[Smile]

You're saying it was cut from a vintage mono mix, implying said mix was final, or near final. Some of the acetates were a very rough mono dub from the multitracks for Brian to consider his next move. According to your statement, Brian had finished mixes for most of Smile by late 1966, and we know that's not so.

Er, my post did not state or imply anything of the sort. I don't see how "vintage mono mix" suggests anything other than a mono mix created around the time of the sessions. Could be anything from a tossed off rough mix of a basic track to a final mix.  I re-read my post and I don't see how anything I wrote suggests "finished mixes". Of course any vintage mix, no matter how rough, is of value as it reflects some level of input from Brian.

If it's on an acetate it was cut from a vintage mono mix.

Not invariably.

From the mid/late 1960's? I've never seen mention of stereo acetates from the era but I guess there are a few. Were you referring to 33 1/3 acetates?

I suppose one reason some of the "calls from Alan Boyd" haven't been answered is that us collectors know a coupla things.
The acetates are worth more if they don't get copied and distributed. 
What would I rather have?  An acetate that NOT ONE OTHER PERSON HAS, or one that I own, but I've let everybody else have a copy.

Wha? I figured it was obvious but I was meant PURCHASE the acetates from collectors. Not sure why you would think anyone expected a collector to donate unheard Smile material for the cause. When the record company acquires unheard material it's implicit that in involves an exchange of money.

Do you really think that the person employed to document the bands career and put their library and archive into shape hasn't asked the band members themselves what important tapes they might have?  And that those band members would then say lie or refuse access to their own archivist?!

Two things:

1) there are acetates of missing Smile material and mixes owned by band members, top tier collectors, ex-wives, etc.

2) very few of these acetates are in Beach Boys tape library.

I have no idea why the acetates haven't been acquired. I do know that Alan Boyd himself has put the call out for Smile acetates on this very site.

Brian wasn't recording and/or mixing things straight to acetate; these low-quality discs had to come from tape sources.

Of course, without exception acetates were cut from tape sources.

There is, of course, the potential for mixes and elements to be found on the acetates that were later wiped from the source tape or recorded over. But it is just as likely that the acetates contain the same unfinished mixes and sections that exist in the tape library, right?

Not correct. If it's on an acetate it was cut from a vintage mono mix. Since we can just about count the number of '66 mixes we have on Micky Mouse fingers it's far more likely the acetates contain unheard 1966/7 Brian Wilson mixes. That isn't to say they were *finished* mixes but they will be a more accurate reflection of what Brian had in mind at the time. Consider Old Master Painter...the versions we have from the session tapes have no vocals. The beat up acetate has the DW lead vocal. 'Barnshine' or whatever it's called now is another. Those "...skies are grey" vocals in the fade only exist on that acetate.

How do we know for sure that the acetates contain complete mono mixdowns not found on tape?

Because we don't have but a few mono mixdowns so by default they would have to be something not found on tape. Alan Boyd has posted that there are a bunch of empty tape boxes that contained 1/4" reels of Smile material. It's very likely some of these were pressed to acetate. Things like a 1966 mono mix of Cabinessence, pre-1967 mixdowns of early versions H&V, maybe Worms with unheard vocal overdubs, vintage mono mix of Surf's Up, the possibilities are mind-boggling.

Acetates are crap - they're meant to be played 2 or 3 times as a reference, they're not stable and the surface literally peels off the plate if the grooves haven't been worn down by the wrong choice of needles to play them.

If no one dubbed or transferred the Durrie Parks acetates by now, whether they contain the Holy Grail or the emptiness of Al Capone's vault as discovered by Geraldo Rivera, shame on whoever could have made that call years ago. 

True but I'm having a hard time thinking of a 60's acetate that was unplayable. Even the trashed 40+ year old Velvet Underground Scepter Studios acetate that turned up on a curb side junk sale is listenable. Noisy as hell but you can easily spot things like alternate vocals, etc. With acetates being mono affairs even the most beat up copies can be greatly improved by "summing to mono" which reduces the volume of the surface noise (which is stereo) by half.

What is so damn fascinating is, by virtue of the medium, we know the acetates will contain vintage 1966/67 mono mixes made by Brian and Chuck. We have all of what, 3 or 4 vintage Smile mixdowns? Expect that number to triple if the acetates were rounded up.

I still can't understand why Brian Wilson, especially while he was knee deep in Smile '04, of all people isn't able to do what is neccessary to acquire them? It's not like they are kept in the Titanic broom closet at the bottom of the sea. Is it possible no one in Brian's organization in 2004 was aware of the acetates? No one thought to ask Al and Bruce if they could listen to them? Even if there was no intention to ever release them you would think they would have been valuable to Brian and VDP while working on Smile in 2004. In a way I think the whole '04 Smile saga closed the door or any archival release or examination of the acetates. Somone should write a Smile article for Mojo or Uncut that mentions the existance of this material. Maybe that would generate enough interest to get the ball rolling?

[SMiLE]

I guess it really doesn't matter anymore what Brian may have thought about what belonged where in 1967. Because in 2003 or 2004 he decided the order of SMiLE and that is that. I know I made a thread about what everybody thinks would have been on there or whatever, but the facts are Brian "presented" us the album in '04 and he also said it is "finished". Whether or not any of us agree is not of any consequence. The artist behind the work said it is done, and released it. And thats that.

Strongly disagree. It doesn't matter anymore what Brian may have thought in 1965. The fact is Brian said "Let Him Run Wild" isn't a good record. Whether or not any of us agree is not of any consequence. And that's that. John Lennon hought I Am the Walrus wasn't a good production. Artist are often too close to their work to appreciate or judge it. What matters is the emotions the music evokes in the listner. The nth generation cassette dub of the '66 CITFOTM backing track takes me somewhere the '04 version doesn't approach. Whether BW deems the 2004 version 'finished' isn't a factor in my appreciation of the '66 version.

My beef with the 2004 additions is not that BW dared work on them decades later, it's that they suck. The Holidays lyrics, the "is it hot as hell" bit, the fake tack piano sounds. Almost all of the new stuff, like it or not, doesn't gel with the '66 stuff. Kind of like the CGI stuff Lucas added to the first Star Wars film. The 'Look' vocal melody is an exception, that totally works. Just my .02. Maybe it is sour grapes because we *still* don't have the most finished '66-'67 versions in existence. Not only that but apparently BW, Van Dyke and Darian didn't have the acetates that document Brian's final work on the original sessions. Why cobble IIGS together and write new lyrics to CITFOTM without listening to the most complete original versions? (I'm assuming that the various unheard acetates known to exist includes those two titles..)

["I'm In Great Shape"]

• "I'm In Great Shape": Would it have been more than just the fragment? Or would "I Wanna Be Around" be included? "Workshop"? I doubt it.
• "Child Is Father of The Man": Would it still have lead into "Surf's Up". It sure makes sense, but do we have any proof this was thought of before '03?
• "Look": My guess is this was either discarded or possibly meant to be part of "Wonderful" as one track? Most likely discarded.

Still to me, that back cover tracklisting gives me trouble. How do "The Old Master Painter" and "I'm In Great Shape" warrant their own tracks.

Brian prepared a completed backing track for "CIFOTM" and after hearing it coupled with "Wonderful" on BWPS, I finally had the answer to the reasoning behind the latter's abrupt ending (as I'm sure many of you did).  I'd bet my life the two of them were always meant to go together..

Just as it is on BWPS, "I'm In Great Shape" is the self-titled piece, "I Wanna Be Around", and "Workshop".

I realize speculation is the nature of the beast but I think we know with a reasonable degree of certainity much more about Smile than many of the posts in this thread show. Of course, there are some MAJOR mysteries and questions we'll never have answered (Elements, the 1/67 SU session to name but two) but, for example..

- I don't get the speculation re Child going into Wonderful or Child leading into Surf's Up. Every bit of evidence shows that Smile was going to be an album of 12 roughly 3 minute pop songs with no segues, link tracks, or movements with the possible exception of within "The Elements".

- Owing to the missing IIGS vocal session (rec 10/17) I don't think we have a clue what it was. For me this is the biggest mystery of all, just what in the hell was IIGS? I don't think "I Wanna Be Around" (rec. 11/29) has anything to do with IIGS. It doesn't make sense that work on a new basic track would be started 6 weeks after the vocal session. That and "I Wanna Be Around" sounds *nothing* like the IIGS demo on Endless Harmony or the short backing track attempts.

- No way Look or Holidays were going to make the album. Clearly work was abandoned on both very early in the sessions and neither were close to completion. I'd kill to hear that lost Look vocal overdub session though.

- Hasn't it been confirmed that the 2004 Child verse lyrics were in fact newly written?

Revolution 9 is in circulation now.

right, the comparison was to show another sound collage song, in this case, Lennon's Revolution 9 being superior to Macca's Carnival of Light...or so I've heard, I don't really know that.

Carnival of Light isn't a sound collage though. It's drums, guitar and two organs playing live with John and Paul shouting over the top of it. Totally different than Revolution 9.

Maybe it's just me but I'd like to hear the Durrie Parks acetates.

I'm very sadded to hear the news. About 8 years ago I was a new poster on one of the early Smile forums. I'm sure I was asking questions that had been asked many times before but sensing my enthusiasm Bob PM'd me his phone number and encouraged me to call him and fire away with questions. I think we talked for well over an hour as Bob patiently answered my questions and played me material not yet commonly available. I've never forgotten that phone call and I'm touched to see he shared his time with so many fans. My condolences to his friends and family.

If you want divinity, the music in every human being and their love for music is pretty much it. It's the big indication of their spirituality and their ability to love and make love, or feel pain or joy, and really manifest it, really be real. - Jeff Buckley

Good Time Mama, 1967 - It can't be found.

Good News, 1967 - See Good Time Mama.

Honey Get Home, 1967 - Recorded during the Wild Honey period. Just a basic track, no vocals. Don't think it'll happen, but, stranger things, y'know.

Honey Get Home is one I'd love to hear. Do we know if it received any instrumental overdubs or is it just a bare bones track?

Probably wishful thinking but considering they were among the first tracks recorded after Love To Say Da Da I wonder if Good News and Good Time Mama might reveal something unknown about the Smile tracks?

Thanks for that AGD! Has Desper ever commented on this session? I was wondering if he was aware there was a later tracking session for Surf's Up.

I know this sounds silly but (assuming there are people here with their contact info) can someone email VDP or Darian if the 1966 CITFOTM survive?

I know this has been covered countless times but I couldn't find much in the archive. Is it known with any degree of certainty that the 1/23 Surf's Up session really happened? If so is there any written evidence that shows some material was recorded? I was wondering if this might have been Brian showing up at the session, not liking the vibes and calling it off.

Assuming the session did occur and a second movement or re-make of the first movement were recorded would it tapes be missing as early as 1971? If so wouldn't someone remember what was recorded or at least planned 5 years later?

OK, one more question and then I'll stop. It drives me crazy that we don't know the '66 Child lyrics. In all this time hasn't anyone asked Van Dyke about them? Surely Darian asked Van Dyke at some point if he remembered any of the original lyrics right? Has anyone asked Darian? It seems like these guys aren't that inaccessible.

So "Hawaiian Tune" and "Good News" are confirmed as unreleased songs rather than working titles? If so that is rather huge.

Bump

So "Hawaiian Tune" and "Good News" are confirmed as unreleased songs rather than working titles? If so that is rather huge.

Do you guys think it is significant that there aren't any illustrations in Frank Holmes' booklet for CITFOTM?

No significance at all.  There were no original illustrations for Wonderful and Wind Chimes, and those songs were fully realized with complete lyrics.  Ditto, more or less, for I'm in Great Shape and The Old Master Painter.   

Ok, thanks. I hadn't looked at the booklet in years and had forgotten that Wonderful and Wind Chimes didn't have any illustrations.

Do you guys think it is significant that there aren't any illustrations in Frank Holmes' booklet for CITFOTM?

Let's face it we're never going to know the original verse lyrics for 'Child' were...probably.

Unless one of the following turns up...
(1) A long, lost acetate; or
(2) The Oppenheimer reel in which Brian supposedly demo'd the song.

Can someone ask Van Dyke? Maybe Al would remember?

Let's face it we're never going to know the original verse lyrics for 'Child' were...probably.

Damn, what a bummer. The principals are getting up there in age. Someone should sit Van Dyke down one day and pick his brain about this sort of stuff before it is lost to history. Would they have spent as much time tracking CITFOTM and working out the chorus vocals before the verses were written?

I was already aware of the quote from Dom's book but I think he also briefly alluded to it in an earlier radio interview back in 2004 (one he did jointly with David Leaf). He was doing a fair bit of media back then for BWPS so it may have popped up in something else.

Darian was never sure whether the lyrics were vintage or new as Van Dyke never said (why didn't he ask!). So he confirmed it later in Priore's book and declared the BWPS verse lyrics to be new.

 

Thanks Bill. I can't understand why with the dozens of interview Brian and Van Dyke did for BWPS, the documentary and all of the fan meet and greets that we still don't know if CITFOTM had lyrics in 1966. Is it just that no one remembers?

Found it. Anyone have the Van Dyke quote referenced below?

VDP has commented on some of the SMiLE tracks mentioned here. Back in 2004 post release of BWPS he gave quite a few interviews.

He did mention that he had never heard the track 'Holidays' until Darian played it for him. Darian himself was unsure that the lyrics for 'Child' that Van Dyke presented for BWPS were from 1966 or 2003. The general opinion is thst they were of the latter date. He has confirmed that he did write lyrics for 'Child' in 1966.

'Look', according to Brian (also in 2004) was originally an instrumental.

I cannot recall him saying anything about 'Da Da' etc.

 

I can't find the post but IIRC someone mentioned here that Van Dyke did confirm that he penned Child lyrics in 1966. Is this correct? Does anyone have the quote? If this is accurate did he simlply not like the original lyrics or are they lost to time? Sorry for dredging up such an old topic but I couldn't find much in a search.

thanks!

I know others feel differently, but for me BWPS didn't provide any "closure" at all.  If anything, it only raised more questions, and didn't really answer much of anything.  So anything new found from the original sessions at this point would be at the top of my list of things I would want to hear.

Well said. I was expecting some closure from BWPS but as you said it didn't really answer much at all. After all of the BWPS activity we still don't know what IIGS was, what the '66 lyrics of CIFOTM were. I guess we know what the Look/I Ran melody line was (assuming it is vintage, it sounds that way to me) but we don't know if it had lyrics.

IIRC Alan Boyd has said here that there he is certain or nearly certain that there are acetates known to exist that have unheard material. Then there is the stuff we have sourced from poor dubs of acetates that sounds awful. Wasn't the Brian edit of the CITFOTM backing track on an early lineup of Endless Harmony or Hawthorne? If so there must be a good sounding copy in existence. What we have is fairly poor..

Surely someone here has Van Dyke's email address right? He's probably tired of talking about Smile but it may be worth a shot.  I'd simply ask him if he wrote lyrics for CITFOTM in '66 and if so why did he elect to re-write them in 2004.