Smile's back cover: why don't we have a better quality picture?

[The Song Of The Grange]

It seems to me that every time I see the back cover of Smile reproduced in a book it looks like a copy of the same high-contrasted, washed out version that appears in every other book.  The image is a bit fuzzy, the BBs photo looks like a xerox.  I understand that the back cover slick was never printed in mass production like the front cover.  I also find tantalizing the legend (myth?) that there were red markings all over this version of the back cover slick, indicating where changes were to be made.  Apparently, because of the lo-fi black and white copy, we can't see the red markings, which might prove fascinating to the Smile obsessed.

Does the back cover slick still exist, and if so why don't we ever see a better reproduction of the cover?  It kind of seems that one person got one shot at photo copying the slick and then it disappeared forever, and all subsequent writers and researchers just made copies of the copy.  If someone has the back cover slick in a vault someplace, please do stick that thing in a high quality scanner and throw it on the web!

[Andrew G. Doe]

It seems to me that every time I see the back cover of Smile reproduced in a book it looks like a copy of the same high-contrasted, washed out version that appears in every other book.  The image is a bit fuzzy, the BBs photo looks like a xerox.  I understand that the back cover slick was never printed in mass production like the front cover.  I also find tantalizing the legend (myth?) that there were red markings all over this version of the back cover slick, indicating where changes were to be made.  Apparently, because of the lo-fi black and white copy, we can't see the red markings, which might prove fascinating to the Smile obsessed.

Does the back cover slick still exist, and if so why don't we ever see a better reproduction of the cover?  It kind of seems that one person got one shot at photo copying the slick and then it disappeared forever, and all subsequent writers and researchers just made copies of the copy.  If someone has the back cover slick in a vault someplace, please do stick that thing in a high quality scanner and throw it on the web!

The front slick was done properly, down to the color seperations, which is why all the repros in the late 70s were so good - they used those same seps !

As the back slick contained far more information - notably, the track listing - the best that could be done was an artist's dummy, until the time Brian saw fit to supply a listing. That's why the sole original back artwork has red writing all over it: what we are seeing isn't what was going to be the actual slick, except in the general layout. I gather that when the slick was 'copied' for, er, 'reproduction', the emendatory notes were erased from the master copy. I'm assuming they're still on the original. Wherever that may be.

I used to be a printer and did very basic artwork mockups for clients. Red copies just fine, better than black sometimes: it's blue that vanishes in a xerox copy.

[The Song Of The Grange]

The front slick was done properly, down to the color seperations, which is why all the repros in the late 70s were so good - they used those same seps !

As the back slick contained far more information - notably, the track listing - the best that could be done was an artist's dummy, until the time Brian saw fit to supply a listing. That's why the sole original back artwork has red writing all over it: what we are seeing isn't what was going to be the actual slick, except in the general layout. I gather that when the slick was 'copied' for, er, 'reproduction', the emendatory notes were erased from the master copy. I'm assuming they're still on the original. Wherever that may be.

I used to be a printer and did very basic artwork mockups for clients. Red copies just fine, better than black sometimes: it's blue that vanishes in a xerox copy.

As always, thanks Mr. Doe for the great info on the topic.  This makes sense with the circumstances.  The front cover was safe to do a run of printing, but the back cover was way too tentative to move forward on.  And this is where the artwork process came to a halt back in 1967.  No final list was ever provided to the art department because there never was a final song list.

PS:
Mr. Doe, I continually find the Bellagio 10452 site to be one of the top BBs resources on the web, and the Doe and Trobler Complete Guide is always on my desk.

[The Shift]

HAs anyone ever seen the band photo from the back of the LP cover in colour? Or even good B&W? Surely Capitol will still have the neg, or an original pint?

[juggler]

FWIW... 

From Google's cache of www.mountvernonandfairway.de/smile.htm

When the collector who did the prints had the slick reproduced, it was shot with a filter that knocked out all of the red markings. In fact, the use of that filter resulted in the photo of the touring group losing sharpness. On the actual slick, the photo is as sharp as any other photo that has ever graced the back cover of a Beach Boys album, but filtering out the red took out much of the detail. (When reproduced in black and white, red shows up as black. It takes a very strong filter to filter out red; a side effect is it also filters certain shades of gray -- which were necessary for the detail and sharpness of the photo.)

[Andrew G. Doe]

FWIW... 

From Google's cache of www.mountvernonandfairway.de/smile.htm

When the collector who did the prints had the slick reproduced, it was shot with a filter that knocked out all of the red markings. In fact, the use of that filter resulted in the photo of the touring group losing sharpness. On the actual slick, the photo is as sharp as any other photo that has ever graced the back cover of a Beach Boys album, but filtering out the red took out much of the detail. (When reproduced in black and white, red shows up as black. It takes a very strong filter to filter out red; a side effect is it also filters certain shades of gray -- which were necessary for the detail and sharpness of the photo.)

That's true... red's a bitch to take out... but, and I stress this is only to the best of my knowledge, there never was an actual back slick, only a mockup - when you know it's going to be scribbled over, you don't send the actual item to a meeting. As for a red subtraction filter also taking out greyscale, I was a litho printer for some six years, prepared my own plates and inks, did some basic paste-up and artwork... and this is the first time I've heard this.

[Cam Mott]

Andrew,

Isn't this existing marked up proof a proofing print rather than a pasted up board? I understood that mark ups reflect only minor changes with no corrections or changes to the text, do you know if that is correct or not?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Andrew,

Isn't this existing marked up proof a proofing print rather than a pasted up board? I understood that mark ups reflect only minor changes with no corrections or changes to the text, do you know if that is correct or not?

My information is that for a band meeting, the Capitol art department mocked up 10-12 'covers', using genuine front slicks and a printers proof for the back. When anyone refers to a Smile sleeve, they're referring to one of these: I've seen and handled one, know of two others.

And yes, the corrections noted apply to the placement of items, not the text... although, of course, had it ever been released the track listing would have to have been changed at least four times. 

[Cam Mott]

Andrew,

Isn't this existing marked up proof a proofing print rather than a pasted up board? I understood that mark ups reflect only minor changes with no corrections or changes to the text, do you know if that is correct or not?

My information is that for a band meeting, the Capitol art department mocked up 10-12 'covers', using genuine front slicks and a printers proof for the back. When anyone refers to a Smile sleeve, they're referring to one of these: I've seen and handled one, know of two others.

And yes, the corrections noted apply to the placement of items, not the text... although, of course, had it ever been released the track listing would have to have been changed at least four times. 

Right, people including Derek Taylor refer to these mock-ups but the controversy [to me anyway] is to what the later production department memoes are referring.

So the proof for the back liner of the album was pasted up, a film was made and proof printed. This proof print was marked up for slight revision and that is all that is known about that particular proof print.

Is the proof print pasted up on the back of these mock-ups the same as the corrected proof or do they reflect the changes indicated on that proof or are they some other version of the back liner? Sorry for all the questions but I just realized I've never been clear on what exactly is what in these regards.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Is the proof print pasted up on the back of these mock-ups the same as the corrected proof or do they reflect the changes indicated on that proof or are they some other version of the back liner? Sorry for all the questions but I just realized I've never been clear on what exactly is what in these regards.

The back 'slick' pasted on the mockups is the pre-corrected artwork. I have no idea whether or not any of the suggested corrections from that meeting was ever acted on. Bear in mind that, as the back slick was straight b&w, it could be altered - and printed up - far, far more rapidly than the front.

[Cam Mott]

Is the proof print pasted up on the back of these mock-ups the same as the corrected proof or do they reflect the changes indicated on that proof or are they some other version of the back liner? Sorry for all the questions but I just realized I've never been clear on what exactly is what in these regards.

The back 'slick' pasted on the mockups is the pre-corrected artwork. I have no idea whether or not any of the suggested corrections from that meeting was ever acted on. Bear in mind that, as the back slick was straight b&w, it could be altered - and printed up - far, far more rapidly than the front.

Yes, the album cover assemblers printed these back liners in black on white common paper as part of their process of assembling the litho front liner and the black and white back liner with the cardboard sleeve.

[The Song Of The Grange]

To have a hi-res scan of one of these back cover mock-ups, especially the one with mark-ups for changes, would be so cool.  In my seemly unending curiosity about Smile, I would find those changes markings to be fascinating, no matter how minor the proposed changes were.  Naturally, if the markings suggested a change in song titles or playing order or some such thing, no matter how tentative, it would be a great piece of evidence from the Smile era.  Any other evidence of playing order or possible titles would be great, being that all we have to work with is the problematic and fuzzy glimpse the handwritten song titles note gives us.  Other than that, we only have the recording session notes to infer from.

My obsession knows no bounds.

[Jay]

"WONDERFUL" IN the break it sounds like Brian says something REALLY crude.

I will delete the word but it goes something like this: "ah, don't lick your c***!"

Um....what?

[Andrew G. Doe]

"WONDERFUL" IN the break it sounds like Brian says something REALLY crude.

I will delete the word but it goes something like this: "ah, don't lick your c***!"

Um....what?

Sounds like that, agreed... but I think what he's really saying is something like "don't you think you're God... vibrations"

[runnersdialzero]

"WONDERFUL" IN the break it sounds like Brian says something REALLY crude.

I will delete the word but it goes something like this: "ah, don't lick your c***!"

Um....what?

Where in the Christ did that come from???

[Mahalo]

Sounds like that, agreed... but I think what he's really saying is something like "don't you think you're God... vibrations"

I always thought it was ...   "don't you think you're God... PETITIONS, just don't fool around."

[Jay]

"WONDERFUL" IN the break it sounds like Brian says something REALLY crude.

I will delete the word but it goes something like this: "ah, don't lick your c***!"

Um....what?

Sounds like that, agreed... but I think what he's really saying is something like "don't you think you're God... vibrations"

Oh, I think I get it now. Is it the "be a cool guy....and doooont..thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiink..you'reeeeeeeeeeeee.....goooooooooooood" line?

[buddhahat]

"WONDERFUL" IN the break it sounds like Brian says something REALLY crude.

I will delete the word but it goes something like this: "ah, don't lick your c***!"

Um....what?

Sounds like that, agreed... but I think what he's really saying is something like "don't you think you're God... vibrations"

I always assumed it was much as the above, but they're saying 'Good ..... Vibrations'. Wouldn't that make more sense? I'll have to have another listen.

[Aegir]

It's a pun.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Yonks ago I processed that part of the song to within an inch of its life, and worked out pretty much all of what's being said... and Brian definitely says "God (pause) vibrations".

[mistermono]

So is there any idea what was on the rear sleeve of all those covers that went to the landfill?  Or had they yet to receive rear sleeves?

[harveyw]

No covers were sent to the landfill, only the front slicks.

[Cam Mott]

[cough]

[petsite]

Had to look long and hard for this....an e-mail from Brad from a long time ago......

The reason is that I've seen what few people have -- the original SMILE back cover slick from which every reproduction or picture stems. People are familiar with the back cover of SMILE because of a limited print of it that was done in the late 1970s. That black-and-white image features a list of 12 tracks, a bunch of zodiac signs and a very fuzzy photo of the touring Beach Boys. But the actual slick itself is quite different -- it's covered in red markings indicating changes that were to be made! In other words, it was a preliminary proof and not representative of the final cover design! When the collector who did the prints had the slick reproduced, it was shot with a filter that knocked out all of the red markings. In fact, the use of that filter resulted in the photo of the touring group losing sharpness. On the actual slick, the photo is as sharp as any other photo that has ever graced the back cover of a Beach Boys album, but filtering out the red took out much of the detail. (When reproduced in black and white, red shows up as black. It takes a very strong filter to filter out red; a side effect is it also filters certain shades of gray -- which were necessary for the detail and sharpness of the photo.)

[juggler]

Had to look long and hard for this....an e-mail from Brad from a long time ago......

It's a shame you had to look long or hard for it...  I posted an excerpt of (and link to) the same thing on the first page of this very thread.