Sonic- I've been meaning to ask you: What are  your thoughts on the use of Bruiteur's Great Shape and Barnyard, with the demo piano removed?  I believe that you used versions with the piano in.  Was that because you believe that those bits sound better that way, or was it just not something you were focused on?  I'm not sure that I've ever heard Bruiteur's Great Shape and Barnyard, but I'm curious as to whether they are improvements.

Honestly, I did my own edit because I knew I could do it!  I don't know which of ours is better because I haven't heard his.  But I think my edit sounds fine and the piano embedded in the vocal track has never distracted me from the song itself. 

With that said--and note I haven't heard what Bruiteur did and I don't know what method he used--I am not a fan of EQ filtering the vocal tracks.  The reason is that the human voice covers a large chunk of the frequency spectrum, and if you try to EQ out the piano you will surely also lose a crucial band of the vocal.  I would rather have a piano bleed than missing frequencies in the vocal, you know?  I also very much dislike digital remnants of some frequency extraction VSTs.  The official stereo "Good Vibrations" sounds pretty great but I've heard other fan-made things that sounded bad. 

[but at least I could see the form of it]

Some are around, some are in Badman's book, and the Smile box, etc, as are tapebox labels and so forth.  I was given a stack of copies of the contracts (a few are transcriptions of contracts), Capitol sheets, long ago and there are more than I have now it seems.

Fair enough.

OK, we will disagree.  He couldn't record two different recordings at the same time for different masters but #57020 was on-going before, during, and after the #57045 sessions, so they were concurrent.

He is stating as fact that there "was an A side B side version lasting about six minutes".

The ones we are discussing right now.  I would like to see them, as they would present documentation contrary to what is stated in the Smile book (as the sessions are not noted as for H&V Part 2), and all other documentation I've seen. 

Fair enough.

57020 was ongoing?  It appears the final session under that master was 2/20/67 with Part 4.  Am I wrong?  What were the other parts after that under 57020?

"The best version I heard, which was never completed, but at least I could see the form of it, was an A side B side version lasting about six minutes"
He could see the form of it, as in, this is his interpretation of what he had heard.  Wouldn't he have stated "Brain said it should be two sides of a single" if it had happened?  No, he's phrasing it "I could see the form of it" because it's his interpretation, not fact.  Is he right or wrong?  We don't know, but it's important not to misconstrue opinion as fact. 

The AFM Recording Contracts from the sessions.

It was used after the fact in June in the master for the released single, which wouldn't change its intention or status as for the #57045 "Side 2" master in January and/or late February and early March.  It was for side 2 when side 2 was being created but used a different way when the 2 sided single was dropped is how I assume it worked.

I disagree, not really like other songs and they were concurrent.  The #57020 master was recorded from December 19 through June 14, and the #57045 master was recorded from January 5 through March 2.

Luckily for us, it was Vosse who heard it and knew it was actually the two sides of an H&V single.  

Can no one reading this thread find their copy of the Preiss book?  Anyone volunteer to ask VDP about a two sided H&V single?

Where can we see the contracts?  Do you have them in front of you or is this "what you believe"?

Fair enough.

I disagree.  They are not concurrent when Brian stopped working on one entirely and shifted attention, then dropped that entirely again for something else.  That is consecutive.

Read the quote again.  He is offering his opinion.  There is not fact stated.  It was "clear to him" from listening to six minutes of.... something.  And, as I said, I would come to the same conclusion if I heard the 3 min Cantina mix and another 2 or 3 minutes of Brian's edits of the Gee Variations. 

I think Craig was trying to give some background with those notes, I believe this is the way they are actually logged by “Session No.” under “TITLE OF TUNES” by “Master No.” on the AFMs:

“Heroes and Villains - Part 2”: (“Side 2”): 1/5/67 (57045/Session # 14247)

“Heroes and Villains”: 1/27/67 (57020)
“Heroes and Villains”:  2/20/67 (57020)
“Heroes and Villains”: 2/20/67 (57020)
“Heroes and Villains”:  2/20/67 (57020)
“Heroes and Villains”: 2/20/67 (57020)

“Heroes and Villains - Part II”: 2/27/67 (57045/Session # 14247A)
“Heroes and Villains - Part II Insert”: 2/28/67 (57045/Session # 14247B)
“Heroes and Villains - Part II”: 3/1/67 (57045/Session # 14247C)
“Heroes and Villains, Part II (Insert)”: 3/2/67 (57045/Session # 14247D)

Do you have a source for this? 

I believe it is a fact that #57020 was from December 19 through to the released single and still is the master of the side 1 of the H&V single even without a single note about it being for the master for side 1, which makes it even more significant that the #57045 H&V Part 2 master is identified as “Side 2”. 

But the 57045 piece labeled Part 2/Side 2 was used with the 57020 verses that you assume are Side 1 as one edit.  How does that work? 

As I’ve said the master numbers for H&V became consistent and consecutive beginning December 19 even as two separate concurrent masters from January 5 though March 2. The reason doesn't matter but I assume he worked on each master as he was able or inspired when he could, touring and studio availability were issues and there seems to be some consideration about how much of SMiLE to give away on side 2 of the H&V single.  Would that be more of a concern if you were going to give away a single song from the album or if you were giving away some sort of suite or sampler of modified tracks from several songs from the album?

I'm sorry I'm going to have to disagree with this assessment.  He wasn't doing two masters at the same time.  He would start one and then drop it, using a new master when starting over.  Just like other songs of the project.  They were not concurrent, they were consecutive. 

“So, in the studio, things were going off and on: the album was moving very slowly, and it missed its Christmas release - so at that point they decided to concentrate on the single, "Heroes and Villains" – of which there must have been a dozen versions. The best version I heard, which was never completed, but at least I could see the form of it, was an A side B side version lasting about six minutes. It was a beautifully structured work; and Van Dyke was still very involved.”  Michael Vosse

If I was friends with Brian and he played me a session work tape with the 2/10/67 Cantina version followed by the Brian's 2/20/67 Gee & Variations test edit I'd think it was a 6-minute/two-sided single too!

I'm not sure I'm following you but my understanding is the very late February and very early March sessions are all titled "H&V Part II" and for the #57045 master and they also share the master's session number (14247 through 14247D) for the H&V Part II master. 

They are not listed as Part 2 in the sessionogrophy in the Smile Sessions book.  The only things listed as Part 2 (or similar) are:
Heroes and Villains Part 2 (Bicycle Rider overdubs) - 1/5/67 (57045)
Heroes and Villains: Part 2 (Cantina track) - 1/27/67 (57020)
Heroes and Villains: Part 2 (Gee) - 2/20/67 (57020)
Heroes and Villains: Part 2 Revised - 2/20/67 (57020)
Heroes and Villains: Part 3 (Animals) - 2/20/67 (57020)
Heroes and Villains: Part 4 - 2/20/67 (57020)
Heroes and Villains Part Two (chorus) - 2/28/67 (57045)
Heroes and Villains: Part II Insert - 3/2/67 (57045) [The mastertapes were lost]

That's it.  Only those 8 segments.  The Verse and Fade remakes and Organ Waltz were logged as Heroes and Villains, while still under master # 57045.   

I presume if the master is marked as "Side 2" the sessions for that master would be for "Side 2", the same way the sessions and master takes for master #57020 were for side 1.

1) Unless I am mistaken, there are no mentions of "side 1" anytime of master #57020 on the sessionogrophy or the call-out slates on the sessions themselves.  This would be an assumption.
2) Only one singular piece of master #57045 is called out as "Side 2", not the whole master. 

At least it shows the intention at the time of the recording, Brian apparently changed his mind from his previous intentions occasionally ie. Barnyard, IIGS, cantina, and various numbered sections recorded for the side 1 master #57020. 

According to the Sessionography, Barnyard had a master #56727 and I'm in Great Shape #56738.  Neither were apart of #57020.  And this was in October, when presumably they were a part of Heroes and Villains!  Also note that the first use of master #57045 was for the Bicycle Rider Chorus...  It was master #56729 (a part of Do You Like Worms) but was reassigned to 57045 for this purpose once it had vocals.  Then NO other work was done to it for nearly two months.  What does this tell us?  That master numbers were only temporary until the song was finished and parts were shifted.   

"Part 2" in the title must not mean a second section of the titled track's master because one of the master takes with that "H&V - Part II" master title is also noted as an "intro". 

Do You Like Worms was logged as having 4 parts; My Only Sunshine having 2; Vege-Tables having a Part 4; I Love To Say Dada having two parts.  Why are we using selective logic to say the second parts of H&V were not pieces of a singular song and just a flipside of a single?  Where is the 4-sided Do You Like Worms single?

I don't think it is chasing our tail at all, it seems pretty clearly laid out, identified, and organized at the time to me.  We don't know how the two sided single ended up but Vosse said something like he pretty much knew what it was going to be, nearly finished, when he left in March and didn't Britz say they had a two sided H&V single actually finished?  The H&V side 2 isn't some fan-tasy pulled out of thin air by grasping for evidence, it had witnesses and is documented.  I'm kind of confused by the resistance to the evidence I guess.

We are chasing our tails because I've already laid out why this scenario is not probable.  I've even assembled a test edit of master 57045 and all it sounds like is a complete reboot of Heroes and Villains -- just as Brian had done with the original version of H&V (which Al Kooper claimed to use elements of My Only Sunshine), taped 5/11/67 as master # 55999, and just as Brian had done with Wonderful (the harpsichord version as master 56550 and Rock With me Henry as master 57046).  We knew he was striving to find the song, and it seems obvious that after the 2/15/67 final Cantina version failed to make the cut, he rebooted the song with a new master number -- retroactively using the same master number as a section he set aside nearly two months later.  Of that master, it contained both Parts 1 (Intro and Verse) and Parts 2 (Chorus).  That was scrapped again and revived in June for Smiley Smile, as a new master #56727.  That amounts to four versions of H&V, each with their own master number (55999, 57020, 57045 and 56727). 

And as for Vosse, well, if I was friends with Brian and he played me a session work tape with the 2/10/67 Cantina version followed by the Brian's 2/20/67 Gee & Variations test edit I'd think it was a 6-minute/two-sided single too! 

So, does anybody believe my theory has any credibility? To be honest, I don't know a speck of valid information compared to the Smile-enthusiasts on this board, so I'd love to hear their thoughts on this proposed theory, and whether it is likely Brian envision HV to be a part of some sort of 'Barnyard Suite.'

It's possible, but not sure how probable. 

I haven't had time to do any homework but, yes, master numbers could change and be back dated and abandoned for new numbers but that isn't really what is going on with "H&V" #57020 beginning December 19 or "H&V-Part II" "Side 2" #57045 beginning January 5.  H&V Part II/Side 2 #57045 is a title of a track made up of sections recorded as master takes including an "intro" and what also might be something like a chorus and verse. Not a part 2/second part in the way cantina or any of the side 1 part twos for #57020 were sections. 

Not precisely.

It's true that the Bicycle Rider Chorus from 1/5/67 was master #57045 (the first use of it, which it was assigned this number upon receiving overdubs...), logged as Heroes and Villains Part 2 and slated as "Side 2".  But that's the only reference to Side 2... at all.  Ever.  Then we both know that master #57045 was used again on 2/27/67 for the Chorus (also logged as Part Two).  But the following three recordings from March '67 for the master #57045 (Fade Remake, Verse Remake, Organ Waltz) weren't logged as Part 2 or Part Two or Part II, just as Heroes and Villains, proper. 

So what that amounts to for all five individual sections of Master #57045, only two were connected to a "Part 2/Part Two/Part II" and only one connected to "Side 2".  Is that proof enough to connect all those dots and say Master 57045 = Side 2?  I'm sure you'll say 'yes' but statistically speaking there's only 1/5 probability that it's Side 2, and only 2/5 probability it's a Part 2.  The odds are not good.   

To me it all points to not only 'no' but that there was no "H&V Part II" that would exist as a flip-side to the Heroes and Villains single.  Only a second "part" of Heroes and Villains (if the verse and a capella sections are "Part 1") that Brian couldn't decide on: at first was I'm in Great Shape, then Bicycle Rider, then Cantina, then Gee and it's variations (which were also Parts 3 and 4), then finally a Chorus.  The Master numbers came, went, mislogged and reassigned; they are convenient, but not defining.  Any reference to "part" at all refers to sections of a song, rather than the A and B-side of a single. 

I think we're chasing our tails here. 

Interesting.

So in this scenario, is H&V proper only about 1 minute long? 

Well, actually... there's this little piece on the Hawthorne CD that has the original Vega-Tables bass line with "With me tonight" sung over it, so indeed, yes, at one moment in time With Me Tonight was intended to be a section of Vega-Tables.

Or was the arrangement ideas of the Veges bridge just recycled into With Me Tonight?  (just like the DYLW/Bicycle Rider piano bit *and* the vocal arrangement of the Vege-Tables Fade was recycled into an interlude for Wonderful)

correct me if I'm wrong but it was not Brian's practice to create a new master and session number and new title including the part number (ie. Heroes and Villains - Part 2/II, master #57020 session #s 14236 through 14236D) for the second part, or third part, fourth part, of a separate master and title (ie. Heroes and Villains, master #57045, session #s 14247 through 14247R).

Cabin Essence - masters #56647, #56716 and #57044
Wonderful - masters #56550 and #57046
Surf's Up - masters #56842, (crossed out and written) #56850, and then #56841

And also With Me Tonight is logged as master # #57450, so it must be a part of Vege-Tables?  And Barnyard has a master #56727 and I'm in Great Shape as #56738 so they must not be a part of Heroes and Villains? 

You are free to believe what you want to believe but the master numbers are a red herring. 

Side A
1. Surf's Up
2. Look
3. Fall Breaks and Back to Winter
4. Vege-Tables
5. She Gives Speeches
6. She's Goin Bald

Side B
7. just the chorus of Cabin Essence repeated four times
8. Heroes and Villains (15 minute version)
9. Surf's Up
10. The Elements (Earth = Wonderful, Water = Surf's Up, Wind = Barnyard, Fire = Wind Chimes)
11. Sloop John B
12. Our Prayer

http://www2.zippyshare.com/v/QffX4rhf/file.html

A new edit of The Elements if anyone is interested.  It's essentially Mrs O'Leary's Cow as Fire (with Fire FX overdub), Dada Pt 1 as Earth, Second Day as Wind and Dada Part 2 as Water...  The later three strung together with the appropriate Psychedelic Sounds chants inserted into the rests in between the four Dada segments (as per Brian's dictation that dialog was going to go in the rests). 

Are... are you being facetious?

No, I'm highly skeptical that VDP's intention in 1966 would not be conveyed by the meter and melody in the performance. Since the performance is long established I'm skeptical of the punctuation variant from the performance.  I get what you are saying but I have doubts.

Well as I said, I honestly thought it was a typo and discounted it myself, but this conversation has given me pause. 

I guess, is there a precedent for VDP doing it elsewhere?
The music hall, a costly bow... 
Cabin essence, timely hello

Those are implied commas but not sung (for the former, in order to be "holocaustly")   I'll have to go back and listen to Song Cycle and other non-SMiLE stuff.  I can't remember what it's printed as and I have no clue where either of my lyric books are, I can't check.  :/

Are... are you being facetious?

It sounds fantastic in there but how much of a cheat do people think it is.?  justified or not..?

Well did you type "F U N D" while you were making the edit? 

Why is it not performed as punctuated is my first question if that is what was intended.

Because it would mess up the structure of the meter and melody.

It's sort of the ee cummings thing, I
presume.  You don't see it often, but off
the top of my head, one of

my favorite bands the pAper chAse also does this, where
the lyrics are sung, but as they are
printed with punctuation that is not sung but gives a clue to the literary meaning
of the lyrics, so that one needs
to not only hear the lyrics but read them
to understand. 

OK, but that is not the meaning I take from the words as sung.

That's fine, it's poetry. 

don't discount multiple meanings, there's not necessarily just one

I know, I'm suggesting it is a double meaning--as 1) a square dance and 2) a "dance" to the second power. 

For the record, I always thought Cotillion was a proper noun, the name of the character who was caught in the rain of bullets; I was unaware what a cotillion was!  (Although I could have sworn that Cotillion was a Shakespearean name, a minor character in Romeo and Juliette at least, but I must be mistaken).  Likewise, I always thought the comma in the BWPS was just a typo, I didn't think much of it.  But in reading these last few pages, I can see how it very well it could have been structured as a double meaning in the guise of a metaphor. 

OK, but that is not the meaning I take from the words as sung.

That's fine, it's poetry. 

Although "Once at night, cotillion squared the fight" seems OK too, as long as you keep in mind that "squared" is an adjective for "cotillion", and not a verb, which is how I've always thought of it. I think that "squared" as an adjective is the key to it all that clears up my confusion.

But don't adjectives precede the noun in English? And even if it is meant to be an adjective, what is a squared cotillion?

My take is it's a poetic way of  saying 'square dance'.

"Square" in the context of fight is slang for taking a stance facing your opponent(s) in preparation for fighting. Ie. To square up to or to square off with your opponent.

I understand that use of the word, but knowing that VDP put a a comma after "cotillion squared" for BWPS redefines that line's meaning to me.  No need for a comma if "squared" refers to "the fight". Matt's articualate post laid it out quite nicely.

So he means it's a late night dance that has been multiplied times itself?  Do we know VDP placed that comma because that is not the way it is sung imo.

Is it literally a dance, or is he equating a gunfight to be dance-like? 

Although "Once at night, cotillion squared the fight" seems OK too, as long as you keep in mind that "squared" is an adjective for "cotillion", and not a verb, which is how I've always thought of it. I think that "squared" as an adjective is the key to it all that clears up my confusion.

But don't adjectives precede the noun in English? And even if it is meant to be an adjective, what is a squared cotillion?

My take is it's a poetic way of  saying 'square dance'.

"Square" in the context of fight is slang for taking a stance facing your opponent(s) in preparation for fighting. Ie. To square up to or to square off with your opponent.

Or "squared" is an exponent...  as in "to the second power"? 

There were several parts for "H&V-Part II" (#57045) also but a second part of an "H&V" (57020) master is not the same thing as a "H&V-Part II" (57045) master.

If H&V Part II was a reboot of side one, what was Part I? Why "part II", why not just stay with H&V as the title with a different master number (as he had done before December 19) if it was just intended to be a single master or a single master divided in two ala LARS?

I'm not seeing where you are saying the Verse Remake was labeled "part 2".  The Chorus was (because it is a second part of the song) but I'm not seeing where the Vere is.  Listening to the oscillator sessions, I don't hear it slated at all.  Am I missing a piece of evidence here?  Also, which january recordings were under master 57045?  I thought they were all 57020?

Maybe we aren't going to agree.

That's fine.  I can agree to disagree.  As I said before, we seem to be looking at it differently.  And as I guess I implied above, I don't know if there ever was a unique H&V b-side.  But if there was, I am estimating it based on the recording chronology, test edits, segment structures and harmonic variance, NOT Master Number or segment slating. 

I will say your idea of an Album Sampler as a b-side is interesting. 

Yeah I understand what you are saying, but I suppose we are looking at it a bit differently, which is OK.  

I am not going to jump to the conclusion that Master 57045 was the mythical H&V Part 2 just because one of the pieces was slated as such (but not the other pieces).  Think about it: many people have said there was no Part 2, including Brian himself.  Linett said they could not find any evidence of a Part 2.  But if you are right, wouldn't those folks know of Master 57045?  "No there is no H&V Part 2, oh wait here's Master 57045, nevermind."  But that never happened.  

On the other hand, assuming the mythical H&V Part 2 was recorded under the same Master 57020 as one continuous piece that would eventually be split in half for the single (just like Bob Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone", as I already said), that would support the reports of a six-minute Heroes and Villains.  I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.  

What sections were recorded concurrently?  Perhaps I am misreading the data.  

We don't see any evidence that there was an H&V Part 2 even though all of the #57045 master takes are titled "Heroes and Villains - Part 2" unlike the other H&V master takes for the other "Heroes and Villains" masters including those for #57020 which are not titled as a "part 2"?  All of the #57045 sections' master takes share a session number which is for the "Part II" #57045 master including the one noted as both "Part II" and "Side 2".  Even without that "Side 2" note, #57045 is still master takes sharing a session number toward a single master for "Part II" of H&V, so if one is for the Side 2 master they all are.  

I don't think it would be jumping to conclusions. To me this has much more evidence for it than almost anything else that is considered settled history.

I'm not a Dylan expert, but wasn't LARS master recorded as a single master take?  Brian's masters were recorded in sections under a session number assigned to a master and compiled from several master takes under that session number for that master number. #57020 and #57045 where recorded and documented with single separate session numbers of their own for separate assigned masters of their own assigned for different sides. One is H&V #57020 and the other is H&V Part 2 #57045. I don't think Dylan applies to H&V #57020 and H&V Part 2 #57045.

I feel like this is selective reasoning.  Why?  because there was already two different Part 2s recorded under Master Number 57020: Gee and Anvil.  Then there was a Part 3! And then, Part Two and a Side Two, etc for the new Master.  It feels like you are picking and choosing which was a part of Part 1 and which was actually a Part 2 based on a master number that coincidentally coincides with Brian restarting the whole song from scratch.  I admit it's convenient and sits well on paper, but the practicality does not.  Again, look at what was recorded rather than what the number is.  Book smarts vs street smarts... 

It's more probable that all of these designations of Part 2, Part 2 Revised, Part Two, Side 2, etc are all parts of one composition rather than two separate sides for a single.  That is already the precedent that Brian set, why is that logic discarded here?  That is probably why some doubt there was a Part 1 and Part 2 single to begin with--it's all one piece with two halves, the first part and the second part (hence Tag to Part 1).  Brian was able to construct a "part 1" of H&V (meaning the Verse/IIGS/Barnyard in Dec 66, or Verse/My Children in Jan 67, or Verse/A Capella in Feb 67, etc) but he could not figure out where to go next to the "part 2" (first Cantina/My Children/Three Score in Feb 67, then Part 2/Part 2 Revised/Part 3 a week later, and then the aped Bicycle Rider and decided "Forget it, this is not working, I need to start all over from the beginning with a new master number"). 

Going over the session chronology, I'd say the December 1966 H&V would just have been simply Verse -> IIGS -> Barnyard, with possibly Chimes as an intro.

A further thought - as I largely agree with what you've posted above:

The idea of the 'three minute musical comedy' - and I wish I could identify where that phrase came from; I'm sure someone else here can - has always intrigued me. By my estimation, the backing track for verses 1 & 2 of H&V (sans the acapella follow-up), IIGS and Barnyard get to about 2 minutes altogether. So, going by the 'Humble Harv' structure, at least, this allows another minute's worth of material. 'Intro to Part 3' fills most of this time, if we assume it was going to be edited in at full length. But I can't help but feel that Brian Wilson - a master at pop structure - would have included at least one repetition of the song's titular musical theme.

So, if indeed (and I do concede, pending responses to my post above, there may not be an if in the first place) there is an unyet-heard-by-the-masses '66 recording of 'Children are Raised', this and 'Three Score and Five' (about forty seconds altogether, depending on 'whistling bridge' etc) might well have constituted the 'Part 3' indicated by the nomenclature of the keyboard-and-percussion 'Chimes' section we've both mentioned above.

I was thinking about this before bed last night...  "Tag To Part 1" was the next thing recorded in January for H&V, and that sort of implies that the first "part" (not the A & B side argument "part"!) of H&V is the aforementioned Verse/IIGS/Barnyard, and that he set out in January to finish the first half (or 2/3rds) of the single he already had in the can. 

I think the notion of solving any SMiLE problems with "Well there are some tapes that we simply haven't heard" is dangerous logic, I'm not sure we should rely on it.  Due to TSS, bootlegs and session logs, we should know, by now, what does and does not exist.  Of course there may be things that slipped through the cracks, but we shouldn't rely on that fact as the basis of any theories, because we just don't know either way. 

What now mystifies me about this - unless I'm forgetting something obvious, which is quite likely - is the quoted

'harpsichord playing that's underneath "my children were raised, you know they...", from the official H&V single'.

I've just been listening to the '67 single, and it sounds largely acapella until the close of the verse, much like the 'often'-including version from the Feb mix. My ears (or laptop speakers) are probably faulty here - anyone able to add to this?

The TSS sessionography for Jan 27 lists only the vocalists, 'thigh slap' [Brian], 'Brillo pad percussion' [Dennis] and tack piano [Brian, apparently just the closing, very audible chords leading into 'Three score and five' on the Feb 'single version'l. If 'andy' did indeed hear a backing harpsichord in the DP acetate for this part - and that isn't, in fact, present on either version of this section which survive - then this might mean an earlier (or, I concede, later) version of 'Children Were Raised' that we're not otherwise aware of. Which would still allow for the possibility the acetate dates from '66, and one of the - probably several - 'Heroes' sessions for which no records or tapes currently exist.

Or I'm just not hearing/aware of a harpsichord in the June mix, which is quite possible too. Were the Parks still likely to be getting dubs of tracks as late as June and 'the single version'?

This is my problem with that description of the Durie acetate...  The harpsichord was underneath the Smiley Smile recut of My Children, tracked in June.  Just exactly as you said above, why would the Parks have an acetate of June recordings?  Wasn't VDP gone by then?  And just as you said, was Brian really using IIGS in H&V in June? I suppose he could have, but is it probable? 

I think of that description of the acetates as urban legend, it's the SMiLE equivalent of Big Foot.  I'm not saying it's wrong, but it would make waaaaay more sense if that poster was just simply mistaken! 

True, but that goes only for the Cantina mix that survives. The lyric "My children.. 3 score&5 ...survive with the H&V" could have existed before, and just be sung over the verse track, as it's really a third verse lyrically/metrically/melodically.

Yeah, it could have been written, but I'm talking about what was recorded.  And as I said above, it's dangerous to write everything off as "Oh must be a tape we don't have". 

I don't know how Brian was intending to use the tracks he recorded for Part II/Side 2, I only see what he intended to use it for. He recorded several master takes all under the same session number shown to be used toward the same #57045 master for H&V Part II/Side 2. What he didn't use, or added to it, or altered (pitchwise etc.) I couldn't say.  I believe the documentation shows it wasn't a reboot of Side 1, #57020 was begun before and was on-going while and in between and continued after the recordings for #57045. Also #57045 is specifically identified as Part II/Side 2 (not Side 1) as opposed to just the title of H&V for the #57020 sessions (which is Side 1).

I disagree with the opinion that the cantina version was still the final form of #57020 Side 1 during the February/March recordings for #57045 Part II/Side 2 as there were already several sessions and new master takes for H&V #57020 including new part 2s, part 3, part 4 (for the side 3 and 4 he intended to carve the #57020 master into   ) etc. since the cantina version. But I agree there was a  post-cantina Side 1 #57020 in addition to the separate Side 2 #57045.

Yeah I understand what you are saying, but I suppose we are looking at it a bit differently, which is OK. 

I am not going to jump to the conclusion that Master 57045 was the mythical H&V Part 2 just because one of the pieces was slated as such (but not the other pieces).  Think about it: many people have said there was no Part 2, including Brian himself.  Linett said they could not find any evidence of a Part 2.  But if you are right, wouldn't those folks know of Master 57045?  "No there is no H&V Part 2, oh wait here's Master 57045, nevermind."  But that never happened. 

On the other hand, assuming the mythical H&V Part 2 was recorded under the same Master 57020 as one continuous piece that would eventually be split in half for the single (just like Bob Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone", as I already said), that would support the reports of a six-minute Heroes and Villains.  I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. 

What sections were recorded concurrently?  Perhaps I am misreading the data. 

The second iteration is written by Brian and Van Dyke Parks, beginning sometime in May (and possibly completed, in compositional terms, that same month). By October 1966, at the latest, it includes sections entitled ‘I’m in Great Shape’ and ‘Barnyard’. Combining the ‘Humble Harv’ demo of November 4th ('Miller is excited: “That is going to be the greatest record anybody's ever heard"' - Teen Set) and the the ‘Durrie Parks’ assembly of three sections of the song, we have a possible sequence for [some of] this version as follows:

[from 'Humble Harv':] Verse - I've been in this town so long/Verse - Once at night, Cotillion squared the fight/Flutter-horn transition/IIGS - Fresh Clean-Zen Air/[from DP acetate:] My children were born, they suddenly rise/Verse - At three score and five/[from 'Humble Harv', ‘here’s another section now’:] Barnyard.

The problem is that the My Children section wasn't recorded until 1/27/67.  So your above described configuration from the Durrie Parks acetate couldn't have existed in 1966. 

Going over the session chronology, I'd say the December 1966 H&V would just have been simply Verse -> IIGS -> Barnyard, with possibly Chimes as an intro. 

If it was recorded for the #57045 master it was for the "H&V Part II"/"Side 2" master (as the session number 14247 they share in common shows).

If it was recorded for the #57020 master (as the session number 14236 they share in common shows) it was for what is Side 1. If it was recorded for #57020 as "part two" it is still for the #57020 Side 1 master.

Just as if it was recorded for the #57020 master as "part 3" or "part 4" it doesn't mean it was recorded for the third and fourth side of a three or four sided single, it is still for the #57020 master which is Side 1.

It is pretty simple imo.

Yeah I understand what you are saying, going simply by the master numbers.  But what was actually recorded doesn't really make sense as a B-side, since it was literally remakes of material already tracked and finished (at the time).  Assuming your theory is correct, you'd have the Cantina mix on side A and then just simply an alternate version of the A side as it's B-side (that likely would have sounded like http://www48.zippyshare.com/v/GsEfh80Z/file.html).  What would be the point?  It's certainly possible (anything is possible) but it seems more probable that Master 57045 was an attempt to re-record the A-side from scratch rather than a completely different track that mirrored the A-side... imo