Very well. You have told me nothing. Nor will I tell you anything either. But I will share with you a story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG19g9oiF-w

Before I answer...I shall ask you some questions.

Do you know anything about Zoroastrianism? Have you considered perhaps that the discovery of antimatter might have proven this ideology to be the correct religion? When you factor in Baryogenesis...could that perhaps mean that our world is, in actuality, already pure and rid of the Destroyer?

And have you ever considered the possibility that there might be some connection between the four fundamental forces and the classical elements? Once you've considered that possibility...maybe the 12 particles of matter might actually be the embodiment, or the essence, or the signature...of the Twelve Olympians in the world. And would that then mean that antimatter is actually the Twelve Titans, with Baryogenesis being the Titanomachy?

And what does that make Ketchup?

https://youtu.be/hxCcvCZkaJc?t=1m32s

Aquaria, the secular religion of science, sincerity and psychedelia.

This essay is my latest and most complete analysis on the Aquarian Age, what philosophical changes I expect to come from it, when I believe it began, and what we need to do to make the best of it. Please take a look—it would mean a lot to me—and keep an open mind. This is a long read but I consider it the most important and intriguing subject out there. It's the ethos that gives my life meaning as an agnostic living a lifestyle many would consider sinful or misguided. Maybe one of you might take comfort from these ideas as I have. I hope so anyway. This essay will be divided into 10 sections. Skip to the last one for a summary.

I. How I Discovered the Concept (Introduction)

This is a topic I've personally been fascinated by ever since hearing it mentioned in the Zeitgeist documentary like 5ish years ago. That's an otherwise terrible movie, but the way it explained the astrological ages and their associations with prophets who change the world was really inspiring to me. I personally don't believe in any Abrahamic religions, by no one can deny that Moses and Jesus changed the world or that their ideologies defined the time period in which they lived. These would be the Arian and Piscean Ages, the latter of which we are witnessing the end of if modern astrologers are to be believed. There is a strong association between the Age of Aquarius and the 60s counterculture as well, which only increased my excitement for the idea. I was convinced that a new prophet was coming, or had already come but had been tragically overlooked in his/her own lifetime, waiting to be rediscovered. And this prophet would not be some magician rising from the dead and turning water into wine—again, I'm personally not a believer in that kind of thing. But rather, they would be another great leader with revolutionary ideas, who would lead the people out of slavery and leave behind some kind of testament that would change the way people think.

I know astrology is something of a pseudo-science, but the fact is the vernal equinox does indeed rotate to face a new constellation in the zodiac ever 2000-2160 years or so. Even if one does not believe in astrology as it relates to horoscopes and personal destiny, (and I dont) I find the concept of the ages to be rooted in truth. Humanity has undeniably gone through major shifts in culture and outlook right around when the past ages were said to have began, and we are definitely witnessing one now with technology progressing so rapidly. If you're religious, there are many references to the ages in the Bible. Moses is often pictured with a ram's horn (Aries) and stopped his people from worshiping a golden calf (the end of Taurus.) Early Christians used the symbol of the fish to identify themselves, many of the disciples were fisherman, he fed a crowd with fish (and bread). When it comes to Aquarius, Jesus said to his followers “I will be with you until the end of the age” and “a man will meet you carrying an earthen pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he goes in.” The short and sweet of it is, whether you believe in the superstitions of religion and astrology or the facts of science and history, I think the concept rings true and applies to us all.

II. An Example of Aquarian Art and Creation

Putting this together with 60s counterculture, for college freshman/sophomore me the most likely Prophet would have been Brian Wilson, with his testament being (what else?) SMiLE. This new perspective changed my whole conception of the album, and inspired my 2-suite remixes of it. I divided the songs into 2 groups based mostly on tone and instrumentation, with the more bombastic often humorous stuff on Side 1 while the somber, piano and horn heavy stuff was on Side 2. As I came to remix the album in this new frame of reference, I saw connections I had not before. Mainly that Side 1 became something of an extroverted look at the world around the narrator/listener, particularly at the USA. Meanwhile Side 2 was a more introverted look at the narrator/listener himself, about personal tragedies and the cycle of life. The album seemed to be purposefully tearing down old institutions and ideologies, from nationalism/patriotism to organized religion and even questioning oneself through reevaluated morals and ego death.

The references to religious reexamination came when I started looking at what I had previously considered a throwaray track, “Old Master Painter.” By combining two old standards into one, the song introduces God (the painter), and then sings “You Were My Sunshine” in the past tense, essentially declaring that God, or at least the old organized religion/mainstream Christian idea of him, was outdated. It's the sun setting on one age and heralding in the next. The narrator was looking for a new ideology to pledge himself to, something else to believe in. The crowning achievement of the album, “Surf's Up” explicitly states “columnated ruins domino,” which evokes the imagery of society breaking down. Brian and Van Dyke don't offer us much to fill the hole left by the destroyed institutions—only the laughter of children at the end of the song. That being the promise of a clean slate, and the responsibility of making sure our kids have the knowhow in order to make the best of it. I could write a whole novel about the album, its creation and its message—it's that brilliant. But you get the idea.

III. The Philosophy of Aquarius

Upon deeper reflection, I believe it does the Aquarian Age a great disservice though, to boil it down to Brian Wilson and SMiLE, as amazing as those subjects are. I don't think Brian himself wanted to be thought of as some great prophet or anything either. I think his idea was that the Aquarian Age, like children, was a blank slate that could be anything we make it. He intentionally framed his would-be magnum opus in a cartoon drawing which looks like something the parents of a 7 year old would have on their fridge. The message clearly being that this new Prophet and their “Third Testament” does not have to be some heavenly anointed messiah, nor his message some daunting 1000 page religious text. It can be literally anyone and anything, from a psychedelic comedy album to a few tabs of acid to just the laughter of children itself. Where the Piscean Age began with the consolidation of the known world into one government (the Roman Empire) and Monotheism (the Abrahamic God, especially Christianity's interpretation of him) the Aquarian world will lead to a world of freedom and Pantheism. That is to say, every person, every idea, every story...all of it will take on significance to enough people to warrant a following on a scale that had previously been reserved for God. Something as esoteric as a show about a talking horse or a movie about wars in space will see a fervor and collective analysis that up until now has traditionally been reserved for religious texts or political decrees. With the internet, every living human may voice itself among the collective and be acknowledged in some way. We are all the Aquarian Jesus, and at the same time no one is. The utilitarian, subservient world of societies past will give way to all of man's ideas, fantasies and creations being realized and collectively reflected upon.

That may seem like a cop-out, to say that the significance of Aquarius is everything and nothing, but I believe this has been the trend of civilization ever since the Renaissance, which was when Europe was reintroduced to ideas outside of the Christian norm. Since then, gradually, we have challenged the established conformity from the Protestant Reformation, to the Printing Press and its opening of information to the masses, to the age of discovery and the enlightenment and right on to the present day. Sure, there have been setbacks and we still are far from perfect. But the trend for the last half a millennium or so has been towards empowerment of the masses, and the triumph of the human mind in all directions—from imagination to scientific advancement, to mind expansion with psychedelia. Like SMiLE, this advancement has not really provided any concrete dogma to overtake that which we were bound to in the Age of Pisces. Science, when applied properly, does not strive to enforce a particular worldview but merely to understand the world around us. The ability for the commoners to write their own books, film their own movies and shows, or record their music has not provided us with any one narrative to fall in line with. Usually, the artist themselves could not tell you what their creations are about, why every particular design choice came to be made, or how (if at all) they intended to influence people with them. Yet they can and often do in fact mean something to a great deal of people and influence their lives in very real ways. At the same time, what one piece of art or idea means to one person and how it effects them will be completely different from someone else's perspective. And honestly, if someone finds something beautiful and inspiring in their life, what difference does it make whether it comes from the Biblical story of the prodigal son, or Citizen Kane or even Clarissa Explains It All?

The point is there will no longer be one universal set of rules enforced on the public. A few setbacks and holdouts here and there aside, we have become a more rational, more egalitarian people. The nation state, the Bible, marriage...all have given way to the dominance of the individual. Even ideas of gender identity and sexual orientation are breaking down. Accepted, unquestionable moral codes have been eroded away into libertarian personal expression. Submission to a divine King or Pope has given way to questioning authority and democracy. Structured prayer will slowly be superseded by psychedelic mind expansion. And it is no longer blasphemy to depict a subject other than Christ in a painting (much less new media like novels, albums or films.) Like the water in the jar itself, ideas and people will be a lot more fluid in this period. Where a fish (Pisces) is unaware of the water that surrounds him, the people of Aquarius have not only discovered the water (the elements, atoms and quarks of the natural world) but attained mastery over them, enough to commoditize it as we see fit. As man's knowledge and power accumulates, there may even come a day when he becomes powerful enough to be considered a God in his own right, and perhaps even a fairer God than the Olympians or Old Testament Yaweh.

IV. Becoming an Aquarian

So the question then becomes, why does this matter to us, and how should we change to help this along? The answer is as simple as keeping an open mind and heart. The human mind is the ultimate authority now. Our brains have infinite potential, and as the lens by which we see the universe, understanding how it works and fulfilling its potential is the key to enlightenment. It is then our duty to expand our mind as much as possible—learn as much as you can, create whatever comes to you, and listen to ideas that challenge you. At the same time, it's your duty to your fellow humans to encourage them to reach their own potential. Be supportive, loving and helpful to everyone you can. Do all you can to empower your loved ones to succeed in their goals. Do not stay in your comfort zone, challenge authority and what you're taught, and never indoctrinate others (especially children) into believing anything. Talk to children like equals and see what they have to say—they're a lot more perceptive than you think, and they feel just as strongly as anyone else. Every human's accomplishment raises the whole planet up immensely. We will all collectively benefit when every neighbor is as happy and encouraged as possible. Part of this means moving beyond divisive politics, and funding programs or institutions which do not benefit actual common people. We need to move beyond putting all our resources towards war, suppression, surveillance and discrimination. The new focus has to be on alleviating people's need to slave away at menial and strenuous labor, abolishing poverty and hunger, and curing the sick (including mental illness.) Only then will every human be able to reach their full potential—free to think, invent, discover and create.

I would suggest that everyone take these steps to bettering themselves. Remember though, I am only one person and what I consider the right path is not by any means some infallible moral code. Just suggestions.

First, if you grew up a christian or any other faith, take the time to learn about the doctrines of at least 3 other religions.

Second, step outside your comfort zone and meet at least 3 new people—preferably from places (even websites) you don't usually go. The more different these people are from you, the better.

Third, read at least two new books you haven't before, one fiction and one non-fiction.

Fourth, make time to travel to a foreign place at least once in your life.

Fifth, begin to keep a dream journal and look into lucid dreaming.

Sixth, experiment with different meditation techniques, including bianural beats and the ganzfeld effect along with the more standard approach.

Seventh, do something creative—either write your own story, or film something, or paint, or even just doodle.

Eighth, learn a new skill or teach yourself a new subject. Even something as simple as cooking.

Ninth, take the people who you hate, or who hurt you, and consider their point of view. Write down a few pages of what their life must be (to the best of your knowledge) and try to consider why they did what they did. You don't necessarily have to like them or even forgive them because of this—just understand.

Tenth, make a list of your favorite media and write down all the reasons you like them and what they make you think and feel. Take all the people you admire, real and fictional, and write down in depth why you like them. Then try to be more like these people you've analyzed and created, and apply the lessons of the media as well.

Eleventh, come up with your standards of the ideal person and/or the ideal leader, and write down their qualities and in the latter case, the decisions they would make to real life problems you notice. And try to hold your elected officials to that standard. Stay informed on current events, make a list of problems you see in society, and how you expect your leaders to solve them.

Twelfth, always be open to trying new things and new lifestyles. Observe and learn from those around you. Never criticize until you are willing to try for yourself.

Thirteenth, take psychedelics at least once. Shrooms, LSD, N-Bomb, salvia...SOMETHING. It need not be a large dose, it could be a micro dose. It need not become a regular thing. But I think everyone should open their mind up at least once, provided they are not genetically predisposed to mental illness. Think of this as the conditional +1 step on top of everything else. This is something to do only if you have done your research on what to expect and have the proper set and setting. It's not something one could make time to do any old day like the other 12, nor is it something that could be a regular occurrence. It's a life changing experience and one which should not be endeavored lightly, but it can make you more in tune with yourself than any other thing I could imagine. Work up to it with some weed—at least 5 good smoking sessions. In all cases, write down your experience and the revelations.

And, ultimately, just be yourself. Do what makes you happy. Be the person you want to be. Like the things you like, be open about it, and don't let anyone shame you for it. If anyone makes you feel bad about who you are, drop them like a lead weight.

There you go, the 14 points of self realization in the Age of Aquarius.

V. Dating the Aquarian Age

Traditionally, the Age of Aquarius is said to begin either in the early 2000s (with 2012 being a commonly cited date) or the future (the 2700s by some estimation.) The constellations of Pisces and Aquarius overlap on the celestial equator, so it could be said that both are correct and the cusp of Aquarius has begun already but we will not feel the full effects for hundreds of years. However, one courageous astrologer, Terry MacKinnell, has postulated that the dating of the ages has been wrong since ancient times. According to him, the Age of Aquarius began in the 1400s. I could see that, as this is essentially the beginning of the Renaissance, but I think, looking at things culturally, the 1500s would be a more likely beginning. In this century we saw (among much else) four significant events which completely shifted mankind's view of himself and the world around him. These being the advent of heliocentrism, the exploration of the new world (Americas), Martin Luther's Protestant Reformation, and the aforementioned invention of the printing press. Since this date, we have seen the emergence of many new ideologies about politics, religion, individuality and the universe. There have been scientific breakthroughs, inventions, medicine and greater tolerance for women and different races. All of this only became possible with the empowerment of the masses with the printing press and the realization that the Bible was not infallible.

The 1500s makes far more sense as the start of the age than any other century I could imagine. This isn't to say that everything magically changed overnight either—religion still griped us, slavery became more widespread than ever, and we saw the emergence of repressive colonial empires among many more setbacks. Accounting for the overlap with Pisces (which based on my limited research will last about 500 to 700 years) this means we are set to feel the full effects of Aquarius around this century or two down the line. I think the spread of the internet could be a worthy indication of the “true” beginning of the age. Aquarius' best quality is said to be progressiveness, but its worst is emotional aloofness. The planet Mercury exalts in Aquarius, and is said to represent communication and rationality. I believe these three key qualities of Aquarius are present in the internet: it allows instantaneous communication, the sharing of ideas makes everyone more progressive (generally speaking), but unfortunately it does seem like the internet makes us more emotionally closed off and flakey.

VI. Pisces, Aries and the Implications for Aquarius

With this new date in mind for Aquarius, that would make the true beginning of the Age of Pisces around 500 or 600 BCE rather than the first year CE as is commonly cited. Of course all of this is an inexact science, but I see a lot of sense in that start date as well. This would coincide roughly with the lives of Socrates, Buddha, Confucius and many other great philosophers who coincidentally (or not!) lived within 100 to 200 years ago all over the world. Their ideas reinvented how their respective societies perceived the universe and the nature of humanity. At the same time, the 500s BCE would also put the beginning of Pisces with the conquests of Cyrus the Great, the establishment of the Roman Republic and the life of Pythagoras who among much else influenced modern mathematics. While Jesus remains the most important philosopher of Pisces regardless, I would then call Julius Caesar the perennial politician of the age. All who came after in Europe would imagine themselves a Caesar in essence, and many would even take his name up through the German Kaisers and Russian Czars. Both of these men (along with Socrates) were violently put to death for their actions, in each case by a group of stubborn aristocratic councils, and then they became far more influential after their own lifetimes.

With Jesus in particular, even if you are like me and do not believe in the religious aspect of it, I think his death has a moral significance in how unfair and overly brutal it was. In essence, he exposed how for all the glory man had achieved with our great empire, we were still a brutal and disgusting creature who would needlessly torture ourselves for the purposes of intimidation and even entertainment. And yet, while he changed the world in that all the West called themselves Christians thereafter, nothing meaningful really changed. Men were still tortured, Kings still consolidated power, and the most egregious example came with the discovery of America. It was there that the so-called benevolent and godly Christians treated the conquered Native Americans just as terribly if not worse than the Romans treated the Jews, including Jesus. If it were not bad enough the way Christian Europe had treated its own people during the Dark Ages, here they mercilessly decimated others and then forced their religion upon them. No better than the barbarous Romans who would crucify men for preaching about peace and love, and there the hypocrisy was complete. In fact, his ideas were purposefully co-opted by the powers that be and twisted as further leverage against the commoners. Think the of symbol for Pisces as two pillars bound together—the spiritual and secular authority of the state, similar to the two headed eagle of the Byzantines and Russians.

With all this background information in mind, it's now clear that the “prophet” of Aquarius, if it will even be one singular person, does not need to come at the beginning of the age necessarily. By the old dating system, Jesus lived right at the start of Pisces. But Moses is considered the chief figure of Aries and even under the old dating system he did not live at the beginning of his age. In the new dating system proposed by Terry MacKinnell, neither does Jesus. Similarly, there need not be only one larger than life figure influencing an entire age. Julius Caesar certainly had as large of an impact as Jesus, in his own way. Consider that under MacKinnell's system, the rise and fall of Rome almost perfectly matches up with the beginning and end of the Piscean Age as well—the fall of Constantinople occurring just before the 1500s. This might have greater implications for America then, considering it was discovered just about at the beginning of Aquarius. Could it be that America is destined to rise and fall during Aquarius, or perhaps be conquered (literally or culturally) at the end of the Age as it began by conquering the Native populations?

VII. The Potential Darkness of Aquarius

Recalling how Jesus' message was co-opted and perverted, it's important to realize that the Age of Aquarius may not necessarily be a good thing. It's as likely as not that the Aquarian “messiah” could have their ideas or movement co-opted in a similar manner and used to strengthen the hold of the ruling class. In some way, the echo-chambering of the populace, blocking out dissenting ideas and sheltering themselves in safe spaces which affirm their views is an example. Digital communication allows for more frequent miscommunication, astroturfing from the powers that be, and anonymity can lead to trolling and otherwise bring out the worst in people. It also gives deliberate liars or madmen just as loud a voice as anyone, and there's something to be said about how everyone having a voice dilutes each person's significance. Global warming and rising sea levels will lead to a movement of people all over the world, which sounds like a romantic mirror of the water itself...but really it will lead to fierce competition for resources and death. The technology which in ideal circumstances would empower the people, is also being used to crack down on the mind expanding substances of the 60s which gave prominence to concept of Aquarius itself. Not to mention it can also lead to the policing of dissenting ideas or attempts at peaceful reform. Drones remove the human element of killing, also making it easier to destroy protest movements, nukes threaten to destroy the planet any second, and computers make identity theft possible. This could go on and on but you get the idea—the innovations which could make Aquarius so wonderful are a double edged sword.

I do believe that the innovations of Aquarius will make it easier to overthrow the ruling elites than Jesus' kind words—the people have never been more empowered and it's important not to lose sight of that. I prefer to interpret its glyph as the cracks in the system finally being exposed, or perhaps a winding path to ultimate victory. I see the dual possibilities of this exciting age ahead of us as reflections of the two planets said to rule the Aquarian sign—Saturn and Uranus. When astrology was invented, Uranus was not yet discovered, so Saturn was said to be the domicile of Aquarius. Now, it's Uranus. According to my limited research on the meanings of the planets in astrology, these two planets are incredibly different, and I see this as evidence that the age could go either way, and that there will be a great conflict in the process. Saturn is said to represent conformity, authority, human limitations, discipline, boundaries, anxiety, and duty. Meanwhile, Uranus spins on its side as if to emphasize its unique originality. It's associated with creativity, unconventional thinking, individuality, discovery, electricity, invention, democracy, revolution and genius. As you can see, these two planets could not be anymore different in their influence...we better fucking hope Uranus overthrows Saturn...but anyone familiar with mythology knows that in actuality it was Saturn who killed Uranus. Even more troubling, both Saturn and Uranus are both considered Malefic planets, or bringers of bad luck. The return of Saturn, when it arrives at the position it occupied at your time of birth (every 27 to 29 years) is said to usher in full adulthood in a person, and for those who are too young at heart to move on (most famously the 27 club) fate conspires to finish them off. What, if anything, this would mean for the Age I cannot say. Pisces is also an age that has different ancient and modern ruling planets (Jupiter and Neptune) but the attributes associated with its two rulings are not NEARLY so at odds with each other.

VIII. The Apocalypse in the Context of Aquarius

According to the Bible, Pisces will end in a great battle between good and evil. This is described in the book of revelations, with Jesus returning to lead the righteous to victory against the Antichrist. The Antichrist, the beast, is not a person. It is a system of oppression and destruction by those in power which has existed since the time of Jesus himself and will continue to exist until we take charge and overthrow it. Talking out of my ass here but...it's a subject that's caught my attention recently.

There are said to be two beasts, one of the sea and one of the earth. The beast of the sea has 7 heads and 10 horns. According to traditional interpretation, this was meant to symbolize all empires who had mistreated the Hebrews and their holy land. I see it as the empires who claimed to be godly and Christian yet learned nothing from Jesus' actual teachings, and instead treated their conquered peoples just as harshly as Jesus himself had been in the hands of the Romans. The first would be Rome itself, including the Byzantines. Then the Holy Roman Empire of the Germans, the Russian Empire, the Spanish colonial empire, the British Empire and now the American Empire. The sixth head (America) is said to be current, and the seventh is yet to come (China? A united European Empire?) The fifth head is said to be mortally wounded yet has been reforged (maybe Russia turning into the Soviet Union? Or Germany being defeated in both world wars yet rebounding strong as ever?)

The ten horns with ten crowns might be individual idols, people or ideas which societies have given power to that do not deserve it. Or perhaps the instruments of control by which these empire cowed their subjects into submission. Perhaps in the modern age especially, we might think of these as industries or systems (like the military industrial complex or private prison complex for example) which command authority while hurting the public. You could draw up any number of arbitrary examples for this. For me personally, let's say its: private prison industry, military industrial complex, big pharma, media conglomeration, intelligence community, energy industry (Exxon, etc), factory farming industry, the pedophilia ring in the entertainment industry, perhaps the sex industry itself and...mercury poisoning. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3r2PKfZdgs )
Again, I freely admit these examples are arbitrary and perhaps forced. The point is, these societies built by the many historical empires claiming to be Christian utilize tactics and worship idols or institutions which go against everything Jesus taught. You may disagree with my list, but I doubt anyone could deny that. These are used by the rulers as weapons against the populace to either sedate them or scare them into submission. The arbiters of this power are made to appear respectable and necessary to the public, hence the crowns.

There is also mention of a “scarlet beast” said to have seven heads and ten horns, with a harlot riding it. Some say this is supposed to be the same beast, some say it's different. I personally believe the former. The harlot riding the beast is the Church itself, which has undeniably become just as corrupted, out of touch, and hypocritical as the Sanhedrin who sent Jesus over to Pilate. No one could deny how disgusting and outright EVIL the Catholic church became soon enough after merging with the political power of Rome, and how it remained so for a long time afterwards (arguably up to the present day and beyond.) The merger of heartless big business and idolatry with religion is evident in the emergence of the modern religious right. And what do they do with their power? Argue against healthcare for all, try to destroy the safety net, shame women and persecute gays and religious minorities. Is that what Jesus would do? No. Are these the ideals the Church was supposed to stand for? No. Modern, organized Christianity is everything Jesus spoke out against in the first place. The symbol of the whore is not random or forced either. Isaiah 1:21 even calls Jerusalem a harlot, and Christ was said to be appalled by the monetization of the temple in the four gospels.

The beast of the earth has two horns and makes an image of itself to worship. I suggest that this image is the Bull, similar to the blasphemous golden calf Moses found his people worshiping. The two horns being Wall Street (big business) and the Federal Reserve System (controlling our money), again instruments of control which are given an undeserved praise in society. The mark of the beast is arguably the credit cards and Federal Reserve Notes of our currency. I also firmly believe Aaron Russo, who was personal friends with the Rockefellers and claimed that their ultimate goal is to get everyone micro-chipped, so that if you speak out against the ruling class, they can remotely turn it off and you cannot buy food to survive. So why would Wall Street and the FED be separate from the other institutions represented by the 10 horns on Beast #1? I would say because unlike those, Wall Street and the FED have the power to force people into actively supporting the establishment. The little game they've forced us all into with money means we must slave away in support of a monstrous system which no longer has our interests at heart. That's what makes these financial instruments of power different and ultimately more malevolent in my interpretation. Speaking more broadly, think of the two beasts as military and financial power. In international relations, the terms are "hard power" and "soft power" respectively.

The Apocalypse is not some far off heavenly war with the devil and Jesus' triumphal return. The beasts are not going to be literal monsters who spontaneously appear out of nowhere. And we're not helping speed up the return of Christ by deliberately funding the Jewish state and killing the planet with global warming. We're already living in the reign of the Antichrist as our twisted, upside down society claims to be “a christian nation” while going against everything that was good or noble about Jesus' teachings. We will only be saved when someone comes along who can lead us to a renewal of virtue in America. This person, I believe, will be the bringer of the Aquarian Age. (S)he who washes away the stain of corruption in the world, and grows the gardens of the future. I frame it as if some great savior will come and do the work for us...but this is not so. We cannot sit on our hands and wait, we in the Information Age are more than empowered to stand up for ourselves. Taking a secular, rather than religious view of Moses and Jesus would mean they were not ordained by God or guaranteed victory. They were righteous people who saw injustice and either led people to freedom or else spoke out against it. We need to follow this example ourselves.

I do believe that sooner or later our corrupt institutions, phony morals, unstable financial situations and consolidation of power by the government will come to a head somehow. Perhaps some great leader will inspire us to rise up and fight for our human rights, or else maybe climate change migrations will be a spark that sets things in motion.I speculate that this will occur sometime between now and the 2200s CE. Again, the cusp of Aquarius, where it overlaps with Pisces, was in the 1500s (by my estimation). So we've been feeling the influence of Aquarius since then, evidenced by all the things I've mentioned and more, but the great ending of Pisces was not due to come just yet. It fits not only Biblical narrative and common sense that such a showdown must happen, but Aquarian philosophy as well. Afterall, while it's Aquarian influence that old systems and structures will lose power to the individual, we cannot expect them to go quietly. When this is over, assuming the Bible is right and the Beasts lose, only then will the true utopia begin, where the individual's creativity and curiosity may reign supreme for over 1000 years. Automation, I predict, will be the straw that breaks the camels back and leads to an uprising. At the same time, after the “war,” when the Beasts have been overthrown, it will be automation which makes the Utopia of Individualism possible. The robots will perform the menial and strenuous tasks which previously wasted man's time or forced him into unhappy servitude, and the shared wealth they create will free man to reach his full potential.

IX. Aquarius in the Greater Context of Human History

So, I've extensively outlined what the Aquarian Age, how it can change the world for better or worse, when it will come, and how to be a part of it. But what's the context of the astrological ages as a whole? What if anything can we expect from the ages beyond Aquarius? The ages are determined by which zodiac constellation the vernal equinox is pointing towards. They last about 2000 to 2160 years as I said, and to cycle through all the ages takes approximately 25,860 to 26,000 years. This procession is called a Great Year. Since the beginning of civilization about 10,000 BCE, there have been 6 ages up to Pisces, and Aquarius will be the Seventh. There are some who believe that the astrological ages are the process of the stars (or God, or whatever) slowly bettering us, one lesson or social evolution at a time. When civilization has lived through every age, our social evolution will be complete. What that means, or what we'll be like, no one can say. It's just too far ahead for anyone to know what humanity will be like in 16,000 CE at the end of the Age of Virgo. However, if I was being completely honest, I do not believe society as we know it will even exist by that point. Unless we find some supernatural solution to global warming, super-bugs and nuclear fallout...it seems more likely than not we won't be here at all or else will be back to living in caves before then.

Again, I cannot say for certain, but I expect Aquarius will be the major turning point of the entire Great Year. It means we are entering the second half, and if technology continues at this pace, it's inevitable we will either create a Star Trek utopia or bomb ourselves back to the stone age by the year 3600-4000 when this age is supposed to end. If you read about what the Age of Capricorn is supposed to be, it could not be different from Aquarius. Structured, orderly, a return to nature...these are just some of the adjectives I've seen to describe it. I suspect that, if Aquarius triumphs over the old institutions, Capricorn's return to order will mean a new order is established from the revelations of Aquarius. Things will be different, attitudes will have changed, technology will have gotten better, but we will come down and settle into a new routine. One that's different than the Piscean and before...and hopefully better, freer and more tolerant still...but a structured normalized routine nonetheless. Assuming the worst of Aquarius, however, and we have disastrous climate change and nuclear fallout, Capricorn's return to order could be a reset to the primitive, stone age-like societies we came from. No one can say at this point. And I don't have the time to read about other ages even further down the line I'll never see, especially since any predictions are complete guesswork this far out. Aquarius and even Capricorn we can speculate on since those are relatively recent. Virgo (the final age) not so much. Though, I do like to think of Virgo signaling the Earth's return to virginity. Either humanity becomes extinct and takes our place again in the Earth, or we leave the planet to explore other solar systems, and without us Earth becomes more bountiful again.

Looking at ages past, we've had Leo, Cancer, Gemini, Taurus, and then the frequently discussed Aries, Pisces and Aquarius. Leo coincides with the birth of civilization, rises in sea level. Cancer brought domestication and the rise in moon and mother goddesses (Cancer is a feminine sign ruled by the moon.) Gemini brought writing, polytheistic pantheons like the Greeks, and trade. Taurus coincides with the first great architectural feats (the pyramids), and bull worshiping cults. Aries brought the first major conquering empires, the beginning of ram and goat sacrifices in religious ceremonies, the invention of siege weapons like the battering ram, and iron smelting. I've already discussed what Pisces and Aquarius brought or are expected to bring.

X. Aquarius as a Religion (Conclusion)

So, I've given you an exhaustive look at all things Aquarius. I hope you (all one of you who read it all) found it interesting if nothing else. Maybe even inspiring. For me, this is the first spiritual concept which has really spoken to me since I renounced Christianity. It's something to be excited for, to believe in, and to work towards which does not hold you to a rigid moral code or ridiculous faith. It is the golden thread which weaves together science, old world mysticism, psychedelia and individuality all in one believable message of freedom. Ironically enough, I've come to have a newfound respect for Christianity since ensconcing myself in this ethos too. It's no longer about how Jesus is the end all be all, or how strict adherence to some commandments determines salvation or damnation. Jesus was a beautiful soul preaching love and acceptance. He bravely challenged the hypocrisy of his leaders and was ruthlessly murdered for it. That in itself, is tragic and beautiful. That in itself warrants respect and emulation, even disregarding the whole “son of god/rose from the dead” stuff. You can therefore denounce the out of touch, hateful church rulers and secular politicians who divide and hurt us and still be a good person. You can drop acid, wear a dress, and fantasize about sex and be good person.

So, who are your heroes? What are your inspirations? Among others, mine are Clarissa Darling, Brian Wilson, George McGovern, Princess Diana and Han Solo. Those are my Prophets, among others. I do not intend to supersede Jesus or anyone elses' prophets with them. We all exist together, we all have a unique wisdom to share, and we all deserve the same respect and attention as anyone else. I find meaning in Godfather Part 2, The Great Gatsby, the monologues of Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park, the lectures of Noam Chomsky and Richard Wolff. I believe in the advancement of science and imagination. I believe there is no experience more holy and sacred than mushrooms, weed, and snuggling with a beloved pet dog, a friend, or a lover as you look up at the stars. That's my Testament. And there is just as much beauty and wisdom in my Testament as the Gospels of the Bible, or anyone else's testament. The new Prophet of Aquarius is everyone and no one. The new religion is decentralized, individualized, purposefully contradictory and open to endless interpretation. The new testament is the collective experience of all mankind. Every lost film, or deleted web-page, or burned book is a sinful deletion of that testament. Ever murder, or mocking insult which diminishes someone's confidence to share their voice is an even more egregious discretion against the Aquarian religion. At the same time, the new Testament is written and read on pages with no words—the beautiful blotter paper of LSD. The Great Keys to unlocking the mind's full potential. And that's what it's all about, Aquarius, exploring the full potential of the individual and their mind.

Amen.

Hey guys. I know I said I wasnt going to post anymore, and I dont intend to (Im sure some of you be like:  ), but it just so happens I finished up another pet project Ive been fiddling with off and on the past few weeks. I had always intended to post it here since I thought some of you might like it, and I figured Id keep to that decision even after realizing Id rather not spend time here anymore. I posted a few shoddy attempts a year or two ago in an alternate youtube account, but this time I think Ive got something going. Check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ1lQdz8Fvo I call it "The American Metropolitan Circus" a conglomeration of Metropolis and The American Metaphysical Circus, the first track of the album and title of Joseph Byrd's followup with the Field Hippies.

See, I discovered that the two worked well together about two years ago when I wanted to watch a copy of Metropolis Id rented from the school library but remembered hating the background score. Maybe thats blasphemous or not proper to say. It just didnt seem to fit the movie particularly well. I just remember it as very overbearing, stock kinda music that didnt age well or add any character to the otherwise timeless picture. I was also going thru a hardcore USA craze at the time, and realized how similar the themes and mood of both works were. So I said f*** it and had the album play as ambiance to the screen. I was really surprised how well it worked out. Sadly I never expected the two to sync up, so I didnt record the start and repeat points. Also at this time, I used just the album as originally released so I had to repeat it twice to fit the movie with time left to spare. I recall the first playthrough as near flawless, the second as very good and the third as a total misfire. But still, I knew I was unto something.

Since then I downloaded the new 2010 restoration of the film and got the 2004 reissue of the USA with 10 bonus tracks. I knew those new tracks would be the key to not just boringly repeating the album 3 times which wouldnt fit after awhile. The challenge was if the completed movie with 30 extra minutes would still sync up, if I could remember how it happened originally or find a better way to do it, and how to use the bonus tracks if at all. After noodling with it on and off in my spare time, this is what Ive come up with. I decided not to f*** with the order of the original album tracks, both out of respect and because itd be a headache to then play around with. Plus, itd be dishonest to then claim the two sync up. That said, I used the bonus tracks because I needed more diversity in the playlist, and since those were never officially released, and JB never signed off on the order on the reissue, I figured those were fair game to play with. Still, I wanted to have some kind of rules, so I only repeated each track--original and bonus--once. Even with this, there was some extra time to fill up, so I had to pull tracks from the aforementioned sequel album by JB and the Field Hippies. I realize its kinda hypocritical to refuse to mess with an albums ordering and then pull in tracks from another album, but this was never my original intent and it had to be done. The tracks from T.A.M.C. are: Invisible Man, Nightmare Train and Kaylani/You Cant Ever Come Down. The only one repeated from these is Nightmare Train. I also used every track including those 3 once before going into reruns. This allowed me to start the second playing of the USA where it originally occurred on my trial run of this: as Maria's likeness is transferred to the Machine Man in Rotwang's lab.

Now, I fully acknowledge there are places where this doesnt work. The second airing of Cloud Song is a good example. But I think for the vast majority of the time, it does. There are numerous instances where the song lyrics describe perfectly whats happening on-screen, the tones line up well, and it actually kind of forms musical motifs similar to a real film score. Like Tailor Man playing when Maria recognizes Freder as the Mediator, and when he acts the part out at the end. In addition, Hard Coming Love plays as Freder first sees and falls in love with Maria, and again when he hallucinates her dancing suggestively for example. I believe these two sync up far better than the famous Dark Side of the Rainbow, which combines Wizard of Oz and Dark Side of the Moon tho, if I may say so.

I totally understand people who are put off by this, see the whole project as disrespectful, whatever. But you always have the original score. For those of us who want something new...here you go. I personally think it enhances both works. It gives mostly well-fitting visualizations to my all-time favorite (completed) album, and the different but related music accentuates how timeless the moral of the story is. You could say it dates it to the 60s, but I think it just calls attention to the fact that people have been criticizing our Capitalist, segregated society for a hundred years now. The counter-culture was born of the same sentiments which inspired the film, and the USA in particular says the same thing in a different medium. The film was just as relevant in 1968, and today with the rising wage gap, entrenched Consumerist Culture and Corporate dominance in politics as it was in 1927.

I hope you enjoy. Let me know what you think in the comments. If you have any ideas for better sync points, or better orders for the bonus tracks or something, let me know or post it yourself--Id love to see.

So Ive been doing a good deal of soul searching and I think its time I leave this place once and for all. Ive talked about it a lot in the past, especially when I first showed up and things werent going over so well, but I always came back because the allure of diving in and talking about SMiLE among fellow fans (of which I know precisely ZERO in real life) was just too great to stay away. And for a while, things seemed to pick up and it was pretty good...aside from the factions and not being able to say anything without stepping on someone's toes (Im half joking). But honestly, lately, I just feel like its not worth the time, trouble and abuse. I realize a lot of it is probably self-inflicted; Im a pretty outspoken person and I like to debate which certainly rubs a lot of people the wrong way and I guess I can understand why. FWIW, I think even I kinda crossed a line when Rab left and I started railing about certain mod practices and issues. I kinda took up the cause trying to spearhead some kind of reform because, I guess, I sympathized with Rab and why he left and was hoping something could be done to turn it around. If I hurt any mods feelings, Im sorry. And sincerely, Im sorry if anyone took anything I said in a SMiLE debate personally too. That was never my intent to come off as mean or whatever...I just really like writing, debating, and this is something Im really interested in so I just get carried away. Id hope if we were having these conversations in person Id come off friendlier. With just text it really is hard to read others, or present yourself honestly.

Anyway, I kinda came and went as I had some free time here and there, mostly when there was a cool SMiLE thread getting attention. Gave me a chance to see new information/interpretations on SMiLE and offer my own theories, which I firmly believe in, and had never seen proposed by anyone else before so I felt the need to get them out there. I guess I overdid it. I have to admit I did get legitimately frustrated at times, seeing possibilities I consider just as valid if not more so shut down and called speculation while others were held as unquestionable based on, usually, very narrow interpretations of vague passages in one or perhaps two articles. But y'know, I get that having someone constantly beat you over the head with something again and again can be annoying too, even if, for me, its also annoying seeing these not be considered in the first place. Maybe I needed someone like zozo to turn it around on me the past few days to get it. I dont know. I think perhaps my efforts would be better served writing my own blog or perhaps reddit post or something about this some day when I get the time. You guys already have your minds made up just as I do, and hearing my ideas again and again is not going to win you over. Fresh eyes, and one big thorough post from me rather than a million reiterations, would be the best way to get my theories out there. I can see that now. Similarly, Im not getting anything new out or fun out of hearing the same things said again and again either. It would literally be the definition of insanity if I stayed.

You can say "thats great, you learned your lesson. why not stay but drop the SMiLE stuff?" Because honestly, even tho im not perfect and a lot of the negative attention I brought on myself, I just honestly dont feel welcome here anymore. I think, for all the time and passion I put into my posts, however misguided, I dont deserve to be called a troll, have my ideas purposefully misrepresented, etc. And just as with the early days when I was being harassed for not putting GV on a mix, nobody bothered to defend me. In the past I thought it was because I hadnt been around long enough to earn respect yet, but I can see now thats never gonna change. Maybe in this recent case, its because I gave the person a tongue lashing myself, or most of you thought I deserved it. IDK, but either way, I just dont feel like Im part of a community who's got my back when nobody stands up for you, even when youre a regular. Furthermore, I dont think its fair Im constantly hounded to read certain articles to even have a right to speak, and even when I do and write up some pretty thorough responses, partially to show that my ideas ARENT so far fetched because theyre not disproven and in some cases are supported by the articles, and also in a genuine attempt to possibly stir up a conversation, Im not taken seriously. In fact, Im accused of withholding evidence which disproves me--nevermind the fact I myself posted links to every article or video I ever "reviewed" both in those posts and in what I naively thought was meant as a reference thread. Now, its not even that I get mostly ignored--I get literally pounded with quotes for not interpreting them the way Im "supposed" to, made out to be some kind of imbecile or delinquent, and have some self important, self appointed keeper of the facts give me a pretty snarky and condescending smackdown over it. Again, maybe I brought it on myself. I dont know. I really dont know how things got so adversarial but Im sick of it. And I realize now its never going to end. I know Im not the one making it more and more elitist and disdainful around here thats for sure tho. When it gets to the point it has now where Im publicly berated for not citing everything I just linked to, lectured on my interpretations and treated as tho I never read articles I just wrote lengthy responses to, thats where I draw the line. As if that wasnt enough, my responses which I made in good faith are made out to be me misleading people and maliciously distorting facts, as if anyone else couldnt read them for themselves. Seriously, f*** that sh*t. You can frame it as respecting history or whatever, but at the end of the day this is supposed to be a laid back fun place I come to to discuss something Im interested in after classes. When it becomes like classwork in itself, complete with bullying to boot, thats where I drop out. But I sincerely believe no one else will be subjected to that behavior--in fact, I really do believe that both this "you need to read these articles"/"Oh you did? Well.....now you need to cite everything, and if I dont agree Im gonna frame it as tho youre manipulating the evidence" BS is an attempt to shut me up. Maybe thats me being an egocentric or paranoid but just watch--I highly doubt anyone else will be talked to with such scorn and disrespect so openly like that, and even if they are then this is not the kinda place worth spending time in. Ive never seen anyone else told their input is so worthless and so purposefully made to feel excluded like that, and it happened so quickly, from being incredibly friendly in one thread to needlessly vicious and PERSONAL in the next.

Anyway, I thought this place was fun...sometimes. I kind of imagined it as a bunch of music buffs sitting around a fireplace while the vinyl spins, talking about the music, what it makes us feel and in the case of SMiLE, how it best and most likely wouldve been finished. Now, any kind of casual or friendliness to such discussions feels gone. I thought a reference thread today was a great idea, a great project and an awesome resource. But not if it means Im gonna be continued to be treated like Ive been the past few days here, and by someone I had honestly thought was a friend in the past, only to have them basically make it a personal mission to tear me down since. Again, maybe I brought some of that on myself. I dont know. I acknowledge I probably made some other people feel similarly and if I did, Im genuinely sorry for it--it honestly was never my intention. But thats just it, this place is toxic. This isnt about assigning blame. I do think that this negativity and adversarial nature cycles back and back into itself to where its just a very unpleasant experience for everyone. Its not fun coming here anymore, I dont feel like anyone really wants me around, and honestly I expect this post will have some of you pretty happy.

But this isnt all a big pity party either. I have other stuff I have to do with my life. Its gonna be a busy semester, and frankly I couldve worked on a bunch of projects tonight but I didnt because the excitement of a group-created reference thread for SMiLE sources/quotes, finding the Teen Set Mag article and Bruce interview tonight got me pretty excited about SMiLE and the Boys and I let myself waste so much time here its actually embarassing. And really...for what? Just to be told "f*** you, your posts are a waste of time, you have no respect for the facts" not supported or defended by ANYONE against such treatment, and if so many of you either dislike me or dont care, why should I? Ive got enough going on in my personal life, getting sh*t on by people who think Im a freak I dont need more of that here. And I have to write enough extensively referenced essays for school I dont need to have to do so during my hobby now to even have the privilege of talking about SMiLE. I cannot say it enough, that is some SERIOUS bullshit right there, and where I personally draw the line. I think even if I did put up with it, there'd be some other crazy requirement for me next. So Ill just do myself and everyone else a favor and step out.

Peace, guys. It was nice talking to some of you. Im happy I was able to make real life friends with one, possibly two. Theres some of you, like Sonic and perhaps Cam, who probably dislike me or think I hate them. I dont. I disagree strongly about SMiLE and Mike respectively, but that was all. Theres one of you I think is pretty two-faced, mean-spirited and even more pompous than me if thats possible, and I could leak the Private Messages to prove it, but its not worth the time and you know who you are. This'll be the last overly long post you'll ever have to read from me. 

No, 'policing' other peoples' use of historical data should not be necessary, or my responsibility, I agree. But since I spent hours formatting and annotating a ready resource (including full attribution and dating where possible) - on a thread of which you are aware, and indeed thanked me for establishing - which will allow you, and me, and other posters to quote accurately and responsibly the specific article, among others, upon which you 'dissertated' above ... then yes, I think I have the right to express my frustration that you've continued to populate this thread with largely selective, paraphrased references which - I suspect, not coincidentally - support your pre-existing positions on the SMiLE album.

EDIT: Are we done now with this now, Mujan? Do you recognize any truth in what I wrote above ? I hope so. If not, back to me not engaging with your posts, and continuing to enjoy some otherwise diverting and insightful threads.

At the end of the day, I just read some articles and posted my thoughts on them. Wasnt aware I was doing anything wrong. Im not trying to hide things which disprove me since I tried to comment on all the major points raised in each piece. Since youre such an expert, go ahead and bring up something I left out which shatters any theory Ive raised. I'll wait. I believe I myself even posted links to every single article, video interview as well as fan article/speculation I have currently saved on this computer on your little thread, as well as the relevant links to each article as I responded to them. So your theory doesnt hold water when held up to the truth, not that thats stopped you before.

So, am I not allowed to interpret things differently, because thats what Im getting out of all this. You initially accused me of being a bully in this thread for not reading these threads yet, and said I was scared Id find something which proved me wrong. So I made a point of reading each one, and typing up my thoughts. Not even just those which applied to my ideas, but whatever I got out of them. Go read em. Yeah I go out of my way to point out when nothing within disproves what I said, and especially when they support it. Why wouldnt I? I was lead to believe I had no clue what I was talking about and reading these articles would show me how totally wrong I was. But actually...in many cases, they seemed to show me I was right on point. The only things people have against my idea about Psychedelic Sounds are their own preconceived theories. Which may turn out to be true, I concede. But its pretty hypocritical to accuse me of flexing that muscle, etc, when you and others are doing the same for WC fade or whatever. The only difference is, Im alone. So I at least feel the need to debate more vigorously, and its a lot easier for me to be pushed around; ignored, talked down to, challenged to read XYZ and not even taken seriously when I do, even accused of trolling.

Honestly, with your wording here, and your quick and needlessly crass reply above, I believe you tipped your hand with the actual purpose to that thread youre so keen to brag about. Personally, I thought there was room enough for people to be able to post their own reactions to articles like that as well as a totally objective reference thread for them. But it appears for you, the latter was an excuse to put down my own versions of the former. The two should be able to coexist in a message board without one used selectively to silence those you disagree with unless they knowingly post objectively false info--which I have not.

I was really hoping we could let our tiff from before go and start over. We seemed to be earlier, you were very nice and polite. But it seems like that was just being two-faced if this is what you really wanted to do. And its not like this is an isolated occurrence either since before you were perfectly happy to debate this, sent me PMs praising my passion for the subject, inventive mixes and all else, and then in public start accusing me of avoiding reading articles because I know Ill be proven wrong, calling me a bully, and now even when I do read them Im accusing of posting misleading info and you make a big show of slapping me down personally. Unless you also slap everybody down who doesnt know offhand exactly when every article was written--even when they admit so and ask--and interprets passages from them differently than you with this conceited bought of quotes, personal quips and references to your "hard work" then I think youre specifically targeting me. And if you DO in fact start treating everyone in this way, then this isnt the kind of stuffy priggish conversation Id like to take part in.

The 'piano piece' you refer to is clearly the tag to 'Wind Chimes', described by Vosse (twice) as follows:

Yes, I figured. Im just referring to it as it appears in the article.

‘But at the same time [Brian made the Fire recording], he took the tail end of "Wind Chimes" - which the way it was originally recorded was, again much more beautiful than on Smiley Smile - and he had a minute and a half tag on it where he took a stand-up tack piano and a grand piano; and, a track at a time, did little music-box overdubs; and then he went in and mixed them with different echoes on different channels into ... I've never heard anything like it… He was doing everything: he had an engineer there just to punch the tape thing, but he'd go in and mix in between. This was mainly done in Western Three, rather than Gold Star Studios which he used for a few things.
[Fusion, 1969]

‘It is a balmy afternoon in Hollywood. Brian Wilson comes into Studio 3 at Western Recorders for an overdubbing session. In the booth his personal 8-track tape machine is ready to roll. In the studio an old, upright honky-tonk piano and Brian's beautiful black grand piano wait under the microphones. "I have an idea, I'm not sure exactly how this is going to work, but we'll try it." Brian goes to his piano and signals Chuck, the engineer, to roll the tape. He plays a simple music box melody. The tape is run back. On a second track he adds some tinkles on the honky-tonk piano. For about half an hour Wilson goes over the same piece, filling the eight tracks with counterpoints, syncopated gates and notions. "OK, let's hear it." Wilson in the control room, standing close to the center speaker, listens to the playback. He rushes to the board and supervises the throwing of switches and turning of knobs — more echo on the third track, a touch of reverb on the second honky-tonk overdub, this track dry and the other with more highs. Something happens to the sounds; they change, they move around and are transformed into a work of sheer beauty. Everyone in the booth has seen and heard the entire process.’
[Teen Set, Jan ‘67]

Again....I AM aware of that. Just referring to how it appears in the article

And the 'Talking Horns' established as an off-the-cuff idea at a Surf's Up session:

My point here is not that these weren't off-the-cuff experiments that didn't necessarily go anywhere - as you posit - but that they are not random, 'obscure SMiLE pieces', but unused or abandoned mixes of parts of known song sections - in this case, specifically, the horn parts in the 'First Movement' of Surf's Up and a possibly unheard mix of the 'Wind Chimes' tag.

No, again Im referring to them as the article makes them out to be. Theyre presented as on the spot ideas, so Im going along with that, responding to that, when I write up my reaction. Im aware that the idea of falling into instruments was done 3 nights after during Psychedelic Sounds, for example.

Again, here are the relevant quotes (and dates, incidentally) from Vosse - not only from Teen Set, but Fusion too - from the other thread:

The above are firsthand, published accounts of how a participant remembered the process of development. As it happens, I largely agree with your take on OMP/Barnyard/Workshop etc. But dressing up supposition as fact, like this:

I know. Ive read them. Im not sure why you feel the need to throw these in my face, especially since they dont contradict anything I said or speculated in my post. And do I really need to say "in my opinion" every time I post something? Is the guilt trip "Im not sure why I bothered" really necessary?

Again, one of the reasons I put together - over several hours, mind - what I did is so people would have no reasonable recourse not to quote sources correctly. Specific to the above:

Each person makes and repeats a sound which represents the “feeling" of underwater life to him

The '"feeling" of underwater life' (to that specific individual making the noise, what's more) being distinctly different from "the feeling of water". Unless you're arguing that Brian's attempt to emulate The Elements was, in this case, to empathize with the beings that live within that element, and not capture an aural sense of the element itself. Which you could, I suppose, argue - but you'd need to be willing to articulate it more clearly than above.

Cut me a break. Im assuming we all read them or are familiar. Do I really need to cite every single post I make now when its clear Ive read the articles in question--very recently--and at the end of the day this is a place I come to for fun AFTER writing cited essays all day at school?

Itd be one thing if I stated things that are undeniably, objectively untrue. But Im offering my conclusion on the subject based on what Ive read and listened to. Youre essentially disagreeing with my opinion and then self righteously throwing your quotes in my face saying "YOURE NOT INTERPRETING IT THE WAY I AM!" I mean seriously, the crux of your argument here is basically they make fish sounds so it cant be an element. And yet, what you and zozobird and others dont seem to grasp is that Im saying these were rough working ideas for the elements. So it stands to reason they wouldnt be perfect. And in any case, is it really that hard to fathom that making you feel like youre on the ocean floor by creating aquatic ambient sounds might be a way of expressing Water? You seem to have a really literal idea of the elements, my goodness. I guess Fire isnt really fire because it sounds like fire engine sirens. Unless you think automobiles are an element

Hes quoted specifically saying hed have the Boys try something similar when they got back.

The crucial point here, surely, is that he didn't. The musical and, indeed, thematic connection between even the most atmospheric 'underwater' chanting on PS and the eventual harmonic 'Water Chant', recorded almost exactly a year later, is tenuous if not non-existent. You've been stretching that muscle for a while, Mujan. Your arm must be getting tired.

Except he did. Its called the Water Chant. Took him awhile yes, but the two are absolutely similar. One is definitely a lot more melodic and refined but hey...thats why he redid it. Its not like there isnt a precedent of SMiLE material being on long hiatus like Workshop not coming out until Do It Again, or CIFOTM in Little Bird, or WC into Been Too Long. Really appreciate the snarkiness too. Cuz thats totally becoming.

6-Im writing this as I go, and what do you know? Talking Horns specifically comes up. And its presented as another successful last minute experiment, although its possible the droning and wailing sounds were not--but either way, whatever. Its possible they were a success too and Brian just never got around to mixing them into SU, and either forgot or changed his mind by '71. Or those parts were meant for something else, tho I have no idea what, and again it was a SU session so...

An excellent and objective, I think, reading of the material.

Gee, glad you approve.

8-Oh what do you know...AGAIN. Brian is described as listening to Heroes and Villains...and the BARNYARD SECTION comes on. I know it was published in April, but when was this written exactly? Presumably after OMP was recorded in November. CASE FUC|<ING CLOSED.

AGAIN, if you'd bothered to go refer to the listings I put up, you'd see that the Teen Set piece covers events from October to December 1966. Even if you didn't, a cursory reading of the article with reference to the TSS sessionography shows that events within the article occur out of sequence within the piece. (And if you then explain that you don't have your copy of the TSS book to hand, I can direct you toward a useful collection of quotes including session dating, wherever possible, on another thread in this board.)

Yes, so I noticed. I believe I referenced quite a few dates in Point #3, including the crucial February date for OMP in which the fade was finalized. Im sorry I didnt realize you posted the dates in which things were published in your post. Since I asked, and didnt presume to know, a nice little correction wouldve been appreciated, but apparently that comes with a healthy dose of self congratulations and condescension on your part. Maybe thats not your intent but it certainly comes off that way.

To conclude with one more quotation - complete with dating and attribution - I am fairly confident you will bother to read and retain:

CASE FUC|<ING CLOSED.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard, posted Today]
[/quote]

Nice.

Hey man, you know I appreciate what you did posting quotes and everything, and I went out of my way to praise you for it. But is this really what it was for--so you can self importantly shove it in anyone's face who gets anything wrong, or whom you ASSUME is wrong, or even interprets something in one of those quotes differently than you? Honestly if thats the case then yeah, maybe you shouldnt have bothered. I dont mind being corrected, but many of these instances here are differences of conclusions based on our interpretations of the articles which youre framing as though I didnt read them, and being needlessly pompous about it. There's definitely something to be said about providing easily accessed sources and encouraging people to use them and then there's...this. Certainly didnt take you long either.

Dude...I appreciate what you did by posting all those quotes and everything...but is it really necessary to police people who dont extensively utilize them with every post?

Something I forgot to mention about Bruce too, he thinks BWPS sounds much better live as opposed to the CD. He even says Brian shouldve just released a live CD with DVD footage rather than rerecord in the studio. Honestly, the whole interview gave me a totally newfound respect for Bruce. I appreciate how he can speak his mind in instances like that rather than just suck up to Brian--it makes all the praise for Pet Sounds, GV and SMiLE that much more genuine. He comes off like a really down to earth, no bullshitting, chill guy. Its great to hear him say things like that and how SJB doesnt fit on Pet Sounds--opinions I agree with but often get chewed out for by the "true fans" I think out of all the surviving Beach Boys, he's the one I could most enjoyably hang out with and talk music to, where Brian would be silent and wanting to leave and Mike bragging about Kokomo and the lyrics for GV.

Bruce does give good interviews.
You forgot poor Al who has been getting more and more blunt as time passes.

Nothing against him. Hes a good guy. He just never made any particular impression on me. Al is Al. I gotta say I do feel bad for him sometimes, like Veggies story where he got left out of hearing the Sgt Pepper songs when Paul came to visit and being left out of both groups.

Something I forgot to mention about Bruce too, he thinks BWPS sounds much better live as opposed to the CD. He even says Brian shouldve just released a live CD with DVD footage rather than rerecord in the studio. Honestly, the whole interview gave me a totally newfound respect for Bruce. I appreciate how he can speak his mind in instances like that rather than just suck up to Brian--it makes all the praise for Pet Sounds, GV and SMiLE that much more genuine. He comes off like a really down to earth, no bullshitting, chill guy. Its great to hear him say things like that and how SJB doesnt fit on Pet Sounds--opinions I agree with but often get chewed out for by the "true fans" I think out of all the surviving Beach Boys, he's the one I could most enjoyably hang out with and talk music to, where Brian would be silent and wanting to leave and Mike bragging about Kokomo and the lyrics for GV.

Does anybody have a mono mix of Holidays leading into Wind Chimes, but without the fly-in during the Whispering Wind section?

If anyone can PM me that, it would be greatly appreciated!

Anyone?

I really dont think it can be done with what we have. Im certainly not good enough to do it, anyway. How I got around that tho, was I used the "windchimes, tingling" lyrics from Smiley and put those on top of the Holidays fade leading into Wind Chimes for my Aquarian SMiLE mix.

Some of which I find wonderful while some come off as incredibly pretentious.

I see the term 'pretentious' frequently employed on these boards, sometimes about other posters, but most often in reference to the lyrics or, indeed, speech/manner of Van Dyke Parks. One actual (and satisfactory) definition of that word: 'Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed.'

Is this actually what you mean when discussing the words for the SMiLE songs? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you if so, but if the term's going to be thrown about it'd be nice to know this is actually what you mean. At least then if there's going to be any debate over the merits of (and these are just examples - I do recognize you said you find some of his lyrics wonderful )  'She belongs there, left with her liberty' or - yes - 'Over and over, the crow cries uncover the cornfield', we'll understand the terms of that debate going in. Especially because you consider some of the lyrics to 'come off' as 'incredibly' attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed. This strikes me as a bold line to take - even with the most esoteric verses he wrote - but I'm interested to read your arguments.

I had meant to reply to this as soon as I could but I've been all-Bowie-all-the-time since early Monday morning.

Yes, I do find some of the lyrics cringeworthy (although I strongly disagree with those who think the whole collaboration was a mistake). Interesting that you quoted lines from "Wonderful" and "Cabin-Essence" as those are two songs where I feel the marriage of music and lyrics work spectacularly well, and are easily my two favorites from the whole project. Both lyrics work as excellent impressionist pieces.
I know I'll get a lot of flak for this from 90% of the people here, but my main problem is with the lyric to "Surf's Up" (and to a lesser degree some of "Heroes and Villains"). Namechecking Poe's "The Pit and The Pendulum" has always struck me as ham-fisted and some of the others seem too precious for their own good like "Dove nested towers, the hours..", etc.
One's appreciation of a lyric is always going to be subjective. For example, I'm a sucker for Dylan and "Vision of Johanna" is my favorite song and lyric. "The ghost of electricity howls in the bones of her face" is a line that's usually called out as either sublime or pretentious nonsense. For some reason, that line and the entire song work for me, but I can see where someone could think it's pretentious (and yes, I DO know what the word "pretentious" means....good grief). Robyn Hitchcock, with his obsession with insects and vegetables, is another favorite of mine who also gets bashed for just stringing together random images that sound like they mean something but really don't. I'm of the opinion there's a logic at work there, but luckily there's plenty of humor.

That's not to say I dislike "Surf's Up". As a piece of music it's outstanding and *most* of the lyrics are evocative and help to set the mood. Some of them, however, seem forced as if the young VDP was puling an "I Am The Walrus" era John Lennon on us. "Let's see the f*****s work that one out" minus the deliberate tomfoolery. More like "This song doesn't really call for some of this flowery imagery, but won't it sound more impressive to everyone if I do it this way?".

I reckon I'll also be alone in thinking VDP did a more satisfying job on his own Song Cycle album. In fact, in a perfect world, I'd combine some of the finished SMiLE with tracks like "The All Golden" from Song Cycle (imagine that sequenced after "Wonderful"!) and complete Brian and VDP's intended American Gothic trip.
     

Hey, different strokes, friend. Its funny you say that because I personally think Surfs Up is overrated too (tho i still love it and maintain it shouldve been the single) but my beef isnt with the lyrics. Its with the music. Not Brian's best, not by a longshot. Compared to CIFOTM, CE etc I think the backing track to SU is noticeably weaker. I think its a weaker backing track than most of Pet Sounds too. I actually love the lyrics tho. I think theyre an amazing abstract stream of consciousness. Its like a prose poem, it doesnt all need to be literal or straightforward, but its fun to analyze and can mean a lot to different people. I agree Wonderful and CE lyrics are great too.

I like Heroes' lyrics. Theyre not super fantastic but a lot of the little phrases "dude'll do"/"stand-a-four"/"three score and five"/"sunny down snuff" all evoke that western feeling even if they may not make the most literal sense or be super meaningful. I also love the Cantina lyrics particularly and the contrast of a fun, upbeat song about losing the one you love in a violent gun toting town, having to raise your kids alone. Some may find the Franklin reference "healthy wealthy and wise" pretentious but y'know what...it sounds great as part of the song, it adds a bit of Americana and I like it

I'm glad you said it about the backing track and not me.  I always prefer the version of just Brian at the piano. THAT performance should've been the single to follow up GV. What a contrast! ...and I think I'm experiencing deja-vu. Didn't we both agree on this in another thread somewhere? 

Im almost certain of it. Gah, what a horrible choice, H&V.

I agree. I use my version of the complex SU in my mixes so it fits stylistically, but whenever Im listening to just the song on its own, its always the Wild Honey version. That is so much more profound. THAT is Brian's heart and soul offered up in music, and what should have been his signature song. But where we disagree is I think thats because the power of that track is in the lyrics and his beautiful delivery of them. All that unnecessary instrumentation only distracts from that. I really do love the horns wailing over the fade, but theres no absolute proof that was even the plain.

Some of which I find wonderful while some come off as incredibly pretentious.

I see the term 'pretentious' frequently employed on these boards, sometimes about other posters, but most often in reference to the lyrics or, indeed, speech/manner of Van Dyke Parks. One actual (and satisfactory) definition of that word: 'Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed.'

Is this actually what you mean when discussing the words for the SMiLE songs? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you if so, but if the term's going to be thrown about it'd be nice to know this is actually what you mean. At least then if there's going to be any debate over the merits of (and these are just examples - I do recognize you said you find some of his lyrics wonderful )  'She belongs there, left with her liberty' or - yes - 'Over and over, the crow cries uncover the cornfield', we'll understand the terms of that debate going in. Especially because you consider some of the lyrics to 'come off' as 'incredibly' attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed. This strikes me as a bold line to take - even with the most esoteric verses he wrote - but I'm interested to read your arguments.

I had meant to reply to this as soon as I could but I've been all-Bowie-all-the-time since early Monday morning.

Yes, I do find some of the lyrics cringeworthy (although I strongly disagree with those who think the whole collaboration was a mistake). Interesting that you quoted lines from "Wonderful" and "Cabin-Essence" as those are two songs where I feel the marriage of music and lyrics work spectacularly well, and are easily my two favorites from the whole project. Both lyrics work as excellent impressionist pieces.
I know I'll get a lot of flak for this from 90% of the people here, but my main problem is with the lyric to "Surf's Up" (and to a lesser degree some of "Heroes and Villains"). Namechecking Poe's "The Pit and The Pendulum" has always struck me as ham-fisted and some of the others seem too precious for their own good like "Dove nested towers, the hours..", etc.
One's appreciation of a lyric is always going to be subjective. For example, I'm a sucker for Dylan and "Vision of Johanna" is my favorite song and lyric. "The ghost of electricity howls in the bones of her face" is a line that's usually called out as either sublime or pretentious nonsense. For some reason, that line and the entire song work for me, but I can see where someone could think it's pretentious (and yes, I DO know what the word "pretentious" means....good grief). Robyn Hitchcock, with his obsession with insects and vegetables, is another favorite of mine who also gets bashed for just stringing together random images that sound like they mean something but really don't. I'm of the opinion there's a logic at work there, but luckily there's plenty of humor.

That's not to say I dislike "Surf's Up". As a piece of music it's outstanding and *most* of the lyrics are evocative and help to set the mood. Some of them, however, seem forced as if the young VDP was puling an "I Am The Walrus" era John Lennon on us. "Let's see the f*****s work that one out" minus the deliberate tomfoolery. More like "This song doesn't really call for some of this flowery imagery, but won't it sound more impressive to everyone if I do it this way?".

I reckon I'll also be alone in thinking VDP did a more satisfying job on his own Song Cycle album. In fact, in a perfect world, I'd combine some of the finished SMiLE with tracks like "The All Golden" from Song Cycle (imagine that sequenced after "Wonderful"!) and complete Brian and VDP's intended American Gothic trip.
     

Hey, different strokes, friend. Its funny you say that because I personally think Surfs Up is overrated too (tho i still love it and maintain it shouldve been the single) but my beef isnt with the lyrics. Its with the music. Not Brian's best, not by a longshot. Compared to CIFOTM, CE etc I think the backing track to SU is noticeably weaker. I think its a weaker backing track than most of Pet Sounds too. I actually love the lyrics tho. I think theyre an amazing abstract stream of consciousness. Its like a prose poem, it doesnt all need to be literal or straightforward, but its fun to analyze and can mean a lot to different people. I agree Wonderful and CE lyrics are great too.

I like Heroes' lyrics. Theyre not super fantastic but a lot of the little phrases "dude'll do"/"stand-a-four"/"three score and five"/"sunny down snuff" all evoke that western feeling even if they may not make the most literal sense or be super meaningful. I also love the Cantina lyrics particularly and the contrast of a fun, upbeat song about losing the one you love in a violent gun toting town, having to raise your kids alone. Some may find the Franklin reference "healthy wealthy and wise" pretentious but y'know what...it sounds great as part of the song, it adds a bit of Americana and I like it

[And since I recently read it as well, I decided to do another dissection, this time on Teen Set's SMiLE ad from April 1967]

Double post, but perhaps this applies here too:

Something maybe worth bringing up, a Bruce Johnston interview series by the same team that did the Danny Hutton interviews Ive linked to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on9hWPf_bA8&list=PL42412455481D7DB6&index=14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HAdZXeWeq4&index=15&list=PL42412455481D7DB6

Some takeaway points:

1-Bruce doesnt think Sloop John B really fit on Pet Sounds, which I found surprising

2-He doesnt think the band hurt SMiLE and challenges you to listen to the tapes "the band worked hard to make this happen" and defends Mike. Perhaps expected coming from him especially but worth noting

3-Says Brian was very tense and not the same man during SMiLE. He speculates that the high stakes after the wild success of GV made him nervous

4-Loves Smiley, calls it a cool album, but laments the loss of SMiLE. Says GV doesnt fit on Smiley--at different times says if GV had been on Pet Sounds it wouldve been better than Sgt Pepper, but then that GV was better without a home, and shouldve been a standalone single.

5-Doesnt understand why Brian chose to credit the Production of Smiley to the BBs. Says Brian was in control even during that time.

And since I recently read it as well, I decided to do another dissection, this time on Teen Set's SMiLE ad from April 1967

1-The implication seems to be that the Workshop sounds are merely background noise for one of the SMiLE tracks. I realize Workshop has musical accompaniment to it, but the speculative part of me cannot help but wonder if perhaps they might have been used for something else. I know Im probably overthinking it, or wanting to believe something that isnt so, but...Ive just always thought the Workshop sounds would work better somewhere else--the music used with them kinda sucks IMHO and I always thought theyd work well with Wonderful at the end as the girl rebuilding herself or somewhere else. You know what? Even if they werent an element, I do think theyd sound best after Fire. I dont care what anyone say--The Elements is unfinished anyway...why the hell not?

2-The description of the piano piece and how it was made really gets me thinking. I believe perhaps its possible that a lot of the more off the wall ideas like perhaps Talking Horns' various sections and other more obscure SMiLE pieces might have been ideas he didnt know how was going to work...and couldnt get it work. That piano idea seems to have been kinda spur of the moment and could just as easily have turned out not so great. I know the point of the anecdote is Brian's genius that he could in fact make it work. But even geniuses dont always get it right. So perhaps that could be what happened with The Wonderful Insert and other things.

3-OMP. So this implies the past tense Only Sunshine came in November just one night before the track was officially recorded. So was this the same incident described in Fusion where he transitioned into Barnyard? If thats so, then was Barnyard in fact an early casualty for the sake of Heroes and Villains--perhaps the first? The quote about him always working on a whim certainly explains why the songs changed so much, and in a scenario like that I think its wisest to stick with whats on tape, again physical evidence, when piecing together an attempted historical cut. And looking at the sessions for OMP according to TSS, it looks like they were done 11/14 and later in February. The Humble Harv demo if Im not mistaken, was done 11/4 with Barnyard as part of H&V, and according to TSS Barnyard was done 10/20. If any of these are wrong, please correct me. So is it actually possible Barnyard was a reverse scenario where H&V lost something to another song? Like so much else, Its impossible to say. And we also know Sunshine itself, possibly sans OMP (I believe it was without it) was in Heroes too at one point. Well, Im still going by whats on tape. I believe had Barnyard been intended to be included there would be a test edit made up. It wouldve been SO EASY to do, and according to some of you thats all it would take to finish OMP/Barnyard suite as a track. Plus, again unless Im wrong, Barnyard fades. So how would it be part of OMP--which had a fade recorded after Barnyard was made? It just doesnt add up. I think for whatever reason Brian wanted to fit a past tense Sunshine in there somewhere and possibly VDP talked him into doing a duet of covers, and stuck OMP up front to get the more compelling "losing faith" idea across. VDP did something similar in Song Cycle, he did a cover with water sounds and apparently its meant to be representative of the last song played on the Titanic. It sounds plausible to me. I just think had Barnyard been meant to be on OMP, either it wouldnt fade, or OMP wouldnt have had a fade recorded, or Barnyard wouldve been rerecorded so it didnt fade. While its possible Brian changed his mind too, I just think 10 days is a big leap to give up what was hyped up on the radio as a major section as well. I think its more likely H&V was a conglomeration of Western themed ideas at this time, and as it went on it was decided Barnyard and IIGS didnt really fit the narrative of the song that was forming, so they spun off into a new track...called IIGS. Possibly...POSSIBLY with Workshop and IWBA as other sections meant to be this "Barnyard suite" a counterpoint to the Elements suite on Side 2. Anyones free to disagree but I find this a lot more likely. And again...Im sorry but...OMP/YAMS has nothing to do with a Barnyard. IIGS and Workshop (not so much IWBA tho) do.

4-Its great to see the Taxi Cabber skit mentioned here. I concede it does sound like Brian is talking about using this guy in a "humor record" that sounds different from SMiLE. With the dinner table concert he says "Im putting this on the album" with this its "a humor record." Could still be SMiLE, but also could not, especially since he says "possibly a radio show." Im wondering now if perhaps spoken word humor wasnt part of the album's original plan thru '66 until Dec or maybe early '67, with that interview and the Cantina Edit, and humor gradually became more and more prominent to the concept until we got to Smiley. I think thats very probable. I think his complaint about pretense and defensiveness in humor could possibly be a dig at VDP. Maybe some of VDP's lyrics and/or contributions to humor skits werent liked by Brian. Maybe he was looking for someone funny and was slowly realizing VDP wasnt it, and that played a small part in their growing divide and split. This is speculation but it could be.

5-OH MY GOD. FINALLY. We have a description of the water sounds he recorded during PS. Hes quoted specifically saying hed have the Boys try something similar when they got back. This unofficial session is described as trying to recreate the feeling of water. Honestly, this is case closed as far as Im concerned. Undersea Chant is the early Water Chant, and therefore the early Water. And this in turn suggests--tho admittedly doesnt definitively prove--that Brian couldve done the same with Breathing. Not to fan the flames and call you out again Sonic, but you said before you thought Breathing was perhaps meant to be the sounds of a gym. I think youre right, actually. And Id like to say this could also tie in to Anderle saying the Elements were meant to convey fitness as well. Back to water tho, I also find it telling that where Brian scaled back Fire from an inferno to a candle, this early water is described as Atlantis. Water Chant is beautiful, but Atlantis its not. I think its possible this was intentionally scaled down too, from a busy Ocean floor scenery to a more simple, laid back pool. I know Im outvoted but I couldnt be more certain of Breathing and Undersea Chant as early versions of Elements after reading this and Anderle.

6-Im writing this as I go, and what do you know? Talking Horns specifically comes up. And its presented as another successful last minute experiment, although its possible the droning and wailing sounds were not--but either way, whatever. Its possible they were a success too and Brian just never got around to mixing them into SU, and either forgot or changed his mind by '71. Or those parts were meant for something else, tho I have no idea what, and again it was a SU session so...

7-I knew Brian was into health during this time but this is the first Ive ever heard of it as part of spiritual enlightenment. So thats really cool, and helps me understand why this--and the elements which are apparently about health too--fit with all the other themes going on here.

8-Oh what do you know...AGAIN. Brian is described as listening to Heroes and Villains...and the BARNYARD SECTION comes on. I know it was published in April, but when was this written exactly? Presumably after OMP was recorded in November. CASE FUC|<ING CLOSED. Boom. Here's how I describe the Vosse Fusion anecdote then. That was early on when both Barnyard and Only Sunshine were still part of H&V. So they were supposed to go into one another somehow, I believe it's described as Barnyard into Sunshine, and thats what Vosse heard and recalled. But Vosse himself never says "Thats how they were supposed to be, one song" or "That wouldve been the OMP track" or ANYTHING. He's just recalling a cool thing he heard early in the sessions, but by the time OMP was recorded in November as a standalone that changed. Seriously, I consider this irritating theory put to bed. Call zozobird someone 

9-Id LOVE to see the film he describes about the chicken with tennis shoes. Couldve been a cool counterpoint to the Fire video.

TL;DR:WOW. I cannot believe I didnt read this sooner, and that it wasnt as highly regarded as the others. For such a short little puff piece I actually learned a lot. It feels like it was written specifically for me, by mentioning the Psych Sounds skits, Talking Horns and other stuff Ive been focusing on lately. I have to admit, this makes me question Taxi Cabber being on SMiLE, although personally I still think it works great in it. It further casts doubt on the "WC piano is air" because if it was, with everything else he got right I think Vosse would know. With how he goes on discussing the Water chants as an Atlantis and stuff, Id expect him to use similarly descriptive details with this piano if it were air. Id expect between this, Anderle and Fusion that at one point someone would say WC PIANO IS AIR in no uncertain terms if that were the case. I suppose there may still be a shred of doubt (Im sure someone will point to the Fire extinguisher and say "look! elements!") but I think you guys are reaching. Hard. Speaking of Water, I think the inclusion of those chants here and the very atmospheric descriptions of the Atlantis and everything really proves that this was a rough attempt at Water. It also all but proves this became the Water Chant. This lends further evidence to Breathing as Air, especially with Sonic's description of it as gym noises and Anderle's emphasis on health in the elements. Finally, and most happily, I think this proves once and for all there's no validity to OMP and Barnyard being one track. But what do I know, Im a troll

5-Doesnt understand why Brian chose to credit the Production of Smiley to the BBs. Says Brian was in control even during that time.

IMO... Either Brian was prepping to hand over the reigns to the other Boys in the near future (as he in actuality did) and thought this credit would be a step in that direction, or SS on purpose was an underproduced effort (an intentional attempt to make it sloppy and not very good) as a "gift" to the band in the form of a passive-aggressive swipe for lack of band support for the SMiLE tracks. Or perhaps the decision was a drug-hazed combination of both ideas.

I think it's very unlikely that neither of those ideas had an iota to do with the credit.

Thats what Danny Hutton speculates too, that he was weaning himself away from the band, trying to get them to think they were fine on their own so he could move on and produce other acts. Danny, being part of one of those acts, may be biased in saying so.

Still, Bruce differs pretty significantly from other witnesses in completely ignoring the band's internal tension (expected) and calling Brian constantly nervous at this time while Vosse and Anderle present a very childlike carefree (tho still dealing with a lot of tension and insecurity) creative spirit. Im not saying anyone is lying, but this is a good example of peoples biases, how they can only comment on what theyve seen, and why its good to consider other accounts. Its totally possible Brian tried to put on a front he didnt mind the Boys disagreements in front of them while venting about it to his friends.

Anyway, I just thought it was worth bringing up because he seemed to share the OP's thesis on the album's non-release

[the high stakes after the wild success of GV made him nervous]

Something maybe worth bringing up, a Bruce Johnston interview series by the same team that did the Danny Hutton interviews Ive linked to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on9hWPf_bA8&list=PL42412455481D7DB6&index=14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HAdZXeWeq4&index=15&list=PL42412455481D7DB6

Some takeaway points:

1-Bruce doesnt think Sloop John B really fit on Pet Sounds, which I found surprising

2-He doesnt think the band hurt SMiLE and challenges you to listen to the tapes "the band worked hard to make this happen" and defends Mike. Perhaps expected coming from him especially but worth noting

3-Says Brian was very tense and not the same man during SMiLE. He speculates that the high stakes after the wild success of GV made him nervous

4-Loves Smiley, calls it a cool album, but laments the loss of SMiLE. Says GV doesnt fit on Smiley--at different times says if GV had been on Pet Sounds it wouldve been better than Sgt Pepper, but then that GV was better without a home, and shouldve been a standalone single.

5-Doesnt understand why Brian chose to credit the Production of Smiley to the BBs. Says Brian was in control even during that time.

Fantastic Work, Holy Bee.

I hope you dont mind me posting those links here. In hindsight Im not sure if that was appropriate or not, like if you wanted to keep it solely about those quotes from those specific articles on just the tracks or something. I liked the idea of a reference thread for SMiLE quotes and links without getting bogged down in arguments (which I admit I start as often as not) and perhaps got carried away. I appreciate you giving the Psychedelic Sounds an air of legitimacy by including them with the official tracks as well. Thanks for taking the time.

[Here's a 31 page scholarly article about SMiLE:]

It has that potential. Let's not f*** it up, huh ?

Indeed. I say we all agree to keep all of our own speculation, opinions and disagreements to other threads. Theres plenty to choose from and you can always start your own. And just use this thread to post links to sources, and quotes from articles. Lets try to keep this an index of references for quick use when discussing the album, rather than a place where those actual discussions are had.

Im too lazy to post quotes from them, at least right now, but I can add some links to sources.

Here's a 31 page scholarly article about SMiLE: http://www.people.carleton.edu/~aflory/Smile.pdf


And the link to Goodbye Surfing, Hello God: https://read.atavist.com/goodbye-surfing-hello-god?no-overlay&preview


And links to read the Crawdaddy interview with Anderle: http://www.vistaservices.com/crawdaddy/page2.html
I believe its the April, May and June issues if I recall correctly. Someone correct me if not.

Links to the Fusion interview with Vosse
http://s351.photobucket.com/user/marcus1970/media/Fusion_01.jpg.html
http://s351.photobucket.com/user/marcus1970/media/Fusion_02.jpg.html
http://s351.photobucket.com/user/marcus1970/media/Fusion_03.jpg.html
http://s351.photobucket.com/user/marcus1970/media/Fusion_04.jpg.html
http://s351.photobucket.com/user/marcus1970/media/Fusion_05.jpg.html
http://s351.photobucket.com/user/marcus1970/media/Fusion_06.jpg.html

This is a link to a Smiley Thread which has embedded scans of the April 1967 Teen Set Issue:http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?topic=17139.0

Link to an interview series on Danny Hutton:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL35350BBCE486D776
Its not all SMiLE based, and he doesnt get as in-depth as the others, but still worth considering[/u]

Interview with Al from when TSS was released:http://www.rockcellarmagazine.com/2013/04/02/al-jardine-smile-beach-boys-interview/#sthash.Ui2Rl7S9.dpbs

Someone listing all the chords used in SMiLE song by song: http://www.surfermoon.com/tabs/smile.html
Im not musically trained so I cannot verify if this is accurate or not. If it isnt, someone please feel free to point it out


These next few links may not be of the same calibur, but are some other things Ive come across recently that some of you might appreciate...

A fans dissection of Smiley Smile (Im not sure if its worth including Smiley here or not but I think the projects are closely linked): http://smileysmile.org/closelisten.htm

2 Fan dissections of SMiLE: http://ratherrarerecords.com/on-brian-wilson-and-smile/ & http://www.angelfire.com/mn/smileshop/historymott.html

A series of fan essays on Brian, many pertaining to SMiLE: http://www.surfermoon.com/essays.shtml

Another site about SMiLE: http://www.goodhumorsmile.com/page04.htm

If any of these arent reliable sources, anyone can feel free to point that out. I wont take offense Theyre just some things Ive found online, read and bookmarked on the subject. I thought some of them might have some useful info or at least interesting analysis.


Mods, if youre reading this, and this thread takes off...how about making this a stickied thread so it appears at the top of this board or TSS? This way, people can reference their theories and find quotes easily as the SMiLE topics come and go from now on.

The funny thing is....I'm asking people what they thought and so far all three people I've spoken with that are fans and have seen it are under whelmed but say it's good. I'm also hearing the same line from people now and read it on the internet...."well it was more of a set up for the next two, so they should be better". That is crap! This one should have and could EASILY have been better. How about this Abrams and company....slowly reveal that factions of the Empire still exist and they are rebuilding and regrouping throughout the Galaxy and then bring the old and new characters together over a simple plot like, we need to do something about these remnants before it gets out of hand. That, instead of, the Empire never was defeated and is still here and now calls itself First Order but its exactly the same with a new Death Star and an evil hologram dictating to the new Darth what his bidding shall be, which is what we got. As one Mr. Landy says to Brian in L&M ......Seriously Man!

I need to find a Star Wars fan site form and vent.

It was definitely a missed opportunity to have some social commentary on current times by not having a decentralized enemy. Something like scattered pockets of resistance to the new Republic wouldve been a great way to tie fears of terrorism into the new Star Wars and really make it something relevant to the new generation. The Prequels, again for all their faults, did the same, with the masterminds manufacturing a war being references to the West since WWII especially Cheney and Bush with Iraq. Even if that wasnt planned to coincide it worked out really well. And the originals could perhaps be read as fear of big government like the Soviets expanding and taking over planets against their will. Some deleted dialog between Luke and Biggs has the latter discussing how the Empire collectivizes ownership of peoples lands and businesses, an obvious nod to Communism.

Even just the littlest touches couldve made a great impact. Ive heard someone say the scene between Kylo and Han couldve been so much more dramatic had his real name been Luke and not Ben. And if we arent told hes Hans son until that moment, and he doesnt take his mask off until then either. Imagine Han yelling "Luke!" and for a minute, we think that maybe Luke has fallen to the dark side and this has been him all along. But then the touching reveal he named his son after his best friend (seriously, why would they name him after Ben Kenobi?? Seems like Luke might, but not them). Finally, we see his face, and this persons idea was its all green and twisted like the Emperor's in Episode 6, and Han recoils in horror at the corruption the Dark Side has brought unto his son. Seriously, how much more dramatic and powerful would something like that have been? Instead, we already know hes Hans son and what he looks like, and most of us saw the death coming a mile away, so it has no power what so ever.

Im not saying this movie sucked because it didnt do things exactly as I want them to...but thats just a small example of how it misses so many opportunities. Just changing little things in a scene like that make it so much more powerful and wouldnt have been hard to do. By the same token, changing big things wouldve allowed for more interesting sociopolitical commentary instead of the obvious, forced, seen-it-a-million-times Nazi iconography to indicate who the bad guys are. Imagine how much more powerful itd be if the Republic starts sacrificing the liberties the Rebels fought so hard for in order to better protect against disorganized terrorist supporters of the old Empire, essentially becoming its own worst enemy. That couldve been a really powerful critique of the US right now and allowed for some dialog about the current state of the world thru art. But instead, its just the exact same narrative we already saw all over again, and the Republic failed because Han and Leia are shitty parents and Luke's a coward who gave up and let billions die on those planets and Han die too when he could easily be doing something to help. LAME.

Not saying they'd have to do this for the movie to be good...just give us something new.

We'll disagree on Pet Sounds -vs- SMiLE. To me Pet Sounds is the masterwork with honest, raw and profound lyrics that have much more going for them VDP's, some of which I find wonderful while some come off as incredibly pretentious. Loved them all when I was younger, not so much at 45, whereas Pet Sounds still works on every level for me, if anything it becomes a richer listening experience as I get older (which I can't say for many albums I worshipped as a teenager). There's also the problem of SMiLE not being fully realized. I'm leaning more and more towards the idea of it being 6 or so completed songs that should've just been released as they were.

I agree with most of this. I consider Pet Sounds Brian's masterpiece, and Smile reaching a step too far by trying to out do his masterpiece.  Track for track some Smile tracks were creatively better than certain Pet Sounds tracks, but overall I really don't think you can take a masterpiece and try to do yourself one better. 

As far as the "pretentious" reference, Parks has a pretentious personality. I have thought that ever since I first saw him on that Beach Boys special in 1976. Mike Love has an "antagonistic" personality.  I don't really care either way about personalities, I like Mike and think he was good for the Beach Boys, I think Parks had some good lyrics with Brian, but in hindsight he was not the right match for Brian.  Brian clowned around his entire life in the 60s, even on TSS you can hear him, what do you think the humor thing was all about.  When I watch that 1976 special, it's really puzzling when you hear Brian say as he's lying in bed, that Parks is his favorite collaborator, then when you see Parks talking and his pretentious manner, you think really...hmmm.  At least I did and still do.

Nonsense, artists do that all the time. Did Scorsese say "Well, I made Taxi Driver. Thats my masterpiece so its time to stop" No. He went on to make many more masterpieces. Just one of hundreds of examples. You cant really compare Pet Sounds to SMiLE because the latter isnt done. TSS uses unfinished tracks and (imo) a bad sequence--at least one thats almost certainly not what wouldve happened in '67. Even tracks we consider done in BWPS may very well have been more complex and beautiful had they been done back in the day. The way Brian sings the "Once upon" lyrics in the sessions is totally different than the more droning, straight-forward way in BWPS. Its possible hed have one BB do it the BWPS and also have another do it the way he does in the control booth, with possibly other vocal parts going on at the same time. Just one example.

I think you raise a good point about Brian and VDP not being a good match tho. Anderle says that even as the project was starting, he knew they wouldnt really work well together. He says they blew each others minds and describes their parting as tragic, but I think he sensed the differences as youre suggesting.

Who said he should stop? I'm talking about trying to top Pet Sounds with an "if you think that was good wait 'till you hear our next one." No, it was NOT going to happen and didn't. Pet Sounds is Brian's heart and soul on vinyl in '66. Smile, even if it had been completed would not have been.

I should put this in the sandbox with the Star Wars thread but Scorsese is a prime example of why I can't stand Hollywood. The guy makes one ultra violent ugly movie after another and he's some kind of genius. To each his own.

Im just saying, artists are always trying to raise the bar. I dont believe an artist has ever consciously decided something is their magnum opus and purposefully not tried to do better the next time. Usually their perception of what their best was, and the publics too, comes many years later. Im sure Brian considers Pet Sounds the best now, but at the time he almost certainly didnt and even after SMiLE collapsed Im sure he envisioned a day when either the Beach Boys would make something better or he would produce something better with another group. It just never ended up happening.

To each his own, but I personally disagree. I think even unfinished, the SMiLE tracks are more fun to listen to and more rewarding to analyze than Pet Sounds. But I understand not everyone approaches art that way. Some just want to turn on a record and feel something. And yeah, especially since its finished, Pet Sounds is probably better for that.

Scorsese's films are violent but they tell great stories about interesting if often amoral people. Taxi Driver is a great look at loneliness and isolation and what it can do to people, Raging Bull is like a modern greek tragedy, and Goodfellas is one of the most stylish and innovative gangster movies ever, as well as one of the most influential of the 90s period. Not everything can or should be all happy happy sunshine and rainbows rated G.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/01/12/rbs-warns-sell-everything?mod=e2fbRBS

Those of us who are still left unconvinced that the global economy has "recovered" from 2008 will be even more comforted to know that this is just more fuel to the argument that the economy never left the recession and further pain is about to come. Hold what you got and buy more when it tumbles. Ride it right back up.

Economics is hardly my forte but from what I understand the recovery is propped up by 0% interest rates which the FED will have to raise sooner or later, and thats expected to cause a lot of trouble when they eventually do. Also, while most unemployment figures look promising its mostly because of all the discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor force altogether. None of the big banks or individuals responsible for the crash were punished or removed from positions of authority so its bound that they'll go at it again eventually. Not sure if this is related, but then there's the looming student loan bubble to look out for.

Feel free, someone with more knowledge on the subject, to correct me if any of this is wrong.

We'll disagree on Pet Sounds -vs- SMiLE. To me Pet Sounds is the masterwork with honest, raw and profound lyrics that have much more going for them VDP's, some of which I find wonderful while some come off as incredibly pretentious. Loved them all when I was younger, not so much at 45, whereas Pet Sounds still works on every level for me, if anything it becomes a richer listening experience as I get older (which I can't say for many albums I worshipped as a teenager). There's also the problem of SMiLE not being fully realized. I'm leaning more and more towards the idea of it being 6 or so completed songs that should've just been released as they were.

I agree with most of this. I consider Pet Sounds Brian's masterpiece, and Smile reaching a step too far by trying to out do his masterpiece.  Track for track some Smile tracks were creatively better than certain Pet Sounds tracks, but overall I really don't think you can take a masterpiece and try to do yourself one better. 

As far as the "pretentious" reference, Parks has a pretentious personality. I have thought that ever since I first saw him on that Beach Boys special in 1976. Mike Love has an "antagonistic" personality.  I don't really care either way about personalities, I like Mike and think he was good for the Beach Boys, I think Parks had some good lyrics with Brian, but in hindsight he was not the right match for Brian.  Brian clowned around his entire life in the 60s, even on TSS you can hear him, what do you think the humor thing was all about.  When I watch that 1976 special, it's really puzzling when you hear Brian say as he's lying in bed, that Parks is his favorite collaborator, then when you see Parks talking and his pretentious manner, you think really...hmmm.  At least I did and still do.

Nonsense, artists do that all the time. Did Scorsese say "Well, I made Taxi Driver. Thats my masterpiece so its time to stop" No. He went on to make many more masterpieces. Just one of hundreds of examples. You cant really compare Pet Sounds to SMiLE because the latter isnt done. TSS uses unfinished tracks and (imo) a bad sequence--at least one thats almost certainly not what wouldve happened in '67. Even tracks we consider done in BWPS may very well have been more complex and beautiful had they been done back in the day. The way Brian sings the "Once upon" lyrics in the sessions is totally different than the more droning, straight-forward way in BWPS. Its possible hed have one BB do it the BWPS way and also have another do it the way he does in the control booth, with possibly other vocal parts going on at the same time. Just one example.

I think you raise a good point about Brian and VDP not being a good match tho. Anderle says that even as the project was starting, he knew they wouldnt really work well together. He says they blew each others minds and describes their parting as tragic, but I think he sensed the differences as youre suggesting.

I know it probably sounds like Im shoehorning this into every SMiLE topic, but I think Psychedelic Sounds may hold some clues too. Again, Im sorry I dont have a definite source for this, but I recall reading that VDP was put off by them and Brian's attitude. He's also said to have avoided the Fire sessions if I recall. And our Big 3 sources have him feeling belittled by Brian's attempts to dominate him. So I think from his perspective it was partially the blow back from the BBs and that he didnt want to split up a family as he says, but also a "who does this joker think he is putting me down while he's recording these stupid unfunny skits and chants, wearing a fire helmet and setting trash on fire? I dont need this sh*t, Ive got my own recording contract!"

I think Brian was fairly clear about why he got rid of what he got rid of. He thought the Smile music (that is, what he and Van Dyke both created) had become too personal. I'm not convinced that he didn't like Van Dyke's lyrics (though I know their perspective on what the project was began changing maybe as early as December '66). Rather, I think he began to think that the music became too much about the artist (or artists) and not enough about making a connection with an audience . Part of that had to do with sophistication but not simply with Van Dyke's lyrics but with the production and complexity of some of the songs too. I see nothing to suggest that he specifically had a problem with the historical/preachiness aspect. Let's not forget he also dumped the word-less Our Prayer and Fire, where there was very little Van Dyke involvement. And furthermore, he moved the "just see what you've done" from the discarded DYLW into the re-make of H&V, making it more preachy rather than less. If his problem was merely with the sophistication of Van Dyke's lyrics then it makes no sense why he would choose to re-record a bunch of songs he wrote with him, rather than, say, have Mike write new lyrics to the songs that he already had in the can, like Cabinessence or Surf's Up or Wonderful, etc. By 1967, Brian's issues with Smile ran far deeper than the sophistication of the lyrics, or the thematic content, or with Van Dyke. He has said as much.

Extremely well said. He was free to keep using the tracks he had been slaving over with new Mike lyrics and he didnt. He kept some of the most obtuse lyrics Parks wrote like Wonderful. He kept H&V which is overtly Americana. And on and on.

I dont think he dumped anything for being Americana or too associated with Parks. Remember he scrapped Surfs Up which easily couldve been on Smiley in a stripped down form, and CIFOTM. Again, he easily couldve had Mike write over Parks' lyrics for Veggies, H&V, Wonderful, etc.

I think his problem is just in the whole aesthetic. He didnt want to do this big preachy symphony to God--which was his idea, not Parks, and as pretentious as anything Parks ever brought to this project. "Dont think you're god just be a cool guy" from the new Wonderful bridge is the key lyric, in my eyes. He wanted to do a fun laid back album with the group that they could play live than a big complex thing that was all him, the guys are just instruments themselves, that they couldnt play live and was tearing the band apart. He still retained the humor--according to Anderle it was turned up even--and some other ideas he was experimenting with like sound effects (cork pop in WC, water pouring into a glass in Veggies) and chants (Whistle In). It was just without the need to prove anything, to go the next step up production wise. No more modular pieces that were driving him nuts by then. And no distinct two movements. The songs that got used were the ones that were the most completed. Worms had to go because it now lacked a chorus, IIGS and Elements werent even close to done, CE needed a lot of work and Mike hated it, CIFOTM never had verse lyrics, etc etc. Prayer and SU couldve potentially been included since they were done--in a simpler sense in SU's case. But they didnt fit the new aesthetic he was going for. Those were "symphony to God" tracks, and I suspect he didnt want to use them outside of that context. He only reluctantly let them use them later, and if you believe the stories he came in last minute with that SU fade because if they were gonna use that track he wanted to make sure they did it justice.

Thanks for starting something like this. Could be a great resource and perhaps merits being "stickied" at the top here or maybe the TSS board as an easy to find index of sorts for quotes and sources. I regret that at the moment I have nothing to add

A verse remake, intro and BR overdubs seem to be something youd expect in Side 1, not 2. Id personally love for your theory to be true, itd make things so much simpler, but I really dont think its that clear cut unfortunately

None of us knows how it worked (except those who have, or have heard, the actual thing) but still it seems to me the facts are: witnesses said there was a version of the H&V single with 2 sides. Brian had concurrent masters for H&V from January to early March, one was #57020 which is the master for side 1 of the actual H&V single and a second master #57045 logged as H&V Part II and noted as "Side 2" on one of the master's tapes and all* #57045 sessions also sharing the same progressive session number of 14247, 14247-A, 14247-B, 14247-C, 14247-D*.

Regardless of our personal opinions, it still seems to me that pretty good evidence of what Brian recorded for the side 2 of the two-sided H&V single has been staring us in the face the whole time but maybe obscured or confused by the side 1 master #57020 having sections that were slated a "part 2" and "part 3" etc..

*all subject to correction by c-man's newer and better information. For instance, did the "verse remake" of March 3 for H&V Part II master #57045 also share the progressive session number of 14247-? with the rest of the #57045 sessions?

Were the two masters used for different sessions at the same time--serious question. Thats certainly pretty good evidence for your theory if so. Honestly, I do hope youre right but I recall some reasons to cast doubt on it brought up before. Does someone else have a more complete list of the sessions with master numbers to confirm or deny? Anyway, I dont think anyone's doubting there was a two sided Heroes at some point.

I may not be following you but I believe Brian settled on #57020 as the master number for the side 1 H&V on December 19 and it remained the master through the side 1 of the released single.  Brian started the H&V Part II/Side 2 master January 5 on through March 3. So yes he was recording for both separate masters in the same period.

All I remember and saw was personal opinions that this wouldn't be that or second guessing Brian, nothing that contradicted the evidence. Maybe I missed it, if you can find it.

Youre probably right. That picture made it seem as tho after a certain point the different master was used, but looking at every session may prove they were used simultaneously and that image was misleading. My apologies.