SMiLE Sessions box set!

[Ganz Allein]

The fact that it is -- song for song -- based on tracklisting created more than three decades after the original sessions.

In what world is that historically accurate?

There _is_ a contemporaneous and historically accurate tracklisting. It's the memo to Capitol. But it is not being used.

That 66 'tracklisting' has never been confirmed as THE tracklisting - back covers were never printed up like the fronts - recording was done after it was written so its unlikely

What makes the 2003 tracklisting inaccurate - it the only one we have had until now

"Good Vibrations" was completed in Sept. '66 and released in October of that year.  It was never worked on again (except for the Sept. '67 Wally Heider sessions, which were for "Lei'd in Hawaii"), so this new mix of GV mix is in no way historically accurate.  Is there any evidence Brian thought about redoing it this way for the '67 "SMiLE"?

[Heysaboda]

[Jon Hunt had a good post on some of this on the Hoffman board.  http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=6909223&postcount=385

Steve Hoffman has a board??

 

[Andrew G. Doe]

[Jon Hunt had a good post on some of this on the Hoffman board.  http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=6909223&postcount=385

Steve Hoffman has a board??

 

Better a board than a woody...

[shmenge7372]

On the Hoffman board, there was some talk as to whether 'Holidays' was originally DYLW and if what we have to come to know as DYLW (Roll Plymouth Rock) was a reworking of that song.

...

and 'Holidays' is alleged to have been the home of the Roll Plymouth Rock lyrics which may be why Al had stated that "Worms' was not what has been traditionally accepted as such.

But Holidays was called so even on the recording sheet, and DYLW bears little resemblance to it and was recorded under the title. So I think that theory is unlikely. It's more likely they shifted just that line from Holidays to DYLW. But with a bit of luck, there will be some new info on the box.

On BWPS Brian shouts "Child" in between. Is that vintage too? Anybody know?

I never made the auditory connection between the 2 until today.  I'm not a musician, nor do I play one on television but there is a similar feeling to the plodding verse of DYLW and the clarinet line in Holidays (probably not the same chords or even the same key for that matter) but they seem strangely connected to me.  Again, they never did before so I just may be trying to shoehorn something here to fit my own warped interpretation.  Would love it if there were vintage "roll plymouth rock" vocals in Holiday on the upcoming box but I suspect not, since I doubt those were ever recorded and not sure if the existing 'Worms' vocals could be flown in and manipulated to match the tempo, key, etc.

Anyway, I appreciate you guys here entertaining my post, as whenever I try to chime in on the ol' Hoff board, I'm met with a deafening silence.  Guess I haven't earned my stripes over there.

[Andrew G. Doe]

The press release was handled pretty badly. A LOT of people are under the assumption the box set is 700 bucks..

Pretty annoying

Then A LOT of people are friggin' idiots. The press release clearly states "Several special SMiLE Sessions packages will be available for purchase exclusively on thebeachboys.com..."

If you can't understand a simple English sentence like that - especially as it was preceded by "The SMiLE Sessions’ 2CD lift-top box, double vinyl LP, digital album, and iTunes LP formats feature an approximation of what was intended to be the completed SMiLE album, compiled from The Beach Boys’ original session masters. Additional session highlights and bonus tracks are also included, including demos and stereo mixes.
 
An expanded, boxed edition of The SMiLE Sessions will also be released physically and digitally, featuring the main SMiLE album tracks, plus four CDs of additional audio from the legendary sessions, a double vinyl LP set, and two 7” vinyl singles.  The deluxe box will also contain a 60-page hardbound book with rare and previously unseen photos and memorabilia from The Beach Boys’ archive and newly-written essays by Beach Boys Al Jardine, Mike Love, Brian Wilson, and Bruce Johnston, as well as by Beach Boys historian and author Domenic Priore and many other inner-circle participants." - then maybe you should think twice about using a computer. Or even driving.

[Andrew G. Doe]

The fact that it is -- song for song -- based on tracklisting created more than three decades after the original sessions.

In what world is that historically accurate?

There _is_ a contemporaneous and historically accurate tracklisting. It's the memo to Capitol. But it is not being used.

Said tracklisting was a last-minute stopgap to keep an impatient record company quiet. It smacks strongly of someone trying to remember stuff they'd either sung on or been told about. Contemporaneous, sure: historically accurate, no way.

[monicker]

And most importantly (IMO), they're not eliminating the fades to allow for the unnatural merging of the tracks.

I'm not so sure about this. Look at the time for Barnyard: 48 seconds. That's short. It's usually a minute. If you listen to Barnyard, exactly at the 48 second mark is where you WOULD cut it to transition into Old Master Painter IF you were wanting to recreate the BWPS transition. Because after 48 seconds, the track starts fading out. And Barnyard always came from an acetate, right? So that's locked into the way it was mixed and faded then. So, at least with Barnyard--going solely off of the running time--it could be surmised that it will not have a fade and instead have a BWPS transition. UNLESS something was found (which could be the case if you take the record store day 78 etchings in the run out grooves as "clues") which would throw out the acetate that we've always heard as the definite version. In that case, who knows what's going on in those 48 seconds of Barnyard.

[roll plymouth rock]

I will say that hearing mid-60's songs as they were broadcast on AM radio - which is essentially why they were mixed a certain way, EQ'ed a certain way, and mastered a certain way to sound good over AM - can be a revelation. Songs heard in the format they were mixed and mastered to sound best come alive. A remaster, remix, or digital reissue cannot touch the impact of hearing those originals on AM broadcasts.

Amen. I used to think that was a load of bull until I heard a version of "Get Off My Cloud" by the Stones at a museum that was played back on equipment that simulated/recreated the sound of '60s AM radio. Man, it blew my mind. It was just this insane wall of sound. It's much different than what you'd hear if you played it on modern equipment. NOW I get why a reviewer at the time called it a "cacophony". I just thought he was being stodgy. But on old AM radios, it truly was a glorious cacophony.

Now I wonder what Spector sounded like back then... I'd probably get as obsessed as Brian if I ever heard it.

Probyn mentioned something to this effect to me....that 60's singles were put through an additional tube pre-amp before broadcast on AM radios, which resulted in a really warm sound that we just don't have access to anymore. Something to be said about hearing Good Vibrations for the first time on the AM radio.........lets be honest Brian was a singles guy + on the AM radio his songs (along with Jan & Dean, Spector, Motown, etc etc) probably sounded the best they ever will, no matter how many times they're remastering/mixing them

I'd like to confirm this with specifics to back up Probyn's statement about AM radio in the mid to late 60's. I'll use Brian's "home station" of KHJ in Los Angeles as the example, because what they were doing from 65 to 69 as part of the "Boss Radio" format was copied across the USA, not only by stations in their own Drake-Chenault network but also the competition to the Drake stations, in all major markets.

The sound of an AM station was very much in the hands of the station engineers, who at that time had to have an extensive technical background, actually run the transmitters and maintain them, and carry various FCC licenses for various parts of their job, since they were actually "broadcasting" and not just sitting at a mic and a laptop for a podcast or satellite broadcast. Each station's broadcast signal could vary from weak, to average where only the immediate city and suburbs could receive the broadcast, to the "blowtorch" stations which on a good night could be heard hundreds of miles away. There are still AM news stations today which carry such strong signals, and consider back in the day picking up top-40 rock and pop from many states away. Very neat.

Getting back to engineering, KHJ would deliberately process records they'd play on the air a certain way. Their records would "cut through" the broadcast band and be louder and more present than the competition across the dial. Part of what they did was compress the living hell out of the records at the station.

What a compressor did was allow the maximum volume to be achieved without going into distortion, and the classic compressors would also allow certain frequencies to be boosted and heard much more up front than you'd hear playing it on a normal turntable. This made records literally pump or pulse out of the speaker depending on how much bass was in the original mix. It gave records on KHJ and similar stations a certain character, and it could sound friggin' awesome in the right situations. Motown, Stax, "Sloop John B", etc...anything with a present bass thump that would normally be lost would come alive after KHJ processed it and compressed it.

There was a great anecdote about driving down Sunset Strip in LA, mid to late 60's, and most car radios were tuned to KHJ. So you'd hear a pulsing effect going down the street as all the cars had the same song playing on their radios, with KHJ's bass pumping away. That would be beyond cool, and what a scene.

So...I can say without a doubt, as Probyn had said, we are not hearing these songs in 2011 as they were heard and meant to be heard by the original audiences. When the AM station was weak, that was a bad thing. When it was a blowtorch like KHJ or another big-city station, it was a different experience than what we know and accept about listening to music and experiencing it beyond hearing the song.

Thanks for posting this man!! Imagine cruising down the strip and hearing Mr Tambourine Man or Good Vibrations or something being played for the first time, and hearing it come from every car!!! Wow, what a trip

[Micha]

[How cool would that be - a SMiLE IRONING BOARD!!!  

And... you could enter an extreme ironing competition with it!

 

And the winner carries the title of... IRONMAN!
 
(or -woman.)

[Dunderhead]

I've never understood all the bother with the tracklisting. There's too much attempt to turn it into a story, or have it be movements or something. I don't think it would have been like that

[desmondo]

The fact that it is -- song for song -- based on tracklisting created more than three decades after the original sessions.

In what world is that historically accurate?

There _is_ a contemporaneous and historically accurate tracklisting. It's the memo to Capitol. But it is not being used.

That 66 'tracklisting' has never been confirmed as THE tracklisting - back covers were never printed up like the fronts - recording was done after it was written so its unlikely

What makes the 2003 tracklisting inaccurate - it the only one we have had until now

"Good Vibrations" was completed in Sept. '66 and released in October of that year.  It was never worked on again (except for the Sept. '67 Wally Heider sessions, which were for "Lei'd in Hawaii"), so this new mix of GV mix is in no way historically accurate.  Is there any evidence Brian thought about redoing it this way for the '67 "SMiLE"?

Yes but when were the hum dee dums recorded - before it was finished so therefore it might be accurate

[Iron Horse-Apples]

I've never understood all the bother with the tracklisting. There's too much attempt to turn it into a story, or have it be movements or something. I don't think it would have been like that

I was very surprised when this story emerged out of the lyrics on BWPS. So I have to say I agree with what I think you're saying.

For me SMiLE is first and foremost about music. The melodies, the structure, the arrangement, the performance. I always loved the SMiLE lyrics because I don't think they necessarily do mean anything, not in a literal way anyhow. They are poetic, they fit the music nicely. They don't detract or draw attention away from the music. A perfect marriage.

So turning this into a story is what's known as dumbing down I suppose. I've never really thought about this. I guess I do have some problems with BWPS after all.

[Wirestone]

Contemporaneous, sure: historically accurate, no way.

It is certainly more so than the BWPS order.

[desmondo]

Contemporaneous, sure: historically accurate, no way.

It is certainly more so than the BWPS order.

But why??

[Wirestone]

The only evidence of a track list for the project comes from the memo.

Yes, it's not a final order. Yes, it seems pretty random. But _it is all we have_. Nothing else survives from the time. (Yes, I know there are bits and pieces from the time that we can use to get some ideas -- and we also know what Brian worked hard on, and what he didn't, which also gives some clues.)

BWPS was arranged in 2003. It is the creation of Brian, Darian and Van Dyke, who took the surviving songs and wove them into three movements. While Brian may have had ideas for the shape of it before then, we have _no evidence_ that he did. Some things probably came from the 60s (melody of RPR, a few track connections), but most didn't.

To take the most obvious example -- how do you make a three movement work make sense on a two-sided vinyl LP? It is a modern assemblage of old elements. And it is a remarkable one. But it most assuredly was not how the album would have sounded in 66-67.

[Dunderhead]

I've never understood why Brian had so much trouble during the sessions. On the boots you hear them get up to like 60 takes of Bridge to Indians. Why was it so hard. It seems on other, earlier songs, they were able to knock out vocals for multiple tracks in a single session, but on SMiLE it seems like they had a hard time getting anything done on these sessions. Why don't we have vocals for I'm In Great Shape or Barnyard? They're so short and simple.

[Micha]

To take the most obvious example -- how do you make a three movement work make sense on a two-sided vinyl LP?

Split the middle movement in two halves.

That is even more easy if you don't have the songs flowing into another.  That opens the can of the fades recorded in 1966/67...

[monicker]

I've never understood why Brian had so much trouble during the sessions. On the boots you hear them get up to like 60 takes of Bridge to Indians. Why was it so hard. It seems on other, earlier songs, they were able to knock out vocals for multiple tracks in a single session, but on SMiLE it seems like they had a hard time getting anything done on these sessions. Why don't we have vocals for I'm In Great Shape or Barnyard? They're so short and simple.

I was just thinking about this yesterday. It's so weird that IIGS and Barnyard leads weren't recorded right away. They could have been tracked in a few minutes, literally. And for DYLW, why were the pre-choruses, choruses, and bridge leads, as well as the backing vocals recorded, but not verse leads? There were lyrics and a melody. I suspect they were recorded but were erased in order to do them again to his liking, which leads me to a thought i had about your first point. I think it's clear that around this time he was becoming more and more obsessive and his mental decline was showing. Even before that, on Pet Sounds, listen to all those attempts by Al to do one line of I know There's An Answer. Brian seems a tad too obsessive, and i myself am very obsessive, but it seems excessive even to me. Then there are all the rerecords of H&V. Then he tries to redo Wonderful. I think his mental health was just slipping and he was becoming more insecure than ever.

[JohnMill]

I've never understood why Brian had so much trouble during the sessions. On the boots you hear them get up to like 60 takes of Bridge to Indians. Why was it so hard. It seems on other, earlier songs, they were able to knock out vocals for multiple tracks in a single session, but on SMiLE it seems like they had a hard time getting anything done on these sessions. Why don't we have vocals for I'm In Great Shape or Barnyard? They're so short and simple.

My guess is because Brian Wilson was by his nature a perfectionist and this was never more so evident than during the sessions for "SMiLE".  It's been noted before that during the sessions he was more impatient, more erratic and more apt to change his mind than ever before.  I've never been entirely convinced he knew exactly what he wanted for a lot of these songs.  He may have had a rough idea as to how he wanted something to sound but I think when he got into the studio especially with the vocals sessions his ambition to strive for perfection took over and well we can go on forever about that can't we?

As far as Barnyard and Shape go?  People are basing their simplicity based on the "Humble Harv" demo and how the vocals from that demo were incorporated into how the songs were arranged for BWPS.  Brian may have had something far more complex in mind for these two pieces in 1966.  "Barnyard" for instance had backing vocals something that you wouldn't have learned from just listening to the demo.  That being said I think it's a misnomer to judge the simplicity of SMiLE as it stood in 66/67 by how it was adapted in 2004.  As it's been batted around several times the songs could've ended up sounding very different than how we know them today if they were completed in the sixties.

[SMiLE Brian]

I think he was just having a hard time adapting his sound to the new psychedelic music movement. I love SMiLE but I think Brian was most comfortable doing music in the Today, Summer days, and Pet Sounds mold.

[doc smiley]

I find it humorous that so many people think they have heard "this track" and "that track" strictly based on the times of the recordings..
My opinion is that keeping in mind different mixes from '67 and what Mark L will be doing,
 I'm really stoked and feel we will hear a lot of surprises when things are all said and done!


 

[Chris Brown]

I've never understood why Brian had so much trouble during the sessions. On the boots you hear them get up to like 60 takes of Bridge to Indians. Why was it so hard. It seems on other, earlier songs, they were able to knock out vocals for multiple tracks in a single session, but on SMiLE it seems like they had a hard time getting anything done on these sessions. Why don't we have vocals for I'm In Great Shape or Barnyard? They're so short and simple.

My guess is because Brian Wilson was by his nature a perfectionist and this was never more so evident than during the sessions for "SMiLE".  It's been noted before that during the sessions he was more impatient, more erratic and more apt to change his mind than ever before.  I've never been entirely convinced he knew exactly what he wanted for a lot of these songs.  He may have had a rough idea as to how he wanted something to sound but I think when he got into the studio especially with the vocals sessions his ambition to strive for perfection took over and well we can go on forever about that can't we?

As far as Barnyard and Shape go?  People are basing their simplicity based on the "Humble Harv" demo and how the vocals from that demo were incorporated into how the songs were arranged for BWPS.  Brian may have had something far more complex in mind for these two pieces in 1966.  "Barnyard" for instance had backing vocals something that you wouldn't have learned from just listening to the demo.  That being said I think it's a misnomer to judge the simplicity of SMiLE as it stood in 66/67 by how it was adapted in 2004.  As it's been batted around several times the songs could've ended up sounding very different than how we know them today if they were completed in the sixties.

Very well said.  We all know how much Brian was changing his mind back then, so perhaps he recorded leads for those tracks as we heard them on the demo, but later became dissatisfied and wiped them with the intention of coming back to it later.  Clearly there were a lot of things that Brian just never came back around to, and by the time he was into January/February, little things like lead vocals for album cuts took a back seat to just getting the single ready and out.  

Thus, an acetate would really be our only shot at hearing missing vocals, since they clearly aren't on the multi-tracks anymore.  I wonder, was Peter's statement about them using 2 newly found acetates meant to imply that those are the only two that are appearing on the set?

[JohnMill]

The fact that it is -- song for song -- based on tracklisting created more than three decades after the original sessions.

In what world is that historically accurate?

There _is_ a contemporaneous and historically accurate tracklisting. It's the memo to Capitol. But it is not being used.

That 66 'tracklisting' has never been confirmed as THE tracklisting - back covers were never printed up like the fronts - recording was done after it was written so its unlikely

What makes the 2003 tracklisting inaccurate - it the only one we have had until now

"Good Vibrations" was completed in Sept. '66 and released in October of that year.  It was never worked on again (except for the Sept. '67 Wally Heider sessions, which were for "Lei'd in Hawaii"), so this new mix of GV mix is in no way historically accurate.  Is there any evidence Brian thought about redoing it this way for the '67 "SMiLE"?

Here is my problem with that theory...historically accurate according to whom?  If it can be determined (and I don't know how we'd go about doing this) that it was Brian Wilson who decided to add in the "Hum De Dum" vocal bit for BWPS which this new mix apparently is based off of then according to him that is how the song is supposed to sound.  The question then becomes was it always supposed to sound that way?  Did Brian excise that bit of music in 1966 in an effort to shorten the song's length? (Radio back then was obviously more strict than it is now about the length of songs and what they would play and wouldn't)   Did Brian excise that bit of music in 1966 in order to make that song sound more commercial?  It's been well documented that during the time all this music was being created (including GV) Brian was apt to change his mind on nearly a moments notice.  To me it's astounding that we ever got "Good Vibrations" released with all the different sections and parts he left out etc.

My question is if we are so caviler to remain faithful to the sixties and Brian's final word in 1966 as to what a finished product was why aren't we taking into consideration (given his state of mind in the sixties) his final word as to what a finished product was in 2004?  For all we know that "Hum De Dum" piece always belonged in GV to begin with but was just left out of Brian's final mix of the song that became the single in 1966.  

I don't pretend to know how Brian's mind works but it wouldn't surprise me if the reason that piece of music is featured in GV 2004 is not based on a whim or a desire to create an alternate version of the song.  Given the creator of the music and how he worked in the studio during the time all this music was created I honestly would not be surprised if that piece actually belonged there all along.

[Heysaboda]

I understand SMiLE is up at Amazon UK, finally?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Smile-Sessions-Deluxe-Beach-Boys/dp/B004RFYEEC/ref=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1314909378&sr=1-4

[Pretty Funky]

I understand SMiLE is up at Amazon UK, finally?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Smile-Sessions-Deluxe-Beach-Boys/dp/B004RFYEEC/ref=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1314909378&sr=1-4

Whats this Jewel case single CD

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Smile-Sessions-Jewel-Case/dp/B005KGNM90/ref=sr_1_5?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1314910306&sr=1-5