Since acetates are being sourced for this release, I hope Brian doesn't object to using them because the sound quality is subpar.  I'm sure they will try to use what they have on tape to recreate the acetate mixes - but of course our hope is there is material on the acetates that doesn't exist on tape.

I'm sure someone can explain this better than I can but....the good thing about acetates is since they are usually mono it's easy to drastically reduce surface noise by summing the L and R channels which reduces the volume of pops and tics by half (or something like that). The surface noise is stereo but the musical info is mono.

Sort of a rhetorical question here, but has anyone considered that much of the missing Smile material might have simply been wiped and recorded over for other projects?  Brian was clearly not afraid to do this with things that he considered over and done with, as he certainly was with Smile.

I don't know....Alan Boyd has talked about how many Smile era tape boxes exist but when opened they were empty. That seems a bit unusual if not suspicious. It was standard operating procedure at Abbey Road to wipe session tapes but the tape boxes certainly don't exist for the missing sessions. You won't find a bunch of empty tape boxes with session details written on them that once contained the session tapes for Piper at the Gates of Dawn or With the Beatles. The tape boxes as well as the tapes are long gone.

FWIW some of the missing tapes represent the *final* work on the track in question rather than just the tracking sessions or the session tape survives but the "best" take that was earmarked for overdubs was snipped out the reel and no longer exist. No way they just decided to tape over the, let's say, Old Master Painter multitrack containing Denny's vocal overdub.

Then there is the lack of BW mixes from the sessions. Clearly Brian and Chuck created mixes of way more material that is represented on the tapes. Where did that stuff go?

Hey Chris, I'm done talking with you. I'm done with the topic. Discussing topics with an obsessive is just not possible. It always leads to arguments. I hate arguing over things that I have no control over. So obsess to you heart's content. I'm sorry I even posted.

Clearly I'm obsessive with my 80 posts here in the past 6 years 

When we say Surf's Up Pt. 2, do we mean the music for the second half of the song? The second movement?

Personally, I can't fathom why it would have never been recorded? The music for almost all of the major pieces appeared to be complete and while Brian went on to revise some of the songs, all the vocals were overdubbed onto songs that we could pretty much call complete. Why, then, would Surf's Up (clearly an important track to Brian) be left unrecorded and why would the boys be putting vocals on a song that was incomplete?

Well, the 23 Jan. 1967 Surf's Up tracking session that has never turned up anywhere. It wasn't in the vault in 1971 when Desper was working on Surf's Up and it hasn't turned up since unless something changed recently. AFAIK we don't know if he was re-recording Part 1 or a backing track for the 2nd half of the song. We do know it was for Surf's Up and the collection of instruments at the session doesn't match any other Smile session in circulation. There was another session that night but I don't think it is known if it was for Surf's Up or something else. I'm sure c-man and others here have more info..

Even if they go the movement route, they can still use different songs in a different order if they have to, to make it feel more finished.

So if the different songs are stitched together it will somehow "feel more finished"? You lost me there. How is, let's say, Cabinessence, Worms, Old Master Painter back to back with fades and 2 second gaps between songs "less complete" than daisy-chaining them together? They are just as complete/incomplete either way so we might as well go for historical accuracy.

More importantly...any attempt at creating movements out of the '66 tapes will require some remixing. Going with 12 banded tracks with fades means they can use vintage Brian Wilson mixes where they exist. As a Brian Wilson fan you I assume you know the significance of using original mixes right? The whole combining 2 seperate sounds to create a 3rd sound Phil Spector style? All that is out the window with a remix.

None of us knows exactly what they are going to do.

Oh, please. We're arguing becuase the damn press release mentions using BWPS as a template. Are you being intentionally obtuse?

I'll accept whatever they decide to do, mostly because I'm not Brian or one of the Compilation Producers. It will be what the they make it and that's it.

Oh, so you're a fanboy

Why is everyone hung up on the sequence? I think some people are looking at this through BWPS goggles. A 1966 LP was not going to have 'movements' and the track order wasn't decided so does it really matter what order the songs are in?

If Pet Sounds was scrapped before Brian got around to deciding the track order and 40 years later it is coming out would anyone sweat whether Here Today was track 3, track 5 or track 8? Smile is no different.

Last time I checked, the guys name who made that music was Brian Wilson and he's still alive and kicking. I would understand that reasoning if he was dead, but sadly he isn't. I guess we'll just have to deal with the fact he gets to release what he likes. These goshdarn Beach Boys.... 

He's alive but I'm not sure he is kicking. At least not in terms of producing records. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he shouldn't be involved or shouldn't have veto power over the project. My only point is if one side of the scale is "1966 BW mixes" and the other is "2011 BW assembly" I think the 1966 mixes should be given more weight. This is based on my respect for Brian Wilson's talents in the 1960's when he was spitting out masterpieces on a weekly basis.

So Chris, if not Brian working out the track listing and sequencing, then to whom shall we turn to? Geez, Brian has really fallen from grace. Can't trust him with making any musical decisions on his own compositions.

I don't want the compilers of the boxset to turn to anyone. There is a list of songs that were to be on the 1966/67 Smile album. For the stab at a "finished" 1966/67 album I want the titles on that list in their most complete form before it was announced the project was scrapped. Since a 1966/67 album was not going to have movements I don't care what the sequence is. Of course, I want Brian but if it comes down to the 1966 tapes and what Brian today wants I think the tapes should have more weight. In other words, if there is a Great Shape acetate with a verse/chorus/verse structure I don't want the "finished" album to have the Great Shape/I Wanna Be Around/Workshop structure or whatever it is. If you respect Brian Wilson's skills as a producer in 1966 I would think you want the same.

This box is about what Brian was doing in 1966. We're talking about the best producer at the top of his game, working with the best musicians, a once in a lifetime vocal blend, in the best studios during the best year of pop music.  I want this to respect that sh*t. I'm not that interested in what the 2011 model Brian brings to the project.

The 3-sided Smile is Brian. I'm sure as they assemble a track listing that Brian will be involved in not only song selection, but sequencing, as well. Unless they go verbatim with BWPS, who else would know better that Mark or Alan could turn to? Brian may not be involved in the day to day work, but he's involved. He has to be. This is his legacy, as well as The Beach Boys, on the line.

I love the guy but I don't think the 2011 model Brian Wilson is necessarily the best source for minutiae on the original Smile sessions. I know that sounds arrogant but if Diamond Head and Time To Get Alone were on Brian's 2003 Smile list then...you get the point. I may be off but my impression of BWPS was Darian played Brian a bunch of sequences (in the context of presenting a live show) and Brian would pick the one he liked best. That's a far cry the 1966 model Brian that produced every second of the 1966 sessions. I want disc 1 to respect the guy that was the greatest record producer on the planet. He ain't that guy anymore. For that reason if it comes down to "Brian, all of the 1966 mixes are like this" vs. "Mark, I like Fire with the 'in the pink' line added" then I think the they should go with the '66 mixes.

The thing about the acetates is that some may have vocals that are missing from master tapes, or there could be any number of differences
in mixes or performance. By virtue of Van Dyke being around all  the time, he undoubtedly was in possession of more acetates than the rest
of the band, who were off on the road for big chunks of time.

In the event of duplicate acetates, some are going to be in better shape than others, which means they all should be reviewed. It's kind of
impossible to think they would not approach her at some point before this is over.

I've never understood why more of an effort wasn't made to obtain the acetates when working on BWPS in 2003. With the scope of the project and Van Dyke involved it seemed like they could've found a way to make it happen. It seems so obvious that it would have been helpful to hear them before writing new lyrics, etc.

I know this can all change in a blink of an eye, but really, do not  think that you are going to get Smile as the 2-sided LP as slated in 1967. If it stays 3-sides as now planned, it has to be longer than originally planned. Disc 1 is not only the 1966 Smile tracks, it is also an album presentation of those tracks. I am not going to let myself get hung up over these changes. I'm just going to accept this as the way Brian wants it, now. I don't think he looks at this in the same historical context that a lot of us here do. I know I'll be happy no matter what they do.

I could be way off but I get the feeling from the press relese and interviews that Brian might not be that involved with putting this thing together. I'm sure he'll have to sign off on it and may insist on some changes but I don't get the impression this box is "his baby" or anything.

Who is it? Mrs. O'Leary? The innocent girl? The average young girl who might be listening to the song? The feminine ideal of Goethe's Faust?

How about Maya, Mother of Buddha, or Mary, Mother of Christ? Mother Earth? I've even read a connection to Queen Lili'uokalani of Hawaii.

Just my .02 but that reads like a parody of someone reading way too much into something.

I don't think we should expect the TSS box to use firm dates for "start" and "end". After all, the PET SOUNDS SESSIONS include "Sloop John B", recorded long before the rest of the album, but exclude other (ultimately) non-PS material recorded in the late summer/fall of 1965. Just because PET SOUNDS hadn't "officially" started recording in July 1965 doesn't mean we'd want to exclude "Sloop John B" sessions from the PSS box (well, maybe some people would, but I think I made my point...).

Er, the fact that "Sloop John B" is actually on Pet Sounds is probably why it was included in the Pet Sounds Sessions box.

I feel like a kid in early December anticipating Christmas. What might end up under the tree? In my wildest daydreams, I'm coming up with all kinds of stuff. Wouldn't it be nice...

That was awesome!

The December handwritten list...historically accurate, you say?  Yeah, I like that idea.  Okay, lets start with Heroes and Villains, we have that one.  We'll just put the one from the middle of December on there.  What's that you say?  We have never heard a version from the middle of December?  Well, let's just stick the February one on there, it's close enough.  Next?  I'm In Great Shape, hmmm, that's a little tougher.  Just how does that one go again?  It's attached to Barnyard?  Well, it was when it was a part of Heroes and Villains, but since it's listed as it's own track we know it's not in H&V.  Oh, it's attached to I Wanna Be Around?  

No, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say anything about drawing a line in the sand at the date the handwritten list was submitted. What I said was the attempt at a recreation of a 1966/67 Smile LP should stick to titles on the handwritten list in their most complete known form before it was announced the project was scrapped. This means Heroes & Villains is the Cantina mix (unless a later mix turns up), Fire is the '66 mono mix with the cracking noises, Child is the 11/66 Brian mix/edit or, maybe, an edit keeping that structure but using sections with the vocals.

OK, so it may or may not be someones handwriting, so? Still, it doesn't mean that the list was accurate or in sequence. Hell, Shut Down Vol II has the songs listed on the front cover and they are out of sequence.

 I can't see what is so hard to grasp here.
 
Yes, obviously the list was not in sequence but there is no reason to doubt that the tracks, the song titles, ARE accurate. Regardless of who wrote the list it made it to the Capitol art department. I know the 400,000+ slicks printed refers to the front (not rear) cover but we know Capitol received the tracklist. Said tracklist very likely the list came from the LP's producer. Whether he remembered writing it when it was shown to him in the 25 years later or if it was sent under duress in all probability it came from Brian. Owing to...
 
a) the list (likely) coming from Brian
b) the fact that Brian didn't work outside of the titles on the handwritten list from October 1966 to April 1967 to any significant degree
c) there aren't ANY other lists, dubious or not, from 1966/67
 
I don't get the "Smile was never finished and Brian went crazy therefore anything goes how do we KNOW Teeter-Totter Love wasn't the last track" line of thinking. Just because it wasn't finished doesn't mean it is prudent to project our own fanboy fantasies on the project. If an attempt at a reasonable facsimile of a 1966 LP is going to be is included then the evidence matters. What evidence? The massive amount of info re when/where each section of each song was recorded and (more importantly) the extant 1966 Brian Wilson edits/mixes. Any half-a** attempt at a recreation of a 1966/67 LP should stick to titles in the list in their most complete form before it was announced the project was scrapped. It isn't unreasonable to expect the attempt at the album to represent the fullest extent of what Brian accomplished during the sessions. It makes no sense to take the 1966 tapes and mold them into a 2003 form.

Sorry for the rant, I really am thrilled this is coming out. I'm sure even the worst case scenario will yeild some massive upgrades of the material. No matter what happens my favorite Beach Boys album will still be Wild Honey  

So if I get this right, Smile in it's original unreleased form might have turned out to be ( If Brian Had finished it) the FIRST Great Double LP  set in Rock history;
Three sides featuring the three movements of Smile, and the fourth....  Maybe a side similar to Marcel Marceau's Greatest Hits, to present Brian's Humor?

Why do we want less SMiLE music?

I don't want to lose 10 minutes just to trim it down to what might have been a 40 minute album. As "Wirestone" has stated, Brian had too much material and no idea how to make it work on a two-sided vinyl album in '67. That album can't be recreated.

The existance of more than 40 minutes of material isn't relevent. There is no more evidence that Smile was originally intended to be a double album than Summer Days or Smiley Smile. By your reasoning Wild Honey was going to be a double album because Brian recorded Game Of Love and Lonley Days and didn't use them. If there is any notion of presenting a remotely accurate assembly of what form a 1966/67 Smile LP was going to take then it has to be around the 40 minute mark.

The first IIGS vocal session may have been just Brian on piano and vocals.  Maybe Brian thought he'd overdub on top of that - kind of like he did for Vegetables in April, recording piano first, then vocals, then overdubs.  Then he changed his mind as he did constantly during the Smile sesions and decided to record a proper Wrecking Crew track.

Alternate theory:  first IIGS session was for another section of the song that was a capella or recorded just with piano.  Eat a Lot? Child? Barnyard vocals?

Good points, I was thinking the Oct. 17 IIGS could very well be the infamous Do A Lot with toothbrushing sound effects. I'm shooting from memory but isn't there evidence the Oct. 17 IIGS vocal session was with "all 6 Beach Boys" or did I dream that up?

As long as they are flying in vocals, they need to fly in the I'm in Great Shape vocals and the Barnyard lead vocal from the H&V demo onto the finished tracks. That's a no brainer.

I think problems this would create would far outweigh any benefits owing to the H&V 'Humble Harv' demo not being a multitrack recording.

My hope is that something from the lost I'm in Great Shape vocal session turned up. Speaking of anyone have a theory regarding why the IIGS vocal session took place several weeks before the instrumental track (eggs & grits melody, tape explosion) was recorded?

But as for "Song For Children", "Child is Father to The Man" & "In Blue Hawaii", Brian Wilson & Van Dyke Parks have never stated whether these lyrics are vintage or not.

Van Dyke has in fact said all three were new. When asked if he penned lyrics for Child in 1966 he said he did although I don't think we know much more than that..

Also, flying in Brian's vocal over the Surf's Up track seems pretty -- um -- odd. What's the point? To have it over the first part, then the piano demo (which is a 71 compromise) then "Child" vocals? Where would the "Child" vox come from?

I _really_ don't want a cut-and-paste, BWPS-sounding thing. It disrespects the history, and it disrespects BWPS, which should be allowed to stand on its own terms.

I agree, I think shoe horning the vocals from the piano version over the backing track is an absolutely awful idea.

I wish someone would do an in depth interview with Al and ask about stuff like this. I still can't believe with the dozens of interviews and articles surrounding the 2004 Smile that not one person asked the participants about the Child lyrics. I naively thought at least one or two of the big Smile mysteries would be solved with all of the 2004 activity but we don't know much more than we did before.

Well, VDP has said that he never wrote vocals for Child. Then again, he did say that The Beatles listened to SMiLE tapes and stole alot of Brian's ideas.

I don't beleive that is true. IIRC Van Dyke told someone on this board that he did in fact write Child lyrics in 1966. Van Dyke does mention in Dom's book the 2004 lyrics are new which begs the question why the original lyrics were not used. Maybe they simply forgot them? Considering the amount of work done on Child it would be odd if verse lyrics were not written. Every other song on the list had lyrics..

Didn't aeszsche, who began working with Alan Boyd, confirm that there were no extra Smile outtakes in the vaults beyond some sort of free jazz noodling from one of the sessions, and this was only 6 months or so ago? Has Aeszsche (sorry can never spell that correctly) posted here in a while? That in itself might be quite telling.

IIRC Alan Boyd mentioned finding the tracking session for the 1/67 DW "I Don't Know" session.

Alan posted that here. See below..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How complete was Surf's Up in 1967?

I've heard about the existence of a tape of a full arrangement on that second section of SURF'S UP. It's been described to me, third-hand. Supposedly it's pretty weird, lots of strange horn and string parts. But I haven't heard it. We don't have it in the Beach Boys' tape library. And it's not among Brian's tapes either.

There is an enormous amount of SMILE material that's missing. I recently saw a photograph on Ed Roach's site of a tape shelf at Brother Studio, late 1970s. Right there, along with safety 1/4" masters of all the group's albums, is a tape labeled "BRIAN - DUMB ANGEL." Probably a 1/4" or 1/2". I nearly had a stroke when I saw that, and I immediately called anyone and everyone who ever had access to tapes at Brother, and asked what they knew about it. No one knew. What was on that reel? Where is it now? It certainly wasn't listed in the 1985 inventory of the group's tapes.

What WAS listed in that inventory are the many empty tape boxes from the SMILE era, on titles like "Heroes and Villains," "Cabinessence," "Surf's Up," "Vegetables," etc... they were empty in 1985, they're empty today. I'm certain, however, that excerpts from at least one of them (overdubs onto the last verse of "Vegetables") showed up on one of the SOT discs. They're almost all 1/4" mixdowns. Other SMILE tracks were assembled onto some of the 1/2" STACK-O-TRACKS assembly reels, and those SMILE songs are also....missing.

Never did find the multitrack of CABINESSENCE with Carl's lead vocal on it, by the way.

And "Heroes and Villains" is heartbreaking... there's almost NOTHING of any pre-1967 work on that song. I went through every tape on that title while scrounging up parts for the "Hawthorne" remix.... There are no multi-tracks on any of the verses from the early 1967 "alternate" version... nothing at all on the 3rd verse as found in the single (which is why the stereo spread goes a little, um...funky at that point in the Hawthorne mix), "Barnyard" exists only as a (not very good) dub onto an 8 track worktape, and I wouldn't be surprised if we're missing some significant work on "I'm In Great Shape" as well. We did find the first two verses for the single, but they seem to have been re-recorded by Brian specifically for the single. But there's no "3 score and five I'm very much alive" anywhere except on that partially mangled safety copy dated 2/10/67.

Was there indeed a completely diffferent version of the song (as Bruce has claimed) that may have included some sort of a Barnyard Suite (featuring Billy, who loved his chickens) and maybe even a barroom brawl? Did Brian have some sort of crisis in December 1966 that moved him to scrap everything he'd done before on that song and start again? Listening to some of those January 1967 tapes where he's almost obsessively tinkering with different chants of the song's title, it kinda sounds like he's fishing for inspiration.

And speaking of that early alternate mix, we have the tape box (which has a sort of "edit-list" written on it) for the master, but the song itself has been spliced out of the reel. I actually think the count-in may still be there.

Here's what's written on that tape box, dated 1/31/67:
_____________________________

HEROS AND VILLAINS - 1ST PART

1 - 1st version of PT-1
2 - 2nd version of PT-1 with more echo
3 - 1st version of PT-2

4 Bridge to 3rd verses [or versions] (start with “My Children”)
5 Bridge To PT Two (whistle Part)

[note - EDITED, indicating all above parts]

6 - 3rd verses
7 BRIDGE [Last item crossed out]

NOTE:
THIS REEL HAS HAD ALL OF THE ABOVE REMOVED TO AN UNKNOWN REEL 12/31/85 J. PETERS
___________________________________

Here's what's written on the tape box for the SAFETY copy of "heroes and Villains"
_______________________________

“Heroes & Villains” as of 2/10/67 master
1st verse
2nd verse
3rd verse (all edited together)

1 - bridge to 3rd verse
2 - bridge to fade
3 - cantina
4 - 2nd verse
5 - fade

(The above crossed out sort of...)

2:57 MASTER

PROT COPY
_______________________________

I can't even tell for sure if they're referring to the same edit. There's no way to know any of this for sure, because so much is missing. And I'll admit I sometimes think it's kinda pointless for anyone to say "It was THIS way" or "That song was supposed to be constructed like THIS" when there are so many huge gaps among the tapes themselves. especially when it comes to discussing "Heroes."

-Did Brian actually destroy some tapes back in the day? I think he just might have...

-Are there one-of-a-kind tapes that have been stolen and are now in the hands of collectors? Yes...

-Were there tapes that Brian somehow left behind at a studio after working on them that have since found their way into the hands of collectors? Probably...

-Are there acetates of missing material in the hands of collectors and/or people who were around at the time? Absolutely...