The Smiley Smile Message Board

has this been discussed?  If so, I missed it.  Just heard it this morning on the BB channel.  Mike Love and...Hanson.  Sounds about like you would expect it to.

I haven't heard it yet. Wonder if it's somewhere on the internet

You mean... it's OK?

Hmm, slightly less than It's Ok

You'd think that being a fan of the BBs would bleed over into respecting Hanson more.... but that often isn't the case.... there are a lot of similarities.

What about re-recording "Rockin' the Man in the Boat" with Peter Andre?

Yep there are similarities, 3 brothers doing well crafted up lifting pop songs.
Released a cover of Little St Nick on their Christmas album , also regularly include God Only Knows in their set list

And of course Hanson rhymes with Manson.

People still think of them as being that MMMBop band (never mind that song, self written I might add, is over 20 years old and was written longer than that even) and would be like people thinking of Luau when discussing the Beach Boys.

 :lol

Heard it on Sirius today and thought I'd somehow forgotten about it from Unleash The Love.

It's no improvement on the original and it's very, very heavily produced. If you like It's OK, you won't hate it. But when the original is out there, why bother?

If Luau had beef deeply burned into our minds and souls from constant radio play and saturation video exposure and it hadn't been a cover, then yes, exactly the same. Sorry, not sure why but the combination of Mike Love and Hanson really brings out my cynical side.

Why, Mike, why?

Can you stop remaking old hits with other people? Why does this need to exist? Who would be dumb enough to fund such a project?

 :smash

Is his next recording going to be a version of Good Timin' with Britney Spears? Keep bringing those 90's pop acts back, Mike. But next time, I wanna hear you sing one of THEIR hits. "Hit Me Baby One More Time...cause it's a love thing!"

True. Also never said it was a song I particularly liked that much, but am bit biased as Taylor’s a great guy from the times we and my wife talked with him some years ago. I did like the music they did during the period after their fame.

That's what I thought as well. Why does he constantly seem to live in the 80s/90s? His commercial ideas seem to not go any further than those plastic teleshop plans of the 90s. And his choice of guest artists is just about the same. Does he really think anybody cares for a collaboration of him and Hanson? I just don't understand. It's like he is stuck in his 1990s mid-life crisis.

Hanson covered Little Saint Nick

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qq6_5NxQIRo

Is this a recent collaboration? I’m surprised Mike didn’t mention it on his Facebook page or twitter.
So

 I heard it on Sirius around dinner time. Nothing special. Typical Mike Love cover of a Beach Boys song. Stick to the original significantly better than this

It's not on Unleash the Love. What the hell is it from actually? I have no knowledge of this ever existing.

Mike introduced it yesterday on Sirius by saying it was a “brand new recording of It’s OK”

I wish it was somewhere on the internet so I could hear what all the fuss was about!

So, I was a longtime fan of Hanson...not for any teen idol reasons, but because I thought they were a good band. And they were. It's just that they sort of plateaued at a certain point where you'd hope, given their potential as kids and teens, they'd sort of get into more innovative stuff. Also because they always insisted that they were not a pop act or a boy band, but a rock band. And they were. But while they've made several albums of enjoyable pop-rock, they always, always play it safe. They're quite conservative and religious, so perhaps that has something to do with it? I don't know. But just so you all know, the oldest brother is pushing 40, and they have many kids among them. So they're not teenagers anymore. Mmmbop came out 21 years ago.

Speaking of playing it safe...Mike Love. Again with the rehash of an old song? Couldn't they at least have recorded something new?

I Googled this and I dont' see anything about it on the Internet.

Yeah, really odd that SiriusXM dropped a seemingly "new", previously unheard/previously unreleased, solo track without any fanfare, and did it only days before the channel ended.

I mean, I'm glad they didn't drop like some rare BB outtake from the 70s we've never heard; I'm not exactly losing sleep over not having all the gory details on a Mike Love/Hanson collaboration on "It's OK."

But this certainly signifies they could have used the channel for more interesting/rare stuff (and could have promoted such airings on the channel, and in turn the airings would help to promote upcoming releases).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fypoqXaQHo0&app=desktop&persist_app=1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fypoqXaQHo0&app=desktop&persist_app=1)

Best I could do at the time

Thank you Jiggy22!

While I don't understand the point of why it was done, I don't think Mike sounds bad. His older, weathered voice seems to work pretty well on this one.

Now granted, I was listening from a TV at a low-ish volume. There is likely a slathering of autotune. I also thought the "sum-sum-summer" thing at the beginning was definitely similar to the backing vocals that feature later in the original version of the song.

I have to get back to the point and say I don't understand why this was done though? New, non-holiday album? New single? Why is this gonna get attention if his "Do It Again" single didn't?

Your dedication to getting this recorded somehow is much appreciated.

And yes, this thing, even hearing it "off-line", sounds like it was indeed soaked in autotune. As bad as the other "Unleash" tracks.

Considering the other "collaborations" on Mike's album last year (including that one track that I don't even think Mike or anybody in his band appears on), I wouldn't be surprised if this was recorded around that same time, perhaps either considered for and cut from "Unleash", or recorded for an upcoming Hanson release of some sort. (Keep in mind there are undoubtedly "Unleash" outtakes, and/or other tracks Mike has recorded in recent years. He even included a bit of a re-recorded 4/4 "Big Sur" in a video promo deal for, I believe, his book back in 2016).

I think it's quite possible that Mike has personally serviced at least a few of the tracks for the SiriusXM channel. For instance, unless the SiriusXM folks pulled out some vinyl (or a fan rip), they probably had to secure "Almost Summer" from Mike, as Mike owns all of the "Celebration" tapes. I'm guessing he offered this new "It's OK" to the channel. Why he wouldn't then also plug whatever the track is intended for, I don't know.

It will be interesting if this track is simply never heard from again. Unlikely, but not impossible.

Thanks for recording it.

Well that sure sucked.

Why on earth did Mike decide to not release the re-record of Big Sur? Of all the cruddy remakes he has released recently, that's like the only one that probably could've stood a chance at getting some real praise from people in Mike Love "Reevaluation Mode". I hope he doesn't get the bright idea to re-record All I Wanna Do with special guest Gavin Rossdale.

Considering Mike participated in at least three remakes of "Do It Again" in the course of six or so years, I think all bets are off as far as re-recording old tracks.

I *still* maintain Mike would have been better off just issuing that 2004 compilation of tracks; better song selection, better performances, better recording/mixing/mastering, etc.

Ah, thanks for that. Well...it's hard to hear, but I prefer the original. I can hear that Mike is singing the first verse and Taylor Hanson is singing the second, but I couldn't have guessed it was Hanson unless I knew beforehand, at least not based on this video. It's actually much more poppy than what they normally do these days. For example, here's their cover of the Beatles' "Oh Darlin" :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIHEMQ5rFW4

Thanks to Too Jiggly for the access to this latest version of the old '68 classic.  One...Michael...Do It Again is a song TITLE...not marching orders.  So why?  And two...given the limitations...it sounds FAR better than the hogwash version he foisted on a poor unsuspecting public last time..  Remember?  Do it!!!  Do It!!!  D0 It!!!  DO IT!!!

D O N ' T  do it again.

This has to be pure unadulterated HADES for 'completists'.

Ha!
Well, that's just it, Lee. He loves it. The Beach Boys do it again! Mike Love does it again! He thinks it's clever. Hey, lets get surfing again, like the old days. Let's record that song again, like the old days.

Maybe he should find a melodist and write song new lyrics, creating a new song? If Brian won't do it, find someone else. Maybe it will help erase the notion that he's out of ideas and earn him some respect?

When I see the words "Do it!", in my head that is followed by "wish I had a little pad in Hawaii".

This is now available for purchase on iTunes.

Spotify

https://open.spotify.com/track/6nThnEERrcYfiyIwUemZu2?si=mwBqNBngTu6fn9jQ7ukxtw (https://open.spotify.com/track/6nThnEERrcYfiyIwUemZu2?si=mwBqNBngTu6fn9jQ7ukxtw)

Good to see he still has a deal with BMG to release more music.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/hear-mike-love-hansons-buoyant-new-rendition-of-beach-boys-its-ok-715177/

Honestly, this is a huge improvement over the vocal sound of Unleash The Love disc two. There is still autotune obviously, but it's more subtle, than California Girls from Unleash The Love, for example.

This not surprising at all. I do not think Mike will release a re-recording of anything that does not meet his "sun in the fun" idea of a Beach Boys song. "Do It Again" and "It's Ok" are both upbeat, catchy and easy to sing. Kind of what you want from the general public who do not have a history of the band beyond the latest greatest hits collection. That seems to be who he markets to, so it makes sense from that perspective.

So does anybody remember Mike's old complaint about Reprise releasing "It's OK" too late into the summer to capitalize on it's hit potential?

Well, 42 years later Mike has the chance to make "It's OK" an even bigger hit than it was (#29 in Billboard in 1976) and he ends up releasing his version on August 24th.

Classic Mike Love right there.

I don't think it makes any difference at this point, but yeah. Was thinking much the same thing.   :lol

Of course it makes no difference. Mike is not gonna have a solo hit single at this point in time, if he ever was in the first place.

Wow that was bad. Sad. So sad.

I noticed in this article

https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmusic/article/The-Beach-Boys-Mike-Love-Releases-Its-OK-Featuring-Hanson-20180824

that the track is produced by Michael Lloyd. So I’d guess it’s an Unleash The Love outtake.

One thing about Michael - from the time he started his checkered career as the West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band’s scorching lead guitarist and Kim Fowley’s musical majordomo to the present, he’s always had a surprise in his resume. I didn’t know for example that besides Mike, for the last few years he’s been producing Sylvie Vartan’s records. That’s one way to get a decent table at Maxim’s.

So that's certainly an interesting idea if you reverse it - Brian could get someone with lyrical skill to write some new lyrics to some of 'fun in the sun' tracks which didn't reach their full potential, rearrange them and release them.  I particularly like the idea of different lyrics to California Girls.  I know it was a big hit as it was but I hate those atlas lyrics Mike does and it's so sexist - woman are only good for one thing right?  I know Brian will never do it but perhaps someone else could.

I agree.  I think this is better than all tracks on Disc 2 that have Mike's vocals.

No joke, I wonder if the producer intentionally diminished the amount of Autotune on this particular song in response to the overwhelmingly huge backlash online about the extreme, ridiculous amount of Autotune heard on the remake songs on the album.

I still hear autotune ALL over this track on Mike. Sounds VERY similar to Unleash.

Mike doesn't sound like Mike anymore. The only BB still recognisable as the same singer from the band's heyday is Al.

Yeah, not sure what effect it is but I find it distracting, sort of a hollow vocal sound. Are the drums meant to sound that bad? some kind of sound they were going for?

No thanks to any sanitized, PC version of any song.

I actually rank this new recording of "It's Ok" higher than most of the tracks on Unleash. I really like the deep bass vocals and the intro. I wouldn't recognize Hanson from... anybody, really, but I dig the track.

Of course my son's first reaction upon hearing it the other day was, "Don't they know summer is about over?"

Nice timing, Mike!

Boy, this is a sad, sad world we live in, if boys are no longer allowed to like girls for their looks.  :( :(

What?? There is nothing "sexist" about the lyrics to California Girls, and no implication that "women are only good for one thing".

While I don't see any reason to "re-imagine" BB songs with different lyrics, there is certainly room to argue that some of the lyrics to BB tracks, pertaining mainly to earlier albums, can be interpreted as sexist or chauvinistic or whatever term one wants to use. (And that's not even getting into a separate but related category of a song like "Ten Little Indians").

But it's a difficult topic to wade into, because it quickly gets pretty political. And, BB fans tend to skew older, so past occasional threads that have even just lightly touched on this topic haven't usually gone super well.

I'm not even particularly interested in labeling BB songs as "sexist" or anything along those lines. But I have played BB tracks (both early and later eras) for females, including casual fans and non-fans, and it's not exactly mind-blowingly surprising that some might take some *minor* issue with some of those lyrics. I've sometimes agreed with such an assessment, and other times have tried to point out how the first obvious knee-jerk reaction may not be accurate, as some of the songs (think something like "She Knows Me Too Well") are at least partly a sort of self-loathing sort of lyric where the guy admits he's being a douchebag.

None of this is to suggest the BBs were unique in these types of lyrics for that era, or that there aren't still plenty of modern examples of music fixating on a myriad of superficial things including looks (and money, etc.). Nor is this to suggest that, even if one has some issues with some kind of quaint, objectifying BB lyrics, that therefore *all* their lyrics should be called into question.

I love even their earliest stuff. But I've never been super into the braggadocio or whatever one wants to call it found in the early stuff, whether it's about girls or sports or cars or surfing or whatever. I understand its context both historically and within the band's history itself. I understand that "Fun Fun Fun" wouldn't have been as big of a hit had it been a protest song with Dylan-style lyrics.

I don’t have any problem with the lyrics of the early Beach Boys songs. They are pretty tame.
I actually have more of a problem with some of the early Beatles songs.

Care to elaborate? I'm truly interested. I know "Run for Your Life" is a bit rude (though it's ripped from "Baby Let's Play House") but which others give you a problem?

Meh, having "problems" with any given lyric is a more broad statement than specifically talking about sexism (and related topics) in lyrics.

The sort of mode of attack when writing early Beatles lyrics has been well documented, with plenty of comments from McCartney and Lennon themselves. They most certainly have admitted the lyrics were often targeted, with a lot of pronouns, a lot of essentially singing *to* female fans.

But even within that realm, their lyrics were usually more mature (both thematically and stylistically) than early BB lyrics. There are  *some* BB lyrics even in 1964 and 65, when most of the band were in their early 20s, where they're still singing as if they are starting high school. I *love* "Girl Don't Tell Me", but that's a good example of a lyrics that sounds more like a 14-year-old than a 19 or 23-year-old.

I generally *love* that Brian did his own thing, and often wrote from a rather infantile point of view, even sometimes when the actual style of the lyrics matured. He was indeed a kid of the 50s more than the Beatles were. The Beatles always came across (and generally were) more mature than the BBs, even if some of their ages matched up pretty closely. Some of it was just a case of being European. They were smoking at press conferences. Compare a '64 Lennon interview with Brian on "American Bandstand" in 1964. They were just in different places/worlds.

Another discussion that could be a series of discussions and books!  :) Many, many factors at play.

First and foremost, as unstable as the Wilsons' and Loves' family lives have been documented, the childhood and teen years of Lennon, McCartney, and Starkey cannot be understated. The only one who had what might be a stable family life at home in Liverpool was George Harrison. Lennon and McCartney both lost their mothers young, and Ringo grew up sick living a lot of his time in hospitals until his teens, where he then started running with street gangs. When these kids finally got a ticket to Hamburg, it was literally like opening the floodgates to paradise for them to get out. And the music drove them.

The BB's lives were suburban Los Angeles, Southern California. What they were doing and seeing and writing about was literally light years away from any of the Beatles...surfing, and hot rodding cars? Completely foreign.

But as much as the Beatles' accents and cheeky humor and long hair and collarless suits and the whole bit was what attracted many US fans in an exotic sort of way, so did these California kids singing about the beach, waves, and the ideal surfer girls, not to mention customizing big American cars and drag racing them was exotic to fans across the Atlantic. For Liverpool kids, imagine how exotic *that* would sound in 1962-63! For example...what the hell is a "409"? Totally foreign notions and imagery.

But that was the power of the BB's music, it did create that exotic paradise kind of imagery for people unfamiliar with those scenes, and put together with Brian's arrangements and sounds, it did create "The California Myth". As did the fact that the Beatles to American kids were 110% British, exotic, and different. Powerful stuff when marketing music and artists.

So lyrically, though, I have to disagree just a bit.

Lennon/McCartney were calculated songwriters, more than some would admit. They knew exactly what they were selling and who the audience was. As mentioned, they've said they got the ideas with the notion that fans would think the Beatles were singing specifically to them. It's the formula of most of the early Beatles singles and assorted album cuts from Lennon/McCartney. Love Me Do, Please Please Me, I Want To Hold Your Hand...the only one that breaks away would be She Loves You which was the band singing to their male listeners, like buddies talking to each other versus the guys singing to their girls how much they love them or want to shag them.

Add to that how it was revealed by Lennon that the way they were cranking out so many of those tunes was that they'd hear a record they liked and would set about rearranging and reworking it to suit their own needs. That one comment revealed how songs like Please Please Me, Day Tripper, and any number of dozens of the others came to be. It was the Beatles taking something they liked and upping the game by doing their version of it. Hell, it explains Penny Lane to my ears, as Penny Lane is essentially built on what Brian had just done with Wouldn't It Be Nice.

Anyway, there were very juvenile lyrics in the Beatles early canon too...Little Girl? I Wanna Be Your Man? Hardly sophisticated, however they were playing shows to 13 and 14 year old girls...that was their audience.

Brian, on the other hand...it was the same thing with Girl Don't Tell Me for one. I heard that a few times on the Sirius channel, and yes the lyrics sounded very pedestrian, hardly up to thelevels of what surrounded that tune.

BUT - That was a teenage Carl singing to fans who were basically the same age. Right? Kids who had gone to summer camp, or visited relatives in the summer, and met a summer love. Carl was a teenager, the fans listening who were teenagers might hear that track and relate to it. So I think it was the band knowing their audience and like John/Paul, targeting them in the lyrics. The fact the music was written to sound specifically like a Beatles track shouldn't be discounted either, in fact the sound and groove of the track itself basically saves the lyrics from their own simplicity.

If the comparison is the lyrics of early Beach Boys versus early Beatles, I have to say that the Beach Boys specifically on the early tunes with a prominent Brian lead were getting into the introspective, personal lyrics a few years before the Beatles started wearing the Dylan influence on their sleeves, and a few years before Paul and Yesterday.

The Lonely Sea...a young guy looking out at the ocean and comparing his life and future with the waves rolling in. Right? That is a crazy track when you think of a teenaged Brian Wilson wearing his thoughts on his sleeve that way, and comparing life to the waves on the ocean. Beatles were nowhere near writing those themes in their lyrics.

In My Room - Again, a lyric which is about thoughts and dreams and all sorts of things going on in the narrator's mind, and as he seeks solace by being alone in his room. Again, miles away from "From Me To You".

Surfin USA...one of the great misheard lyrics of all time, I think, however if people hearing it at the time heard it as "if everybody had a notion..." as it sounds versus "if everybody had an ocean" which is the actual lyric, the "surfing" becomes a mindset, a lifestyle that anyone listening can imagine versus the actual act of grabbing a board and paddling into the ocean. The misheard lyric is possibly part of the "California Myth" right there on full display...anyone listening can join in if they have the notion to do so, in their minds or actually on the same beach as the guys singing the tune. The one time the Beatles may have touched this accidental genius via misheard lyrics was when Dylan told them he thought "I can't hide" was "I get high", and Dylan assumed the Beatles were pot smokers...which at that time was an underground code of sorts...but topics for other discussions.

"Surfer Girl"...Again, it becomes an ideal, a notion, a song about any girl a guy is in love with versus a song about Brian's own girl. The idea that my girl is a "surfer girl", as in the ideal for a SoCal beach dweller who happens to surf...That's setting up both an exotic image to people who don't surf or live near a beach (or in SoCal), yet making such an ideal universal for any guy who is in love with who he thinks is a perfect girl. "my surfer girl".

Don't Worry Baby, Don't Back Down, the list goes on. Those early Beach Boys tunes which were standouts above the pack did create the mythology, yet they had the dual meaning in place which is something the Beatles did not explore fully until perhaps the Dylan sound and wordplay (and the introspective personal lyrics) really started coming out. Even as brilliant as the Hard Day's Night album is, and even - yes - With The Beatles, the lyrics were not as introspective or even as mythical as the Beach Boys at their best. They were mostly face value, and to be taken at face value. The Beatles were not comparing their late-teen lives with the waves rolling in and out off the beach or using a drag race lyric as a metaphor for what was in their own daily thoughts. 

Different universes indeed. Both with their own appeal.

Craig, you need to write a book.  ;D

I’d buy it

Don't have a time for a detailed Beatles/Beach Boys breakdown, but I'll note that it's interesting that several of the early relatively "introspective" BB lyrics, such as "In My Room" and "Lonely Sea", came from an outside lyricist (Gary Usher probably not coincidentally in both cases).

Considering the prevalence of surf/car theming in the first several years of the BB catalog, I'd say it's fair to say Wilson/Love (and to varying degrees Brian on his own and/or with other lyricists) were also quite "calculated." Brian Wilson didn't have a deep passion for surfing, nor even hot rods and car stuff to the degree it's espoused in those songs.

An obvious early EMI example of pretty introspective lyrics from the Beatles would be "There's a Place" off the first album, which pre-dates "In My Room" by several months

Not sure on the WIBN/Penny Lane comparison, especially on the composition side. And certainly, knowing what we know about how they composed, I certainly don't think in 1966 Paul McCartney was sitting down and even subconsciously, let alone purposefully, trying to build on WIBN by writing "Penny Lane." I think the Lennon quote about building upon songs they liked can't be over-applied to the point of thinking that vast swaths of their catalog were cases of doing a "Bruce and Terry" and ripping off other songs. Again, knowing what we know about their lives and careers, that stuff was just pouring out of them in 66/67, especially McCartney who by 1967 was morphing into the defacto producer of the group.

Even the specific PS/BB influence on McCartney is often overstated. As Howie Edelson has said, McCartney loved PS but really only had a passing interest in it similar to Lennon's interest in Dylan. They (especially Paul) recognized Brian as one of their very few peers in their field. But that didn't cross over into huge cross-fertilization of any huge musical motifs or songs.

To the degree the groups influenced each other, it was the *Beach Boys* who were putting Beatles covers on their albums.

I think it can be fun to read further into seemingly simple lyrics like "Surfin' USA", but if we're doing that, then the same can be applied to even pre-EMI Beatles tunes.

But I've done the Beatles/Beach Boys thing on many threads, so folks can look up those old threads for more.

The 'why' is a valid question..not a big fan of all the remakes.
But here is an interview from earlier in the month. I post it only because, early on, Mike claims he is done with all the crap from the past and is focusing on 'his' version of The Beach Boys. It does perhaps clarify why he seems to have a push on to record these last couple of years. I hope this also means that moving forward, he won't be dragging up all the old bad blood in interviews. I suppose it also dials back any expectations of another reunion.

http://www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/entertainmentlife/20180810/beach-boys-mike-love-happy-with-good-thing

 :)

I've been considering it for years, but narrowing all the ramblings down to one topic is the killer app I'm still missing. At least blogs and boards allow for ramblings.

"Sure to sell four copies..."  :lol

A few points:

It is no secret nor has it been that Brian would ask outside collaborators to contribute where he felt that additional input was necessary to make the song work. Just look at the Tony Asher example with PS, and move backward and forward from there, and in nearly every case Brian was asking his co-writer to put into a workable lyric what he either couldn't express himself or was looking for what he thought that co-writer could bring to the table, whether knowledge of surf/cars or a certain way with words. It's the 100% rock-solid reason why he got Christian, Usher, Asher, Parks, Love, and any number of others to contribute to those songs.

How that is relevant here, I'm not sure. If Brian told Tony Asher about his feelings on a particular topic, and had one of his musical "feels" that needed words to fit, there it is in a nutshell. When Brian was looking for some surfer lingo and some hot spots to surf, he asked Jimmy Bowles, a surfer, for input. Not much more needs to be said.


I *strongly* disagree with the assertions about Pet Sounds' influence with McCartney (in particular), and specifically the connections between Penny Lane and Wouldn't It Be Nice.

I would be happy to put on my musicologist hat and go over a few more specifics if necessary. I've done it before, and have taught it as recently as this past summer.

It's not even necessary to go full-on musicology and analysis on the tracks - Listen for a few similarities, and when you hear them, they can be glaring similarities. Such as:

The bass lines. Both songs have a similar ebb and flow to their "walking bass" motion. Heavy quarter notes "walking" to the 4-beat-per-bar shuffle, with a few accents thrown in. Very similar motion overall, descending lines which resolve after each phrase back up to the high starting root. The main difference is when it gets to each song's B section...McCartney sustains his bass notes ('and all the people that come and go') while Brian's bass line gets more active and angular in his corresponding section ('you know it's gonna make it that much better')

The pulse and foundation of the tracks. In Brian's case, the main rhythmic drive in the verses comes from the accordions, along with keyboards, pumping out alternately swing 8th notes and quarter notes. It is a stacked keyboard sound, an amalgam or blend of keys-based sounds, that replaces the drums as the main rhythmic foundation. McCartney started Penny Lane by doing the same thing. He overlayed keyboard track after keyboard track himself, played without a click, to give the track it's basic rhythmic drive. Everything added on top was centered on Paul's multilayered keyboard tracks. That is exactly what Brian was doing on WIBN, and would later do even more with some of Smile's tracks.

Song form. Penny Lane doesn't have a grand intro like WIBN. But the verse follows the WIBN form template. State the *main title of the song* first in the lyric "Penny Lane there is a..." just like Brian did stating "Wouldn't it be nice if we were older...", over the keyboard-based shuffle beat described above, expand on the idea "What is happening at Penny lane? Ahh! Paul is going to tell us next. What "it" would be nice? Ahh, Brian is going to tell us next." And that lyric motif repeats again during restatements of the verses. Then, it is followed by a B section...not a bridge, but if "Penny Lane..." and "Wouldn't it be nice..." are the main subject ideas stated immediately at the start of each verse, these B sections expand on it. Then they roll back to stating again, after expanding and developing what is seen at Penny Lane and what Brian thinks would be nice, the song titles to expand even further.

The melodies - Listen to the notes and the ebb and flow of the melodies. Not similar in pitch, Paul's is a little more "Mozart" with all the added ornamentation compared to Brian's which is more "Bach" in it's straightforwardness, but when heard together they share similar traits.

The drums...You could play the crux of both drum parts on a single snare drum. Bashing on beats 2 and 4. Why? Because both have the rhythm section role played in the keyboard parts. And on both, the drums drop out in the B section to allow the other parts to come forward in the arrangement.

McCartney adds a traditional chorus "hook", "Penny Lane is in my ears...". But he has no bridge. Brian has a glorious bridge, which takes back the chords from the intro and adds one more, lengthening the phrases and harmonic rhythm, before going out on a brilliant restatement of the B section after a ritardando, followed by a crashing return to tempo and fadeout. Paul ends on a "hard ending", on the final edit that was released, although others featured a trumpet flourish and an outtake featured the sound of huffing and puffing.

I could go on, but a simple A/B listening session with both tunes back to back has all the proof necessary. I'd say it falls in line with...no, almost exactly...what John said about taking a song they liked and shaping it into their own creation. Paul in this case borrowed several key musical characteristics and elements from WIBN, namely the groove itself and how it was represented, and expanded on it with his own additions.

Don't take my word for it, just listen to both tracks - and you'll hear that Penny Lane shares many musical elements with WIBN.


On the issue of McCartney and Pet Sounds' influence...Downplaying or doubting the influence...I say, horsefeathers in the words of Col. Potter on MASH.

While recording during the Pepper sessions, which early on included Penny Lane as we know, they asked Geoff Emerick to get EMI to bring in a turntable, into the studio, and set it up so they could listen to Pet Sounds while making their own music that became Pepper and the Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields single.

Tell me that Pet Sounds wasn't an influence or should be downplayed as an influence on the band and McCartney in particular when the band personally asked EMI and their own engineer Emerick to bring in a turntable to listen to Pet Sounds during those sessions. Not to mention the initial spark in writing and arranging ideas that came after they heard Bruce's acetate at the hotel party which came out on Revolver.

Well said. All excellent points/examples.