Vegetables as a single instead: "Heroes evolved and really became too long for a single.  Vegetables also might be a bit more commercial."  

Sept 1967 Carl Wilson interview with Pete Johnson of the LA Times: "Those six months were a difficult time for us.  Brian just wasn't happy with Heroes and Villains until he had worked it over and over, throwing out parts and adding new ones.  So we had no new records and we were in a lawsuit with Capitol and then my draft problem developed....

Carl commented that the new album is not the same one that Brian was working on at the time Good Vibrations was released "He still has all those tapes but we decided not to have a complicated album this time.  We did Smiley Smile quickly in a couple of weeks to get something out.  It's not nearly as ambitious an album as Pet Sounds was.

Mike in Beat Instrumental February 1968 (Interview done in BBs brief visit to London in Dec 1967)- Regarding Wild Honey "Sure people were baffled and mystified by Smiley Smile but it was a matter of progression.  We had this feeling that we were going too far, losing touch I guess, and this new one brings us back more into reality....Brian has been re-thinking our recording program and in any case we all have a much greater say nowadays in what we turn out in the studio."


Add to that the Capitol memo(s) as documentation.

It has nothing to do with what was released or not, anyone knows that and it's stating common sense instead of looking at the history of the whole deal, and trying to piece together as complete of a picture as can be done.

We have the Beach Boys themselves, in each case from that time in history we're discussing, in their own words. We have Mike addressing the band's shift in style to Wild Honey, and a later quote from Carl on the reason why:

"We all really dug Motown, right?...So Brian reckoned we should get more into a white R&B bag. I also recall around that time the band, and Brian in particular, getting criticized very heavily for sounding like choirboys."


So we have memos, we have comments direct from the band, etc...yet almost every one of them have been run through the wringer, and attempts were made to suggest how or why what was said or written wasn't *really* what happened, but rather let's add speculation and come to conclusions 50 years after the fact to cast doubt on anything that the band themselves said, or that existed as a Capitol office document at one point.

Plans do change, yes - That's like saying Smile or the 10-track Smile deal didn't come out in 1967...we know this. That is quite possibly how Wild Honey became the follow-up to Smiley Smile in 1967 rather than the album of Smile tracks. In between everything going on, how about this: Wild Honey the single ended up doing surprisingly well in R&B markets, on R&B radio stations...the band according to Carl wanted to go for an R&B sound to toughen up their sound and try new things...and they do an album with more R&B cuts.

Plans changed. The market that was there for the sounds of Smile in late July and even early October when Carl spoke to the LA Times after Smiley Smile was replaced by this "new sound" the band wanted to promote.

The question may be - Firsthand evidence, interviews from that time, documentation...exactly what was asked for in terms of the history was provided for the discussion. And yet each of those sources in this discussion has been put through the wringer, has been attempted to be disproven, have doubt cast on it, or in some way shown to be "wrong", as in it didn't happen as was written or said in 1967 by the people involved. And we're told, too, that the possibility that Carl or any other voting member of BRI was in the dark about information when they commented could be more true versus their comments being accurate to that moment in time...how is that the standard of weighing any quotes or evidence at this point? Is it a case of seeing such a quote that doesn't agree with a particular theory or supposition so ways are found to question the accuracy of not just the words but the person speaking them too, and what they may or may not have known at the time based on assumptions rather than the facts?

"We didn't scrap them...we just haven't used them yet"







Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on February 10, 2016, 07:32:26 AM
To state the obvious, they of course DID use the tracks . . . just as Carl predicted they might.  Prayer, Cabinessence, Cool Cool Water, Surf's Up.  Maybe that was the plan all along, instead of a followup Smile album, use the tracks when they would fit on another album.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 10, 2016, 07:36:03 AM
To state the obvious, they of course DID use the tracks . . . just as Carl predicted they might.  Prayer, Cabinessence, Cool Cool Water, Surf's Up.  Maybe that was the plan all along, instead of a followup Smile album, use the tracks when they would fit on another album.

Exactly. When they fit, rather than at a time when the band had changed their sound. The plans that were on the table changed, as plans always and often do in the music business.  :)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 10, 2016, 07:38:54 AM
Carl stated they'd finished the album. They hadn't. Carl was wrong, as proven by what he said in 1972. Why you cannot grasp this simple fact is beyond everyone else posting here. Carl was not infallible. I don't believe he was lying, but he was most certainly in error in this respect.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 10, 2016, 07:43:35 AM
To state the obvious, they of course DID use the tracks . . . just as Carl predicted they might.  Prayer, Cabinessence, Cool Cool Water, Surf's Up.  Maybe that was the plan all along, instead of a followup Smile album, use the tracks when they would fit on another album.

Exactly. When they fit, rather than at a time when the band had changed their sound. The plans that were on the table changed, as plans always and often do in the music business.  :)

I disagree. Was "Surf's Up" included because it suited that album ? No, it was included purely for commercial gain, as Van Dyke  suggested. Similarly, whenever they fell short of material, it looks like they went back to the motberlode.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 10, 2016, 07:46:29 AM
Carl stated they'd finished the album. They hadn't. Carl was wrong, as proven by what he said in 1972. Why you cannot grasp this simple fact is beyond everyone else posting here. Carl was not infallible. I don't believe he was lying, but he was most certainly in error in this respect.

Add Mike and Dennis too?

HIT WEEK-May 18 1967 (Dutch magazine).  The band were interviewed in Holland on May 14 and asked why they'd released the two year old single "Then I Kissed Her."  Mike answered: "Of course we'd prefer to release something new and we thought that Smile would be released directly after our British tour but Brian is a perfectionist, that's why it takes so long."   Dennis: "Everything was already finished, also the Heroes and Villains single, but my brother Brian is very serious, I find that a good thing."   Bruce (Discussing the rumor that Brian had decided to scrap Heroes and release Vegetables as a single instead: "Heroes evolved and really became too long for a single.  Vegetables also might be a bit more commercial."


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on February 10, 2016, 07:57:32 AM
To state the obvious, they of course DID use the tracks . . . just as Carl predicted they might.  Prayer, Cabinessence, Cool Cool Water, Surf's Up.  Maybe that was the plan all along, instead of a followup Smile album, use the tracks when they would fit on another album.

Exactly. When they fit, rather than at a time when the band had changed their sound. The plans that were on the table changed, as plans always and often do in the music business.  :)

I disagree. Was "Surf's Up" included because it suited that album ? No, it was included purely for commercial gain, as Van Dyke  suggested. Similarly, whenever they fell short of material, it looks like they went back to the motberlode.

Personally I do think Surf's Up suited that album, but yes, Van Dyke was of the opinion that it would boost sales.  I doubt Cabinessence or Prayer were included for that reason, and Cool Cool Water was added as a suggestion by Lenny Waronker from Reprise.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 10, 2016, 08:02:40 AM
Mike didn't say it was finished, rather that they were hoping to release it after the UK tour, which isn't the same thing at all, and given the events of fall 1972, Dennis  was plainly as ill-informed as his younger brother. As we now know, the album was some way from completion.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: The Shift on February 10, 2016, 08:20:22 AM
To state the obvious, they of course DID use the tracks . . . just as Carl predicted they might.  Prayer, Cabinessence, Cool Cool Water, Surf's Up.  Maybe that was the plan all along, instead of a followup Smile album, use the tracks when they would fit on another album.

Exactly. When they fit, rather than at a time when the band had changed their sound. The plans that were on the table changed, as plans always and often do in the music business.  :)


But all had to be finished prior to use; even Prayer had another round of vocal overdubs to lift it to another realm. They were, as such, not part of any ready-to-roll redux.

Carl's the guy who oversaw much of that work to complete them; you'd think he'd've dug out the ready-made versions if he was so sure they existed.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 10, 2016, 09:24:37 AM
Mike didn't say it was finished, rather that they were hoping to release it after the UK tour, which isn't the same thing at all, and given the events of fall 1972, Dennis  was plainly as ill-informed as his younger brother. As we now know, the album was some way from completion.

Just so everything prior is available to view:

Carl stated they'd finished the album. They hadn't. Carl was wrong, as proven by what he said in 1972. Why you cannot grasp this simple fact is beyond everyone else posting here. Carl was not infallible. I don't believe he was lying, but he was most certainly in error in this respect.

Add Mike and Dennis too?

HIT WEEK-May 18 1967 (Dutch magazine).  The band were interviewed in Holland on May 14 and asked why they'd released the two year old single "Then I Kissed Her."  Mike answered: "Of course we'd prefer to release something new and we thought that Smile would be released directly after our British tour but Brian is a perfectionist, that's why it takes so long."   Dennis: "Everything was already finished, also the Heroes and Villains single, but my brother Brian is very serious, I find that a good thing."   Bruce (Discussing the rumor that Brian had decided to scrap Heroes and release Vegetables as a single instead: "Heroes evolved and really became too long for a single.  Vegetables also might be a bit more commercial."

When Carl went to those tapes in '72, more or less he had the following titles from the original back cover which had not been heard or released in any form: Do You Like Worms, I'm In Great Shape, "The Elements", and The Old Master Painter. The others had already been known to fans, some had been revised and reshaped, and several too had been played live and even performed on TV by that time. Could the practicality of the situation have been a factor too, as in what could Carl do with those tracks which would be new to fans to put them into a context where they made sense in light of the way the surrounding tracks had already been heard and were known to fans? Not to mention what could have been seen as creating confusion if they would be basically releasing known tracks in a different context and what might come off as alternate versions instead of something new?

For what I'd say was a majority of the fans at the time Carl thought about working with the Smile tapes, they already knew certain songs as they had appeared on various albums up to the day Carl pulled those tapes off the shelf to listen. The band had already found ways to use certain tracks over the previous 5 years or so, whether the motivation was commercial or something else, they had been doing what Carl said they would be doing back on October 1967: Finding ways to use them.

Let me say again, the point is not that Smile or Smile Redux or whatever else was never released, that's stating the obvious that everyone knows. The point is that when period-correct direct quotes and documentation was requested, examples were provided. And in those examples were direct statements made at the time by three of the four voting members of Brother as it existed in 1967 who were saying things that went against some of the most repeated theories on what was going on with Smile in 1967 and what was planned for the Smile tapes at some point moving forward.

We can look back easily and say "it didn't happen", again that's obvious as 2+2=4. But what led at least two of the three Brother Records voting members (Carl and Dennis) and possibly a third (Mike if we weigh in his comment 'we thought Smile would be released directly after our British tour') to make statements such as they did at the points in the timeline when they did? Keeping in mind too that this was after Derek Taylor declared it scrapped, which in retrospect and factoring in the comments as well as that Capitol memo that there were still some plans in the works months after Taylor's comment. And as BicycleRider pointed out, the release of tracks in the years following 1967 would seem to be part of that plan, after whatever plans were originally on the table had changed.

It's trying to put more context and more evidence into the discussion, with quotes and comments and other evidence that I don't recall being published or even mentioned with anywhere near the weight that the Derek Taylor "scrapped" comment has been repeated for decades. And now, thanks to both the May 67 and October 67 articles reprinted in this thread, there seemed to be more to the story according to the actual band members beyond a PR man reporting something had been scrapped. And one by one, as seen here there are attempts to challenge and even dispute outright the comments from the band members while Taylor's declaration has been taken at face value and accepted as near-Gospel truth in some circles for decades and the ultimate word on what happened to the tapes.

If band members are on the record suggesting there was more to the story, let's find out more about it rather than shutting it all down on the basis of "it never came out", or "it never happened". The issues driving everything from Smile fan-mixers to those trying to suggest the how's and why's of the story for decades has never been limited to "it never came out". It involves what was behind all of this and trying to sort out the contradictions so a more accurate version of events can be presented moving forward when the histories are told.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 10, 2016, 09:48:17 AM
I'm currently away from my  archives, but in 1972, the titles  Carl  listed included previously released material. I'll list them later on.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 10, 2016, 12:06:31 PM

Is it a case of seeing such a quote that doesn't agree with a particular theory or supposition so ways are found to question the accuracy of not just the words but the person speaking them too, and what they may or may not have known at the time based on assumptions rather than the facts?


There is a lot of that going around I guess.

Are we supposed to just ignore the everything that conflicts with Carl and Dennis' claims for some reason, in particular Brian's flat out statements in his own words (and via Taylor) that SMiLE was never finished?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 10, 2016, 03:52:05 PM
Is it a case of seeing such a quote that doesn't agree with a particular theory or supposition so ways are found to question the accuracy of not just the words but the person speaking them too, and what they may or may not have known at the time based on assumptions rather than the facts?

No. it's a case of looking at a definitive statement that was made almost 50 years ago in the light of subsequent knowledge and further comment, and deciding if the original statement was valid. That's called ongoing research. That's called having an open mind. That's called not having an agenda.

Actually, that last sentence isn't strictly true: I, and others here, do have an agenda, that of trying to document the history of this band that we love as no other as accurately, and as free from bias, as is possible. I think that's a pretty laudable agenda.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Bicyclerider on February 11, 2016, 08:19:48 AM
Just for fun, here's a "10 track Smile" (which I made into a 12 track) that could have been released after Smiley with one session for Worms verse lead vocal (backing vocals for the verse had been done), one for verse lead vocal Cabinessence, and the editing together of the Vegetables sessions already completed with vocals:

Side 1

Prayer (let's make it a "track")
Worms
Wind Chimes
Cabinessence
Holidays (instrumental)
Vegetables

Side 2

Heroes and Villains Part 2 (edit the March "intro" into Gee/the heroes variations from Feb)
Old Master Painter (My Only Sunshine) with Part 2 fade
Wonderful
Mrs. O'Leary's Cow/The Elements
Surf's Up (solo version)
Child is Father to the Man (the short piano/vocal version)

If this was released in Dec 67, I think it would have been a critical success if not a commercial success.  Other "progressive" psychedelic albums were still being released at this time - Magical Mystery Tour, Satanic Majesties - so it would have fit into the zeitgeist of the times.  So AN album was very close to being finished and ready to release, but THE Smile album Brian had in mind was clearly not.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 11, 2016, 08:51:59 AM
Just for fun, here's a "10 track Smile" (which I made into a 12 track) that could have been released after Smiley with one session for Worms verse lead vocal (backing vocals for the verse had been done), one for verse lead vocal Cabinessence, and the editing together of the Vegetables sessions already completed with vocals:

Side 1

Prayer (let's make it a "track")
Worms
Wind Chimes
Cabinessence
Holidays (instrumental)
Vegetables

Side 2

Heroes and Villains Part 2 (edit the March "intro" into Gee/the heroes variations from Feb)
Old Master Painter (My Only Sunshine) with Part 2 fade
Wonderful
Mrs. O'Leary's Cow/The Elements
Surf's Up (solo version)
Child is Father to the Man (the short piano/vocal version)

If this was released in Dec 67, I think it would have been a critical success if not a commercial success.  Other "progressive" psychedelic albums were still being released at this time - Magical Mystery Tour, Satanic Majesties - so it would have fit into the zeitgeist of the times.  So AN album was very close to being finished and ready to release, but THE Smile album Brian had in mind was clearly not.
Bicyclerider - Critical success is difficult to quantify.  So many reviews and reviewers come from people who have bias towards another band, and would marginalize The Beach Boys to advance any of his/her particular favorites. Critics are far from neutral third parties.  They often represent the slant of the owner.  We don't know how that work would have been received or much less promoted, especially after Pet Sounds was criminally under-promoted, in my view.  Surf's Up definitely should have been on that record, either as a solo or BB version.  Carl did utter justice to that song, live, and treated it with the reverence that it merited.

The commercial success would have likely ridden on a cover design that "popped" in the record department among the pop-art of the era.  And the art theme required a concrete unified theme, that teens could connect with.  Teens have a notoriously poor attention span, and the competition for that $3.00 allowance money was great.  At the outside, the older fans would have been college age, with fierce competition for their small amount of money.         

It was not so much that Smile was going to make you smile (although maybe it would) so much as take the listener on a journey across the USA, from Plymouth Rock to Hawaii.  The journey theme, I think became lost in translation with respect to artwork and marketing.   JMHO  ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: guitarfool2002 on February 11, 2016, 09:28:39 AM
The cover art has been explained, it was a deliberate move to have that exact type of cover art as well as an incongruous and unflattering photos of the Beach Boys both on the back cover and in the booklet (specifically like the one of them in freezing Boston Harbor in a boat...) because of the humor concept behind the visuals. As told by Brian to Michael Vosse, the artwork was supposed to make people smile or laugh so they'd let their guard down and open up, since the thought was people are at their most unguarded and open when they were laughing. And at that point, you could either make them laugh more, shock them, or give a dose of honesty. And that was the guiding principle behind the cover designs chosen, the photos chosen, and the way the album was being designed overall. Musically too.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 11, 2016, 09:51:26 AM
The cover art has been explained, it was a deliberate move to have that exact type of cover art as well as an incongruous and unflattering photos of the Beach Boys both on the back cover and in the booklet (specifically like the one of them in freezing Boston Harbor in a boat...) because of the humor concept behind the visuals. As told by Brian to Michael Vosse, the artwork was supposed to make people smile or laugh so they'd let their guard down and open up, since the thought was people are at their most unguarded and open when they were laughing. And at that point, you could either make them laugh more, shock them, or give a dose of honesty. And that was the guiding principle behind the cover designs chosen, the photos chosen, and the way the album was being designed overall. Musically too.
GF - This not a question of an explanation.  It is a question of what is going to grab your attention in a rack of LP's.  And, to get to the "humor" - it requires a buyer who was drawn not only to the music, but also the cover packaging.  I think it is a disconnect for the the potential buyer who would have to "get beyond" the cover to make the purchase.  It is not rocket science - just being practical.  

There is a place for the sub contexts but I think you have a small window of time to capture people when the market competition is as fierce as it was in 1967.

You don't get a 2nd chance to make a 1st impression  ;)


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 11, 2016, 06:43:40 PM
The lead up to the tour.  



Derek Taylor,  D&ME,  Apr. 22, 1967. This article would be for the week of April 11 to 18:

“Well, where were we vis-à-vis the Beach Boys? What I am really doing is stalling because I can not find a facile way to tell you that the most famous single not to have been recorded is not yet recorded.

In other words, and to make the longest record ever made very short a tale, ‘Heroes and Villains’ is not going to be a single. It is however going to make history as one of the ones that got away. The talk now is that it will be an album track on ‘Smile’, the also famous album also not yet complete.

Please understand the Beach Boys delays with product are the result of painful self-criticism. The mirrors into which Brian Wilson looks for reassurance are not always kind. Sometimes there is no reflection at all. His view is that ‘Heroes and Villains’, at present, is tormented with over-elaboration and a score of second thoughts, cruelly chipped from his bump of caution. It was ever thus with great men.

Title of the new single ‘Vege-tables’ (the spelling may be wrong) a light and lyrical day-to-day green-grocer song on which AL JARDINE sings a most vigorous lead.”



Derek Taylor, D&ME,  4/29/67, covering the week of April 18 to 25:

“The Beach Boys? There too is a piquant appetiser for the millions of people who are now rock ‘n roll experts.

They are the longest-lived major pop group in America - they began in 1961 and they are, well you know how big they are. Yet by the erratic pattern of their single releases and the dramatic changes in their albums, they are a constant stimulant to conversation. Where are they at? Who is Brian Wilson? What is going on with ‘Heroes and Villains’? What is ‘Vegetables’ the next single? When is the album ready?”



Derek Taylor, D&ME, May 6 1967, week of April 25 to May 2, the Boys arrived in Dublin May 1:

“BUT ALAS…
Brian Wilson began to stare at the glittering ships of tape and as the day of the launch became nearer than a date on the never-never calendar, he gazed at his plans and he turned his mind’s ear inwards and the longer he stared and the more he heard, the clearer it became that he was now in his jet age, building steamships.
Which couldn’t be right.

In truth, every beautifully designed, finely-wrought inspirationally-welded piece of music made these last months by Brian and his Beach Boy craftsmen has been SCRAPPED.

Not destroyed, but scrapped. For what Wilson seals in a can and destroys is scrapped.

As an average fan of the Beach Boys, I think it is bitterly disappointing. But it isn’t as if one is bereft of the group’s essential spirit – there are 14 albums, many of them incredibly pure and full of life and lovely.

One is, however, deprived of renewal. It is like wait for an heir when the pregnancy is total. It has to come. Has to.

What, then? I don’t know. The Beach Boys don’t know. Brian Wilson, God grant him peace of mind…he doesn’t know.

He is waiting with his nearest Mike and Al and Bruce and his dearest Carl and Dennis. And if it is difficult for them, it is absolutely unbearable for Brian.
It has to come. New single, new album.”



It seems to me the problems Brian has said he had with the never finished SMiLE that caused him to scrap it are being noted by (or before) early April.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on February 12, 2016, 01:51:54 AM
Thanks for that, Cam. Most instructive, Taylor's lapidary style permitting.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 12, 2016, 06:26:03 AM
Thanks for that, Cam. Most instructive, Taylor's lapidary style permitting.

I wonder what other related info was published from say March through May?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Emily on February 12, 2016, 07:14:08 AM
There are some nuances in this thread that I'm not sure I understand, particularly around the timing question. It seems that people have different ideas of: the readiness of Smile; and the intended destiny (for which song and for Smile or Smiley Smile) of some tracks.
Other than those, what's being researched/debated? I feel like I'm missing something.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 12, 2016, 07:37:54 AM
The lead up to the tour.  
Derek Taylor,  D&ME,  Apr. 22, 1967. This article would be for the week of April 11 to 18:

“Well, where were we vis-à-vis the Beach Boys? What I am really doing is stalling because I can not find a facile way to tell you that the most famous single not to have been recorded is not yet recorded.

In other words, and to make the longest record ever made very short a tale, ‘Heroes and Villains’ is not going to be a single. It is however going to make history as one of the ones that got away. The talk now is that it will be an album track on ‘Smile’, the also famous album also not yet complete.

Please understand the Beach Boys delays with product are the result of painful self-criticism. The mirrors into which Brian Wilson looks for reassurance are not always kind. Sometimes there is no reflection at all. His view is that ‘Heroes and Villains’, at present, is tormented with over-elaboration and a score of second thoughts, cruelly chipped from his bump of caution. It was ever thus with great men.

Title of the new single ‘Vege-tables’ (the spelling may be wrong) a light and lyrical day-to-day green-grocer song on which AL JARDINE sings a most vigorous lead.”

Derek Taylor, D&ME,  4/29/67, covering the week of April 18 to 25:

“The Beach Boys? There too is a piquant appetiser for the millions of people who are now rock ‘n roll experts.

They are the longest-lived major pop group in America - they began in 1961 and they are, well you know how big they are. Yet by the erratic pattern of their single releases and the dramatic changes in their albums, they are a constant stimulant to conversation. Where are they at? Who is Brian Wilson? What is going on with ‘Heroes and Villains’? What is ‘Vegetables’ the next single? When is the album ready?”

Derek Taylor, D&ME, May 6 1967, week of April 25 to May 2, the Boys arrived in Dublin May 1:

“BUT ALAS…
Brian Wilson began to stare at the glittering ships of tape and as the day of the launch became nearer than a date on the never-never calendar, he gazed at his plans and he turned his mind’s ear inwards and the longer he stared and the more he heard, the clearer it became that he was now in his jet age, building steamships.
Which couldn’t be right.

In truth, every beautifully designed, finely-wrought inspirationally-welded piece of music made these last months by Brian and his Beach Boy craftsmen has been SCRAPPED.

Not destroyed, but scrapped. For what Wilson seals in a can and destroys is scrapped.

As an average fan of the Beach Boys, I think it is bitterly disappointing. But it isn’t as if one is bereft of the group’s essential spirit – there are 14 albums, many of them incredibly pure and full of life and lovely.

One is, however, deprived of renewal. It is like wait for an heir when the pregnancy is total. It has to come. Has to.

What, then? I don’t know. The Beach Boys don’t know. Brian Wilson, God grant him peace of mind…he doesn’t know.

He is waiting with his nearest Mike and Al and Bruce and his dearest Carl and Dennis. And if it is difficult for them, it is absolutely unbearable for Brian.
It has to come. New single, new album.”

It seems to me the problems Brian has said he had with the never finished SMiLE that caused him to scrap it are being noted by (or before) early April.

Cam - I am not buying this.  It runs contrary to the statements of the band at that time.  Editorialized.

http://www.angelfire.com/mn/smileshop/historymott.html

  


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 12, 2016, 08:01:32 AM
I won't ask why Taylor would editorialize by revealing problems and we will just disagree.

I find Taylor to generally be pretty reliable.

Whatever happened to that young fella (appropriately slanged "mott") and his hubris?


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 12, 2016, 08:08:37 AM
I won't ask why Taylor would editorialize by revealing problems and we will just disagree.

I find Taylor to generally be pretty reliable.

Whatever happened to that young fella (appropriately slanged "mott") and his hubris?
Cam - the timeline is off.  The band continues to promote Smile during that window. You maintain it was canned in March. 

Their enthusiasm (the band) would have fizzled by late April - early May. 

The band's responses, during interviews, would have gone from "highly enthusiastic" to "rote and rehearsed/scripted."

 


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 12, 2016, 08:17:23 AM
I won't ask why Taylor would editorialize by revealing problems and we will just disagree.

I find Taylor to generally be pretty reliable.

Whatever happened to that young fella (appropriately slanged "mott") and his hubris?
Cam - the timeline is off.  The band continues to promote Smile during that window. You maintain it was canned in March. 

Their enthusiasm (the band) would have fizzled by late April - early May. 

The band's responses, during interviews, would have gone from "highly enthusiastic" to "rote and rehearsed/scripted."


Yes but the Boys versions seem to run contrary to Brian's version and I tend to generally see Brian's version as the go-to version since it was his creation and his call as Producer and as others have said Brian didn't really keep the Boys informed which caused problems.  Taylor's version aligns with Brian's imo.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: filledeplage on February 12, 2016, 08:31:33 AM
I won't ask why Taylor would editorialize by revealing problems and we will just disagree.

I find Taylor to generally be pretty reliable.

Whatever happened to that young fella (appropriately slanged "mott") and his hubris?
Cam - the timeline is off.  The band continues to promote Smile during that window. You maintain it was canned in March. 

Their enthusiasm (the band) would have fizzled by late April - early May. 

The band's responses, during interviews, would have gone from "highly enthusiastic" to "rote and rehearsed/scripted."


Yes but the Boys versions seem to run contrary to Brian's version and I tend to generally see Brian's version as the go-to version since it was his creation and his call as Producer and as others have said Brian didn't really keep the Boys informed which caused problems.  Taylor's version aligns with Brian's imo.
That is Taylor's "narrative." He is a spinmeister.

So, you think that albeit all the distractions, such as Carl's CO trouble, etc., that his own brothers could not "read the handwriting on the wall?" Or the band members? They would not have seen a difference in these sessions which reportedly took place after March and were "going through the motions" and that includes Brian? 

Siblings typically "read each other like a book," and little, if anything gets past them, especially coming from the reportedly tumultuous one they experienced.  They slept in the same room.  Brian washed their clothes on tour.  That is behaving like the responsible oldest kid.  PR people are not good sources.  They tell you what they want to tell you or something scripted.  It is their job.  And their version of the facts.   


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 12, 2016, 11:10:56 AM
Could be or the siblings could be spinmeistering.  They would have a vested interest in spinning or damage control I suppose.  Just in the quotes about this period the Boys seem to be wrong or ill-informed and Brian and Taylor seem to be right and informed imo.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence
Post by: drbeachboy on February 12, 2016, 11:34:56 AM
Could be or the siblings could be spinmeistering.  They would have a vested interest in spinning or damage control I suppose.  Just in the quotes about this period the Boys seem to be wrong or ill-informed and Brian and Taylor seem to be right and informed imo.
Of course the band in going to put a (positive) spin on the album. I doubt that they wanted to spout about Brian giving up on Smile. Doesn't sound good saying you quit in the middle of releasing an album that has been highly talked about in the press. It's an image thing. Can't be seen as quitters. As for Brian, I think Taylor imaged him in his releases as the tortured soul. Strange goings on, really. Almost like there were two camps competing against one another.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Cam Mott on February 12, 2016, 12:19:47 PM
Also, Taylor was not their PR guy in this period.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The_Holy_Bee on March 30, 2018, 11:31:08 PM
Hi all, sorry to bump an old thread without anything substantive to say - I hope to do so in the next day or two - but I dropped out of the scene about three years ago and missed this wonderful post by IanR:

Quote
Ok
HIT WEEK-May 18 1967 (Dutch magazine).  The band were interviewed in Holland on May 14 and asked why they'd released the two year old single "Then I Kissed Her."  Mike answered: "Of course we'd prefer to release something new and we thought that Smile would be released directly after our British tour but Brian is a perfectionist, that's why it takes so long."   Dennis: "Everything was already finished, also the Heroes and Villains single, but my brother Brian is very serious, I find that a good thing."   Bruce (Discussing the rumor that Brian had decided to scrap Heroes and release Vegetables as a single instead: "Heroes evolved and really became too long for a single.  Vegetables also might be a bit more commercial."  

D & ME May 20 1967 reported: "Contrary to some reports, plans for the 'Heroes and Villains' the group's scheduled new single, have not been completely scrapped.  Roger Easterby of the Howes office, who was with the boys throughout their British tour, said: 'When the boys return to the States they will spend a complete month in the studios completing 'Heroes and Villains' and also working on a new LP."

LA TIMES syndicated story that appeared in July 1967 commented: "Rumor had it that, apart from the legal hassles with Capitol. he (Brian) was not happy with the tapes, which had already been through months of mixing, balancing, splicing and mastering and might never let them be issued as records....On July 5 Brian Wilson finished the tape and invited Capitol's director of artists and repertoire Karl Engemann to the house to hear it.  'I arrived' Engemann said 'and no one was there.  Brian had gotten so excited with the finished tape that he'd taken it to radio station KHJ so he could hear it on the radio.'...The album too will be forthcoming, retitled Smiley Smile-the redundant adjective tacked on apparently as grinning finish to a long quiet hassle."    (this article makes clear-that the situation was being spun as BBs finally finished Smile to their satisfaction-rather than BBs scrapped it and did something new)

In August 12 1967 Melody Maker  Bruce refers to the gap between Good Vibrations and Heroes "came about because we were on a European tour; because we were involved in a lawsuit with our recording company in the States; and because Brian decided to record Heroes and Villains again when we got back from the tour.  He scrapped a finished version of the song and wrote it again.  This version is completely different from the number he wrote first."

Sept 1967 Carl Wilson interview with Pete Johnson of the LA Times: "Those six months were a difficult time for us.  Brian just wasn't happy with Heroes and Villains until he had worked it over and over, throwing out parts and adding new ones.  So we had no new records and we were in a lawsuit with Capitol and then my draft problem developed....

Carl commented that the new album is not the same one that Brian was working on at the time Good Vibrations was released "He still has all those tapes but we decided not to have a complicated album this time.  We did Smiley Smile quickly in a couple of weeks to get something out.  It's not nearly as ambitious an album as Pet Sounds was.

Carl interviewed in Fairfield, CT in Nov 1967 "In the case of Heroes and Villains we didn't feel that it would have the mass appeal so we canned it for awhile and decided to release it. Originally we didn't release it because we didn't think that it would be the kind of song that people would hear on the radio and immediately pick up."

Mike in Beat Instrumental February 1968 (Interview done in BBs brief visit to London in Dec 1967)- Regarding Wild Honey "Sure people were baffled and mystified by Smiley Smile but it was a matter of progression.  We had this feeling that we were going too far, losing touch I guess, and this new one brings us back more into reality....Brian has been re-thinking our recording program and in any case we all have a much greater say nowadays in what we turn out in the studio."

Most of this is fascinating new (to me) material, and even after a long delay am thrilled to have read it. I realise several of the players on this thread are no longer around - Andrew, Cam, etc - but hope there's still some information to be mined on these subjects. Looking forward to reading through the subsequent five pages of posts and maybe positing some new analysis as a result. Happy to cease and desist if what's in the past should be left there, though!

EDIT: Turns out I was still around - and posting, what's more! - after Ian posted his excerpts above. The memory cheats, etc. Which makes this whole post even more pointless. Will try and redeem the bump soon.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: JK on March 31, 2018, 06:55:00 AM
Hi all, sorry to bump an old thread without anything substantive to say - I hope to do so in the next day or two - but I dropped out of the scene about three years ago and missed this wonderful post by IanR

No apologies necessary, THB. I can think of far worse things! :lol


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: Angua on April 01, 2018, 02:18:25 AM
I hadn't been here for a while either and enjoyed reading this so thanks for unearthing it and giving it an airing.  :)

I would like to say though that the cover art is rather exceptional and I see nothing strange in it's selection.  When you examine it there is much of the same element of hidden meaning that you get from the music.  Frank Holmes is a very skilled and interesting artist -read http://www.goldminemag.com/articles/even-the-art-of-the-beach-boys-smile-album-tells-a-story - he says of his illustration of 'Surf's Up'

"In this drawing I have used two points of view. There is an aerial view of the floor and a normal head-on view of the wave. This indicated the surreal world of two realities in a dream state. You get more for the asking than a one-on-one investigation of the elements. The wet surf is up, and the wooden floor is down. I arrived at this through the surfer expression of inside-outside wave, a navigation position of where you are in relationship to the wave. I also had access to the song “Surfin’ USA” (… inside, outside, USA …); the lyric line I used was surf’s up inside. I composed this idea with the blue surf wave about to break inside a room with no walls and separated with a white baseboard going east to west. Above the wave is the blue sky with a glowing red sun and a few white clouds. This is a standard cliché and one that ties us to nature. This is where life began and life exists. As the viewer is confronted with the two situations, you realize one belongs to nature and one to man.

On the rustic floor is the depiction of a dance step. There are some arrows, dashes and two footprints denoting the step. This is a pop art idea derived from an advertisement for Arthur Murray Dance Studio lessons found printed in magazines and on matchbook covers to advertise the studio and promote business. The purpose of this element was to direct the eye and create movement to the oil lamp sitting on the floor in a circle of yellow light.

This lamp refers to a simpler time, when there was no electricity and fewer concerns than face us now. The dance-step diagram has a double meaning. It was my chance to employ some wordplay. One is the two-step (a dance) to lamp’s light, and the other is to step (the infinitive) to lamps’ light. The inference is leaving the darkness and stepping to the light or enlightenment. Or, dancing the two-step to the light or enlightenment; it doesn’t matter how you do it, just get it done. We are living in the present and looking at the past, where the light and enlightenment were elusive guideposts.
The red sun represents eternal light through nature. We connect with the force of nature and rely on it to be there when we need it. Just as the wave breaks on the shore in rhythmic patterns, we recognize the similarity to our own patterns in life. All of these elements, both direct and indirect, reflect the mood and atmosphere of this one important aspect of “Surf’s Up.” This work is a result of my freedom to create in a personal way by interpretation without acknowledging any suggestions from the outside. Having had this opportunity, I realize and appreciate this rare occasion of how this can represent the true reflection of a free spirit."


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: mojoman on April 05, 2018, 01:25:51 PM
I think Love to Say Da Da was meant to be Air ... it's a piano piece, with bird sounds.  Later it morphed into other songs.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: wjcrerar on April 05, 2018, 02:23:55 PM
.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: BBs Footage Saga on April 26, 2018, 07:59:14 AM
I'm Sure that AIR is not wind chimes.

I'm also sure that Love to say dada wasn't part of the album.


Title: Re: Was there any evidence \
Post by: The Old Master Painter on May 07, 2018, 01:07:00 PM
It has been two or three years since I created this thread, and I took a break from visiting this forum a few months back. I was so surprised to see this thread come back. I do not believe “Wind Chimes” was conceived as the “Air” section of the “Elements suite.” “Vega-Tables,” before being re-recorded in April 1967, might have been. The concept of “Air” is also expanded on during the comedy-sketch session in November 1966 where the bulk of the “Psychodelic Sounds” bootleg originate from; including breathing chants and discussions about climate change and air pollution in Europe. “Water” included ‘water sounds’ found in “Bob Gordon’s Real Trip.” “Earth” might have also been “Workshop,” although that up for debate. I have been working on a ‘Smile’ compilation using only recordings from 1966-68 with a 12-track running order for a long time, partly due to the nature of Side Two and vocal isolations of the “Surf’s Up” piano demo. The running order is: “Our Prayer,” “Good Vibrations,” “Do You Like Worms,” “Cabin Essence,” “Wonderful,” “Child is The Father of The Man,” “Vega-Tables”/“Heroes and Villains,” “The Old Master Painter,” “The Elements,” “I’m In Great Shape,” “Wind Chimes,” and “Surf’s Up.”