Hi All,

Apologies for interrupting the flow of a stimulating conversation.

I just this second ended my first and only visit to the EH board; I’ve done a fair amount of slumming in my life, but there are limits. But when I saw the passing references here to the non-serious idea of Mike (and Bruce and Al, but you know it’s really Mike) writing new lyrics for the SMiLE music, I had to see what the fuss was all about.

That’s because they put me in mind of a project I toyed with a few decades ago: if Mike had written the words for “Surf’s Up,” and VDP had written the words for “Good Vibrations,” what would those lyrics look like?

I didn’t make much progress with the VDP “Good Vibrations,” but I did come up with a reasonably complete set of Mike-ified “Surf’s Up” lyrics. It took some searching to find them, and when I did I realized that they needed a touch-up here and there. That said, they’re more-or-less as written all those years ago.

Without further preamble, here they are. I wouldn’t dream of suggesting that they’re an improvement on the ChatGPT product; if ever a lyricist’s style was made for AI, it’s Mike’s.

Thanks for your kind indulgence!

C&N

“Surf’s Up” (Wilson-Love)

My small-block eight is runnin' strong
Hear the sidepipes hummin' on, oh
Got some honeys comin' along
(Hodad, Hodad)

You know we always get around
The other guys – we shut ’em down
And we go home with the blondes
(Hodad, Hodad)

Column shifter in my GTO!

Canvas the top and plush the floor-mats
Who's got shotgun?

Manhattan Beach to Waikiki
Nobody's cool as Mike'll be
’Long as we don't mess with the songs
(Hodad, Hodad)

My fuelie is a costly ride
The seats are trimmed in Naugahyde
We hit the gas and we're gone
(Hodad, Hodad)

Column shifter in my GTO!

Canvas the top and plush the floor-mats
Who's got shotgun? Cousin Bri?

Waves rip and curl, the girls,
The sun, the sand, a perfect day
Living in paradise,
So nice to know it’s all OK

There’s always time for fun, fun, fun.

The drink was raised, the tiki glass,
The sweetness of the rum,
The small umbrella.
The melting ice, the wedge of lime

That dreamy look
There in her eye
That’s all it took
To feel a tropic contact high

Surf’s up! Out on the lonely sea
Load up your woody now
With extra positivity

You know the words
You know the tune
The same old song

The same old song – now let’s do it all again
The vibes are good and the summer never ends

Hi All,

I hope you’ll kindly excuse a tiny bit of self-promotion. Just posting to say that the “He Gives Speeches” essay at The Smile Shop Attic has had a few substantive revisions. (Other essays have received some minor technical tweaks as well.)

Direct link to the “He Gives Speeches” essay:
https://chalknnumbers.wixsite.com/the-smile-shop-attic/post/18-juxtapose-a-man-with-a-mystery

The Attic landing page:
https://chalknnumbers.wixsite.com/the-smile-shop-attic

Thanks!

C&N

That Joe Thomas interview was tremendously informative and interesting – thanks to MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm for posting!

My reaction, reading it, was the same as GF’s: assuming the account is factual – no reason to suppose otherwise – I feel like what’s being described is pretty much the collaborative writing process Mike has so often and so publicly wished for. If I understand correctly, and if I’m remembering my Beach Boys history accurately, it seems to be very close to the dynamic that prevailed during the band’s early years.

Since it appears that Mike actually *got* the collaboration opportunity he wanted, I can think of two explanations for the fact that he continues to pine for that piano-equipped room.

Option one: the famous “room” is an idealized fantasy rather than a physical space. It’s like the sort of thing you hear from couples in a failing marriage: If only we could get back to the way it used to be, in that little studio apartment above the Italian restaurant, where things were simple and everything was wonderful. The person saying it knows there’s no going back, and – more to the point – usually knows that the day-to-day reality of that little apartment wasn’t so wonderful anyway. It’s an unattainable dream, a longing for something that can’t be had…and may never have existed in the first place. It’s kind of sad, really.

Option two: Mike is manufacturing a grievance, seeing a slight where none exists.

To my mind, the pattern of Mike’s behavior over the years seems to favor the latter. But in the spirit of charity, I choose to believe the former.

C&N

Great point about telephones, making calls, etc. I'd add "Magic Transistor Radio".

Oh yes, we can certainly add the radio songs to the list – that takes us all the way to "That's Why God Made the Radio." And the Beach Boys catalog stretches back far enough to include some snail mail as well – "Keep an Eye on Summer" and "Girl Don't Tell Me," off the top of my head.

Not sure there are any inferences to be drawn, except maybe to say that human-to-human connection is an ongoing Brian theme.

C&N

I am just so thankful that, in recent years, friends/collaborators of Brian Wilson have spoken publicly about what Brian actually does in the recording studio (and how he writes his music). So there should be no doubt that he is the guy in control. Sure, he has spoken about how he doesn't like some of his collaborators work (Brian publicly complained about the sound of Imagination). But then again, Bob Dylan hated how Time Out of Mind sounded, and yet no one thinks for a second that Bob isn't in control of his career. That's just the music business. Brian has had collaborators steering Brian's musical vision since his first chart hit 'Surfin'. It doesn't take away the fact that Brian's musical DNA is in all of the songs that his name is connected to.

What bothers me the most isn't that people believe the false narrative that post-67 Brian is an incapable person, rather, it's that people who know better spread this false narrative...whether overtly or subtly. I'm just thankful that most of that talk left this forum for a different home a long time ago.

It’s interesting, isn’t it? Brian has worked with dozens of lyricists over the years; and yet, regardless of the individuals involved or the time period, certain themes and motifs have continually surfaced and resurfaced in his songs. There’s a through line there – a thread of DNA, as you say – and it’s Brian.

By way of example, on a more-or-less superficial level: I was staggered, a while back, when I realized how many of Brian’s songs make reference to telephones, making calls, etc. “Busy Doing Nothing”; “Had to Phone Ya”; “From There to Back Again”; even the unused “reconnected telephone” lyrics from “Cabin Essence.” (That’s off the top of my head, and it’s just the tip of the iceberg.) Obviously – if we disallow pure coincidence – Brian’s own thoughts/feelings/concerns are finding their way into the lyrics, irrespective of the lyricist.

C&N

The question is where did these opinions originate about BWPS not being the definitive Smile, or whatever variations of that have been spoken. And one source and mindset is pretty obvious, and has been in the public record for nearly 20 years.

Thanks, GF, for posting that court filing. I knew about the suit, of course, but hadn’t read any of the documents. Man, that is some ugly stuff. Apart from the mean-spiritedness and the gross inaccuracies, it’s just so shoddy and lazy and careless. When I was a lawyer, an age ago, we were expected to proofread our work product. Mike has had a good deal of material success in his life; one assumes that he could do better, lawyer-wise, than the guy with an office above the check-cashing establishment. Evidently not.

Apropos of other comments in this thread: I made a sincere effort of my own to set aside my negative sentiments about Mike, I really did. I thought he did a great job at the 50th anniversary concert I saw. He sang with conviction, and his presence definitely added energy to the show; I left the venue feeling glad that he was a part of the tour. I allowed myself to think – against my better judgment – that the Beach Boys just might be a viable band again: that against all odds, there might be a triumphant final chapter to their story. I was disappointed (but not truly surprised) when Mike opted out; character, as a much wiser fellow once said, is destiny. Like the reunion, my personal reconciliation, as regards ol’ Mike, was not fated to endure. That probably reflects a failing on my part. Maybe I need to investigate TM.

C&N

Zenobi, I think you make a great point. And for what it’s worth, I tend to think some of these attitudes apply to Pre-1967 Brian as well.

There seem to be people who want Brian to be some kind of idiot savant: brilliantly creative, but not “smart.” According to that view, the 1966 Brian was just kind of swept along with the psychedelic trendiness of the people he was hanging out with; he didn’t have the intellectual ability to grasp any of the truly esoteric stuff. That view makes it easier to denigrate those people as mere hangers-on, and it makes it easier to devalue the ideas Brian was experimenting with at the time.

Post-1967, of course, the well-publicized (and seriously sensationalized and exaggerated) biographical narrative gives these same people a rationale for emphasizing “idiot” over “savant,” and attributing Brian’s later successes to manipulators and/or collaborators (using that latter word in a way that suggests that it was the “collaborators” driving the projects, with Brian having little to do with the final product).

I wouldn’t presume to guess at these folks’ motives. But as always, when you’re furthering an agenda, you’re unlikely to advance the frontier of truth.

C&N

Second to second the creative mind is an ever-changing machine. I have never understood the argument that a '66/67 Smile would be the only valid Smile, because a Jan '67 Smile would be different from a March '67 Smile - would the latter be less legitimate because a few months went by? No. And because a few decades go by doesn't mean that the same artist can't revisit old material and complete it.

Thanks for the kind words – much appreciated.

With respect to your point: I think it’s kind of amusing...many of the folks who deny SMiLE its definitive status freely acknowledge Brian’s absolute right to change the album – sometimes, it appears, from day to day – throughout the 1966/7 period. And they (presumably) acknowledge his right to cancel the album altogether; although we now know that the cancellation was more of a lengthy postponement. But somehow they seem to feel that his right to make changes is revoked after that point – as if creative license came with an expiration date.

C&N

[SAYS it is Smile]

I really do think it's this simple, when all's said and done:

BWPS is Smile because the guy who wrote the music, who helmed the recordings, who envisioned people enjoying it, SAYS it is Smile. That makes it the Smile.

When I returned to the essays at the site linked in the first post – after a couple of decades – I discovered that a few of them were incomplete, and several others needed substantive edits. I think about how I would feel (and I need to be clear, I’m in no way putting my own scribbling on an equal footing with Brian’s and Van Dyke’s brilliant work) if someone challenged my right to revise the material, or my right to decide when it was finished.

Please forgive the shameless plug – I feel so strongly about this point that I dedicated a whole essay to it:

https://chalknnumbers.wixsite.com/the-smile-shop-attic/post/21-dim-last-toasting

C&N

...But I do recall others speaking about Orson Welles' "The Magnificent Ambersons" and how Welles realized his own cut of the film, what he wanted as a finished work versus what the studio demanded and released. That's a good one to deep-dive for anyone interested.

It’s sometimes difficult to separate fact from fiction with respect to Welles’s late projects; which were mere ideas, which had a measure of substance, which had a reasonable prospect of actually happening.

But it does seem to be true that Welles actively sought funding, in the 1970s, to enable him to shoot a new ending for Ambersons, featuring the still-surviving actors in their original roles. Although it wouldn’t have been the original ending – instead, it would have been a sort of “many years later” postscript – it would have been in keeping with his original vision.

If he had found the money, would that have been the definitive Ambersons? Well, he didn’t find it, so we’re spared the decision. But the story is a powerful reminder of just how miraculous it is that the original creators were able to return to SMiLE and complete it, all those years later.

C&N

I look at it from Brian's point of view - he is quoted as preferring his 2004 version (over TSS), and he was disappointed in how TSS sounded. I put a lot of stock into what the artist says - if Brian says TSS is the definitive version, then that is the definitive version. If Brian says the 2004 version is the definitive version, then that is the definitive version...and Brian has said as much about BWPS.

Brian speaking about the 2004 version:

At the studio, Mark Linett, our engineer, walked over and handed me a box. “What’s this?” I asked. “That’s SMiLE,” he said. I held it right next to my heart.

That says all I need to know about BWPS. I see TSS as a collection of historical documents, strung together to emulate the completed work (BWPS). I love TSS, and it is my most treasured boxset. And the amount of care and love that went into every aspect of that set is instantly apparent. However, I can't see it as being another official version of Smile, because the artist himself doesn't prefer it. It's like, if Beethoven released his 9th symphony, but years later someone else publishes an early draft of his 9th - we wouldn't call the early draft "official", because the artist himself didn't prefer it. I don't see any difference with Smile.

I think every fan has a right to their own personal preference, but I also think that the artist should have final say in what is the definitive/legitimate/official version. Because, like with my Beethoven hypothetical, in 200 years the fans of the work shouldn't have a say in what is or isn't official/definitive. Rather, Beethoven/Wilson himself should have that say. And Brian has said that BWPS is Smile.

Absolutely. Meaning not just that I agree unreservedly, but that deference to the artist is, for me, absolute.

To be clear,  I’m prepared to accept the 2011 SMiLE Sessions assemblage as a sort of variant of the definitive work, but only because it’s such an unusual outlier. And it’s important, I think, to remember that that assemblage exists *only* because there was a complete SMiLE to serve as a template.

It’s perfectly fine, of course, for someone to prefer the rough sketch to the finished painting. But I think it’s simply indefensible to claim that the sketch is the “real” work, and/or to delegitimize the work recognized by the composer as final. That’s been my consistent view for two decades now, and I’m sticking to it.

C&N

Yes, I (finally) read your PM and hope I managed to reply...

The 2011 SMiLE, besides moving "I'm in Great Shape" earlier, has two very important (imho) additions:
- "My Only Sunshine", which ends with that sublime snippet called by somebody "Barnshine" (if I remember correctly)
- The equally sublime tag to "Vegetables", which I think was omitted in 2004 simply because that dazzling display of harmony and counterpoint vocals was so extremely hard to reproduce without the 1967 Beach Boys.

What is my point, now, if any? Let's say that there are two officially released SMiLEs, the "Brian Wilson" completed one from 2004 and the "Beach Boys" incomplete, but including additional great content, one from 2011. So, I think "BWPS" is "the" SMiLE, but the one featured in the SMiLE Sessions is a perfectly legitimate alternate version: again, the Beach Boys SMiLE.

I hope I was not running in circles.

Thanks, Zenobi, for reminding me of those other differences. That’s what I get for working from an unreliable memory!

I agree: we have SMiLE, and we have a sort of variant SMiLE. An embarrassment of riches, in other words, that would have been unimaginable pre-2003.

C&N

Great points, as usual, about "BWPS" being SMiLE. I agree 101%, of course.

Though, I have a doubt. What is, exactly, the fantastic 2011 construction of a "Beach Boys" BWPS in the SMiLE Sessions? Is it yet another real SMiLE, as it was approved and published by the authors? I tend to a "yes". What do you think?

And I see you quoted me (Wagner...). I am honored, sir.

Well, I’ve always regarded that Wagner essay as a brilliant piece of analysis and writing. But if I was quoting you, then that makes you…wait...Mac, is that you?

(Please tell me I did you justice with the attribution.)

Did you see my PM regarding VDP? (I never completely trust any private messaging system, so I wanted to make sure.)

As for the 2004/2011 question:

The precise relationship between the 2003/4 SMiLE and the 2011 sequencing of the old SMiLE material – largely but not completely following the 2003/4 template – raises some very interesting questions.

As far as I can recall – and I know someone will correct me if I’m mistaken – the single biggest difference in the 2011 sequence is the repositioning of “I’m in Great Shape.” In theory, that change should reflect a reconsideration of the 2003/4 sequence, taking precedence over it. And maybe that is the right answer. Personally, I have some difficulty with the idea of elevating a concededly (and seriously) incomplete work over a complete one. It’s almost as if the 2011 release represents the blueprint for what would clearly be the final SMiLE: a re-recording of the 2004 album, following the revised running order.

Maybe we have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that this kind of thing can get pretty complicated. To take a non-musical example: when T.S. Eliot was readying The Waste Land for publication, he deleted a line from the “A Game of Chess” section, apparently at the insistence of his wife; the story goes that she objected to the negative light it threw on their marriage. (If you’re familiar with the poem, it’s bizarre to think that someone would take that stance; while certain of its details are presumably drawn from Eliot’s private life, The Waste Land is obviously *not* a confessional, personal sort of work. So it's hard to see how anyone might have read it as betraying their relationship secrets. But that’s beside the point.)

Anyway – and I’m basing this on my own recollections, so I may not have all the facts perfectly correct – fairly late in Eliot’s life, he agreed to sit down and write the poem out in longhand; I seem to recall that the request had to do with a charity initiative, but that may not be right. He wrote it out from memory, and he restored that previously deleted line.

Okay – at that point, which version is the final one? Eliot approved the published version, and it remained unchanged through numerous editions and printings; but he obviously thought that that line belonged in the poem, recalling it well enough to add it back in, without any sort of prompting. I think you can make a fairly persuasive argument on either side. (For what it’s worth, the 2015 authoritative text of Eliot’s poetry retains the line, so it seems that the scholars have decided that the one true Waste Land includes it.)

If the difference between the 2003/4 SMiLE and the 2011 SMiLE-Sessions sequence were more substantive – if, say, Brian had added in “With Me Tonight” or “You’re Welcome,” or if he had decided that SMiLE really ought to end with “Surf’s Up” after all, we might well have to say that the 2011 sequence represents the last word. But in light of the (relatively) minor change, I find that I’m capable of ignoring the cognitive dissonance and resisting the temptation to rob the 2003/4 work of its status as the final, authoritative version. That said, I can certainly understand why other folks might disagree with that position.

(And no, I don’t default to T.S. Eliot with respect to *every* artistic controversy; it’s just that I know his work very well, so it’s easy for me to talk about it.)

Apologies for the over-long rambling!

Those were the times, right? What a Golden Age. I was overwhelmed with joy and nostalgia when I finally noticed the name of the author of this thread.
IMHO the SMiLE Shop was the best forum ever, and you were the best contributor, among many great ones. And I can guess who was trying to organize a book based on such contributions... what a great person.
By the way, I think you already know the stellar "Smiley Smile Remix" (really, SMiLE-meets-Smiley Smile) created by none other than the legendary JON HUNT, co-creator of the SMiLE Shop with the equally legendary JOHN LANE, but just in case you do not, here it is:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh5v80aaweM

Oh, I agree. There were days when it felt like we were all engaged in a single collaborative effort – when the ideas were just exploding, with everybody adding their own insights, theories and discoveries. I suppose times like that can last only so long. But it was amazing while it was going on. I look back on those times with great fondness.

C&N

Chalk, I have never forgotten your excellent contributions in the legendary SMiLE Shop, and your "blog" does not disappoint, quite the contrary. I agree that VDP  should see at least a selection of it!
I love your "realization" that Surfin' USA and Surf's Up are not things apart, as many think, but part of the same artistic journey. That is the reason I love so much, say, Love You, the Paley Sessions and TLOS: they are too part of that journey.

Hi Zenobi,

Yes, absolutely, one of the unforeseen benefits of having a complete SMiLE in our hands is that we’re better able to see the links and commonalities with the earlier Beach Boys work.

Speaking only for myself, I definitely had a blind spot there: I just didn’t see or appreciate the creative continuity between the early and late Beach Boys material. But I can think of a couple of reasons why that should have been so.

First of all, the non-appearance of SMiLE in 1967 left a big gap. On the most basic level, how do you contextualize something that isn’t there? You can make a case that there was a similar hole in Bob Dylan’s work, leaving us with Blonde on Blonde on one side of the divide and John Wesley Harding on the other. If we had had the Basement Tapes available, it might have been easier to understand the continuity of his output (acknowledging that the SMiLE/Basement Tapes parallel isn’t perfect, because the Basement Tapes were never envisioned as an actual release). For example, the nonsense lyrics of some Basement Tapes songs look back to some of the verse lyrics of, say, “Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands” (you can imagine the “curfew plugs,” whatever they are, fitting into “Please Mrs. Henry”). And by like token, the more cryptic roots-oriented Basement Tapes songs (“This Wheel’s on Fire,” etc.) anticipate the mystery and allusiveness of John Wesley Harding songs like “All Along the Watchtower.” But at the time, there was no bridge between the two very different styles.

Second of all, there was a great need, back in the late 60s/early 70s,  for a clean break between the naive simplicity of early rock-n-roll and the “relevance” of the later music. At Woodstock, that “old” stuff (including “Wipe Out”) was strictly Sha Na Na nostalgia. The Beatles quoted “She Loves You” in 1967, but they had to fit it into a new psychedelic context; if they had still been a touring band at that point, you couldn’t have imagined them playing “I Saw Her Standing There” live and doing it straight. And as for the Beach Boys: can you conceive of a more powerful gesture – a clearer way of distancing themselves from their surf-rock past – than opening an album with a song called “Don’t Go Near the Water”?

C&N

Hi Zenobi,

Thanks so much for the kind words. We did have some wonderful conversations back there, didn't we?

As regards the VDP suggestion: PM sent.

Cheers,

C&N

Hi Don,

Thanks, again, for the kind words.

I was going to bump this thread – highly gauche, I know, to borrow a phrase from Van Dyke – to say that the collection of blog posts/chapters/essays/whatever is now nearly complete. Over the next couple of days (still proofreading!), I plan to add numbers 20 and 21, and that will finish them out.

I agree, absolutely, that the essays differ greatly in terms of general interest and/or critical value; some are mainly historical/contextual, and some are strictly anecdotal and personal. Those are included only by way of background. I’m more than happy to be guided by your recommendations.

Once upon a time, in a world that was less guarded about personal contact info, I actually had Van Dyke’s email address, and he and I exchanged a note or two. But that was an age (and a dozen Macs) ago – I no longer have those emails, and I’m sure the address is defunct. I’m humbled at the thought of calling any of this scribbling to his attention, but if anyone has up-to-date contact info for him, I’d be glad to send a link. (Or if it would make more sense for somebody else to send it, that would be perfectly fine with me.) A PM will reach me here, and the contact form at the wix site should work as well.

A few notes for the benefit of folks who may not have looked in on the site:

Posts 1-3 spend a bit of time – probably far too much! – on my own SMiLE history (such as it is), as well as the background of the essays themselves.

Posts 4-8, taken together, comprise what would have been a single chapter, dealing with musical and lyrical references in SMiLE. I think of this as basic stuff – prework, if you like.

Posts 9-15, 17-20 represent core attempts at interpretation/analysis. Please note that Post 20 is really more of an introduction than an essay; the essay itself (which I acknowledge to be quite lengthy) is available as a PDF download.

Post 16 is a piece of pure speculative fiction originally published – circa 2004 – in an online music magazine. (There have been minor revisions throughout.) The premise: if SMiLE had been released in 1967, and if Rolling Stone magazine had been around at the time, what would the album review have looked like?

Post 21 is a sort of closing, with a few more unapologetically personal thoughts about SMiLE.

I don’t envision adding any further content, although I may do some rethinking and revising over time as opportunities present themselves.

I hope there’s something useful, interesting or entertaining in all of that. Thanks for reading!

C&N

At that point, Mike turned to her – I know this sounds like an over-the-top bit of corny dialog from a movie or TV show – and said “What am I, chopped liver?”

My late mother who was approximately the same age as ML used to like the. "What is .... ? Chopped liver?" line, too.  I believe it was popular slang when they came of age in the 1950s.  I wouldn't necessarily read too much into it.  Very often the line is uttered ironically, without malice, in a self-deprecating way  Sure, on some level Mike msy have bee slightly resentful of a situation in which he perceived that a Brian-adulating fan was ignoring him but he was very likely just trying to be funny.

Oh, no question, it was a common phrase back in the day; I’m quite familiar with it. Mike’s remark was pure old-fashioned borscht belt humor – like the little digs the two lead characters toss around in The Sunshine Boys. But in my experience that kind of comment, played for laughs on the surface, always has a core of seriousness inside it; in fact, I think you can make the argument that it depends, for its full effect, on that little bit of “edge.” Every time I heard it used, at a family gathering or social function, the speaker was making a point as well as a joke.

It seems to me that you would offer it up only if you were already looking for a slight; it's not as if Mike was being ostentatiously ignored. And I can tell you that while it was obviously a species of witticism, it wasn’t delivered in an especially good-natured way; and nobody within earshot (including Al and David) reacted with a laugh or a smile.

I guess (as those same borscht belt comedians might have said): you had to be there.

Just logging in briefly to share a Mike/Brian story – one I haven't shared before, and one that underscores, I think, the point so well made here:

This is what kinda irks me about his answer to the question about TWGMTR: instead of focussing on the positive and getting people interested in the album to help sell a couple more records, he instead focuses solely on his complaints. It was their highest charting album since 1965 (and yes to anyone with a bone to pick about this statement I'm well aware that the chart placement process has changed since 1965, not the point it's just a neat factoid about the album that creates buzz) and ‘Daybreak' is a really good song (seriously this song is amazing with headphones and the harmonies are incredible) and one that Mike should be proud of, so why not say something positive about that?

He starts off answering the question with "Well, I don't know what to say about that in a positive way" as if TWGMTR wasn't their highest debuting album of their career, or as if it wasn't incredible that a new era of fans got to hear some great new songs and Mike vocals? I'm not saying he can't complain, but his answer is so disingenuous to the fundamental reality of the album/situation - if those are his true feelings he really needs to do some TM/Introspection on why he can’t see anything positive in how that album turned out.

Agree with all this for sure. But as we all know, Mike is always going to feel awkward at best looking back at the TWGMTR album and the 2012 tour. From his perspective, he wants to be in charge of the touring Beach Boys and to run them the way he sees fit. Praising a successful Brian-led album and a reunion where he wasn't the star is never going to sit right with him. I obviously agree there are ways to give a more balanced answer.

My wife and I were lucky enough to get meet-&-greet/soundcheck tickets for the reunion tour when it came to our area. I’ll admit that I was a bit shy and tongue-tied when we were ushered over to “meet” the group. My wife, however, had no such problem. She stepped right up, stuck out her hand and said “Hi, Brian.” He shook her hand and said a quiet hello back.

At that point, Mike turned to her – I know this sounds like an over-the-top bit of corny dialog from a movie or TV show – and said “What am I, chopped liver?”

I think back to that moment from time to time. And I imagine that same scene (or one close to it) being played out again and again, in city after city. There it was, in that half-joking response: all that resentment and pettiness, right there on public display. And you can readily imagine those feelings building over time throughout the tour.

I’ll admit to something else: right after the concert – which was terrific – part of me wanted to believe that the Beach Boys were back in business as a dynamic, living band. In retrospect, that meet-&-greet interaction should have told me I was just dreaming.

C&N

@Dan:

Thanks for the kind words! Who knows, maybe I'll work up some courage one day and send VDP a link.

For what it’s worth, I tend to think it sometimes works that way: if the allusions/references are present in your mind, they can work their way into what you’re writing, even if you’re not consciously summoning them. If memory serves, there’s a later essay that touches on that point.

More posts on the song allusions to come – the "prework," sort of, with the critical essays to follow.

Best,

C&N

@Don:

Hi Don,

Thank you for the comments.

I come from a literary-criticism background, so my writing leanas that way. Definitely not the joyless, stodgy kind of criticism, though (at least I hope not). I learned from reading the modern critics: the folks writing about Pound, Eliot and Williams. Their work – the best of it, anyway – was always alive to the cultural, historical and spiritual stuff that was layered in with the nouns and verbs. To be clear, I wouldn’t dream of putting myself in that same class…just acknowledging influences, that’s all.

For me, there’s no necessary connection between regarding something as high art, on the one hand, and approaching it with a rigid pedantic mindset, on the other. In fact, I’d argue that reading great literature like that (or listening to great music, or viewing great art) is a marvelously efficient way to kill everything that’s worthwhile in it – and there you are, with your nicely wrapped mummy.

I certainly don’t think of SMiLE that way. If anything, it’s the opposite. It’s too vital and exciting and moving for that kind of treatment. To my mind, the job of criticism is to find connections, ask questions, discover meanings, illuminate a corner or two…not to build a museum exhibit. SMiLE is a living work, and it deserves living discussion. Intellectual inquiry? Absolutely. SMiLE merits (and repays) that kind of attention…as long as you bring your curiosity and wonder and humor along as well. Otherwise, I’d argue, you’re missing the spirit of the thing altogether.

To put it another way: I take SMiLE seriously, meaning that I respect it as an artistic accomplishment, but I do my best not to get overly serious about it. In the good old days of SMiLE conversation, online and otherwise, there was peace in the valley – for the most part – and all these threads coexisted happily. That’s how I remember it, anyway. It was fun.

Sorry for the rambling. I hope you find something interesting and/or entertaining at the site!

Best,

C&N

Well, that's horrible.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to post. I'm looking into the issue, but so far I can't match the phenomenon to any of the known Wix text issues. I've reset test blocks of text to the default, but there's no visible change: it's all black, #000000, before and after. For what it's worth, I'm on Firefox as well.

Profound apologies for the problem. I will continue to investigate.

Best,

C&N

Hi GF,

Thanks for the kind words. Yes, it’s hard, sometimes, to process the fact that that two decades have gone by. We waited for SMiLE for 37 years, and it’s now more than half that span since it was released.

I suppose it’s natural for orthodox narratives to form over time; some people would say that most of history has been created that way. I tend to resist narratives of all sorts, out of sheer cussedness, I guess. I don't like being lectured to, and I'm too old to put up with finger-wagging. I prefer the open atmosphere we enjoyed all those years ago. I don’t think I realized, at the time, how lucky we were to be part of that ongoing conversation.

As for the Wix site, I will definitely look into the readability concern. I can tell you that I didn’t (and never would) choose a light-gray text color; everything is the default black, and it all reads as black on my devices. Is everything hard to read, or is it just certain sections or pages? I don’t have a lot of font choices, but I’m happy to see what I can do there. I apologize, and I appreciate your bringing the issue to my attention.

Best,

C&N

Hi All,

What do you know, my login still works.

It’s been a long time since my last post (a masterpiece of understatement). But I still check in on the site every so often, and when I happened to see a recent thread – and read the comments there (Hiya, GF!) about the sort of conversations that used to go on here, back in the good old days – well, that helped to bring into focus an idea I’ve been toying with for a few months.

As some longtime members may recall, one of the distinguished luminaries of the Beach Boys world* had the notion, back in 2004, of putting together a book of SMiLE-focused essays. He graciously and generously invited me to contribute a piece or two, and I was honored (and humbled) to accept. A fair amount of work was done on the project, but there was never a complete manuscript.

To celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the SMiLE premiere (and album release), I thought it might make sense to revisit my chapters, to see if there was anything worth salvaging. I don’t pretend to know the answer to that question, but I do know that once I dug them up, it didn’t feel right to rebury them. So I’ve put together a (very) rudimentary Wix site in order to share them. The essays will appear as blog posts, but that’s strictly an organizational convention; this isn’t a true ongoing blog, and when the essays are used up, that will be the end of it. Some of the essays are on the long side, so I'll be chopping those up into installments.

I’ve done a bit of editing, adding lines here, subtracting others there. Mostly I’ve struggled with the citations and references, dealing with lost reference books and dead links (thank you, Wayback Machine). I haven’t been able to locate everything – and the citations definitely aren’t in proper academic format! – but there came a point when I had to give it up and declare victory.

The URL is:

https://chalknnumbers.wixsite.com/the-smile-shop-attic

If you decide to visit, I hope you’ll find something interesting there. I don't expect that I'll be logging in here too often, but you never know.

Thanks,

C&N

* I haven’t been able to contact the owner of the book project to seek his blessing, so his name won’t be appearing anywhere. Some of you old-timers will probably know who I’m talking about.

Hey PapaNez,

Still kicking around, although I’m more lurker than poster nowadays.

Thanks so much for the kind words; it’s awfully nice to be remembered. I often think about those good old days, and I realize, now, just how good they were. Looking back, I understand that the sustained high level of conversation was even more remarkable than it seemed at the time.

I have vivid memories of hitting “refresh” to read the updates coming from the London premiere. Like live bulletins from some world-changing event: “ribbon of concrete heard at 7 minutes,” and so on. That’s the one and only time I ever felt truly connected, in real time, to a global online community. What an amazing experience!

Anyway, it’s wonderful to renew an old friendship. We really did share something special. Hope all’s well with you and yours!