SMiLE Sessions box set!

[Mikie]

Geez, you're right, Dr.! I never knew that!  Mea Culpa, as they say. Allot "To distribute between or among", according to the Funk 'n Wagnalls dictionary.

Still, I see "alot" here instead of "a lot" and for some reason it gets me. And "allot" was used above in the wrong application instead of "a lot".

Sorry.  I, uh............sorry.

Preafrooder Mike

[Bicyclerider]

Okay Andrew, the balls in your court. Please explain how The SMILE shop is "a paradox....a visual that is not accessable in conscious reality" given the full breadth of Mr. Holmes' quote.

I don't think it's that difficult.  Surrealism is "a movement in art and literature in the 1920s, which developed esp from dada, characterized by the evocative juxtaposition of incongruous images in order to include unconscious and dream elements."  A shop that sells smiles as commodities is not accessible in conscious reality and therefore, according the definition, surrealistic - just like a melting clock is.  A paradox can be statement that is apparently self contradictory or "one exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects."  Again, the image is not based on reality and therefore has inexplicable aspects.  It's drawn not exactly as a child would draw it but is "child-like."

It's apparent how the artwork mirrors the lyrics and the music - the musical sections of Smile are at times juxtaposed in an incongruous fashion, the lyrics have some incongruous surrealistic images including dream elements, and the "cartoon consciousness" of both the music and the lyrics link it with the musical and lyrical theme of innocence that runs throughout Smile.

Notice drugs and psychedelia do not have to be part of this interpretation - but  surrealistic "incongruous" dream imagery is part of the psychedelic experience and the surrealism movement would especially appeal to users of psychedelics.  Look at the poster art of 66-68!

[Andrew G. Doe]

 

[Andrew G. Doe]

Andrew G. Doe quoted Frank Holmes and added some comments:

"I was trying to find another way to approach art," he says, "like the drawings I did as a child. I was trying to do my work in that fashion, spontaneous, no retakes, no seconds. I was looking for a fresh, alive quality I wanted in my work...  I wanted it to look turn of the century American. I used the storefront format, which was an idea I got while taking a walk one Sunday morning in Pasadena. I came upon a wooden storefront with nothing in the windows but some small display platforms. In the background were some faded green velvet café curtains hanging midway from curtain rods. The store looked as if it had gone out of business years before. This was my inspirational starting point for the cover. The sign at the top of the store is a double image representing smiles, and the water of the ocean. The ‘Open’ sign on the door is intended to be a positive statement as an invitation to the music. The SMiLE Shop is a paradox. The drawing is a surrealistic idea; a visual that is not accessible in conscious reality …”

Notice how Bill took the final two sentences in isolation and, once again, presented them out of context. That's why the perspective is skewed - because Frank was drawing it as a child would.

Okay Andrew, the balls in your court. Please explain how The SMILE shop is "a paradox....a visual that is not accessable in conscious reality" given the full breadth of Mr. Holmes' quote.

Firstly, the rest of the quote makes it clear that the notion for the shop didn't spring from the artist's subconscious, or from any instruction from Brian, but from a chance sighting of a disused store on a Sunday stroll. Secondly, comparing Frank's recollection with the actual cover, the grounding of the image in a reality is underlined but, as there is no store that sells smiles (truly a surreal notion), and this store is open where the original was closed (and had been for some years, apparently), there you have a paradox, reinforced by the skewed perspective of the tiles. The illustration depicts something that cannot be: a disused store open for business selling something that cannot be sold.

This is merely my interpretation: I wouldn't presume to impose it on anyone else as The Answer.

[guitarfool2002]

[hypehat]

Actually, "allot" is a word. To assign or allocate. Though, not a correct spelling for "a lot".

And also part of the word 'allotment', which is where people grow..... Vega-tables! 

The Smile Shop, in itself, is such a bizarre image, as everyone else has said. A shop that sells smiles does not need pseudo-intellectualism welded on it to make it surreal and paradoxical. It's that simple.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Actually, "allot" is a word. To assign or allocate. Though, not a correct spelling for "a lot".

And also part of the word 'allotment', which is where people grow..... Vega-tables! 

The Smile Shop, in itself, is such a bizarre image, as everyone else has said. A shop that sells smiles does not need pseudo-intellectualism welded on it to make it surreal and paradoxical. It's that simple.

So simple, it seems, that some folk are driven to make it complex.

[Mikie]

I hope the SMiLE cover art is still exactly what Brian wants. I hope Capitol gives Frank what he asks for and they do this thing up right and not exclude any of the original artwork for this new release.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I hope the SMiLE cover art is still exactly what Brian wants. I hope Capitol gives Frank what he asks for and they do this thing up right and not exclude any of the original artwork for this new release.

Do I hear a communal "Amen !" ?

[Steve Mayo]

i'll throw one out....

amen, father doe

[OBLiO]

Frank Holmes said the visual is "not accessible in conscious reality".

and yet, there it is...

Amen

[drbeachboy]

Amen!

[rogerlancelot]

Amen!

[18thofMay]

What is an atheist's equivalence to "amen"?
Ah stuff it.....Amen

P.s Bloody spell check

[bgas]

Also, here would be a fine place to mention that, being as I was one of the main proponents of the SOT material being 'borrowed' during the making of American Band by a specific person, I based what I was saying on what I'd been told by a (then)highly respected collector and historian regarding who, where and when. Turns out I was being mislead (to be charitable - lied to, if you're not) by this individual, who has since fallen from grace with a mighty thud.

I've been thinking lately about who really might have had  good opportunities to latch on to some/all of the missing Smile tapes, and by my way of thinking it comes down to one person.  the same person behind some of the earliest known BBs boots, (distributed on Cassettes);  one who had access with capitol's blessings;
yes,  The same person alluded to above.

My bet: you find BE, you find the missing Smile Tapes.

[hypehat]

Frank Holmes said the visual is "not accessible in conscious reality".

and yet, there it is...

Amen

News just in, Frank Holmes may have taken drugs in the 1960's. Pictures at ten.

Oh, and Amen, brothers and sisters

[18thofMay]

Frank Holmes said the visual is "not accessible in conscious reality".

and yet, there it is...

Amen

News just in, Frank Holmes may have taken drugs in the 1960's. Pictures at ten.

Oh, and Amen, brothers and sisters

Can we hold hands?

[Mikie]

Not with you!   I'm into women myself.....

[Bill Tobelman]

I said:

"The SMiLE Shop is a paradox. The drawing is a surrealistic idea; a visual that is not accessible in conscious reality."

Based upon the viewpoint that SMILE is comparable to a Zen riddle the first thing to mention is that Zen riddles appear paradoxical to the unenlightened.

The SMiLE Shop paradox has to do with the perspective of the drawing. The "tiles" on the sidewalk outside the shop are not drawn in the same perspective as is the shop itself.

The idea is that if the listener to the Zen riddle album achieves enlightenment then they are no longer in the state of conscious reality. The album has served a go between conscious reality & enlightenment.

And the SMiLE Shop album cover now shows that the shop actually sits atop the "tiles." The tiles would therefore represent the enlightened state of mind. The SMiLE Shop is now seen as your go between conscious reality & enlightenment. There is no paradox.

The Shop and the Zen riddle/album are both doors and windows to enlightenment. In this way the SMiLE Shop cover art is the perfect fit for SMiLE.

One problem with my explanation is that it negates Mr. Holmes' original claim ("that is not accessible in conscious reality") and therefore is unusable. My apology for such a mockery of the truth.

[Bicyclerider]

I hope the SMiLE cover art is still exactly what Brian wants. I hope Capitol gives Frank what he asks for and they do this thing up right and not exclude any of the original artwork for this new release.

Is there any way we can encourage Frank to agree to a deal with Capitol?  Not in terms of butting into financial negotiations which are none of our business, but just letting Frank know how important his art is to Smile fans and how much we want his art to be a part of this?

I've probably mentioned this before, but the booklet was originally planned to be seven pages of artwork (the seven illustrations Frank made), plus five pages of photos.  Of course when the booklet was completed there were only two pages of illustrations, with six of Frank's iconic drawings reduced to fitting together on a single page.  So small it's difficult to make out the details.  Perhaps this injustice could be rectified by reproducing those six drawings full page size in the 60 page book that comes with the deluxe edition.  Or including the drawings as separate prints inside the double vinyl album.  Frank sells these as separate prints if anyone is interested - they are definitely worth purchasing!  As well as his cover art print.

[bgas]

Amen.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I hope the SMiLE cover art is still exactly what Brian wants. I hope Capitol gives Frank what he asks for and they do this thing up right and not exclude any of the original artwork for this new release.

Is there any way we can encourage Frank to agree to a deal with Capitol?  Not in terms of butting into financial negotiations which are none of our business, but just letting Frank know how important his art is to Smile fans and how much we want his art to be a part of this? print.

Frank is well aware of this, as are Capitol (viz the typeface on the Record Store Day 78s - not an accident). The sticking points go back some 44 years.

[JaredLekites]

Couldn't a dentist or anything having to do with paying for a clean, white smile be considered a "smile shop"?

Just a random thought.

[Bill Tobelman]

There has been a difference of opinion expressed here as of late, and I'm likely to blame for much of it (at least half). It has become fairly clear in my mind why this difference exists (and I'm starting to see why the other side's point of view is their point of view).

It has to do with two types of reasoning being applied to SMiLE & its surrounding events: deductive and inductive.

To put it bluntly Andrew G. Doe's (don't think he'll mind me singling him out) approach is a deductive one while mine is an inductive one.

His is a matter of "irrefutable proof" while mine is along the lines of "best available answer." Sound deductive arguments are provable but the soundest of inductive arguments cannot be proven. However, inductive arguments can sometimes achieve a very high degree of confirmation.

We're not addressing is the appropriateness of such approaches to the art at hand, or maybe even art in general. But perhaps that could be done at a latter time.

So that's what I think the argument boils down to.

[Andrew G. Doe]

There has been a difference of opinion expressed here as of late, and I'm likely to blame for much of it (at least half). It has become fairly clear in my mind why this difference exists (and I'm starting to see why the other side's point of view is their point of view).

It has to do with two types of reasoning being applied to SMiLE & its surrounding events: deductive and inductive.

To put it bluntly Andrew G. Doe's (don't think he'll mind me singling him out) approach is a deductive one while mine is an inductive one.

His is a matter of "irrefutable proof" while mine is along the lines of "best available answer." Sound deductive arguments are provable but the soundest of inductive arguments cannot be proven. However, inductive arguments can sometimes achieve a very high degree of confirmation.

We're not addressing is the appropriateness of such approaches to the art at hand, or maybe even art in general. But perhaps that could be done at a latter time.

So that's what I think the argument boils down to.

Bill, you asked me to comment on the Smile shop in the light of Frank's 'paradox' statement... and I did, with an interpretation that wasn't anything like irrefutable but rather my opinion (as stated) which nonetheless was still as good a response as any. I notice you didn't comment on it, so I'm taking that as tacit acceptance that what I said is as credible as your view.

Also, this sentence - His is a matter of "irrefutable proof" while mine is along the lines of "best available answer." - strikes me as more than a little condescending and patronising, the clear implication being that your line of reasoning is in some way superior to any other and will, given time, arrive at the best answer. This has been your problem all along, an inability or unwillingness to acknowledge that any explanation other than a zen-based one can have any merit. If anyone's mind is closed, it's yours, not mine. Over the past 30-odd years, a lot of my research has gone down blind alleys or along spectacularly wrong paths (and some of it's preserved forever in print !), but when this has been made evident to me, I just shrugged, had a good cuss, thanked the person(s) involved and commenced re-writing. I also aim for the best available answer, but I don't start from a fixed viewpoint: I consider the available evidence and see if there's some kind of a pattern that makes sense. I don't hammer a square pin into a round hole, nor do I extract one piece of information from an otherwise contradictory article just because it supports my pet theory when viewed in isolation. That's bad research and worse journalism.

Your basic defence of your zen-based Smile seems to boil down to "it's no good asking Brian or Van Dyke about it because they won't let you in on the secret, even after all these years - they'll even lie to preserve it. Trust me when I say this is so". Can you not see how utterly indefensible that is, and also how ridiculous ?  Such a stance totally undermines any merit your theory could have, because you're basically saying "there's no hard proof, you have to take my word for it and also ignore the main architects of the project when they deny any such thing". That's pretty arrogant, and when it comes to doing arrogant, I know what I'm talking about. 

I'm not saying there might not be some zen-orientated aspects of Smile - and yes, I am reading The Joyous Cosmology - but to claim so assertively that the entire project, from music to artwork and packaging, is one huge zen koan, based on little more than "because I say so" is, in the strictest sense of the word, laughable.

Here's a final thought: suppose later today Brian and Van Dyke state that yes, it was all a zen koan - what's to stop me saying "don't believe them, they're lying to you" ?  The rules apply to both sides, not simply when it suits.