Updated some setlists on the top post. There still are no setlists for Arcata and Stateline on setlist.fm.

If the final show in Sacramento has an accurate setlist, it looks like they did a slightly truncated show for the final night in the US.

I was at the Sacramento show on a very rainy night and it was fantastic! It looks like the setlist was basically the same as the first Masonic show in San Francisco with the exception of Little Honda, with Salt Lake City, inexplicably, being played instead... which Brian introduced as a "rocker." I am a California native but lived in Salt Lake City for a number of years, and saw the Beach Boys in Utah at least four times, and never once did they play Salt Lake City. They did play California Saga and Add some Music in Sacramento which are missing from the setlist.

I thought it was funny that Brian told people at the start of the show that if they didn't like it, they were free to leave, or something to that effect, and that he got up and left the stage at the end of the first half and before the encore while the songs were still playing, but the man has earned the right to do whatever he wants. It looked like his back was giving him problems as he had to be helped on to the stage at the beginning.

One thing I noticed that was way cool is that the band played that awesome missing melody line that's found on "Hang On To Your Ego - Highlights from tracking session" that doesn't appear on I Know There's An Answer... I've always wondered why that part was left out of the final version of the song. Does anyone know?

Anyway, the band sounded great and had a lot of energy. Blondie was rocking on his numbers as usual. Great night!

What I've noticed on disc 1, the mono version, is that they were either working from a poor quality master (apparently the CATP from 1972 - why this one?), or did a sloppy job with the remaster. For example, listen to LGAFA - at about one minute in two loud clicks can be heard, on both the CD and digital download. Very disappointing... I'll stick with my 1996 box set.

Smile sucks. When you get right down to it, it's just not that enjoyable to listen to. The material has never been presented in anything more than a barely adequate way. I have listened to every fragment a million times, and truth be told, most of them aren't really listenable in any meaningful sense. Many of the experiments are utter failures, despite their nigh mythical status.

To each his own. I find no common ground with you in regards to your dislike of Smile, feeling it equals and even surpasses the mythical status afforded it over the years. Every once in a while a contrarian view resonates with me, but this isn't one of those times. I agree with Henry Rollins, who said that Smile is so "astonishingly good you might find yourself just staring at your speakers in unguarded wonder, as I have." I am sad for people that can't see the beauty and greatness in songs like Our Prayer, Heroes and Villains, Do You Like Worms, Cabin Essence, Wonderful, Child is Father of the Man, Surf's Up, Vegetables, Wind Chimes, Love to Say Dada, or Good Vibrations. I also don't believe for a second that Brian was a puppet of any sort, or kowtowing to the "in" crowd. I think Brian cared far more about the music than the motley crue.

[much]

b. to not make a future trip to the zoo for some pictures... but rather to use my avatar photo (not yet taken) for the album cover (although I'm not sure when it was taken), because it's a much cooler photo.

No offense, but that photo would be a much worse cover photo than what they used.

No offense, but I completely disagree.

As a Capitol suit, I'd tell Brian:
a. to go easy on the hard stuff.
b. to not make a future trip to the zoo for some pictures... but rather to use my avatar photo (not yet taken) for the album cover (although I'm not sure when it was taken), because it's a much cooler photo.
c. I'd tell my fellow Capitol suits that in 50 years, many people are going to be proclaiming Pet Sounds as the best album ever... so lets's promote it like there's no tomorrow, to give the Beach Boys a tomorrow.
d. that him and this guy named Van Dyke Parks were going to write this amazing album together called SMiLE and that it was really, really, really important that he finish it in the spring of 1967, and to not worry and obsess so much over Heroes and Villains, etc. I'd plead with him to not listen to the naysayers. I would also bring with me some modern editing software and computers, etc., to assist him with this future project.

When I came back to the present, I would then check the music charts, and see that both Pet Sounds and SMiLE were number 1 albums, and the Beach Boys, not the Beatles, are heralded as the greatest band ever. I would also issue an in-person apology to Lewis Shiner... who would look at me funny and walk away.

Hi Stephen, I'm really digging the study videos! They are amazing! I listened to Friends in its entirety last night and heard things I've never heard before. And I can't get enough listens of CCW and Cabin Essence. The immersion into the music just blows me away... I've never heard anything like it, even with surround sound. I'm looking forward to diving into the surfing hits next.

My daughter, who is a masters level flutist, and lead singer/songwriter in a small band in the northwest, said she learned a lot about song production and mixing just from watching the above study videos.

Anyway, many thanks for sharing your immense talents, and keep up the great work you are doing!

Does anyone know what is heard at the 2:41 second mark of "I'm Waiting for the Day?" It sounds like a muted horn, heard twice and very quickly, and then it never repeats in the chorus after that. I've heard this song dozens of times yet never noticed this before. Didn't find anything mentioned in the Pet Sounds Sessions book either.

I gotta say, All This is That is all that. A great song, definitely one of my favorite post-SMiLE songs. Did Brian really not have anything to do with this song's composition?

Taylor Swift has no business being on this list....

How many of us on this board are really in a position to judge whether Taylor Swift belongs on the list? Personally, I think I've heard two of her songs...and my judgment of them may be clouded by her teenagery voice (I know she's in her 20s).

Me! (raising my right hand high in the air, with a smug look on my face). Having three daughters, one of them still in her teens (this same daughter is going to Taylor's concert tonight in Santa Clara - and guess who gets to drive her there, a 2-3 hour trip each way, while being forced to listen to "1989" on endless loop), I believe I'm well qualified to make that judgment!

I'm not saying she isn't very talented, I'm just saying, IMO, she doesn't belong on this list.

My test for how strong a melody is is how good it sounds on acoustic guitar and voice only. Bob Marley beats Brian there.
The worst thing in this list is Taylor Swift in and Freddie Mercury out

I agree with your latter assertion.... Taylor Swift has no business being on this list.... but not the former. If the barometer of a strong melody, and, by extension, song, is how good it sounds on an acoustic guitar with voice only, then "Good Vibrations," which IMO is still the most astonishing, greatest song ever recorded, and a good portion of Brian's catalog in turn would not make the cut. I know you said melody, not song, but this is a list of greatest songwriters, not just melody writers. Not that I agree with the RS list, but they, and most others, would argue there is more to a good song than just a good melody. One might argue that Paul McCartney is at the top when it comes to melody making, but I believe Brian is at the top when it comes to songwriting - all the parts of it put together. Another amazing example of this: Let's Go Away for Awhile.

Here's a link to an interesting piece by Suzanne Vega, who says it better than I did. One quote from her article: "a great song does not need a well-crafted, “memorable” melody to work. There are a million examples of this — blues songs, folk songs, three-chord rock songs, rock poetry, rap music."

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/whats-a-melody-for/?_r=0

Geez you guys are a tough crowd. Someone asked the question..and others tried to guide them on the choice. Not everyone is up technology.

That said, I think a slide show would be good. I'll volunteer to provide still photos and narrate.  

My VHS player is broken, and the carousel to my slide projector is on the fritz, so I'll one up all of you... and remake the film. "Be Kind Rewind" anyone?

In fact, SS posters remade ASMTYD, so why can't we remake Love & Mercy? I get to play younger Brian (even though I'm Cusacks age and can't sing to save my life).

Given the scene shows up again during the "Bed Montage" and Dennis is missing from the railing (yet Carl and Brian are in their same spots), yeah, I'd say that scene was probably meant to foreshadow future events. The whole movie is FULL of allegories, imagery with hidden meanings. Look at the pool Smile discussion scene and how each character is given a specific place in regards to their place in the Smile story.

The time it took to plan where each actor would be positioned in that scene probably took 5 seconds of thought at the most. The script called for 'Brian' to hold a meeting in the pool. We know in real life, based on legend, that Carl and Dennis were much more likely than Mike to tolerate the pool meetings. So that means he wasn't in the pool for that scene. It's built in the character.

Is Al Jardine in the background with no lines supposed to be some sort of deep allegory that he had the least substantial contributions to the Beach Boys? Or maybe he's just in the background with no lines because he did nothing in real life that would have benefited the film's structure and aesthetic, and especially so for that scene? I'll go with the latter.

Hey, why doesn't anyone mention how Bruce isn't in that scene? Clearly foreshadowing that Bruce would leave the band for the recording of Smiley Smile and Lei'd in Hawaii... genius!

I agree with rab2591. I'm no expert on filmmaking, but I have written a script (that went nowhere) and one of the first things screenwriters are taught is to "show, not tell." I believe Pohlad utilized symbolism throughout this film, in words and imagery, which has already been discussed at length on this board.

Sometimes I think people who consider themselves "cinephiles," myself included, read TOO much into a scene, assuming symbolism where the screenwriter/director intended none, but that's also the beauty of fine art, including film: as the viewer, you, and I, and everyone else, is free to interpret any work of art the way we want to, even if that's not what the filmmaker intended. Who knows, maybe there were some happy accidents in this film as well, but I think every scene was well thought out, including actor placement, etc., to help tell the story, even if some of it only registers on a subconscious level.

I think we'll learn more when the DVD/Blu-Ray comes out with commentary.

BTW....saw L&M for the FOURTH time this weekend...(four times, four different theaters!)...and just wanted to mention this:

During the scene when the Wilson brothers are talking shortly after VDP leaves -- when Brian is wrapped up in a towel -- close your eyes and listen to how Carl says "We have to stick together, brothers."

Have a box of tissues ready.

That's interesting you mention that line, as I found myself thinking about it the other day, weeks after I last saw the film. There's something about the way he delivers it that stays with you... it's as if he knows there are more than a few bumps in the road ahead, that their best days are behind them.

So a lot of people don't know that The Royal Tenenbaums originally ended with Sloop, and in fact there were some early screenings of this version of the film. Eventually it was replaced in favor of a vastly inferior song. Four years ago I did a mock up of the BB version, which I'm finally uploading to youtube now.  I was using fairly primitive video editing software and a fossil of a computer, so it's a bit rough. Still works great as a closing song, I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u6ZN-r8eqU

There was another version that used the Beatles "I'm Looking Through You" (Anthology version). I made my own version of this one too, I'll have to try and dig it up.

That doesn't surprise me. I'm pretty sure Wes Anderson is a fan of the Beach Boys, and more than just a casual one. I was just watching Fantastic Mr. Fox this morning, the Criterion Collection edition, with his commentary on, and he mentions Heroes and Villains when it plays early on in the film, and how the film has a Beach Boys motif. I was so caught up in it that I was late for work.  

P.S. By the way, I like it.

Dunno if this has already been mentioned but on amazon it's currently listed for the cheaper price of $13.99 (US, regular-not-blu-ray price).

And also on a somewhat related note, I don't think I've ever seen a movie on Blu-Ray? Is it all that different?

IMO, where Blu-Ray earns its stripes is in the quality of the audio, if not the video (I can't tell much difference between an upconverted DVD vs. a Blu-Ray in terms of video resolution). L&M would definitely be worth getting on Blu-Ray as the audio is such a major and enjoyable part of this film.

Delighted to see someone finally getting their due recognition...

Agreed, after all this time its great to see Melinda in the spotlight.

I wasn't referring to Melinda. Her role in Brian's life since the mid-eighties has long been recognised and rightly appreciated.

Who were you referring to?

Gloria Ramos.

I think he could have been talking about Brian as well.

nice review.  What is an example of symbolism and cross referencing?

- seen it myself, but am not a deep thinker...

Glad you liked it Andrew!

As far as symbolism "can't wait," that topic has been discussed quite extensively on this board, in more than one thread if I'm not mistaken, including this one.

One biggie is the placement of the Beach Boys in the pool scene toward the end of the film. Brian treading water and in the deep end, which is symbolic on more than one level; Dennis up to his neck in water, and the closest to Brian, which again works in more ways than one, most especially that he would go anywhere for Brian; Carl waist deep, perhaps not quite as loyal to Brian (although that may be up for debate, maybe not); Mike out of the water altogether, and elevated on a ledge, if I remember correctly; and Al, out of the water as well, as if to say, I'm not having anything to do with this (were his arms crossed too?). And Van Dyke Parks, off to the side a bit, as was Mike, but as far from Mike as possible, sitting on the pool edge, his feet dangling in.

I don't have much time right now, but another instance is when the three brothers are on the deck, and Dennis is sitting on the railing overlooking what's below, including the water, and it looks like quite a drop-off, and is symbolic in how he is positioned, and what he says, and how he died... as in the montage following, he is gone from that shot, symbolizing his death.

There's a lot more though.... a great film that demands multiple viewings, and like only a few films, works like our favorite music (not just because our favorite music is in it), in that it doesn't grow old.

Yes, thank you Stephen, that was very interesting. It's good to get an insider perspective. I also didn't know, being very young then, that discrimination extended to those with long hair... that's too bad.

I recall starting a topic on here awhile back. I asked the question if the Beach Boys were the biggest band that aren't celebrities. Meaning they could go around in public largely undisturbed. The Beates couldn't. Could the Stones? Dylan? The Byds? Mamas and Papas?

I don't think the Stones or Dylan could. The Byrds and the Mamas and the Papas? Probably, but they weren't as big as the Beach Boys (in terms of commercial success). I think the Beach Boys had relative anonymity in public for a number of reasons, primarily because they were not very well known individually, outside of the band. This fact is on display in L&M, when Brian is introduced to Melinda, and she acts like she has never heard of him, until Landy adds "of the Beach Boys."

Chris Davidson wrote an interesting piece a few years back entitled "Forever Changeless: The Beach Boys, The Smile Sessions," in which he describes what he perceives as some differences between the Beach Boys and the Beatles that may illuminate this issue a little bit. Here's an excerpt:

"In the end, the difference between Sgt. Pepper’s and Smile, between the Beatles and the Beach Boys, is that the Beatles were actors. That’s not a judgment any more than it’s a judgment on Meryl Streep or Marlon Brando. It doesn’t matter to “Good Morning Good Morning” that John never punched a clock, nor does it matter to “Lovely Rita” that Paul never dated a meter maid. You get the sense that, with the Beatles, the song was the thing—no more, no less.

But the Beach Boys, even if they never really surfed, meant what they sang. Wilson revered Phil Spector for his “Wall of Sound” because he saw that conveying the crushing emotions of youth required an edifice of commensurate force. This is why the tensions of Smile make for such a strangely compelling listen. Amid the baroque arrangements, Parks’ arcane, pun-filled lyrics are sung with such sincerity! Young, talented, beautiful, and (in the studio at least) guileless, the Beach Boys didn’t know any other way."

The Beatles, as I've noted in a previous thread, were very skilled at marketing their brand, "actors" that had the world's stage; the Beach Boys, not so much. Just my 2 cents.

P.S. Here's the link to his article: http://therumpus.net/2012/04/forever-changeless-the-beach-boys-the-smile-sessions/

I've posted a couple times here about how I think Surfs Up and Vega-Tables are the big closers of each side. Whether one agrees with me on that or not, I do think each one was a particularly big deal to Brian and somehow connected in his mind. They're the only songs that we know of which had psychedelic sounds skits definitively associated with them, the fight for Veggies and George Fell for Surf. Those are the only comedy skits recorded by expensive Wrecking Crew musicians, implying Brian's serious intention to include them, and by extension how crucial these two tracks were. They got a double sided single release on the box set. They're basically back-to-back in Brian's 3-suites sequence (despite what a jarring transition that is) etc. They're possibly the most important songs in the album besides Heroes and Villains.

I'm wondering if the reason they're so connected is because they both have a hidden astrological meaning. Someone on this board proposed that the weird spelling of Vegetables was a reference to the Star named Vega and by extension "Vega Tables" could be evoking astrology as a whole. The star Vega is the brightest in the constellation Lyra, a lyre gripped by an Eagle. I see this as a summation of Side 1--American music. The association of an Eagle with the US is self explanatory, and a lyre is an ancient instrument. I think this goes a long way in proving that Vega-Tables belongs with the Americana tracks, NOT on Side 2 as so many seem inclined to do.

Now on Side 2 you have Surfs Up. If you follow the Astrological Ages you know that we have either recently entered or are set to enter the Age of Aquarius. This age is said to herald in a breaking down of traditional "patriarchal" institutions, reevaluating priorities and world views, renewed emphasis on raising children, and general free-spirited open-mindedness. As far as I've always interpreted it, that's what Surfs Up is all about too. So I see this song as an expression of that idea. Society is breaking down, there's so much exploitation and suffering...but theres hope for the future. The innocence of children can serve to inspire us. The world we leave for them can be a freer, more interesting Aquarian led one if we work to make it that way. Aquarius is the water-bearer...water, ocean, surf...Surfs Up? Possibly?

This could give new meaning to My Only Sunshine as well. Now, it's uncertain where this song would go on a 2-sided 67 LP. Brian has it with the other Americana tracks, many do likewise. Recently I've come to see it as a Side 2/Life track myself. But either way, I've come to respect this song a lot more recently. I've said numerous times how I've read it as Brian stating he was losing faith in traditional religion/ethos of Western society. This may still be true, but I also see it as the sun setting on an old age and bringing in the new with this astrology context applied. It's especially applicable when you consider that which constellation the sun is in determines the astrological sign. And this could then mean that Brian has grown disillusioned with the Old Master Painter/God as he's been characterized in the Piscean Age, but rather than give up, he's setting to rediscover him in a new, more personalized Aquarian context. Again, I think this goes a long way in proving Sunshine belongs with Surf. It's the curtain call for Pisces, an expression of disillusionment with the values of it, and then Surfs Up comes in with Aquarian values. With this new interpretation, I have even more respect for the track. Amazing how Brian was able to say so much with just a ~2 minute mashup of 2 old standards.

I realize I may be looking too hard into it. Maybe Veggies is just a lighthearted track about Veggies, Surfs Up is just a prose poem set to music and Sunshine is just a cover. But when you consider the zodiac signs are on the back of the intended sleeve, the alternate spelling of Vegetables, and the fact that Brian was really into astrology, numerology, alternative spirituality and various other new age ideas at the time...I think there's creedence to this. I think it gives the album cohesion beyond "one sides about America and the other side is about...other things." Now, not only is one a retrospective on America and the other an introspective on life...but they're the Piscean Age and Aquarian Age set to music. The Age of Pisces is associated with monotheism, violence in the name of religion and uniting the east and west. All ideas that are explored in the Americana tracks. Aside from the values I listed above, the Age of Aquarius is associated with individuality, creativity and personal expression. I think the non-Americana tracks I have on my Side 2 embody these ideas well.

And I know I'm *really* reaching with this last thought but maybe Brian saw himself as the "speaker" of the Aquarian Age the same way Jesus and Moses heralded in the ages of Pisces and Aries. Don't think that I'm saying Brian saw himself as a prophet or some religious leader on their level. Obviously not. But he did see himself making a symphony to God/music people would pray to. The whole idea behind Aquarius is supposed to be power in the individual, not some all-encompassing Church. I think it's reasonable to assume Brian wanted to enlighten as well as empower his listeners, not dictate any set theology. Sort of like a "we failed as a people in the past, all this evil done in the name of religion/nationalism. The ethos of the new era should be individual thought and expression. I made this album to share *my* interpretation of the world. What will *you* do? The power is yours." That sort of message. Maybe this is why someone says "don't think you're God, just be a cool guy" in the Smiley version of Wonderful. Maybe this played into the scrapping of the album--Brian lost passion in, or faith in his ability to convey such a message. So with Smiley he dropped this grandiose intent and just wanted to make a "cool" album.

Interesting theory. It reminds me of what Murray Davis wrote years ago: “It has long been thought that a theorist is considered great because his theories are true, but this is false. A theorist is considered great, not because his theories are true, but because they are interesting.” And you've got yourself an interesting theory there (although I always figured the rationale for having the producer's cut of Vega-Tables paired with Surfs Up on the box set 45 was commercial in nature - it was yet another way to make a buck by getting us devotees to buy the box set, and in my case, it worked).

Anyway, good work! it made for very interesting reading, even if it may not be true. The truth's overrated anyway, right?

Glad you liked it, even if you may not agree. I concede perhaps the Surfs Up and Sunshine parts may be stretching things, but I don't think there's any reason at all for Vega-Tables to be spelled the way it is if not for the reference to Vega. You could say "well they pronounce it that way in the song" but they do so in the Smiley version too and it's spelled normally there. An album about Americana and new age ideals...the constellation of an Eagle and a harp...a subtle way to reference that...what else could Brian have been thinking?

That's a good point about the spelling differences... I guess the only other reason I would see for spelling it differently is to differentiate it from the Smiley version. Brian was into some alternative stuff at the time, that's for sure. In fact, not to divert the topic, but I asked in the "Insignificant questions" thread if he had really seen Smile as "witchcraft" music, as that's what I read recently in Nick Kent's book (no one responded).  I've concluded Brian was referencing his paranoia about the fires related to Mrs. O'Leary's Cow only, since I remember reading somewhere else that he had wondered about the power of the song, using the word witchcraft to describe what he felt was happening in connecting the song and the fires that November in LA.

Also, agreed, his cover of YAMS is amazing... I love the almost buried vocals near the end.

I've posted a couple times here about how I think Surfs Up and Vega-Tables are the big closers of each side. Whether one agrees with me on that or not, I do think each one was a particularly big deal to Brian and somehow connected in his mind. They're the only songs that we know of which had psychedelic sounds skits definitively associated with them, the fight for Veggies and George Fell for Surf. Those are the only comedy skits recorded by expensive Wrecking Crew musicians, implying Brian's serious intention to include them, and by extension how crucial these two tracks were. They got a double sided single release on the box set. They're basically back-to-back in Brian's 3-suites sequence (despite what a jarring transition that is) etc. They're possibly the most important songs in the album besides Heroes and Villains.

I'm wondering if the reason they're so connected is because they both have a hidden astrological meaning. Someone on this board proposed that the weird spelling of Vegetables was a reference to the Star named Vega and by extension "Vega Tables" could be evoking astrology as a whole. The star Vega is the brightest in the constellation Lyra, a lyre gripped by an Eagle. I see this as a summation of Side 1--American music. The association of an Eagle with the US is self explanatory, and a lyre is an ancient instrument. I think this goes a long way in proving that Vega-Tables belongs with the Americana tracks, NOT on Side 2 as so many seem inclined to do.

Now on Side 2 you have Surfs Up. If you follow the Astrological Ages you know that we have either recently entered or are set to enter the Age of Aquarius. This age is said to herald in a breaking down of traditional "patriarchal" institutions, reevaluating priorities and world views, renewed emphasis on raising children, and general free-spirited open-mindedness. As far as I've always interpreted it, that's what Surfs Up is all about too. So I see this song as an expression of that idea. Society is breaking down, there's so much exploitation and suffering...but theres hope for the future. The innocence of children can serve to inspire us. The world we leave for them can be a freer, more interesting Aquarian led one if we work to make it that way. Aquarius is the water-bearer...water, ocean, surf...Surfs Up? Possibly?

This could give new meaning to My Only Sunshine as well. Now, it's uncertain where this song would go on a 2-sided 67 LP. Brian has it with the other Americana tracks, many do likewise. Recently I've come to see it as a Side 2/Life track myself. But either way, I've come to respect this song a lot more recently. I've said numerous times how I've read it as Brian stating he was losing faith in traditional religion/ethos of Western society. This may still be true, but I also see it as the sun setting on an old age and bringing in the new with this astrology context applied. It's especially applicable when you consider that which constellation the sun is in determines the astrological sign. And this could then mean that Brian has grown disillusioned with the Old Master Painter/God as he's been characterized in the Piscean Age, but rather than give up, he's setting to rediscover him in a new, more personalized Aquarian context. Again, I think this goes a long way in proving Sunshine belongs with Surf. It's the curtain call for Pisces, an expression of disillusionment with the values of it, and then Surfs Up comes in with Aquarian values. With this new interpretation, I have even more respect for the track. Amazing how Brian was able to say so much with just a ~2 minute mashup of 2 old standards.

I realize I may be looking too hard into it. Maybe Veggies is just a lighthearted track about Veggies, Surfs Up is just a prose poem set to music and Sunshine is just a cover. But when you consider the zodiac signs are on the back of the intended sleeve, the alternate spelling of Vegetables, and the fact that Brian was really into astrology, numerology, alternative spirituality and various other new age ideas at the time...I think there's creedence to this. I think it gives the album cohesion beyond "one sides about America and the other side is about...other things." Now, not only is one a retrospective on America and the other an introspective on life...but they're the Piscean Age and Aquarian Age set to music. The Age of Pisces is associated with monotheism, violence in the name of religion and uniting the east and west. All ideas that are explored in the Americana tracks. Aside from the values I listed above, the Age of Aquarius is associated with individuality, creativity and personal expression. I think the non-Americana tracks I have on my Side 2 embody these ideas well.

And I know I'm *really* reaching with this last thought but maybe Brian saw himself as the "speaker" of the Aquarian Age the same way Jesus and Moses heralded in the ages of Pisces and Aries. Don't think that I'm saying Brian saw himself as a prophet or some religious leader on their level. Obviously not. But he did see himself making a symphony to God/music people would pray to. The whole idea behind Aquarius is supposed to be power in the individual, not some all-encompassing Church. I think it's reasonable to assume Brian wanted to enlighten as well as empower his listeners, not dictate any set theology. Sort of like a "we failed as a people in the past, all this evil done in the name of religion/nationalism. The ethos of the new era should be individual thought and expression. I made this album to share *my* interpretation of the world. What will *you* do? The power is yours." That sort of message. Maybe this is why someone says "don't think you're God, just be a cool guy" in the Smiley version of Wonderful. Maybe this played into the scrapping of the album--Brian lost passion in, or faith in his ability to convey such a message. So with Smiley he dropped this grandiose intent and just wanted to make a "cool" album.

Interesting theory. It reminds me of what Murray Davis wrote years ago: “It has long been thought that a theorist is considered great because his theories are true, but this is false. A theorist is considered great, not because his theories are true, but because they are interesting.” And you've got yourself an interesting theory there (although I always figured the rationale for having the producer's cut of Vega-Tables paired with Surfs Up on the box set 45 was commercial in nature - it was yet another way to make a buck by getting us devotees to buy the box set, and in my case, it worked).

Anyway, good work! it made for very interesting reading, even if it may not be true. The truth's overrated anyway, right?

Non-Criterion DVD artwork almost always sucks.

What he said. It's just one step up from "floating heads." The nice thing about Criterion releases is that the artwork is typically just as creative and visually innovative as the film inside. Keep praying for a Criterion release.

The hell? Is Mike trying to claim pet sounds as his own now....     What a twisted guy to try to steal acclaim from BW's masterpiece to screw him.

I mean why else would Mike show up on stage with Tony Asher than to claim pet sounds as a Mike love BBs project since he thinks he is Brian's equal. Such a sick egomaniac.

Troll.

Really? How?

Don't get me wrong, I love and respect George Martin, and as an orchestrator to McCartney's ideas (which includes Lennon's) he was immensely valuable. But I believe that WAY too much credit has been given to him over the years. Geoff Emerick was the true star behind the boards for that LP -- but it was all due to the ears and imaginations of Lennon/McCartney. Martin and Emerick were just as much technicians for hire as the Wrecking Crew were (e.g. no sheet music, no music.)

And as far as doing it all, McCartney could, too. Given the proper technology, McCartney could've performed very inch of Pepper's basic tracks and vocals. Brian could not have done that for any of his LP's. Not a tit for tat -- just a fact. Yes, McCartney would bring in an outside orchestrator like Mike Leander or Martin, but I'd say 85 percent of all those parts were based on McCartney top lines give to them (the most glaring example "Martha My Dear.") Both Lennon and Harrison -- publicly and privately -- always took umbrage at the fact that Martin was so quick to take credit for the group's innovations. Harrison particularly had nothing but scorn for Emerick.

The Beatles' TRUE producer was McCartney.
Not that Lennon or Harrison would ever dare admit it.

Re: Brian, I DON'T believe he could do it all, which is why -- I believe -- he felt the need to morph Smile into Smiley.
Emotional and professional troubles aside, I think he realized that "bringing it all back home" and actually PLAYING the music yourself (playing and singing, just like The Beatles) was truly the way to realize music in 1967.
I've always believed that a part of Smile's demise was that having a bunch of (albeit talented) middle-aged dudes playing your music just wasn't cool.

I think that the end of Smile , rather than the beginning of it, was when Brian Wilson, a guy from the 1950's -- smashed hard into the 1960's.

 Interesting comments. I can buy Paul as the group's true producer post-Epstein but not before. Maybe beginning with the SGT PEPPER sessions. Paul was always into that trite musical hall stuff, right? 

I don't think I can buy Paul as their producer at all, although I imagine he influenced the production process, kind of like a passenger sometimes telling the driver when to turn, etc. It reminds me of that zinger that Mark Zuckerberg (the character playing him) flings at the Winklevoss twins in the film The Social Network: “If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you’d have invented Facebook." If Paul was the producer of the Beatles, wouldn't he be listed as the producer? Wouldn't he have insisted upon that credit?

Let's not forget the words of one George Martin, honoring Brian at the Radio City Music Hall tribute: "you could compare it (what Brian did) to the combined song-writing talents of John and Paul, the performing talents of George and Ringo, along with my work in the control room. Quite simply, he did it all." Enough said.

If Nick Kent is to be believed, why did Brian refer to Smile, or Mrs. O'Leary's Cow, as witchcraft music? Or was it Pet Sounds, as I've read articles where he allegedly described both works using that term. Anyway, sounds a little far-fetched to me.