I really love the Smile music. But there is a lot of the cynicism in me that says it's just an album--or rather, would have been. A great album, maybe, but has its reputation really suffered much, being regarded as one of the most mythical pieces of pop ever? Who knows ... if there is a tragedy around it, it's any personal ones. And those are hard for us to judge anyway. It's just hard to get too worked up about, I guess. Don't get me wrong, it's interesting. But to quote the late Freddie Mercury, "it's just a bloody rock 'n' roll record--people take these things so seriously."

Oh please let this turn into a Tom Cruise "you're glib" moment. PLEASE.

It's by Golden Smog, a supergroup of sorts featuring some musicians who were considered alt-country back when people said that. Jeff Tweedy, the frontman from Wilco, is the guy who sings. They did a version in the late 90s, though he performed it at least occasionally while stumping for Obama last summer and fall.

I think much of the dislike of Daro isn't so much providing the drugs as it is how he seems to think it's hilarious even now. I'd think a person with any sort of conscience or empathy would say "You know, a lot of us were doing it at the time--it was legal, remember. And Brian wanted some, so I gave it to him. It had different effects on different people, but in hindsight, considering Brian's since-diagnosed mental illnesses, it was a tragic mistake." Nope. He laughs. He reminds me of a stupid teenager giggling about what his dumbass friend did when drunk. "Dude, he totally fell down! Hahaha."

Loren Daro was there. His side of the story needed to be told for better or for worse. 

It's disgusting, but fair. But not as much as Mike Love's side, Al Jardine's side or Bruce Johnston's side. They're the people who could have really fleshed out that story. But whether they refused or weren't offered, those omissions kept that documentary a puff piece.

Mike, Al and Bruce were all asked to take part in Beautiful Dreamer and all three refused to be interviewed. If it's a one-sided "puff piece",  then I don't think Leaf is to blame.

No if about it. And I wasn't blaming, just noting the glaring and unfortunate omission.

Loren Daro was there. His side of the story needed to be told for better or for worse. 

It's disgusting, but fair. But not as much as Mike Love's side, Al Jardine's side or Bruce Johnston's side. They're the people who could have really fleshed out that story. But whether they refused or weren't offered, those omissions kept that documentary a puff piece.

No, they're bands fronted by dead white guys in wigs. Big difference.

1. Does it bother anyone that maybe Brian's best song of the 70's was tinkered with?

They tinkered with Baseball? Bastards!

Jocularly Orated Krazy Edict? But yeah, seriously, f*** those dead white guys and their boring music. The only good classical is when Aerosmith or Guns 'n' Roses had Michael Kamen conducting string sections through their I-IV-V chorded songs at various late '80s awards shows. Yep, THAT's classical music I can dig. You and your fancy wig-wearers.

Joke's on you guys: I'm drinking out of a wine glass at the moment! So ... um ... damnit. 

You had to be there, I guess....

Hey, I was there in those days. Possibly not yet potty trained, but there...

Don't let my notation comment throw you: I believe it is very important. Not essential to music, but hugely important, just as the written word is to storytelling. As for durations, though, I do disagree. Music has always included short and long programs. And as for how it is understood today: well, that's the whole issue, isn't it? If we're going by how it is understood today, your definition may as well include "dead, boring, stiff, and for white men only."

Yeah, Luther, I know that you doubt the Beach Boys every now and then, esp. when being hungover... but man, it's not that bad, is it?

That isn't my description at all. You've got to read that in context.

also has a review for the la light lp. funny..they say outside of HCTN "not much else on the album is very stimulating"

Any other comments in the review that are interesting? I love reading reviews written upon release of older albums: they always show just how fluid sensibilities are over time.

Here's an interesting-to-me (off the cuff) definition of what is commonly called classical music: music that people could afford to have someone notate and distribute. Granted, that definition stops as soon as people began recording music, as well as when people could realistically write and distribute their own music (so, say, the past 100 years is out). But hey, wasn't it dead by then anyway?  And what that definition does is remove the music we no longer have. Whose music was that? Commers' music. Folk music, more or less, unless it was made into classical music a la Bartok, among others.

Don't let my notation comment throw you: I believe it is very important. Not essential to music, but hugely important, just as the written word is to storytelling. As for durations, though, I do disagree. Music has always included short and long programs. And as for how it is understood today: well, that's the whole issue, isn't it? If we're going by how it is understood today, your definition may as well include "dead, boring, stiff, and for white men only."

The formal presentation and behavior of the audience, though, is a recent development. In and before the 1800s, audiences were closer to what you'd expect at a modern jazz club setting, socializing, applauding bits they liked during the performance, generally ignoring things altogether, booing, trying to pick up one another for amorous experiences, etc. The longer running times, too, is a more modern idea. Many, many pieces are just a minute or few minutes long--exactly like the pop music of today. (Think of Chopin's etudes, impromptus, etc.) The ability to read and write is at least historically true--but, remember, they were unable to record and play back music. There was no other way to preserve it.

That's kind of my point: the blanket term doesn't define ANYTHING. It's not even a broadly definable style. It's not anything at all. Imagine: "I call all music that happened from 1850 through yesterday 'Musicalia.'" Robert Johnson, Cecil Taylor, Michael Bolton, Stephen Foster, Whitesnake, Dominick Argento, Richard Rodgers, Yngwie Malmsteen and Prince are all Musicalia. And me, I never did get into Musicalia: it's OK to sleep to or as background, but it's not really any fun, you know?"

But you can't blame a 13-year-old for acting 13. I'm wholly with Amy: it's not that big a deal. If people are into the fan experience in that way, fine.

Well, classical music is a false definition as it is generally understood. There is no single kind of music that encompasses Palestrina, JS Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Wagner, Strauss, Stravinsky, Bartok and Glass. The primary thing that leads someone to call a kind of music "classical" tends to be orchestral instruments and suits, but the instruments of the orchestra changed over time and of course the suits are a later addition! There has always been high culture, middlebrow and low culture. And there have always been crossovers. There is nothing strange in a Scandinavian metal band taking aspects of music that has come before them. It doesn't make them more "classical," or some kind of crossover. (Ooooh, Beatles by the Boston Pops! They're so CLASSICAL now!) Anyone in any genre who has studied or picked up a type of music will incorporate some aspects of it if it was attractive.

Oh, there is no question that a lot of the more technical metal is directly taken from baroque and classical period music. None at all, and anyone who says otherwise is either uneducated on one or both musics or an idiot. (Granted, I don't like metal, either!) Another interesting aspect is the technical one: like writing in functional counterpoint, writing and recording metal requires a good understanding of arranging or you'll lose lines in the mix. (Of course it wasn't being recorded in the 1600s, but the idea remains the same.) There is also just the bombastic theatricality of it all that's in common, mythical/mystical themes, etc.

Brian is simply doing a job (albeit one he enjoys) as opposed to bursting with passion to record like he did in the early to mid-60s. That happens to everyone, folks.

I agree. But that's an unacceptable position to most fans, who demand of Brian either sheer brilliance or enslavement to evil captors. There can be no admittedly uninspired (although solid, professional) product. That usually isn't an option here.

Well, it seems we're diametrically opposed in our tastes. Meaning, of course, that we'll have to solve this with a good, old-fashioned tug o' war!

I assumed it was (in good fun. If not, wow, this would be one pathetically lame spat). And to answer the question, actually, no. I've only just begun picking up some of his stuff, having heard it here and there in my school days mostly, but never really digging in. (Romantics tended to annoy me in those days. Wait, they still do--see all my bitching about people's irrational insertions of "magic" into music.) I picked up a 4-disc set of his piano works a couple of weeks ago, but that's it for my Schumann family collection.

I'd like to add "end thread," "/thread" and any other permutations that hint the poster thinks his or her word on the subject is in any way definitive or final. f*** that sh*t.

End thread. kthnxbye

Didn't we talk about this?