The Smiley Smile Message Board

Okay, sorry but I've got to rant about this.  Maybe since I'm a newer Beach Boys fan, I just don't get it.  But what is with so many fans swearing by unreleased versions of songs?  It seems like no matter what the song, if it came out on an album after 1970 and there's an alternate version of it, it's just automatically better by default.  I think I'm going to start calling this SS (SMiLE Syndrome).  Just because the Beach Boys had the greatest unreleased album of all time does NOT mean that everything they didn't release is automatically better than everything that was.  Just a few examples, all my opinions of course:

I don't know how anyone can say that the 15 Big Ones outtake of Come Go With Me is better than what came out on M.I.U.  The MIU version actually sounds produced and it sounds like they did something with it.  The 15 Big Ones version was obviously just a one-off and very raw.  Not my thing at all.

Can anyone really tell the difference between the original version of "When Girls Get Together" and what came out on KTSA?  The remix is so subtle, I don't see how you can make a distinction.  Maybe there was an overdub or two for KTSA, but does that really make the original any better?

I'll admit that I have never heard Adult/Child (what the hell kind of title is that anyway?), but judging from what I've heard from many people, I suspect that the only reason it gets any love at all is because it's...you guessed it...UNRELEASED!

It sounds like someone needs to come up with a cure for SMiLE Syndrome.  I don't get it.  I really don't.

If you've never heard Adult Child, I don't know how you could even begin to presume to pass a judgement on why people like it.

I've never heard this particular "syndrome" expressed. Most folks probably don't like either version of "Come Go With Me"...I know I don't. And "When Girls Get Together" is batshit crazy no matter which version you look at -- they're so close as to not even count.

The one unreleased version I hear expressed as being better frequently is "Big Sur," and that one's arguably true. Oh, and "Shortenin' Bread" is better on "Adult Child." But again -- both batshit crazy.

I think people often engage in  hyperbole to stimulate discussion or express their keen interest in another alternate version of a piece of music.

For fans, it is often such a treat to discover an alternate, or possibly equally entertaining version of a tune, that it is tempting to rant obout it.

I like the alternate of Time to Get Alone but, is it better than the original release?  Probably not.  But I am tempted to say so.

And is this not the essence of the bullshit that constitutes the bulk of chat and message board dialogue?   

I think it is great fun and I wouldn't really have it otherwise.  8)

There are also several official alternate/earlier versions:

Time To Get Alone
Breakaway
Do It Again
Cottonfields
Don't Back Down
Little Honda
The Little Girl I Once Knew
Help Me R(h)onda (3 of these)
Let Him Run Wild
California Saga: California (single mix)
It's Ok (single mix)
Rock and Roll Music (single mix)

I certainly appreciate that there are alternate versions and it's tempting for fans and exciting at the same time.  Sometimes it just seems like some fans just instantly say that an alternate version is better and, in my opinion, that's rarely the case.  Even though I'm dealing with 1970 onward in this post, I really like the alternate version of Time to Get Alone and I like the alternate Big Sur, definitely.  I'd argue that the Big Sur alternate/released comparison ends up in a draw.  I don't really think one's better than the other.  My opinion though.  Thanks for the replies so far!

Well, "Adult/Child" is great because it's a great album, unreleased or not.

I was pitching it to Joe Foster a couple of years ago as a Poptones/Rev-Ola release but it fell through pretty quickly.

Nonetheless, the album needs to be released properly, and I might one day give it another go.

I'd take "Lines" which if from Adult/Child over many Beach Boys - Released songs.

Oooh, Heroes and Villains is another one! There's the alternate cantina version vs. the single version.

That's kinda it. Sort of. There's always a lot of hype behind unreleased material from any band although there seems to be a lot of 'hugging' of the Beach Boys unreleased material. Adult Child is certainly one of those examples. About half is interesting- half could be discarded. Then again, I'm not a fan of about 60% of the 70 material as a whole. It'd still be interesting to see a legit release just to hear it all in a nice fidelity. Especially the key tracks- Still I Dream Of It, Deep Purple, It's Over Now, et al.

One of the craziest and most frustrating things about being a BB and BW fan is the amount of unreleased material, and the fact that some really great music was made and not released and yet some of the stuff that ended up on the albums is absolute horrid crap. This is more prevalent after 1970 mostly due to the politics of the band being ML&AJ verses DW&CW with Brian in the middle. If Brian still had total control over the band throughout the 70s then it would be very likely that the best of his songs would have been released (and probably Dennis' for that matter). For instance an album like Keepin the summer alive (which is horrible) would have been much better if songs that were from that time and a few years before were on it, eg: Stevie, That special feelin, Do ya, Lines, Its trying to say, Im begging you please etc.
I know that i'm going on more about unreleased songs rather than versions of already existing songs, but even in that case some of the alternate versions are so much
better, eg: Time to get alone, Big Sur, Back Home (1970). It seems that the Beach boys sometimes have had no clue about their own music, about what is good and what is not.

The greatest understatement that's ever been documented on this board!  8)

I think it's often like that in a band. You get too close to the music and making it that they no longer have the view of a fan for it but only themselves.

Maybe the people who listen to these unreleased tracks like them more than some of the stuff they released. Is that a crime? It's all personal taste. There's plenty of unreleased stuff by them that's complete sh*t (Battle Hymn of the Republic anyone?) but it all comes down to personal taste.

Well, sometimes there are different versions of a song, and it's the band's/record label's opinion that one version is better and sometimes you just don't agree with them. It's as simple as that.

For instance, I like the Hawthorne, CA version of Time To Get Alone better than the 20/20 version because the raw vocals sound much more intense, and I like the Smile version of Wonderful better than the Smiley Smile version because I love the harpsychord part. It has nothing to do with trying to be interesting by prefering obscure versions.

I believe in this Smile Syndrome, to an extent, and have commented on it on this board before. There is no doubt that many people shoot off on any comment with "Oh, but have you heard the [demo][earlier version]? It's WAY better!"

The bulk of this is just showing off. There's no better way to set yourself above newer fans or more casual fans than boasting about your endless collection of boots, and how if the uninitiated knew what you knew, the world would be so much a better place. You hear this with the California Feelin, Santa Ana Winds, Big Sur, and many others that had multiple lives over the years. 

However, as was mentioned above, the Beach Boys certainly must be among the all-time leaders in recording and then not releasing, material, and it is the opinion of many people that the unreleased material from the mid-70s on (at least) is probably better than the released. I, myself, subscribe to that line of thinking. I do prefer most of the unreleased stuff from Adult/Child to what came out on actual Beach Boys releases of the time. I do like Bamboo material more than Beach Boys releases of the time. I do prefer Stevie...and so on.  Again, as someone--mattzeus, maybe?--said, the Beach Boys clearly were a confused band, not sure what they were doing from a marketing and album-release standpoint, and whatever it was they did, it didn't work. Those points above about trying to show off one's knowledge or insider status have nothing to do with that part of it -- the Beach Boys have a lot of recorded material, and that later stuff is just a lot better than what came out. Go figure...

One thing to remember: It wasn't long ago -- what, 12 years? -- when we heard the same things about Wonderful, Wind Chimes and Heroes and Villains. That time, it was true.

"There is no doubt that many people shoot off on any comment with "Oh, but have you heard the [demo][earlier version]? It's WAY better!""

Sadly, this is often true, especially when we're getting into the late Seventies and the BB studio sound is getting more and more sterile (post-Love You) and the home demos just feel better.

This is possibly the lamest, most reactionary thread I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

Well, that goes without saying.

You didn't have to read it -- the title certainly makes clear what's coming. But I, for one, believe there's truth in it. Maybe it was started for reactionary reasons (I have no idea what started it), but it's a valid point.

I have to agree. I'm all about good discussions, but this thread is composed mostly of counterproductive comments that go totally against what being a fan is all about.

How so? Is being a fan really all about the unending dedication and devotion to music that the bands you're allegedly a fan of chose not to release? Is that really being a fan? Seriously?

It's about devotion to all music officially sanctioned or not, and honest statement of your feelings about it.
But I ain't having someone who worships frickin' Stars And Stripes and Still Cruisin' try to patronise me and others because he envies the collections of others.

That's not all of what being a fan is about. It just comes down to the music, it's either released or not. If it comes out through less-than-legal means, well, that's regrettable for the artist (wonderful for us collectors), but that's what you deal with when the wrong people go into your tape vaults and copy everything they can find.

I'm not about the latter, either. And I'm not aware of it--as I said, I don't know the genesis of the thread. But I do know that a ridiculous number of posters do tend to favor unreleased over released, and it does seem to eventually boil down to no other criteria--but just that. Unreleased over released.

Maybe it's just personal taste and the unreleased stuff just happens to take precedent for that fan.

Allow me.  The genesis of this thread was in slight annoyance because it just seems to me that so many Beach Boys fans love to say this such as "Oh well, I can't stand 'Come Go With Me' on MIU but the 15 Big Ones version is far better."  Someone actually said to me once that they thought that the version of Susie Cincinnati on 15BO was inferior to the single version.  They're almost identical.  Can anyone really tell a sonic difference?  There are countless examples of this and sometimes I just feel like some people say that this unreleased version or that demo is better purely because it's the unreleased version.  The exact purpose of this thread was to discuss this part of being a Beach Boys fan.  That's all.  This is not a rhetorrical thread intended purely to get a reaction, so please don't take it that way.  I'm actually enjoying this thread.  Thanks!

And Ian, there are a small number of Beach Boys albums that I worship, and neither Stars & Stripes nor Still Cruisin' make that list.  Not by a long shot.  And I don't envy anyone's "collection".  If I want something for my Beach Boys collection, I'll get it.

I choose to believe that the reason most people like the unreleased versions better is because they're usually the earlier recording, not processed through fancy record label studio techniques, not made to cater to the listener, but instead to those who wrote the song. Some officially-released versions just lose their soul.

They loose 'em, eh?

I have a theory about BB/BW fans and unreleased versions...

As obsessive diehards, we have been listening to the same songs for years, maybe even decades.  We have them memorized, engrained in our heads, we sometimes sing 'em in our sleep. That doesn't mean we're tired of them, just very, very familiar with them.

After listening to the same old songs , we are hungry for something new, anything new. Then, when we hear an unreleased or alternate version, we welcome it with open arms. The "difference" in the song is refreshing. Sometimes better, sometimes not. But AT FIRST, we usually like it better, just because it is new(er).

But I find something else interesting, at least for me. Many times when I first hear an alternate take, I think, "Oh, that's better than the released version. Why didn't they release this version". But as time goes by, it evens out and most of the time the original version will take over as the better version. Then I'll say, "Oh that Brian. He was right. His released take was the best". Or I'll hear an unreleased song and say "How could they leave that off the album". In a few months I'll listen to it again and realize it really is weak and realize why it was unreleased. Of course, there are exceptions...

I have a theory about BB/BW fans.
We like the stuff that's better, and don't like so much the stuff that's not as good.
How's that?

And BW/BB fans, being a completely homogeneous group, obviously only like one set of songs more than others.

Nope, you haven't got me there either.
That's not what I said.

Feel free to elaborate and/or enlighten.

There's no need, man. It's plain language.
I have a theory about BB/BW fans.
We like the stuff that's better, and don't like so much the stuff that's not as good.
How's that?

Each of us may like different stuff, but it has nothing to do with it's release history.

its

But in addition to that, no. I don't believe that. There is no way--even statistically speaking (if I were the kind of guy to sit around and keep count) that such a percentage of alleged BB-followers would disagree so vehemently on every track for which an alternate version exists.

It's fvcking ego. I am uber-BB/BW fan, hear me roar.

Hahaha...I have to say I think this is a really fabulous thread.  I agree with all sides.  Exclusivity is definitely a factor in liking something, but sometimes the unreleased stuff is just damned good.  And it's not always a matter of putting out a certain version because the original one is weaker.  Some bands, like Television, put newer songs on albums because they were tired of older material they had already played live for years.  That doesn't mean the songs on the album were always better.

Uhhh, Luther, we all disagree about every track for which no alternate version exists, too.
No difference, man.

Ian, I got your point (and I agree with it), but I think you missed mine.

Of course the quality of the track is a determining factor in whether we like/prefer it.   But WHEN AND HOW RECENTLY we heard the alternate version/unreleased song is absolutely a factor in our enjoyment of the track. And remember what I wrote. The degree of how much we like it changes over time.

I'll only bore you with one example - The Pet Sounds box set. I listened to Pet Sounds a hundred times over a period of 20 years. I memorized every note. Then, after 20 years, the boxed set comes out with alternate takes. They're great, top quality, "good" as you would say. Immediately I was blown away. I liked the different ending to "God Only Knows". I liked the original speed of "Caroline No", etc, etc. But after a few months, maybe a year, I started to prefer the 1966 released versions again.

BUT FOR AWHILE, after just listening to the newly released boxed set alternate takes, I was wound up. I might've even written a post on a BB board and said that they were "better than the originals". This is normal isn't it? We are always in different stages of liking/disliking BB songs. Is the quality of the track important? Of upmost importance. Is how long you have been listening to the track or how long it has been available to be listened to important? Of course it is...

Something very fundamental that is BB specific is being missed here...

The Beach Boys suck at picking their music.

Really.

Think about this -- they were considering using the Lords Prayer track on KTSA in 1980.  What's up with that?  They had the tracks for Adult Child mostly done and in the can and thought that MIU was a better album to release.  They chose not to finish Soulful Old Man Sunshine and instead worked on things like Hold On Dear Brother and He Come Down.  They chose to release Surf's Up with no Denny tracks, despite the quality of work he was doing.

So when we fans say "X unreleased track is better", I don't seriously think it is all about exclusivity.  For the pre-Smile stuff, I don't see any alternative tracks that I would prefer over released ones.  But once the band went democratic, you had serious quality control issues.  Plus, with a home studio and six artists, you had a tremendous volume of music being made, causing a lack of objectivity in the face of so many choices (a problem IMO for Smile as well).

For me at least, it is not about exclusivity.  It is a recognition that the BB consistently left the best music off of their records.  I certainly don't feel the same about outtakes by the Beatles or the Kinks -- they always put out their best stuff. 

Well, Jeff, someone above DID mention that very fact, and afterward, I alluded to it.

But even then, taking into account the volume of music recorded and questionable habits of the band in releasing it, you still can;t justfy the incessant "unreleased version is better" mentality. Some of it, sure. All? No..

I don't care who disagrees with me here. It's been one of most noticeable traits of serious BB fans since I became one. Bootophelia, if you will...

Other than Big Sur, what tracks do you hear fans saying that about?  I can see people wishing, say that Denny songs were on Surf's Up or that Adult Child was picked over MIU -- but very few "unreleased alternates" are better than the released ones, even in BB land. 

Smile stuff is the exception -- that is its own beast. 

You and Sheriff make great points!


No way, Jeff.  "Naggin' Woman" and "Dancing in the Street" are trash, especially when they could have put out "I Go to Sleep."

Not that familiar with the Kinks outtakes, and certainly not pre-Face to Face.  Admission -- I almost never play the first three Kinks albums, even though I have the CDs with all of the released versions.  I was thinking more about the later years.

And you can't really argue about the Beatles I think.  There may be an occasion where some might, say, prefer the Anthology version of OblaDiOblaDa, but that would assume that either version was good....  ;D

Haha, I like Ob-la-di Ob-la-da, but I pretty much agree about the Beatles.  The Kinks did have some good outtakes.  Find "I Go to Sleep."  I think "Little Women" and "Mr. Reporter" were better than some of the stuff on Face to Face, too.

OK, let's distinguish between two types of things here -- people who prefer unreleased outtakes, or people or who prefer subsequent outtakes.  I love Can't Wait Too Long as one of my favorite BB tracks, but now I don't think of it as an unreleased outtake in that people can buy that.  In that sense, it is different to prefer the outtake of Big Sur vs. the Smile version of Heroes and Villains.  The latter is on official CD, the former is not.  I see those as two different beasts as I think it over.  And I see the poster ragging on those who choose stuff not on an official CD.  So that really narrows thing down a bit I would think.  By that I mean this -- to me, who got the Castle CDs as my first Kinks albums, those two songs you mention seem to me in some ways a part of the Face to Face experience.  So they are outtakes in one sense, but not in another.  Did the Kinks ever actually do a version of I Go To Sleep?  Obviously I have the track on Kinda Kinks Castle version, but I assumed that since it was a publishing demo and the song was recorded by someone else that the Kinks never did it.

Good points, Jeff.  But those outtakes are only part of the experience when available.  It's a very tricky issue.  EDIT: That is to say I see outtakes more as part of the group's experience, but not necessarily the album experience.  The album is the album.  The outtakes just form a larger picture of the band and to an extent the album.  But I don't think outtakes should be considered parts of the album when put on later editions of the album.  Then we lose track of what the creators really wanted.

I don't know if the Kinks did "I Go to Sleep."  They should have, even if it was still just Ray on piano.

OK, but this thread is mainly about people who have unavailable material who go to a website saying "You think that version you have is good -- if only you could hear this boot!"  In that context, bonus tracks and archive releases should not be considered since everyone has a shot at them.  That was all I was saying.

I think one of the reasons people prefer the unreleased stuff is, people sometimes like to have an air of exclusivity around them.  I do it sometimes, I think most people do.  People drive cars that are different than everyone elses, and if not, they go get different rims or something.  Sometimes people want to think that they enjoy or know about a song that some others don't.  I don't think it's a selfish "I got something you don't"  it's just the desire to share joy.  I'm serious, the unreleased "Big Sur" is a perfect example everybody keeps bringing up.  That song is friekin' gorgeous, and I really get a huge smile on my face and a kick out of hearing it... so I would be really inclined to say "Yeah, the one on Holland is great, but man, you gotta hear the unreleased version!". 

Again I think one of the reasons people do it is so that they can share something beautiful with somebody else.  It's part of the human condition, man. 

I can sympathize with those people in this thread who have not heard much unreleased stuff, I was one of those people until August of 2002 when I actually went out and did something about it (yes, you CAN make a difference). Traders are not always egomaniacs who want X number of discs for Y number of discs (those who do are assholes and need to be terminated with extreme prejudice, because they too had to start from nothing), a lot of them are very good people and will most likely hook a brother up if they don't have anything.

But patronizing those people who do have this stuff is most likely not going to make them want to give you anything. Traders want no part of bitter people.

I will ALWAYS hook someone up if they want something.

Good point about going out and getting it.  I get sick of people who act like they are helpless finding bootlegs.  You're on the internet!  All bootleg traders have to start with nothing.  I've managed to get great stuff with almost nothing to trade or by having to do 2:1 trades.  Anyone can do it.

And usually the asshole traders don't even respond to your request anyway.  Not a big deal.

Excellent post, Chris.

This thread is being bumped because everyone on this site should have to suffer it. :)

 :D