SMiLE Sessions box set!

[Myk Luhv]

Yeah, everyone knows during the Love You era it was the beard that was the most important part. Grow that sucker back and it'll be all golden in no time!

edit: beardsnype

[Bill Tobelman]

If drugs had an influence upon some work of art why not admit it? If there were no drugs involved why not do the same?

One thing I've learned about SMiLE recently is that it was largely an intellectual endeavor. Koestler's The Act Of Creation is an intellectual exercise & Brian used it to push the envelope in the mid sixties. That's intellect. Non addictive hallucinogenic drugs were also a big part of the equation.

So screw it. This stuff happened & just accept it. Reality is real. Get real & dig reality. Drink a cup of coffee (drugs!!!!).

[18thofMay]

If drugs had an influence upon some work of art why not admit it? If there were no drugs involved why not do the same?

One thing I've learned about SMiLE recently is that it was largely an intellectual endeavor. Koestler's The Act Of Creation is an intellectual exercise & Brian used it to push the envelope in the mid sixties. That's intellect. Non addictive hallucinogenic drugs were also a big part of the equation.

So screw it. This stuff happened & just accept it. Reality is real. Get real & dig reality. Drink a cup of coffee (drugs!!!!).

What you have "learned" is wrong.

[Bean Bag]

Andrew, I'm always mindful of confusing what we definitely KNOW with what we'd LIKE to be true, as you are... but surely it is fair game to say that SMiLE MIGHT have been in a more complete state in January 1967, or May 1967, than it is on the surviving tapes today? Brian did say many times over a long period that 'he junked the tapes', and whilst he clearly DIDN'T, as Mark Linett and Alan Boyd have been working from said tapes this year, it is surely a workable possibility that Brian erased some tracks from the multitracks after failing to finish SMiLE?

This would still be consistent with the documented findings of everyone whose looked at the tapes since 1967 (Carl in 1971, Bruce in 1978, Mark Linett from 1987 onwards, etc) - that there are a lot of missing vocals. But it doesn't mean they were ALWAYS missing, right?

We know Brian did this on *some* tapes, I thought... Dennis's Old Master Painter vocal isn't on any surviving multis, if memory serves me right... and yet there ARE multitracks for that song, but they just have the backing track on them. Or am I getting confused again?

Wasn't the idea therefore that Brian might have recorded Dennis's vocals, done a mix for acetate of The Old Master Painter (which is where the mono version with the Dennis vocal comes from), and then erased the vocal from the multi? Thus leaving the acetate as the only place where those vocals exist? That would leave a multitrack for Carl and Bruce and Mark Linett to find that answered to the description 'doesn't have vocals' - and yet there WERE some, once...

Plus there's the deleted clarinets in 'Look/Song For Children', which Darian restored for the 2004 SMiLE... they were only audible in headphone bleed on the multitrack, but they must have been there once...

And then there's Brian's absolutely definitely documented examples of erasing things prior to this, during the recording of Summer Days and Pet Sounds. The SOT tapes show backing tracks for 'Do You Wanna Dance' with a different guitar solo that was later re-done at the mix to produce the ones on the master, and on the finished album. And there are all those one-time-only, done-at-the-mix overdubs for the version of Help Me Rhonda that was released on the Endless Harmony soundtrack. And there's Mike's lead vocal on the bridge of Wouldn't It Be Nice, and the vocals on the opening line of the tag of God Only Knows that are only on the mono mix (if I remember rightly, Carl's vocals on the opening of the tag on the stereo mix are so much 'softer'... because that's all that's left on the multitrack to mix from now, and not the slightly more forceful vocal that opens the tag on the mono mix).

Admittedly, in the latter two cases, the Mike vocals and the GOK tag opening line aren't on the multitrack now because Brian *replaced* them with something else, unlike in SMiLE, where it would appear he erased at least some things and *never* replaced them. But isn't that part and parcel of SMiLE being unfinished in 1967? Maybe he erased earlier attempts at the vocals, intending to replace them with later attempts, but never made the later attempts. Or maybe he didn't like the vocals and erased them to make it impossible for the band to finish SMiLE (although if so, there are many SMiLE vocals he left in situ that are still on the multis today, so he didn't make much of a job of that plan if that was his intention).

I admit, all of this fails 'the Doe test': it's great speculation, but there is not a shred of evidence for it, so it ought to be discounted from serious consideration.

But I felt it was worth pointing out that there is, at least, a way in which things could have happened that would result in everyone who has listened to the tapes post-1967 thinking 'there are a lot of missing vocals'. EVEN IF vocals were recorded once. And it's consistent with Brian's documented mid-to-late-60s working methods.

And if my uncle were 'differently configured', she'd be my aunt. I know, I know...

MattB

I'm with you.  I'm expecting there to be some new stuff.  Mark said much of this is going to be new.  You can argue what he meant by that, of course...but that's a pretty bold statement for such a mythical work.  I'm always reminded of Al saying they recording more stuff for SMiLE than for anything else.  I think more was done -- just not put together.  That's what I've always believed.  I assume there's missing vocals here and there.

Who knows!  At least it'll sound better!!!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'm with you.  I'm expecting there to be some new stuff.  Mark said much of this is going to be new.  You can argue what he meant by that, of course...

If you've read the quotation in its context, there is not much to quibble over. He suggests that most of it will be new for fans who haven't poured over the bootlegs. I would imagine there will be a few things that I haven't heard before - or, maybe, some edits that we haven't heard before (either by Linett/Boyd or, less likely, '66 Wilson). Most of it though will be glorious audio of some great tracks and I can't wait any longer!!!

[Bill Tobelman]

18th of May said:

What you have "learned" is wrong.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/arts/music/pop/12377/

According to you, Brian is lying.

[pixletwin]

18th of May said:

What you have "learned" is wrong.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/arts/music/pop/12377/

According to you, Brian is lying.

He said he was attracted to the ideas. I think the idea that Brian was inspired by it in his writing for SMiLE is your own extrapolation.

[18thofMay]

18th of May said:

What you have "learned" is wrong.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/arts/music/pop/12377/

According to you, Brian is lying.

I think you should read it al little more carefully please don't de-rail this thread again. I like this Q&A the best.

I liked the way Beautiful Dreamer, the documentary about you that’s included with the DVD of your Smile performance in L.A., dealt with your psychedelic experiences. Can you talk about the drugs behind your albums?
• Pet Sounds was marijuana. The Van Dyke Parks songs [on Smile] was Benzedrine. Psychedelics put you in a vocal mood. They make you want to sing. It’s like when a bird lands on a wire.

[rab2591]

18th of May said:

What you have "learned" is wrong.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/arts/music/pop/12377/

According to you, Brian is lying.

Thanks for linking that! Some Q&As he'll give one or two word responses...he seemed a bit more open in this. I'll have to check that book out. If the book effected him that much (that he still remembers it 30 some years later) I have no doubt it influenced SMiLE. Heck, wasn't SMiLE supposed to partly be about humor?

[Bill Tobelman]

Pixletwin said:

He said he was attracted to the ideas. I think the idea that Brian was inspired by it in his writing for SMiLE is your own extrapolation.

But if you explore Frank Holmes' claim about the SMiLE Shop album cover it's pure Koestler. Same thing goes for Van Dyke's lyrics. And the same easily can be said of Brian's stuff as well.

Holmes said the picture was "a paradox"..."not accessible in conscious reality." Koestler's book is all about paradox & the conscious & unconscious reality. Van Dyke Parks' lyrical bent is also part of Koestler's book as it goes into puns & multiple meanings. And the book also goes into the visual aspect of humor which we can thank Frank Holmes for as far as SMiLE goes.

My extrapolation is merited.

To be honest with you, the Beautiful Dreamer DVD has some sections which seem as if Brian & Van Dyke are near the point of totally cracking up with laughter at the charade you folks are totally buying.

[18thofMay]

18th of May said:

What you have "learned" is wrong.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/arts/music/pop/12377/

According to you, Brian is lying.

Thanks for linking that! Some Q&As he'll give one or two word responses...he seemed a bit more open in this. I'll have to check that book out. If the book effected him that much (that he still remembers it 30 some years later) I have no doubt it influenced SMiLE. Heck, wasn't SMiLE supposed to partly be about humor?

Someone has even edited the Wiki page to reflect Bill's theory..WOW amazing stuff!! If you actually read the article it does more to harm Bill's view than enhance it.

[18thofMay]

Pixletwin said:

He said he was attracted to the ideas. I think the idea that Brian was inspired by it in his writing for SMiLE is your own extrapolation.

But if you explore Frank Holmes' claim about the SMiLE Shop album cover it's pure Koestler. Same thing goes for Van Dyke's lyrics. And the same easily can be said of Brian's stuff as well.

Holmes said the picture was "a paradox"..."not accessible in conscious reality." Koestler's book is all about paradox & the conscious & unconscious reality. Van Dyke Parks' lyrical bent is also part of Koestler's book as it goes into puns & multiple meanings. And the book also goes into the visual aspect of humor which we can thank Frank Holmes for as far as SMiLE goes.

My extrapolation is merited.

To be honest with you, the Beautiful Dreamer DVD has some sections which seem as if Brian & Van Dyke are near the point of totally cracking up with laughter at the charade you folks are totally buying.

Have you ever asked Brian or some of those closest to him? They laugh at you!

[OBLiO]

From "The Act of Creation"

"An art dealer bought a canvas signed 'Picasso'.... travelled all the way to Cannes to discover whether it was genuine. Picasso... 'It's a fake'. A few months later the dealer bought another canvas signed Picasso... travelled to Cannes and again Picasso... it's a fake...the dealer 'it so happens that I
saw you with my own eyes working on this very picture several years ago.' Picasso shrugged: 'I often paint fakes.'" pg. 82


"To make a joke like Picasso's unfold, the listener must fill in the gaps, complete the hints, trace the hidden analogies. Every good joke contains an element of the riddle - it may be childishly simple, or subtle and challenging - which the listener must solve. By doing so, he is lifted out of his passive role
and compelled to co-operate, to repeat to some extent the process of inventing the joke, to re-create it in his imagination. The type of entertainment dished out by the mass media makes one apt to forget that true recreation is re-creation."
pg. 86

"Words have suggestive, evocative powers; but at the same time they are merely stepping stones for thought." pg. 86

within the chapters: specifically Part One Section III -
Pun and Witticism-Man and Animal - Impersonation - The Child Adult - and so on...

Van Dyke said something about the work being courageous...

If you wanted to write a teenage symphony to God, and the symphony contained laughter and you wanted to name it Smile and you use puns and paradox and many different musical variations and you tell the world you want to make a new spiritual music... how would you go about it?

[rab2591]

18th of May said:

What you have "learned" is wrong.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/arts/music/pop/12377/

According to you, Brian is lying.

Thanks for linking that! Some Q&As he'll give one or two word responses...he seemed a bit more open in this. I'll have to check that book out. If the book effected him that much (that he still remembers it 30 some years later) I have no doubt it influenced SMiLE. Heck, wasn't SMiLE supposed to partly be about humor?

Someone has even edited the Wiki page to reflect Bill's theory..WOW amazing stuff!! If you actually read the article it does more to harm Bill's view than enhance it.

I guess I missed the article you're talking about.

I, like you, don't agree with Tobelman's theory. However, I find it fascinating that Brian WAS reading this spiritual stuff, and some of what he was reading does have a connection to SMiLE....or rather all of it has some connection to SMiLE. I suppose it's the agnosticism in me that doesn't allow me to write off this kind of stuff so fast.

[OBLiO]

From "The vegetables Turned: Sifting The Psychedelic Subsoil of Brian Wilson and Syd Barrett"
by Dale Carter

The psychedelic interests of Wilson, Barrett and their peers were not exclusively serious, however: many recall the uncontrollable laughter that accompanied their drug-taking. At the time, of course, advocates of psychedelics believed that the senses of profundity and absurdity, awe and hilarity, innocence and experience that an acid trip might engender were of a piece. Timothy Leary wrote in The Politics of Ecstasy, for example, that ‘the psychedelic revolution…uses the ultimate weep-on, humour… To be a holy man, you have to be a funny man’. Nor were such counter-cultural icons alone in associating laughter and creativity. One of Brian Wilson’s mid-1960s inspirations, cultural critic Arthur Koestler, began The Act of Creation (1964) by identifying humour, discovery and art as closely-related creative phenomena. Just as the sublime and the ridiculous were only a short step apart, he wrote, so the jester, the sage and the artist ‘shade into each other without sharp boundaries’ (Leary 1970: 259, 261; Koestler 1964: 27, 31–2). pg. 61-62

[OBLiO]

One more from the vegetables turned:

Dave Gilmour, told Tim Willis that ‘there was a seriousness to acid then, and even to dope. We wanted to explore the sub-conscious reaches of the mind, untap its potential. We were trying to understand the universe’. Pg 61

--------------------

By no means is this a celebration of drug use. If you think you are cool because you use drugs, you are doing them for the wrong reason. And if you don't have to do them, don't do them, that's my advice. I'm pretty sure everyone here knows what happens when drug use goes beyond the original intention of trying them or what-not. It's just what was happening at the time. Whoever allowed LSD into the general population was an idiot.. we'd still have Syd Barrett... fortunately we still have Brian and he is kicking butt.

[pixletwin]

Amen. I really like how you put that. Especially this bit:

Whoever allowed LSD into the general population was an idiot.. we'd still have Syd Barrett... fortunately we still have Brian and he is kicking butt.

[Mike's Beard]

Can we please have a section in the sandbox entitled "Why I like Drugs" or something for these people to type in?

[18thofMay]

Can we please have a section in the sandbox entitled "Why I like Drugs" or something for these people to type in?

Call it the "freak out".

[The Heartical Don]

45 pages... it's getting quite boring, friends, and we prolly still got 6 months to go.

Count me out. I won't buy that darned box monster after all. Too much of a good thing. I'll spend the $$$ on booze.

That's OK. Makes it more certain there'll be enough copies for me to keep one sealed and open the other.

  great reply!

[Dunderhead]

This thread makes me hate this board.

[Andrew G. Doe]

This thread makes me hate this board.

Then don't read it.

[Dunderhead]

This thread makes me hate this board.

Then don't read it.

Seems like good advice for more than one poster in this thread. Doubtful that any will follow it.

[Andrew G. Doe]

This thread makes me hate this board.

Then don't read it.

Seems like good advice for more than one poster in this thread. Doubtful that any will follow it.

It was directed at you. Something makes me feel bad, I avoid it. Personally, there have been, are, and will be far worse things going on in my life than inconsequential little spats on an obscure MB.

[OBLiO]

Can we please have a section in the sandbox entitled "Why I like Drugs" or something for these people to type in?

Call it the "freak out".

When my dog Arrow and I were banished to the pointless forest, I was afraid until we came upon a wise old frogling on the side of the road wearing an old worn out robe on his back and carried a walking stick in hand. Do you know what that wise old frogling told me? He said to me, "Oblio... fear is the path to the dark side... fear leads to anger... anger leads to hate... hate leads to suffering.” I didn't want to be afraid of what I might find in the pointless forest... I didn't want to hate the king... and I didn't want anyone to suffer... so forget about Bill Tobelman and Fishmonk... clear your mind... read Dale Carter's essay. Read The Act of Creation. You said it best yourself... "education and advancement of oneself is about absorbing information and facts"... no one is suggesting that SMiLE is an ode to drugs or Zen, but merely two of the gazillion influences in Brian's life at the time.

a fun fact: a Gazillion has 86430 zeros - Latin: gazzen shortened to gaz meaning "ends of the earth"